THE CITY OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OFTHE MAYOR

N E W Y O R K, N Y 1 0 0 0 7 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT
Lead Agency: Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development 100 Gold Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10038 12DME004M Type I March 8, 2013 Block 1372, Lot 1 (partial) Block 1373, Lot 20 Community District 8 Roosevelt Island Borough of Manhattan Pursuant to City Environmental Quality Review, Mayoral Executive Order 91 of 1977, as amended, and the City Environmental Quality Review Rules of Procedure found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York (CEQR), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations found in Part 617 of 6 NYCRR (SEQRA), a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared for the actions described below and is available for public inspection at the offices listed on the last page of this notice. A Positive Declaration and draft Scope of Work for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were issued and distributed on April 18, 2012 to begin the formal public review process for the project and a public scoping meeting was held on May 22, 2012. The scoping meeting was held at the Manhattan Park Community Center at 8 River Road, Roosevelt Island, New York to accept oral comments, and written comments were accepted until June 8, 2012. The Final Scope of Work was issued on October 5, 2012 and reflects analyses determined to be appropriate for inclusion in the EIS.

CEQR Number: SEQR Classification: Date Issued: Location:

A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was held on February 6, 2013 at Spector Hall at the New York City Department of City Planning located at 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007. The hearing was in conjunction with the City Planning Commissions public hearing on the projects land use applications pursuant to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The public comment period on the DEIS remained open until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, February 19, 2013.

1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION Cornell University, together with the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, is seeking a number of discretionary approvals (the proposed actions) to support and allow for the development of an applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island (the Cornell NYC Tech project or proposed project). The project site is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island, south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge. A majority of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20) is owned by the City of New York and is occupied by the Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facilitys Goldwater Memorial Hospital (Goldwater Hospital), which is operated by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC). The remainder of the project site (Block 1372, part of Lot 1) is vacant and owned by the City of New York and leased to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). Independently of, and prior to, the proposed project, NYCHHC will vacate the Goldwater Hospital and relocate patients and services elsewhere.1 Outside of the hospital site, the Island is controlled by RIOC, under a long-term lease with the city.2 Under the terms of an agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC Cornell is required to build a total of 300,000 gsf of building space in Phase 1, of which a minimum of 200,000 gsf must be for academic use. 3 Phase 2 requirements include a cumulative total of 1.8 million gsf of building space, of which 620,000 gsf must be for academic use. Construction of the project is expected to begin in 2014 with the first phase of the Cornell NYC Tech project expected to begin operations on Roosevelt Island in Summer 2017; 2018 will be the first full year of operation.4 Phase 1 is anticipated to consist of up to 790,000 gross square feet (gsf) of development consisting of approximately 200,000 gsf of academic space, 100,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, approximately 300,000 gsf of residential space (442 units), and 170,000 gsf for an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. Up to another 20,000 gsf could be developed as a central utility plant, and up to 250 parking spaces could be provided. Phase 2, expected to be completed by 2038, is anticipated to add a maximum of 1.34 million gsf consisting of approximately 420,000 gsf of academic space, 400,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 500,000 gsf of residential space (652 units), and possibly
1

NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the closure and relocation of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). Roosevelt Island is owned by the City of New York, and the entire Island except for the Goldwater Hospital campus and the Coler Memorial Hospital campus is leased to the State of New York. RIOC was established by New York State in 1984 to manage the operation, maintenance, and development of the Island. The State's lease on the Island expires in 2068, when control will revert to New York City. Academic use is defined as classrooms, offices for academic personnel, technology transfer offices, laboratories, teaming areas, lecture halls, incubators and accelerators, seminar and meeting rooms (for academic purposes), other uses primarily for teaching, learning and/or academic research, and other ancillary facilities for the use and convenience of academic personnel such as lounges, dining areas and similar facilities. Permitted non-academic uses include community uses, residential buildings for academic personnel (including student lounges located therein), ancillary recreational uses, visitor lodging, eating and drinking establishments, corporate co-location space for technology-related businesses, and other uses ancillary to the academic uses. Cornell opened a portion of its Cornell NYC Tech academic program in leased space in New York City in 2012. Leasing such space did not require any governmental approvals.

another 20,000 gsf central utility plant. In total, the maximum potential Cornell NYC Tech project program is assumed to comprise up to 2.13 million gsf of development consisting of 620,000 gsf of academic space, 500,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 800,000 gsf of residential space (1,094 units), 170,000 gsf for the Executive Education Center, and 40,000 gsf for the central utility plants. Up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be provided within this program, and at full build, up to 500 parking spaces could also be provided. This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in conformance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617, New York City Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York. The EIS follows the guidance of the June 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (ODMED) is the CEQR lead agency for this proposal. APPLIED SCIENCES NYC INITIATIVE AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT The City of New York launched its Applied Sciences5 NYC initiative in 2010 after working with a range of New York Citys business leaders, academics, community groups, and entrepreneurs to identify ambitious, achievable initiatives that the city could undertake to attain local economic growth. From that process, an unmet demand within New York City for top-flight engineers and applied scientists was identified. The purpose of the Applied Sciences competition in New York City was to provide one or more opportunities for leading academic institutions to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus or campuses in New York City. The overarching goal is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. In December 2010, the city issued a Request for Expressions of Interest to gauge universities interest in developing and operating a new applied science and engineering research campus in New York City. In connection with the new campus, the city indicated its willingness to provide city-owned land in addition to a significant capital contribution in site infrastructure. In 2011, the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a university, institution or consortium to develop and operate a new (or expanded) campus in the city. The city selected Cornell University, in conjunction with its academic partner the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, to develop the Applied Sciences NYC project at the Goldwater Hospital site on Roosevelt Islandthe Cornell NYC Tech project. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to focus on research in the applied sciences and fields of study related to the technology sector and will offer graduate degrees only. A defining aspect of the new campuss graduate-level academic programs is the close tie to business and entrepreneurship that will be woven throughout the curriculum. Research will be focused on technology in application areas that have commercial potential in New York City markets. Specifically, New York Citys tech nology sector and information-driven economy serves as the impetus for the development of many consumer-oriented companies focused specifically on technology to meet end users needs, including some of NYCs core industries: media, advertising, finance, healthcare, real estate, construction, and design. SITE CONDITIONS The project site, which consists of Manhattan Block 1373, Lot 20 and a portion of Lot 1, is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island and totals approximately 12.5 acres. Goldwater Hospital opened on the Island in 1939 as a chronic care and nursing facility. It consists of the original six-building complex (Buildings A through F) and a circa 1971 addition (Building J). Goldwater
5

Applied sciences is the discipline of applying scientific knowledge from one or more fields to practical problems.

Hospital has been determined by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to be eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR-eligible); the complex contains mural paintings commissioned for the hospital as part of the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In 1996, Goldwater Hospital and Coler Memorial Hospital (which is located on the northern portion of the Island) merged to become Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility. As part of a major modernization planning effort that has been ongoing since approximately 2007 and that includes the relocation of Goldwater Hospital patients and services, NYCHHC will move current Goldwater Hospital activities to other facilities and vacate the Goldwater Hospital site. Cornell would receive the site after it has been vacated; demolition of the existing and vacant hospital buildings would occur as part of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project. A sanitary pump station, owned and maintained by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is located in a fenced area on the southeast corner of the project site. A one-way loop road encircles the project site with traffic flow in a clockwise direction (i.e., southbound on the roadway east of the site, westbound on the roadway south of the site, and northbound to the west of the site). To the north of the site, the street is westbound. A promenade that is not part of the project site extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island along the entirety of its waterfront north of South Point Park, providing a walkway for pedestrians; a concrete seawall forms the barrier along the East River. The project site, like all of Roosevelt Island, is zoned R7-2, a medium-density residential designation. CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT PLANNING Cornell has a long history and a strong presence within New York City. Founded in Ithaca, New York in 1865, Cornell University first established a presence in New York City in 1898, with the founding of what is now known as the Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC). WCMC began an affiliation with New York Hospital in 1913 and subsequently with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital (1998). The Graduate School of Medical Sciences was founded in 1952 (convergence of two institutionsSloan-Kettering Institute and Weill Cornell Medical College). Cornells Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences are located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan between 65th and 72nd Streets. In addition to medical studies, Cornell has a number of other active academic programs in Manhattan, including programs in financial engineering, labor relations, architecture and planning, and cooperative extension. Continuing its long connection with New York City, and consistent with Cornells plan to expand its engineering and technology programs, in 2011, Cornell responded to the citys RFP to build a worldclass applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. Following selection by New York City, Cornell has undertaken various planning activities for the Cornell NYC Tech project, including campus framework planning. Cornells Campus Framework will guide development of the proposed project. The framework will include a discussion of principles that will guide design and implementation of the campus; strategies for campus operations (e.g., vehicular and pedestrian circulation, service access and loading, and parking); principles for site design, including sustainability goals and strategies to meet these goals; and design guidelines that would apply to the campus as a whole and to individual parcels and the sites open spaces. The framework is intended to guide development while allowing Cornell flexibility in implementing the plan over the projects long build out period. PROPOSED ACTIONS The proposed actions required to facilitate the Cornell NYC Tech project are as follows: Disposition of City-owned property (by lease with a purchase option) from the City of New York to the New York City Land Development Corporation (NYCLDC), which will assign the lease to Cornell. Approval of the lease and sale terms of the disposition parcels pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter.

RIOCs actions as an involved agency may include amendment of the 1969 Master Lease originally between New York City and the New York State Urban Development Corporation (RIOCs p redecessor in interest) and related actions. Amendment of the NYCHHC operating agreement with the city by the Corporation Board in order to surrender a portion of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20). Zoning Map amendment to change the project site and surrounding area zoning from R7-2 to C4-5, and to map the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District over the same area (the rezoning area) . The proposed C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District zoning designation would allow for the commercial uses anticipated with the project up to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Residential uses in the C45/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be permitted to a maximum FAR of 3.44, and community facility uses would be allowed to a maximum FAR of 6.5. Use Group 17B research labs would also be allowed under the C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District, to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Zoning Text amendment to create the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District and to establish special use, bulk, and public access controls for the rezoning area. The Special District is intended to create a uniform, flexible framework for the ongoing development of the Cornell NYC Tech campus. The Special District goals include the following specific purposes: To provide opportunities for the development of an academic and research and development campus in a manner that benefits the surrounding community; To allow for a mix of residential, retail, and other commercial uses to support the academic and research and development facilities and complement the urban fabric of Roosevelt Island; To establish a network of publicly-accessible open areas that take advantage of the unique location of Roosevelt Island and that integrate the academic campus into the network of open spaces on Roosevelt Island and provide a community amenity; To strengthen visual and physical connections between the eastern and western shores of Roosevelt Island by establishing publicly-accessible connections through the Special District and above grade view corridors; To encourage alternative forms of transportation by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking; To provide flexibility of architectural design within limits established to assure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms; and To promote the most desirable use of land in this area and thus conserve the value of land and buildings, and thereby protect the citys tax revenues. Properties within the proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be subject to special use, bulk, and public access provisions that would supplement or supersede the underlying zoning district. City Map Amendment to map the one-way loop road surrounding the project site and its connection to Main Street as a city street.

It is also possible that an approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) would be required with respect to a geothermal well system that may be part of the project. REASONABLE WORST-CASE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the actions discussed above and beginning in 2014, over a period of approximately 24 years, Cornell anticipates building up to the following on the project site, which represents the maximum likely

development program, or reasonable worst-case development scenario (RWCDS) for purposes of analysis in this EIS: Two Cornell buildings for academic purposes. One residential building to house campus leadership and faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. An Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. Three corporate co-location buildings that would include space for private companies that wish to take advantage of the proximity to Cornells academic activities and to Cornells faculty, researchers, and students. These buildings may also house academic space. A mixed-use building that comprises academic space at the base with a residential tower rising above the base. A mixed-use building that contains corporate co-location uses at the base with a residential tower rising above the base for Cornell faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, masters students, and leadership. A modest amount of campus-oriented retail uses. Retail space would include uses such as a restaurant, cafs, newsstands, or a University bookstore and would serve the Cornell NYC Tech residents and workers. One or two central utility buildings to serve the campus; and Publicly-accessible open space. Under the proposed zoning text, at least 20 percent of the project site or 2.5 acresmust be publicly-accessible open space. While it is Cornells intention to create more than this minimum requirement, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the EIS assumes the minimum amount of publicly-accessible open space.

In addition to these uses, it is anticipated that up to 500 parking spaces could be provided at the project site, with 250 spaces in Phase 1 and another 250 spaces provided in Phase 2. In support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, Con Edison would upgrade an existing gas line to Roosevelt Island. The upgrade would require the replacement of some piping and the change-out of pressure regulators within the Con Edison system. Table S-1 summarizes the proposed development by use and by phase. Overall, by 2038, the proposed actions are anticipated to result in the development of up to approximately 2.13 million gross square feet of new uses. The total square footage of the buildings represents the reasonable worst-case development scenario for purposes of the environmental review. Individual program elements can be considered illustrative; variations in the allocation of the specific space types, especially in construction after Phase 1, may occur. However, the maximum total square footage is expected to remain substantially the same. The following sections describe the proposed reasonable worst-case development site plan for Phase 1 and at full build out of the project (i.e., once Phases 1 and 2 are complete).

Table S-1 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Program for CEQR (1)

Full Build Phase 1: 2018 Phase 2: 2038 (Phases 1 and 2) Gross Units/ Gross Units/ Gross Units/ Square Rooms/ Square Rooms/ Square Rooms/ Use Footage Spaces Footage Spaces Footage Spaces Academic 200,000 N/A 420,000 N/A 620,000 N/A Residential Housing (Total) (2) Faculty Housing 104 142 246 Student Housing 338 510 848 Residential Total 300,000 442 500,000 652 800,000 1,094 Corporate Co-location 100,000 N/A 400,000 N/A 500,000 N/A Executive Education Center (3) 170,000 225 0 N/A 170,000 225 Utility Plant 20,000 20,000 N/A 40,000 Parking 250 250 500 Total (4) 790,000 1,340,000 2,130,000 Notes: (1) Under the agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC, Cornell is obligated to build no less than 300,000 sf of buildings, of which at least 200,000 sf shall be academic space by June 30, 2017; by 2037, Cornell is obligated to build a minimum of 1,800,000 sf of total building space of which a minimum of 620,000 sf must be academic use. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase. (2) Residential units would be the same size but could be occupied differently (e.g., a faculty family may occupy a multi-bedroom unit while such units may also be rented by unrelated students without families as two or three shares). (3) The conference facilities would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the 170,000 gsf Executive Education Center. (4) It is anticipated that for analysis purposes up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be included on the site (e.g., caf, a restaurant, newsstand, bookstore, etc.).

PHASE 1 The Phase 1 buildings, which would include academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings, would be developed in the northern portion of the project site. The Phase 1 central utility plant would be located toward the northern edge of the site. Open space would also be included as part of Phase 1. Specifically, Phase 1 would include: A Cornell building for academic purposes. This building is anticipated to be approximately 150,000 gsf in size and could be up to 8 stories in height. At this time, designs for this building reflect an academic building that has a 32,000 sf footprint and is four stories tall (approximately 60 feet, 69 feet including the building canopy). A corporate co-location building. This building is anticipated to be approximately 150,000 sf in size and could be up to 8 stories in height. This building would house approximately 100,000 sf of corporate colocation use and 50,000 sf of academic space. At this time, designs for this building reflect a corporate co-location building that has a 30,000 sf footprint and is five stories tall (approximately 74 feet). A residential building of approximately 300,000 sf for campus faculty and students. This building is anticipated to be up to approximately 31 stories in height (approximately 320 feet) with current designs showing a 10,800 sf footprint. An Executive Education Center. This building would be approximately 170,000 sf in size with up to 225 hotel rooms. The conference facility would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the building. The building could be up to 17 stories; current plans for this building reflect a building with a 21,000 sf footprint and a height of 13 stories (161 feet).

Approximately 10,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail would be included on the site and could include uses such as a restaurant, cafs, newsstand, or bookstore. The central utility plant would house in-coming utility services and provide space for centralized electric production or co-generation facilities. As discussed above, Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy
7

consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. To meet this goal, an array of photovoltaic (PV) panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building; it may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building. The open space to be developed as part of Phase 1 would total 1.3 acres. Portions of the southern portion of the project site are anticipated to be developed with several interim uses, potentially including a nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a planted meadow). As part of Phase 1, the roadway circling the project site would be widened with temporary construction to provide a functional 32-foot-wide travelway around the project site. The portion of the roadway adjacent to the Phase 1 development would be built to final conditions as the Phase 1 buildings are completed. FULL BUILD (PHASES 1 AND 2) At full build, the project site would be developed with academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings. At full build, the project site would include the Phase 1 buildings described above and the following additional buildings: One additional Cornell building for academic purposes. This building is assumed to be approximately 154,000 gsf in size, rising to a height of up to 12 stories, although current plans show the building at 7 stories. Two additional corporate co-location buildings. The second and third buildings are assumed to be approximately 185,000 and 140,000 gsf in size, respectively, and up to approximately 10 stories in height, although current plans show the buildings at 7 and 6 stories, respectively. A mixed-use building containing academic and residential uses. The base, which would be for academic use, would rise to a height of approximately 101 feet (7 stories) with 266,000 sf. The residential tower would rise to a height of 235 feet and is assumed to contain 211,900 sf. A mixed use building that comprises corporate co-location space at its base with a residential tower rising above for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. The base would rise to a height of approximately 74 feet with 75,000 sf of space for the corporate co-location use; the tower would rise to a height of 280 feet and contain another 288,100 sf of residential space. The new residential area would provide another 527 units for campus faculty and students. Altogether, at full build, approximately 1,094 units would be provided. Another approximately 15,000 gsf of campusoriented retail would be included on the project site (for a total of 25,000). A potential second central utility building would provide additional space for distributed electrical or cogeneration facilities to serve the additional campus buildings, similar to the plans for the Phase 1 utility plant. In addition to the open spaces developed as part of Phase 1, at full build, there would be another 1.2 acres of open space for a total of a minimum of 2.5 acres of open space. It is anticipated that the sites open spaces would be landscaped with a mix of evergreen and flowering trees and other plantings. At full build, the loop roadway circling the project site would be built out to its mapped right-of-way width, which is 50 feet with two exceptions: the southeast portion of the roadway, which would have a width of 45 feet so as not to encroach upon the south pump station (access to the pump station would be maintained), and north loop road, which would have a width of 56 feet. The typical section (50-foot width) of the loop roadway would be configured to have (beginning on the campus side) a 15-foot-wide sidewalk, an 8-foot-wide parking lane, an 11-foot-wide travel lane, a 3-foot-wide striped buffer, a 10-foot-wide two-way Class II bicycle path, with a 3foot buffer on the outboard side. As in the existing condition, the road would be one-way clockwise with southbound traffic on the east side of the project site and northbound traffic on the west side. The loop road would provide access to the campuss loading areas, which would be located primarily on the east side of the campus. Drop off and pick up areas may be provided in front of the Executive Education Center and potentially at central locations serving the academic buildings. Final design of the roadway and pedestrian crosswalks and

controls would be coordinated with RIOC and the New York City Department of Transportation; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York). To the north of the loop roadway, additional roadway segments would be mapped to the connection with Main Street. These additional segments would be mapped at a width of 50 feet except for the segment of West Main Street just west of the connection with Main Street, which would be mapped with a width of 60 feet. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES As part of the sustainable design energy measures, to the extent feasible, the proposed project may include the following: On-site utility buildings that could total approximately 40,000 gsf. The utility plants would provide space for in-coming utility services and may also include equipment to supply power, chilled water, and heat to portions of the campus. PV panels. As described above, an array of PV panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building. PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures as needed to achieve the renewable electricity goals of the campus. A system of up to 400 geothermal wells. The wells would be closed-loop wells and are anticipated to reach approximately 500 feet deep. The well systems would be entirely subsurface and would be located beneath the central open space. Strict energy targets for campus buildings. Supporting the academic program using as little energy as necessary is critical for long-term sustainability of the campus.

In addition to energy measures, the proposed project would be planned and designed to achieve other sustainability targets, including effective stormwater management and filtration, pedestrian and bike transportation options, low-impact building materials, reduction of heat islands, and other measures that are typical of the LEED green building program. Design measures to accommodate recycling, such as separate receptacles for recyclables, recycling chutes, and/or storage areas would also be included. PROPOSED PROGRAMMING AND POPULATION Cornell intends for its academic program to be flexible and inter-disciplinary with initial areas of focus around connective media, health, and the built environment. The academic program would offer degrees at the masters and doctorate levels; undergraduate degrees would not be offered. Academic and corporate colocation buildings would be oriented towards the non-biological applied sciences and engineering. The academic program would be complemented by an Executive Education Center as well as the corporate co-location use, which would be commercial space expected to be occupied by related industries. The anticipated RWCDS project population by phase is shown below in Table S-2. Table S-2 represents the number of faculty, staff, students, and others who would be generated due to the new academic programs as well as the number of workers that would be introduced by the corporate co-location programs, the Executive Education Center, and the other uses at the campus. Table S-3 shows the anticipated population that would be housed on the project site and also includes an estimate of the on-site populations dependents and families. As housing at the Cornell NYC Tech campus would be open only to Cornell University affiliates and not the general population, the standard demographic assumptions used for Manhattan would not apply to this project. In order to estimate on-campus population at Cornell NYC Tech, Cornell has based its projections on housing patterns at Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan and the College of Engineering and applied sciences departments at its Ithaca campus.

Table S-2 Cornell NYC Tech Population (1)

Use Leadership and Staff Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) Visitors/Adjuncts Funded Researchers PostDocs Ph.D. Candidates Master's Students Total (Cornell NYC Academic Population) Workers Conference Facility Hotel Workers Workers Workers Total (Worker Population) Total (Academic and Worker Population) Phase 1 74 93 18 45 37 260 300 827 400 13 84 3 20 30 550 1,377 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) 133 286 33 125 125 750 1,750 3,203 2,000 13 84 6 50 75 2,228 5,431

Academic

Worker Population Corporate Co-Location(2) Executive Education Center (3) Utility Plant Residential (4) Retail (5)

Notes: (1) Under the terms of the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is obligated to have no fewer than 75 faculty and 390 students (Ph.D. candidates and master's students) by 2018, and no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students when the campus is fully operational. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase. (2) Corporate co-location worker population assumes 4 employees per 1,000 gsf. (3) Conference facility assumes 1 employee per 2,000 gsf; hotel assumes 1 worker per 2.67 rooms. (4) Residential worker population assumes 1 employee per 22 dwelling units. (5) Retail worker population assumes 3 employees per 1,000 gsf, with 10,000 gsf of retail in Phase 1 and 25,000 gsf of retail in the Full Build condition.

Table S-3 Cornell NYC Tech On-Campus Residential Population

Total On-Campus Population Off-Campus Academic Academic Population Type (1) Population Population Partners Children Total Phase 1 Leadership and Staff 74 72 2 2 2 75 Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) 93 18 56 15 2 Visitors/Adjuncts 18 16 1 0 0 Funded Researchers 45 45 0 0 30 Postdoctoral Fellows 37 7 15 3 208 Ph.D. Candidates 260 52 104 21 255 Master's Students 300 45 51 0 Total 827 255 572 229 41 842 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) Leadership and Staff 133 131 3 2 1 172 Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) 286 114 129 34 8 Visitors/Adjuncts 33 25 4 1 0 Funded Researchers 125 125 0 0 76 Postdoctoral Fellows 125 49 38 8 450 Ph.D. Candidates 750 300 225 45 942 Master's Students 1,750 808 188 0 Total 3,203 1,552 1,651 586 89 2,326 Note: (1) No Staff or Researchers would be accommodated in on-campus housing Total Academic Population

2.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Each chapter of the EIS assesses whether development resulting from the proposed actions could result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

10

In disclosing impacts, the EIS considers a proposed projects potential adverse impacts on the environmental setting. Because the proposed project would be operational in future years,6 its environmental setting is not the current environment, but the future environment. Therefore, the technical analyses and consideration of alternatives first assess current conditions and then forecast these conditions to 2018 and 2038, corresponding to the completion of Phases 1 and 2, respectively, for the purposes of determining potential impacts. The EIS provides a description of Existing Conditions for the year 2012 and assessme nts of future conditions without the proposed project in both 2018 and 2038 (the Future without the Proposed Project or No-Action condition) and the future with the proposed project (or With Action condition). To forecast the No-Action condition, information on known land-use proposals and, as appropriate, changes in anticipated overall growth, is incorporated. The differences between the Future Without and With the Proposed Project are assessed for whether such differences are adverse and/or significant; any significant adverse environmental impacts are disclosed. The EIS also identifies and analyzes appropriate mitigation for any identified significant adverse environmental impacts. While the buildings at Goldwater Hospital would most likely be demolished and replaced with another appropriate use if the Cornell NYC Tech project did not proceed, for purposes of conservatively assessing impacts, the EIS accounts for a No-Action condition in which Goldwater Hospital would remain vacant, but the buildings would remain in place. The EIS accounts for the hospitals demolition and redevelopment of the project site as part of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project is the RWCDS for environmental review purposes.

3.

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, or public policy. The proposed project would add new academic, residential, commercial, utility, parking, and publicly accessible open space uses on the project site. While the density of development on the project site would increase as a result of the proposed project, the proposed project would improve land use conditions by creating a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development on a site that would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. The mix of uses within the proposed Cornell NYC Tech campus would be complementary to each other and would be supportive of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. The proposed development would be compatible with land uses in the broader study area, as the proposed uses would be complementary to surrounding open space, transportation, retail, and residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant adverse land use impacts. The proposed project would result in two zoning changes: the project site would be rezoned from an R7-2 designation to a C4-5 designation; and the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be created and mapped over the rezoning area. The zoning changes are necessary to facilitate the development of a mixeduse campus, and would include controls on lot area, the bulk and height of the development, and the provision of publicly accessible open space. The proposed project would support and further the objectives of applicable public policies, including the citys applied sciences initiative, PlaNYC 2030, the Waterfront Revitalization Program, and RIOCs General Development Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable public policies, and would therefore not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts.

As discussed above, Cornell is obligated to complete construction of Phase 1 by 2017 and Phase 2 by 2037. The Draft EIS uses 2018 and 2038 as the analysis years, as those represent the first full years of operation for Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.

11

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts as measured by the five socioeconomic areas of concern prescribed in the CEQR Technical Manual. The following summarizes the conclusions drawn from the analysis. DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT The proposed project would not directly displace any residents from the project site. Therefore a preliminary screening assessment was sufficient to conclude that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts due to direct residential displacement. DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT Goldwater Hospitallocated on the project sitewill vacate its current site in the future with or without the proposed project. As the proposed project would develop a vacant site, it would not directly displace any businesses or institutions. Therefore a preliminary screening assessment was sufficient to conclude that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts due to direct business displacement. INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT The preliminary assessment concluded that the residential population introduced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in adverse indirect residential displacement impacts in the study area. The proposed projects 1,094 residential units would introduce 2,326 residents to the study area, consisting of University leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students, as well as their residential partners and children. These residential units would be on-campus and only available to this academic population and would therefore have no potential to generate indirect effects in the study area. It is possible that the remaining off-campus academic population of 1,552 students, faculty, and staff, as well as the estimated 2,228 non-academic employees could seek new housing opportunities in the study area or within a reasonable commuting distance of the campus. These households, whether new to the market or representing households already in New York City, would participate in the private residential marketplace and would be dispersed over a larger area than just the local study area. Moreover, since the income profile of the academic and worker population is not expected to exceed that of the average household income of the study area, it is not expected that potential new demand would change the market profile such that it would result in indirect residential displacement. For these reasons, the population introduced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant adverse indirect residential displacement impacts. INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT The preliminary assessment concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts due to indirect business displacement. While the proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of new economic activity to the study area, it is expected that the Cornell NYC Tech campus would add economic variety and vitality to complement the growing residential population on the island. The additional expenditure potential generated by the estimated new residential population of 2,326 and a daily academic and total worker population of approximately 3,781 could provide new sales to the existing retail base on the island. Roosevelt Island has historically struggled to create a vibrant retail sector given a trade area that is basically limited to existing residents and workers. At the same time, the new retail component associated with the campus is expected to add about 25,000 sf of retail primarily oriented to the student and worker population which would not be expected to change the overall supply and demand for retail in the core Main Street and Southtown areas. As a result, the proposed project would not be expected to result in indirect business displacement within the study area.

12

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES The preliminary assessment found that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on specific industries. The proposed project would not directly displace any businesses, nor would it have substantial adverse effects on business conditions in any industry or any category of business within or outside the study area. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to community facilities. Based on a preliminary screening, detailed analyses were warranted of the proposed project potential impacts on: public elementary and intermediate schools for the 2038 analysis year; and public libraries for the 2038 analysis year. The detailed analyses found that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on community facilities. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS The analysis of indirect effects on public schools concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public elementary or intermediate schools. The project site is located within Sub-district 5 of Community School District (CSD) 2. Based on information provided by Cornell University, the proposed project would generate approximately 49 elementary school students and 16 intermediate school students, by 2038. Elementary Schools Although elementary schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a shortage of seats in 2038, the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. As a result, they would not substantially increase the elementary school utilization rate; the increase would be approximately 1 percent, which is below the CEQR Technical Manual threshold of 5 percent or more for a significant adverse impact. Because the proposed project would increase the elementary school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools. Intermediate Schools Intermediate schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a surplus of seats in 2038, and the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. The sub-district would operate with a surplus of 91 seats, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by approximately 1 percent. Because intermediate schools in the study area would not operate at 100 percent utilization or greater, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools. Alternative Schools Analysis Using a more conservative alternative methodology, the full build out of the proposed project would generate 75 elementary school students, 25 intermediate school students, and 36 high school students (although Cornell University does not anticipate that this many children would be introduced by the proposed project). With these additional 75 elementary school students, elementary school utilization would increase to 129 percent Sub-district 5 of CSD 2; with the additional 25 intermediate school students, intermediate school utilization would increase to 96 percent in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. The increase in utilization for elementary schools in the sub-district would be 1 percent, which is below the 5 percent threshold for a significant adverse impact. The increase in utilization for intermediate schools in the sub-district would be 1 percent, and intermediate schools would operate with surplus capacity. Therefore, although the alternative
13

methodology would introduce a greater number of students to the study area, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse schools impacts under the alternative schools analysis. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON LIBRARIES The proposed project would introduce approximately 2,326 residents to the project site by 2038. With this additional population, the Roosevelt Island branch would serve 15,170 residents, an increase of approximately 18.1 percent. Independent of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch will relocate to 504 Main Street before the analysis year, doubling its space. The holdings-per-resident ratio is anticipated to be 2.41. With the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch catchment area population would increase approximately 18.1 percent. However, the holdings per resident ratio of the study area in the With Action condition (2.41) would continue to be higher than the overall ratio in Manhattan (1.20), indicating that the study area would continue to be well-served by the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents of the study area would have access to the entire NYPL system through the inter-library loan system and could have volumes delivered directly to the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents who work off-Island (such as the partners of Cornell NYC Tech faculty, staff, and students) would also have access to libraries near their place of work. Moreover, the Cornell NYC Tech community would have access to the resources of the Cornell University Libraries (CUL) system, one of the worlds largest research libraries, with approximately 7.8 million print volumes and over 80,000 electronic serial titles, which would be expected to reduce the incremental demand on the NYPL system to some extent. Therefore, while the percentage increase in catchment area population exceeds the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of five percent, the population introduced by the proposed project would not impair the delivery of library services in the study area, and the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public libraries. OPEN SPACE The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with regard to open space. By 2018, the ratio of passive open space per 1,000 non-residents in the -mile (commercial) study area would be 14.20 acres, which represents a decrease of 83.8 percent from the No-Action condition (see Table 4). By 2038 this ratio would be 3.66, which represents a decrease of 95.8 percent from the No-Action condition. However the large decreases in the ratio are due to the fact that the No-Action worker population in the commercial study area is very small (142 workers), resulting in a very high No-Action ratio of passive open space to workers. The With-Action passive open space ratios would remain greatly above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents. Therefore, while the decrease in the passive open space ratio would be greater than the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to open space resources in the commercial study area by 2018 and 2038, as the commercial study area would remain well-served.

Table 4 With Action Condition: Open Space Ratios Summary

DCP Planning Goal 0.15 2.5 2.0 0.5 Open Space Ratios (acres per 1,000 people) With Action Existing No-Action Condition Condition Conditions (2018 and 2038) (2018/ 2038) Non-Residential (-Mile) Study Area 53.43 87.68 14.20/ 3.66 Residential (-Mile) Study Area 3.04 2.71 2.63/ 2.43 1.42 1.26 1.20/ 1.09 1.63 1.45 1.43/ 1.34 Percent Change No-Action to With Action Condition (2018/ 2038) -83.8%/ -95.8% -3.1%/ -10.6% -5.1%/ -14.0% -1.3%/ -7.6%

Ratio Passive/Workers Total/Residents Active/Residents Passive/Residents

By 2018, the ratio of total, active, and passive open space per 1,000 residents in the -mile (residential) study area would be 2.63, 1.20, and 1.43, respectively. The total open space ratio would continue to exceed the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The total and passive
14

ratios would exceed the DCP planning goals of 2.5, and 0.5, respectively, and the active ratio would be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Compared to the No-Action condition, the total ratio would decrease by 3.1 percent, the active ratio would decrease by 5.1 percent, and the passive ratio would decrease by 1.3 percent. As the small decreases in the total and passive open space ratios would be less than 5 percent, and these ratios would continue to exceed DCP planning goals, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. Although the active ratio would decline, and would continue to be below the DCP planning goal, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall, and the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project, due to the relatively high daytime population and low proportion of school-aged children that would be introduced. Therefore, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant open space impacts in the residential study area. By 2038, the ratio of total, active, and passive open space per 1,000 residents in the residential study area would be 2.43, 1.09, and 1.34, respectively. The total ratio would exceed the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, and would be slightly below the DCP planning goal of 2.5. The passive ratio would exceed the DCP planning goal of 0.5, and the active ratio would be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Compared to the No-Action condition, the total ratio would decrease by 10.6 percent, the active ratio would decrease by 14.0 percent, and the passive ratio would decrease by 7.6 percent. Although these decreases in the open space ratios exceed the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the total open space ratio of 2.43 would remain well above the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. As the proposed project would not result in a 5 percent decrease in an open space ratio in an area currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. Although the active ratio would decline, and would continue to be below the DCP planning goal, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall, and the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project, due to the relatively high daytime population and the low proportion of school-aged children that would be introduced. Therefore, the full build out of the proposed project would not result in any significant open space impacts in the residential study area. SHADOWS The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse shadows impacts. The following summarizes the analyses, organized by resource of concern, leading to this conclusion. PROMENADEWEST SIDE Phase 1 A portion of the northern section of the promenade would receive approximately three hours of new shadows in the morning and mid-day in the spring, summer and fall, and three and three quarters hours in the winter. The incremental shadows would move over the course of this period, affecting different areas at different times. At least one area would receive about three hours of new shadows; some other areas would receive between one and two-and-a-half hours. With no structures to the west, the promenade would consequently be in full sun from mid-day to the end of the analysis period. All individual trees would remain in direct sun for a minimum of approximately four hours on March 21/September 21, and for six hours or more in May through August. Therefore, the health of the vegetation would not likely be significantly impacted by the proposed projects shadows at any time during the growing season. In terms of the impacts of shadows on users of the promenade, the linear nature of the space and the proximity of other seating areas in direct sun elsewhere along the western or eastern promenade, and in South Point Park, provide many alternatives to users who would seek out a seating or walking area in the sun, in any season. Therefore, users of the promenade would not be significantly impacted by the project generated shadow.

15

Phase 2 Shadows from the Phase 2 development would affect the southern part of the promenade in a similar way to that of Phase 1 shadows on the northern section, at least in terms of vegetation. Despite long durations of incremental shadows, each tree would continue to receive a minimum five hours of direct sun in March 21/September 21 (most trees would receive more) and seven or more hours from May to August. Therefore, the health of the vegetation would not likely be significantly impacted by the proposed projects shadows at any time during the growing season. In Phase 2, from the perspective of the user, a larger proportion of the western promenade would be in incremental shadow in the mornings throughout the year. However, the linear nature of the space would continue to provide sunlit seating areas in some locations, and there would be larger sunlit seating areas in the adjacent spaces of South Point Park and the eastern promenade. Even in the winter, these adjacent waterfront spaces would be mostly in sun throughout the morning when the western promenade would be mostly in shadow. Users of the promenade would therefore not be significantly impacted by the project generated shadow. PROMENADEEAST SIDE Phase 1 Incremental shadow durations would range from one hour 40 minutes in March and September to three hours 50 minutes on the summer solstice, occurring in the middle to late afternoon. These new shadows would fall in the northern part of the promenade. The vegetation in this area would receive more than six hours of direct sunlight throughout the morning and early afternoon through the growing season (March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21 analysis days), due to the lack of any nearby structures to the east and southeast, and would not be significantly impacted by the project. As noted for the western side of the promenade above, users would be able to use adjacent sunlit sections of the promenade or South Point Park during the late afternoons when portions of the eastern promenade are in incremental shadow, and therefore significant shadow impacts would not occur to the users of this space with the proposed project. Phase 2 In 2038 with the proposed project, incremental shadow durations on the eastern promenade would range from two hours in March and September to four hours on June 21, occurring in the middle to late afternoon. However, as in Phase 1, individual trees and other plants would continue to receive more than six hours of sunlight throughout the morning and early afternoon through the growing season (March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21 analysis days), which would be sufficient to maintain their health; therefore, they would not be significantly impacted by the project. For park users, even in the late afternoons of the May 6/August 6 and June 21 analysis days when fairly large sections of the eastern promenade are shaded by the proposed development, the linear nature of the space would continue to provide sunlit seating areas in some limited locations, and there would be larger sunlit seating areas in the adjacent spaces of South Point Park and the western promenade. Therefore, no significant shadow impacts would result from the proposed development. SPORTS PARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURT Phase 1 The Phase 1 development, particularly the residential building, would cast shadows on the court between two and a half hours, in early spring and fall, to five hours on the summer solstice. In March and September, incremental shadow from the Phase 1 residential building would last from 2:00 PM to 4:29 PM, but would not eliminate all remaining sunlight until the final 29 minutes of the analysis day. In May through August, the extent and duration of the new shadow would be greater, and would eliminate remaining sunlight for 30 minutes around 3:00 PM. On June 21 incremental shadow would fall on large portions of the court for about an hour and a half in the middle of the afternoon, and would remove remaining sunlight from 4:50 PM to 6:01 PM, although nearly the entire court would be in existing shadow at that time. However, the court is

16

mostly or completely in sun throughout the morning and early afternoon in these seasons, and, particularly in the heat of these late spring and summer months, this limited extent and duration of new shadow on a basketball court would likely not significantly impact the users. In December only three minutes of incremental shadow would occur in Phase 1. Phase 2 In Phase 2, there would be 10 additional minutes of incremental shadow on the basketball court, occurring on the December 21 analysis day, which would not alter the conclusions from Phase 1. SOUTH POINT PARK No project-generated shadow would reach South Point Park in Phase 1. With Phase 2 development, new shadows would fall on the northern or northwestern portion of this park early in the late spring and summer mornings, ranging from about an hour and a half on May 6/August 6 to two hours on the summer solstice. Given that this area of the park would be in full sun for the remainder of the analysis day in these seasons (i.e. nine to ten hours), no significant shadow impacts would occur. FIREFIGHTER FIELD Incremental shadow would fall on a small portion of this field for about an hour and ten minutes on the December 21 analysis day only. Given the limited size and duration of the incremental shadow, the activeuse nature of the resource, and the fact that parts of the field would remain in sun during the affected period, significant shadow impacts would not occur. SUTTON PLACE PARK Four minutes of new shadow on the December 21 analysis day only would not result in shadow impacts. EAST RIVER The proposed project would cast new shadows on portions of the west channel of the East River in the mornings and portions of the east channel in the afternoons in all seasons, primarily affecting areas adjacent to the shoreline. While the total duration of new shadow would be generally between four and a half and five hours on the west channel and between a few minutes and up to nearly four hours on the east channel, depending on the season, most affected areas in both channels would receive shorter durations as the shadows move west to east and clockwise over the course of the day. The areas that would receive the longest durations of new shadows would continue to receive more than six hours of sunlight over the course of each analysis day, because there are no other nearby structures casting shadows besides the ones on the proposed project site. The current flows swiftly in the East River and would move phytoplankton and other natural elements quickly through the shaded areas. Therefore, given their limited duration and extent over the course of each analysis day, incremental shadows generated by the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on primary productivity within the East River. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to archaeological resources, but would result in a significant adverse impact with regard to architectural resources. The following summarizes the analyses leading to this conclusion. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study prepared for the project site and rezoning area determined that the project site has no sensitivity for precontact archaeological resources and low sensitivity for archaeological resources dating to the historic period. In a comment letter dated March 26, 2012, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase 1A study, and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic

17

Preservation (OPRHP) determined in its June 19, 2012 findings letter that it also has no archaeological concerns for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse archaeological impacts. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would result in a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Pursuant to Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (SHPA), a study was prepared in consultation with OPRHP to evaluate the feasibility of retaining elements of the Goldwater Hospital complex to avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. The Alternatives Analysis found that only the alternative that maintains the Goldwater Hospital complex in its entirety would avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. However, this alternative would not fulfill the citys requirement for developing an applied sciences and engineering campus containing 620,000 gsf of academic space, nor would it allow for the overall development of the citys minimum requirement of 1.8 million gsf of space for an applied sciences and engineering campus. In addition, the hospitals existing 647,900 gsf is contained in buildings that, in general, do not meet the requirements for academic and corporate co-location buildings. Similarly, the expansion alternative would meet certain square footage and programming needs, however, the type of space that could be developed would not provide the spatial configuration needed for dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs for academic or corporate co-location uses, which are central to the projects purpose and need. In consideration of Cornells purpose and need for the proposed project, it is not possible to retain and reuse the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the proposed project. Therefore, there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid a significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex. Measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. Overall, the addition of new shorter and taller buildings and landscaping elements on the project site would alter the settings of the three architectural resources in the study area the Strecker Memorial Laboratory, the Steam Plant, and the Queensboro Bridge. However, the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the Steam Plant would continue to be located in the context of taller buildings and views to these architectural resources would not be obstructed by the proposed project. While the setting and views to the Queensboro Bridge would change with the full build out of the project site, in no cases would views of the bridge be fully obstructed. Further, many prominent views to the bridge would remain available. These changes to the settings and views of the study areas architectural resources would not adversely affect the characteristics for which the historic properties meet or may meet S/NR and New York City Landmarks (NYCL) criteria. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES Overall, while the proposed project would result in substantial changes to the urban design of the project site and views to visual resources, it would not have any significant adverse impacts related to urban design and visual resources. PROJECT SITE With the development of the proposed buildings, the height and bulk of structures on the project site would change substantially. The increased scale, both in terms of bulk and height, of the new buildings on the project site would be a prominent change from the appearance and character of the project site in the NoAction condition. The project site would go from hosting several vacant hospital buildings to being occupied by tall, bulky structures, creating a distinctive and recognizable campus. While considerable, this change is not anticipated to be significantly adverse. The total FAR that could be developed on site would not change from the No-Action condition, and the proposed development would comply with the bulk, height, lot coverage, and setback regulations of the proposed special district. Compared to the No-Action condition, in the future with the proposed project the visual appearance and thus the pedestrian experience of the project site would change considerably; however, this change would not meet the CEQR Technical Manual

18

threshold for a significant adverse urban design impact in that it would not alter the arrangement, appearance, or functionality of the project site or rezoning area such that the alteration would negatively affect a pedestrians experience of the area. The proposed project would improve the pedestrian experience on the project site, and maintain pedestrian access to the waterfront. New open spaces would provide places to rest and play and would visually enhance the experience of walking around the project site. Greater levels of pedestrian activity generated by the proposed uses on the sites would be self-reinforcing, making the project area more inviting and appealing to visit. Views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens would still be available from numerous vantage points within the project site and rezoning area. Furthermore, the special district would require that a visual corridor of at least 50 feet be established through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. As in the No-Action condition, however, the expansiveness of views from the project site and rezoning area would be somewhat limited by the substantial tree coverage that surrounds the project site, which is anticipated to be expanded on the site through the extensive tree planting program. STUDY AREA Urban Design The development associated with the proposed project would not result in any changes to the street pattern, block shapes, buildings, or streetscape of the study area. In the future with the proposed project the visual appearance of the project siteand thus the pedestrians experience of the study areawould change considerably. The portion of the Island south of the Queensboro Bridge would be filled with new, active development. The majority of the buildings to be developed would be consistent with the taller buildings on the north side of the Island. At approximately 320 feet in height, the proposed Phase 1 residential building would be taller than any of the buildings that would exist on the Island in the No-Action condition; however, it would be slightly lower than the height of the two Queensboro Bridge towers on the Island, which are approximately 350 feet tall. The proposed open spaces would visually enhance the experience of walking around the study area, and would help to integrate the new campus with the rest of the Island. The proposed mapping action would make the mapped street pattern consistent with the pedestrians current experience of the loop road, and the addition of the bicycle path and sidewalk to the loop road would improve access and circulation to the southern portion of the study area. Visual Resources In the future with the proposed project, pedestrian-level views in the on- and off-Island portions of the study area would include the more dense development anticipated on the project site. While the context of onIsland views from north and south of the project site would change considerably with the new development, these views are anticipated to be an improvement over the views in the No-Action condition, which would include vacant buildings on the project site. Existing view corridors and views to visual resources along the limited on-Island streets would not be obstructed, except for some views of the Queensboro Bridge towers; however, the bridge would remain highly visible throughout the rest of the on-Island study area. The waterfront promenade would continue to provide the most expansive views to on- and off-Island resources. The context of the limited views to the visual resources on the north side of the Island is not anticipated to change considerably. From the more distant off-Island views, it is anticipated that the campus would appear more consistent with the development on the north side of the Island, which will include the completion of the Southtown development and which will include buildings of 21, 25, and 29 stories, and adjacent portions of Manhattan. Some views to towers in the Queens skyline could be obstructed from Manhattan by the fully-developed campus; however, these buildings would still be visible from other viewpoints. Views of the Queensboro Bridge would now include a tall residential building in close proximity, and the proposed tallest buildings could obstruct some views to certain elements of the bridge; however, the proposed buildings would be shorter than the bridge anchorages, and the bridge would continue to be seen from many locations. Furthermore, due to the scale and breadth of the bridge, including the spans that continue east and west beyond Roosevelt Island, the bridges visual prominence in the study area would not be significantly

19

adversely affected by the full build-out of the project site. Overall, the changes in views with the proposed projectwhile considerablewould not constitute a significant adverse effect on visual resources. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources, including: water quality, aquatic biota, tidal wetlands, essential fish habitat, or threatened or endangered aquatic species. The implementation of green infrastructure, and other measures implemented as part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River and NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands from the project site. Grass cover of the project site would increase from the existing and No Action area of 3.1 acres (25 percent) to 3.46 acres (28 percent) at full build. No areas of the 100-year floodplain occur within the project site. Because the floodplain within and adjacent to the study area is affected by coastal flooding, it would not be affected by construction or regrading/filling of the 500-year floodplain that would occur as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage, or increase the exposure of public utilities to flood hazards. The design of the buildings within the project site would be consistent with the New York City Building Code requirements for construction within the 100-year floodplain and any subsequent revisions to these requirements (e.g., adoption of the FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation [ABFE]). The project proposes to set the minimum elevation of the main entrance level to 17.4 feet Belmont Island Datum, which would be about 4 feet above the current 100-year flood elevation and at least 1 foot above the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation. Therefore, the project would have resilience for at least a one foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation (using the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation) due to sea level rise, which is within the likely range of sea level rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. The main entrance level for each building would be consistent with the New York City Building Code. The belowgrade area for all on-site structures would be waterproofed and designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure exerted by groundwater during a 100-year flood event, consistent with the New York City Building Code. Therefore, the design for the structures at full build would minimize the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage under current and projected flood conditions, and no significant adverse impacts are expected. Phase 1 and full build of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to terrestrial ecological communities and vegetation. Tree replacement would be consistent with city tree replacement requirements using tree species approved by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in the development of landscaped open space within the project site which would be expected to provide suitable habitat for the urban tolerant species currently present within the study area and would have the potential to enhance the quality of habitat through the introduction of increased diversity and use of native plant species. Bird-safe building features would be considered in final building and landscaping designs to reduce the potential for daytime bird collisions with lower-story reflective glass, thus reducing potential loss of resident and migratory bird species. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials, with the measures described below. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified potential on-site sources of contamination, including historical fill materials of unknown origin; historical laboratories, a photography room and an incinerator room associated with the hospital; underground electrical transformer vaults potentially utilizing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing transformer oil; and four diesel petroleum storage tanks (one 5,000-gallon underground storage tank [UST] and three aboveground storage tanks [ASTs] ranging from 110 to 330 gallons) used for emergency generators. Based on these potential concerns, a Phase II Environmental Site Investigation was performed that included the collection and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples. The analysis indicated that levels of certain semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals in the soil samples were somewhat elevated,
20

but most likely attributable to the historical fill materials rather than a spill or release. Soil concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and PCBs met the most stringent state guidelines. Results for the groundwater samples met state drinking water standards7 with the exception of levels of certain metals, some of which were likely related to the urban fill materials, whereas others were likely natural. To reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during and following construction of the proposed project, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) have been prepared and approved by NYCDEP. The RAP and CHASP would be implemented during project construction. The RAP addresses requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). Lead-based paint, asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and PCB-containing electrical equipment and fluorescent lighting fixtures may be present within the existing structures or elsewhere on the project site. During and following construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to ACM, lead-based paint, PCBs and chemical use and storage would be followed. WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE Phase 1 and full build sanitary sewage generation would increase compared to the No Action condition. The increases would be minimal and would continue to be conveyed via gravity sanitary sewers in East and West Roads. New sanitary sewer connections to the East and West Road sanitary sewers from the new buildings would be built. The sanitary pump stations and force mains located on the Island would remain in operation and would continue to convey sanitary flow to the interceptor in Vernon Boulevard in Queens. The south pump station has adequate capacity to handle the flows from Phase 1. When design begins for the final phase of the project, NYCDEP will be consulted to determine if upgrades are needed at the south pump station; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York. The proposed project would not significantly impact the existing WWTP infrastructure. Phase 1 and full build stormwater runoff volumes would decrease or remain the same as compared to the No Action condition. Stormwater runoff would continue to discharge into the East River. In addition, a SWPPP would be implemented for both phases of the project. The SWPPP would meet NYSDEC standard requirements and design guidelines for temporary erosion and sediment control and for post-construction stormwater management and would improve the quality of the stormwater prior to its discharge to the East River via the existing outfalls. Overall, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the citys wastewater and stormwater conveyance or wastewater treatment infrastructure. SOLID WASTE No significant adverse impacts on solid waste and sanitation services are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project site is served by an existing system of solid waste collection and disposal services provided by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and by commercial carters. The net increment of solid waste under the proposed project would be a minimal addition to the citys solid waste stream, and the proposed project would include sustainability measures that would reduce waste generation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on solid waste and sanitation services and would be consistent with the citys Solid Waste Management Plan.
7

Groundwater on Roosevelt Island is not used as a source of potable water and would not be used as such in the future.

21

ENERGY The proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact with respect to the transmission and generation of energy. The proposed project would comply with the New York City Energy Conservation Code and Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State, incorporating all measures relating to energy efficiency and thermal transmittance. By 2038, full development of the proposed project is projected to result in a combined 173,684 million British thermal units (Btu) of energy demand annually. The proposed projects total combined energy intensity for full build is 81,542 Btu per square foot. This is substantially lower than the average intensities in New York City. The proposed project would incorporate a number of measures intended to reduce energy consumption. Cornell has committed to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification for all project buildings. Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. The building would use on-campus generated solar power and be heated and cooled using on-site geothermal energy. TRANSPORTATION Significant adverse transportation impacts were identified in the areas of traffic, transit, and pedestrians. TRAFFIC Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized intersections), Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at five intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, three in the weekday midday peak hour, and four in the weekday PM peak hour. Full build of the project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at nine intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, seven in the weekday midday peak hour, and 11 in the weekday PM peak hour. To a large extent, many of the significant adverse traffic impacts can be attributed to background traffic growth plus a substantial volume of No Action development generated traffic, especially over the extended period between existing conditions and analysis year 2038. TRANSIT The transit analyses examined the projects potential to affect the subway (station elements at the Roosevelt Island subway station [F line] and the F line subway cars [i.e., line-haul analysis]); the Roosevelt Island tramway; and the bus system (i.e., the Q102 bus and the Roosevelt Island red bus). The screening assessment concluded that a detailed examination of subway line-haul analysis is not warranted. However, bus and tramway line-haul analyses, and a detailed analysis of station elements at the Roosevelt Island subway station (F line) were prepared. Under Phase 1, the proposed project would not result in an impact on the Q102 bus route in the eastbound direction during the PM peak period. Under full build condition, the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts on bus line-haul levels on the eastbound and westbound Q102 route during the AM and PM peak periods as well as on the Red Bus route in the southbound and northbound direction during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The project would not result in impacts to the subway station or tramway. PEDESTRIANS Weekday peak period pedestrian conditions were evaluated at key sidewalk elements at five intersections. Under Phase 1, there would be no significant adverse pedestrian impacts. In the full build condition, significant adverse impacts are anticipated for two pedestrian elements:

22

West Road: The east sidewalk between West Main Street and the subway station during the AM, midday and PM peak periods; and West Main Street: The east sidewalk between the Tram Station West bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge during the AM, midday and PM peak periods.

VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Accident data for the study area intersections were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for the 3-year time period between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011. A total of 30 reportable and non-reportable accidents, no fatalities, 17 injuries, and 1 pedestrian/bicyclist-related accident occurred at the study area intersections. A rolling total of accident data has not identified any study area locations as high pedestrian accident locations in the 2008 to 2011 period. PARKING Up to 500 spaces could be built on-site under the proposed actions, with 250 spaces assumed under Phase 1 and 500 spaces under full build. Under Phase 1, 250 spaces would accommodate the projected daytime peak demand of approximately 220 spaces and overnight parking demand of about 155 spaces. Under full build, the 500 space supply would not accommodate the projected peak daytime demand of approximately 615 spaces but would accommodate overnight demand of about 290 spaces. There is expected to be sufficient parking elsewhere on Roosevelt Island within the Motorgate garage to accommodate the projected daytime on-site parking shortfall under the full build condition. With the proposed actions, parking is not required to be provided at the site. If no parking were provided onsite in Phase 1, both daytime and overnight parking needs would be met by available Motorgate garage spaces. If no parking were provided on-site under the full build condition, daytime parking needs would be met by the available Motorgate garage spaces. However, there would be an overnight parking shortfall of about 45 spaces, which would need to be accommodated beyond -mile from the site and the Motorgate garage. There would also potentially be additional on-street overnight parking available pending the design of the campus roadways to accommodate the projected parking shortfall if no parking was provided on-site under the full build condition (although no credit for this potential additional parking resource has been taken). AIR QUALITY The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts. The following summarizes the analyses leading to this conclusion. MOBILE SOURCES The maximum predicted pollutant concentrations and concentration increments from mobile sources in Phase 1 and the full build of the proposed project would be below the applicable air quality impact criteria. Concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) due to project-generated traffic at intersections in the study area would not result in any violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It was also determined that CO impacts from mobile sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed CEQR de minimis criteria, while incremental increases in fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would not exceed the citys current interim guidance criteria. Emissions due to the proposed projects parking garage were found to result in no significant adverse air quality impacts. STATIONARY SOURCES Based on detailed stationary source analyses, no potential for significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from the potential combined heat and power (CHP) plants associated with the Phase 1 and full build development (i.e., the central utility plants). To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings, the project would have to meet certain measures on the placement of fossil fuelfired exhaust stacks. For potential fossil fuel fired boiler systems, specific measures are proposed to ensure
23

that boiler systems would not have significant adverse impacts. With these restrictions in place, no significant adverse air quality impacts are predicted from the proposed projects stationary sources. Prior to final design of Phase 1 buildings and during design of Phase 2, Cornell will consult with NYCDEP to determine the correct placement and height of stacks for buildings that may have undergone design or other changes; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York). GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with regard to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The building energy use and vehicle use associated with the proposed project would result in up to approximately 8 thousand metric tons of CO2e emissions per year in Phase 1 and up to approximately 20 thousand metric tons of CO2e in full build. The GHG emissions intensity of 9 to 10 kg CO2e per gsf, would be substantially lower than the emissions intensity for similar uses. The proposed project would result in the development of a high-technology sustainable campus that is energy efficient and uses low-carbon and renewable power sources, which would further reduce the emissions from the proposed project, quoted above. The proposed site would be walkable and supportive of transit and non-motorized commuting and would strive to minimize GHG emissions from construction activity and emissions associated with the production and transport of construction materials. The proposed projects design includes many features aimed at reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions, and would be consistent with the citys citywide GHG reduction goal. By designing the FFE to be at least one to five feet above the ABFE 100-year flood elevation, the project would be resilient to sea level rise within the likely range of rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. NOISE The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse noise impacts. Traffic generated by the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant increases in noise levels in either analysis year at any nearby sensitive receptors. To meet CEQR interior noise level requirements, the analysis recommends up to 28 dBA of building attenuation for certain project buildings (the Phase 1 academic building, the Phase 1 residential building, and the Executive Education Center [hotel]). Noise levels in the newly created open spaces would be greater than the 55 dBA L10(1) recommended by CEQR criteria, but would be comparable to other parks on Roosevelt Island and elsewhere in New York City. Mechanical equipment associated with project buildings would be designed to meet all applicable noise regulations, and would therefore not have the potential to result in a significant noise impact. PUBLIC HEALTH The proposed project would not result in significant unmitigated adverse impacts in any of the technical areas related to public health; it would, however, at times result in temporary unmitigated significant adverse noise impacts during construction. Therefore, the potential effects of construction-period noise impacts on public health were examined. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the one-hour equivalent noise level (Leq(1)) of between 3 and 5 decibels A-weighted (dBA), depending upon the noise level without the proposed project. The CEQR noise thresholds are based on quality of life considerations and not on public health considerations. In terms of public health, significance is not determined based upon the incremental change in noise level, but is based principally upon the magnitude of the noise level and duration of exposure. Cornell would implement a noise mitigation plan as required under the New York City Noise Code: this plan would outline measures that would include a variety of source and path controls. Even with these measures, the construction analysis identified the potential for significant adverse noise impacts on open spaces. For the open spaces that would experience exceedances (i.e., open space areas along Main Street during Phase 1 and the promenade and South Point Park adjacent to the project site during Phase 2), there are no feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to eliminate the significant noise impacts at these
24

locations. Because people would be able to use a variety of other open spaces on Roosevelt Island during the periods of construction during which there would be noise exceedances, these exceedances are not expected to result in a public health impact. Overall, noise exceedances during the construction period would not result in significant adverse health impacts. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to neighborhood character. The proposed project would result in a positive effect on the neighborhood character in the primary and secondary study areas with the completion of Phase 1 and full build out of the proposed project. Instead of a vacant hospital complex, the primary and secondary study areas would benefit from a new active, mixed-use academic oriented development, with a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space by 2038. This development would be in keeping with the defining characteristics of the neighborhood character of the primary and secondary study areas. By contrast, in the No Action condition, the vacant hospital complex could detract from the natural setting and open space resources of the study areas, which are defining neighborhood character features. Changes associated with Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project with regard to land use, zoning, and public policy; shadows; socioeconomic conditions; open space; urban design and visual resources; and noise are not expected to adversely affect neighborhood character. With regard to historic and cultural resources, although the demolition of the hospital campus would result in a significant adverse impact to historic resources, it would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. Absent the proposed project, the hospital complex would be vacant, would detract from the physical setting of the project site, and would not contribute positively to neighborhood character in either analysis year. The demolition of the hospital and its replacement with Phase 1 and the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus would have beneficial land use effects on the primary study area. Therefore, demolition of the hospital complex would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. With regard to transportation, the proposed project would increase levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity on Roosevelt Island. While some significant adverse impacts (traffic, bus, and sidewalk) would require mitigation, the increased activity from the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on neighborhood character on Roosevelt Island in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. The combined effect of changes to the defining elements would not create a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. The major physical changes from the proposed project would occur only on the project site, which is physically separated from the secondary study area by the Queensboro Bridge. Within the primary study area, the neighborhood character would benefit from the 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space that would be provided on the project site by 2038, which would support a defining characteristic of the area. While the development on the project site by 2018 and 2038 would noticeably change the character of the area, these changes would not be considered adverse. Instead, Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would add new activity, vibrancy, and vitality that would be compatible with the defining characteristics of the primary and secondary study areas neighborhood character. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The proposed project would result in significant adverse construction impacts related to transportation and noise (i.e., noise impacts on open space). TRANSPORTATION During Phase 1 construction of the proposed project, significant adverse impacts are expected to result for traffic and transit conditions. During Phase 2 construction, significant adverse impacts are expected to result for traffic, transit, and pedestrian conditions. Phase 2 construction is expected to occur in two separate

25

development segments, Phase 2A, which would commence in mid-2024 and continue through 2028, and Phase 2B, which would occur between 2034 and 2037. These findings are summarized below. Traffic The maximum Phase 1 construction activities would result in 397 passenger car equivalents (PCEs) between 6 and 7 AM and 345 PCEs between 3 and 4 PM on weekdays in the fourth quarter of 2015. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the construction peak hours of 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM was conducted at seven key study locations to identify potential traffic impacts during Phase 1 construction. According to these analyses, significant adverse traffic impacts are projected to occur during Phase 1 construction at four of the seven study locations analyzed. Three of these impacted locations could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by NYCDOT while impacts at the one location would be partially mitigated. The mitigation measures would be similar to those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. For Phase 2 construction, the cumulative operational and construction traffic would be of lower magnitudes than what the overall project would generate when completed in 2038. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts during peak Phase 2 construction would be within the envelope of significant adverse traffic impacts identified for the 2038 analysis year in Transportation, and mitigatable and unmitigatable impacts would apply to Phase 2 construction conditions as well. The required mitigation measures for those locations that could be mitigated are expected to be part of those presented for the 2038 full build out of the proposed project. These mitigation measures could be implemented at the discretion of RIOC and/or NYCDOT during construction of Phase 2. Parking With approximately 100 parking spaces expected to be allocated on-site and assuming the use of the available parking at the Motorgate garage, the projected construction worker parking demand during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction is expected to be fully accommodated at one of these parking locations. Cornell has committed to fund the costs of snow removal on the upper deck of the Motorgate garage in the event that construction worker parking requires that the upper deck of the garage be opened during winter months. Transit Transit trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse subway and Q102 bus line-haul impacts during Phase 1 construction. However, because most construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would rely on the Red Bus for travel to/from the project site, during offpeak hours when the Red Bus operates at lower frequencies, there is a potential for a significant adverse line-haul impact on the Red Bus that would warrant an increase in its service during off-peak hours (three additional buses during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours). After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island subway station and bus routes would experience increases in passengers generated by the completed uses. However, during the commuter peak periods, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker trips with those generated by the completion of Phase 1 and/or Phase 2A would be less than the total projected for the operational Phase 2 full build-out condition. As a result, Phase 2 construction efforts would not result in any significant adverse subway impacts. And although Phase 2 construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would also generate additional demand for Red Bus service, the existing Red Bus service is expected to be adequate in fully accommodating construction worker travel between the Motorgate garage and the project site. However, because the Q102 bus route would be significantly impacted by the projected increase in demand from the completed Phase 1 buildings, this impact would also occur during Phase 2 construction. Pedestrians Pedestrian trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts during Phase 1 construction. After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker pedestrian trips
26

with those generated by the completed Phase 1 and Phase 2A buildings during the commuter peak hours may result in similar significant adverse pedestrian impacts as those discussed above, Transportation, and may warrant the earlier implementation of the recommended sidewalk widening. AIR QUALITY No significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected at any sensitive receptor locations due to the on-site construction activities of the proposed project. To ensure that the construction of the proposed project would result in the lowest practicable diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, the project would implement an emissions reduction program for all construction activities, including: diesel equipment reduction; clean fuel; best available tailpipe reduction technologies; utilization of newer equipment; source location; dust control; and idle restriction. The project site is generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses, with the nearest existing residential building located more than 600 feet north of the project site. The nearest sensitive locations are South Point Park, located to the south of the project site, and the waterfront promenades along the east river, located to the east and west of the project site. In addition, construction activities during construction of Phase 2 may occur near the completed Phase 1 project buildings and the associated open spaces. Given the size of the project site and space available, most of the heavy diesel engines, deliveries, and intense activities such as concrete pumping would take place away from South Point Park, the waterfront promenades, and the Phase 1 completed buildings and the associated open space locations to the extent practicable. A detailed analysis of the off-site emissions determined that the CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations would be below their corresponding NAAQS and interim guidance criteria. Therefore, no significant adverse air quality impacts are expected from off-site construction sources. NOISE AND VIBRATION Noise The proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise on open space. Construction on the proposed development sites would include noise control measures as required by the New York City Noise Control Code, including both path and source controls. Even with these measures, the results of detailed construction analyses indicate that the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise, as follows: During construction of Phase 1, the open space areas along Main Street would experience exceedances due to trucks and workers travelling on Main Street to and from the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM); During construction of Phase 2, South Point Park and the waterfront promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site would experience noise levels in the mid to high 70s of dBA for over 24 months. These exceedances would be due to the operation of on-site construction equipment.

Vibration Development pursuant to the proposed actions is not expected to result in significant adverse construction impacts with respect to vibration. Use of construction equipment that would have the most potential to exceed the 65 VdB criterion within a distance of 600 feet of sensitive receptor locations (e.g., equipment used during pile driving) would be perceptible and annoying. Therefore, for limited time periods, perceptible vibration levels may be experienced by occupants and visitors to all of the buildings and locations on and immediately adjacent to the construction sites. However, the operations which would result in these perceptible vibration levels would only occur for finite periods of time at any particular location and,

27

therefore, the resulting vibration levels, while perceptible, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS Historic and Cultural Resources The proposed project would demolish the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Cornell has consulted with OPRHP and LPC regarding appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. These measures would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in an LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. Hazardous Materials Studies of the project site indicate that existing buildings may contain hazardous materials such as ACM and lead-based paint. Soil that would be disturbed by the proposed project includes urban fill materials with elevated concentrations of certain metals and SVOCs. Demolition and excavation activities could disturb these hazardous materials and potentially increase pathways for human or environmental exposure. To reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during the construction of the proposed project, a RAP and an associated CHASP were prepared and submitted to NYCDEP and approved by NYCDEP in a letter dated November 8, 2012. The RAP and CHASP would be implemented during project construction. The RAP addresses requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). In addition, during construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to ACM, lead-based paint, PCBs and chemical use and storage would be followed. With these measures in place, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would occur as a result of the proposed project. Natural Resources Natural resources within and around the project site are highly limited, and construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 are not considered to have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to those resources. Groundwater within the project site is not potable and soil levels of some compounds are elevated; construction of the proposed project would not be expected to have adverse impacts to groundwater quality or result in human or environmental exposure to contaminants. Re-grading and filling of the small area of 500-year floodplain within the project site during Phase 1 and the Phase 2 would not increase local flood risk. No in-water construction activities would occur during Phase 1 or Phase 2, and soil disturbing activities associated with Phase 1 activities would be conducted in accordance with the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. As such, no direct or indirect impacts to water quality, littoral zone tidal wetland, aquatic biota, or other aquatic resources of the East River (including state or federally protected species and Essential Fish Habitat) would occur as a result of Phase 1 or Phase 2 construction. Construction would require the disturbance of ecological communities present on site and the removal of certain trees that are of locally common and abundant species. Wildlife occurring in the area is composed of urban-adapted, disturbance-tolerant generalists that would not be affected by construction noise. Some wildlife would be temporarily displaced from the site during project construction, but would be expected to easily locate temporary alternative habitat nearby and return to the project site upon completion. Threatened or endangered species have low potential to occur within the project site or offshore, and would not be significantly impacted by the minimal and temporary land disturbance that would occur during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction.

28

Open Space Construction of the proposed project would occur in close proximity to South Point Park, an open space resource located immediately south of the Goldwater Hospital site and immediately north of the future Four Freedoms Park site, and the waterfront promenade, a walkway for pedestrians that extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island north of South Point Park. Both open spaces are expected to remain open during the entire construction period, and access to these open spaces would be maintained. Construction activities would be conducted with the care mandated by the close proximity of several open spaces to the proposed project. Dust control measuresincluding watering of exposed areas and dust covers for truckswould be implemented to ensure compliance with the New York City Air Pollution Control Code, which regulates construction-related dust emissions. At limited times over the course of the entire construction period, construction activities such as structural demolition, excavation, and foundations may generate noise that could impair the enjoyment of nearby open space users. Although construction fences around the project site may shield the open spaces from construction activities, as described above in noise, elevated noise levels are predicted to occur for two or more consecutive years at open space receptors immediately adjacent to the project site during Phase 2 construction. In addition, impacts are projected to occur on open spaces along Main Street during Phase 1 construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in significant adverse noise impacts on open spaces. Socioeconomic Conditions Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on socioeconomic conditions. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area or affect the operations of any nearby businesses, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site. Lane closures are not expected to occur in front of entrances to any existing or planned retail businesses, and construction activities would not obstruct major thoroughfares used by customers or businesses. Utility service would be maintained to all businesses. Overall, construction of the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on surrounding businesses. Community Facilities No community facilities are located near the construction site. Construction workers would not place any burden on public schools and would have minimal, if any, demands on libraries, child care facilities, and health care facilities. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site, and would not materially affect emergency response times. New York Police Department (NYPD) and FDNY emergency services and response times would not be materially affected due to the geographic distribution of the police and fire facilities and their respective coverage areas. Land Use and Neighborhood Character Construction activities would affect land use on the project site but would not alter surrounding land uses. As is typical with construction projects, during periods of peak construction activity there would be some disruption, predominantly noise, to the nearby area. There would be construction trucks and construction workers coming to the site. There would also be noise, sometimes intrusive, from construction work as well as trucks and other vehicles backing up, loading, and unloading. These disruptions would have minimal effects on land uses within the study area, particularly as most construction activities would take place within the project site, which is located south of the Queensboro Bridge and not within a Central Business District or along a major thoroughfare, and generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses. Nevertheless, throughout the construction period, measures would be implemented to control noise, vibration, and dust on construction sites, including the erection of construction fencing and in some areas fencing incorporating sound-reducing measures. Construction activity associated with the proposed project would be localized and would not alter the character of the larger neighborhoods surrounding the project site.

29

BARGING ALTERNATIVE TO TRUCK MATERIAL DELIVERIES The EIS analysis of construction-period effects represents a reasonable worst-case construction scenario in which all materials are delivered to and removed from the Cornell NYC Tech project site by truck. However, Cornell is considering alternatives to this truck-based approach and is exploring the feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 1 construction period.8 Two barging techniques are under considerationa Harbor Barge and a Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge. The Harbor Barge could be used for the removal of bulk materials from the project site, such as gravel, soil, and demolition materials, and for the delivery of bulk materials. The Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge could be used for the delivery of materials typically loaded on trucks, such as structural steel; cladding materials; materials for interior work (partition systems; mechanical, electric and plumbing materials; finishes; furniture, fixtures, and equipment [FF&E]); and sitework materials (e.g., planters, pavers, trees, sod, solar panels, among other materials). Additional actions/approvals would be required for use of either barging technique and would include actions from USACE, the U.S. Coast Guard, NYSDEC, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. In addition, use of barges would have to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, through the New York State Department of States Coastal Management Program and approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans (i.e., the Citys Waterfront Revitalization Program). Use of barging (either technique) would require some closure of a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site. Cornell is committed to maintaining access both pedestrian and vehicularto South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park at all times during construction of the proposed project. Use of the Harbor Barge technique would result in an estimated reduction of between 20 and 25 percent of overall trucks trips over the Phase 1 construction period. Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique could result in an estimated reduction of between 25 and 35 percent of overall trucks trips. Therefore, use of either technique would result in a reduction of the average daily truck number and would result in a reduction of the peak number as well. While use of barging would result in a reduction of construction truck traffic on Main Street, it is not expected to materially change the conclusions of the detailed construction traffic or air quality analyses. Use of either barging technique would result in some localized increases in noise levels from barge operations that could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities (i.e., along the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site). For the Harbor Barge, these localized noise increases would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on the Roosevelt Island promenade since this barge technique would be used predominantly in the first year of Phase 1 construction and would not be in use continuously during this time. For the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge, localized increases in noise levels could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities for approximately three years. These localized noise increases may result in significant noise impacts during Phase 1 construction on the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the project site. Neither barging option would be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on natural resources. Neither barging option would result in conclusions different than the truck-based approach in the areas of socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character.

4.

ALTERNATIVES

As mandated by both CEQR and SEQRA, the FEIS examines a No Action Alternative, which describes the conditions that would exist if the proposed actions were not implemented. The second alternative is the No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impact Alternative, which examines alternatives that would avoid
8

The feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 2 construction period would be explored when details on the Phase 2 construction components become more defined.

30

unmitigated significant adverse impacts in the areas of historic and cultural resources, traffic, and construction. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Consideration of the No Action Alternative is intended to provide the lead and involved agencies with an assessment of the expected environmental impacts of no action on their part. The No Action Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented (i.e., none of the discretionary approvals proposed as part of the proposed project would be adopted), and that the Goldwater Hospital complex would be vacant. The significant adverse impacts anticipated for the proposed projectin the areas of historic resources, transportation, and construction-period traffic, transit, pedestrians, and noise on open spacewould not occur with the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with the City of New Yorks Applied Sciences NYC initiative since it would not realize the benefits of bringing a leading academic institution to build a worldclass applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. The No Action Alternative would not achieve the Applied Sciences NYC initiatives overarching goal of maintaining and increasing New York Citys global competitiveness, diversifying the citys economy, driving economic growth, and creating jobs for New Yorkers. This alternative would not provide a new campus for Cornell that will encourage close collaboration between graduate-level academic programs and business and entrepreneurship. NO UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ALTERNATIVE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Preservation of the hospital complex and its reuse for the Cornell NYC Tech project was explored, but was found not to be feasible. Consequently, there is no feasible alternative that would successfully meet the goals and objectives of Cornell University and the City of the New York, while still preserving the existing hospital complex as a way of avoiding the significant impact on this historic architectural resource. TRANSPORTATION To avoid the operational period traffic impacts, development at the site would need to be significantly reduced and would need to be limited to just Phase 1 development. Such limited development would not meet the long-term goals and objectives of the proposed project of building a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City with flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs that would accelerate existing sectors of NYCs economy. CONSTRUCTION For the traffic impacts, there would be one partially mitigated impact in the construction PM peak hour. For noise, no feasible alternative has been identified to avoid the Phase 1 construction noise level exceedances at open spaces along Main Street or to avoid the construction noise level increases at the promenade and South Point Park. Even accounting for the types of measures incorporated into the proposed project to reduce construction noise, any development comparable in scale to the proposed project (i.e., that would involve demolition of the Goldwater Hospital campus, multi-year construction at any one location, and the construction of multi-story buildings) would have the potential to result in unmitigated significant adverse construction noise impacts at these open spaces.

5.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The preceding sections discuss the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project. Such potential impacts were identified in the areas of historic and cultural resources, transportation, and construction. Measures have been examined to minimize or eliminate these anticipated impacts. These mitigation measures are discussed below.

31

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would demolish the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Measures to partially mitigate significant adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in a LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. Mitigation measures include the following: 1. Preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level II documentation of the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would include photographic documentation, historic plans, and an accompanying historical narrative. 2. Cornell has investigated the locations and conditions of the murals that were commissioned for Goldwater Hospital as part of the Federal Art Project (FAP) of the WPA. To date, Cornell has confirmed that four abstraction murals (works by Bolotowsky, Swinden, Rugolo, and Chanase) were installed in Goldwater Hospital, but that three of these have been painted over. Only Ilya Bolotowskys Abstraction has been conserved and is currently visible. Cornell has also investigated four additional murals (works by Goldman, Haupt, and two by Browne) and determined that they are not present in Goldwater Hospital. These murals were identified by the New York City Public Design Commission as having been commissioned, but there is no record of their installation. The investigations, conducted by EverGreene Architectural Arts and meeting the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) standards, did not confirm the presence of these four murals at Goldwater Hospital. a. Cornell would prepare a report on the findings of the investigations. A copy of the report shall be provided to OPRHP and LPC for review and comment. b. Cornell would, in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, develop and implement appropriate measures to remove and restore the four extant WPA murals to the extent practicable. Cornell would then promptly deliver all removed and restored WPA artwork to appropriate repositories, as identified in consultation with OPRHP and LPC. c. In consultation with OPRHP and LPC, Cornell would develop a digital media display about the murals, including information obtained through Cornells investigations of the murals. The digital media display shall be submitted to OPRHP and LPC at the preliminary and pre-final stages for OPRHP and LPC comment. The location and management of the digital exhibit would be established through ongoing consultation with OPRHP and LPC. Cornell would develop and install one or more plaques or historic markers on the new academic campus that would provide information and a photograph describing and illustrating the history of the site, the Goldwater Hospital, and the WPA murals. Design for the interpretive materials shall be submitted to OPRHP and LPC at the preliminary and pre-final stages of development for OPRHP and LPC comment. TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC The overall finding of the traffic mitigation analysis is that all six intersections under the 2018 analysis year and eight of the 11 intersections under the 2038 analysis year that would experience impacts could be fully mitigated with readily implementable traffic improvement measures, including signal timing and phasing changes, new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping. One additional intersection under the 2038 With Action condition could be partially mitigated by adjusting the traffic signal timing. These measures represent some of the standard traffic capacity improvements that are typically implemented by NYCDOT.

32

Phase 1 Impacts at the following locations would be mitigated with the measures outlined: Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. 36th Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM and midday peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Broadway and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. 41st Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during the AM and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. These conditions could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM peak hour and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing and allowing through movements and left turns from the 11-foot wide exclusive left-turn lane on the eastbound approach of Hoyt Avenue South. Full Build Impacts at the following two locations on Roosevelt Island could be mitigated with the measures described here. West Road and Main Street: Impacts would occur during the PM peak hour and could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal. Because installing a single traffic signal would not control all the traffic movements at this triangle-shaped intersection, and it is desirable to eliminate the observed, illegal northbound movements occurring against southbound traffic on the north leg of the triangle, it is recommended to normalize this intersection to eliminate superfluous vehicular turning conflicts and pedestrian conflicts so that the south leg no longer carries vehicular traffic and is pedestrianized. This improvement would allow vehicular and pedestrian movements to occur at the intersection of West Road and Main Street and be under the control of a single new traffic signal. This would also provide unrestricted pedestrian access to the existing triangle from west of Main Street and east of West Road. It should be noted that this would divert existing trips (mainly passenger vehicles) that use the traffic triangle as a U-turn to one block south to the traffic circle at East Road; about 80 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour and about 40 vehicles per hour in the midday and PM peak hours would be diverted in the 2038 full build condition. Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street: Impacts would occur during the AM and the PM peak hour. Both conditions could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal. Impacts at the following location in Queens would be partially mitigated. Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. These impacts could be fully mitigated for the midday peak hour and partially mitigated for the AM and PM peak hours by modifying the traffic signal cycle. Impacts at the following locations in Queens would be unmitigatable. Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. Impacts at the following locations in Queens would be mitigated with the measures identified. 36th Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts were identified at during all peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing and making other modifications (these modifications would include shifts to the centerline and restriping certain approaches).

33

 Broadway and 21st Street: Impacts were identified during all peak hours and could be mitigated by prohibiting parking along certain approaches, shifts to the centerline and restriping certain approaches, and modification to signal timing. 36th Avenue and 31st Street: Impacts would occur during the midday and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. 41st Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during the AM and PM peak hour and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. Overall, the intersection could be mitigated by prohibiting parking, restriping, and shifting the centerline of certain approaches and modifying the signal timing. Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM and PM peak hours. Both conditions could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing and allowing through movements and left turns from the 11-foot-wide exclusive left-turn lane on the eastbound approach of Hoyt Avenue South. Transit The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse subway station or tramway impacts in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. However, it would result in significant adverse impacts to bus linehaul levels for the Q102 bus and the Red Bus as described above. Table S-5 provides comparisons of existing service and the number of buses required to fully mitigate the identified significant adverse linehaul. Mitigation for the full build condition accounts for all buses needed to accommodate the full build projected passenger volumes independent of the Phase 1 mitigation. NYCT and RIOC routinely monitor changes in bus ridership and make the necessary service adjustments where warranted.

Table S-5 Mitigated Future With Action Condition (Capacity Improvement): Bus Line Haul Levels
Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Peak Route Period Existing Mitigation Existing Mitigation AM 4 n/a 3 n/a 2018 Q102 PM 2 3 2 n/a AM 4 6 3 5 2038 Q102 PM 2 7 2 6 AM 8 n/a 8 10 Red 2038 Bus PM 8 9 8 n/a Notes: The Q102 bus route operates standard buses with a guideline capacity of 54 passengers per bus and the Red Bus route operates with a guideline capacity of 55 passengers per bus. Analysis Year

Pedestrians For 2018, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on pedestrian operations. Under the full build condition, the proposed project would result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts at the following locations on West Road and West Main Street: West Road: The east sidewalk between West Main Street and the subway station. The significant adverse impacts at this sidewalk would be fully mitigated by widening its existing width of 6.4 feet to 8.9 feet, thereby increasing its effective width from 2.7 feet to 5.2 feet. West Main Street: The east sidewalk between the Tram Station West bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge. The significant adverse impacts at this sidewalk would be fully mitigated by widening its existing width of 6.4 feet to 8.0 feet, thereby increasing its effective width from 3.6 feet to 5.2 feet. These mitigation measures have been determined to be feasible.

34

Mitigation Implementation Subject to approvals of the relevant agencies, including NYCDOT, RIOC, and NYCT, the recommended mitigation measures would be implemented to mitigate the projected significant adverse transportation impacts at the completion of the projects Phase 1-2018 and Full Build-2038 conditions. Between Phase 12018 and Full Build-2038 conditions, Cornell will coordinate the implementation schedule for traffic mitigation measures shown above for 2038 conditions with RIOC and NYCDOT. CONSTRUCTION The proposed project would result in significant adverse construction impacts related to transportation and noise (i.e., construction noise impacts on open space). TRAFFIC Four intersections (of the seven analyzed) would experience significant adverse traffic impacts during Phase 1 construction. Impacts at three of the four intersections could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by NYCDOT. Significant impacts at one location could only be partially mitigated. These measures would also be consistent with those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. For Phase 2 construction, the cumulative operational and construction traffic would be of lower magnitudes than what the overall project would generate when completed in 2038. Therefore, potential traffic impacts during peak Phase 2 construction would be within the envelope of significant adverse traffic impacts identified for the full build condition in Transportation, and mitigatable and unmitigatable impacts identified above would apply to Phase 2 construction conditions as well. The required mitigation measures for those locations that could be mitigated are expected to be part of those presented for the full build-out of the proposed project. These mitigation measures could be implemented at the discretion of NYCDOT during construction of Phase 2. TRANSIT During construction of Phase 1, because most construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would rely on the Red Bus for travel to/from the project site, during off-peak hours when the Red Bus operates at comparatively lower frequencies, there is a potential for a line-haul impact on the Red Bus that would warrant an increase in its service during off-peak hours (i.e., three additional buses during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours). Cornell has committed to fund the operating costs associated with providing additional Red Bus service if project activity adversely impacts the Red Bus service during the construction period. A significant adverse impact has been identified for the Q102 bus route due to the projected increase in demand from the completed buildings, and this impact would continue during the Phase 2 construction period. Mitigation measures identified above for the operational impact would be proposed to mitigate the construction-period impact. PEDESTRIANS Pedestrian trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts during Phase 1 construction. After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker pedestrian trips with those generated by the completed Phase 1 and Phase 2A buildings during the commuter peak hours may result in similar significant adverse pedestrian impacts as those discussed above, and may warrant the earlier implementation of the recommended sidewalk widening described above. NOISE IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE No practical and feasible mitigation measures have been identified that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline within the impacted open space areas (i.e., the open spaces

35

along Main Street, the waterfront promenade, or South Point Park), and this impact is considered unavoidable.

6.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

As described above, a number of the potential impacts identified for the proposed actions could be mitigated. However, in some cases, impacts from the proposed actions would not be fully mitigated. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. An alternatives analysis prepared in consideration of the potential to retain and reuse all or portions of the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the Cornell NYC Tech project concluded that it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project, Cornell University, and the City of the New York while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex. Consequently, there is no feasible alternative that would avoid a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. In a letter dated September 19, 2012 commenting on the alternatives analysis, OPRHP concluded that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives at this time to demolition of these historic buildings. LPC concurred with OPRHPs comments in a letter dated September 25, 2012. Therefore, because it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex, measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in an LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC The proposed project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at locations within the traffic study area. All of the locations that would be significantly impacted under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition and most of the locations that would be significantly impacted under the Full Build 2038 With Action condition could be mitigated using standard traffic improvements, such as signal timing and phasing changes, installation of new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping. In the 2038 analysis year, two of the 14 study locations would experience unmitigatable impacts. The intersections of Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street and Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street would experience unmitigatable impacts during the AM, midday and PM peak hours. In addition, the intersection of 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge and Vernon Boulevard would only be partially mitigatable during the AM and PM peak hours. CONSTRUCTION TRANSPORTATION During construction, one of the seven study locations would experience partially mitigatable impacts in the PM peak hour. During the PM construction peak hour, 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge and Vernon Boulevard would experience partially mitigatable impacts. NOISE IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE There are no practical and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline within any of the open space areas (i.e., the open spaces along Main Street, the waterfront promenade, or South Point Park). Noise levels in these spaces would exceed the 55 dBA L10(1) noise level recommended for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet by the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual noise exposure guidelines. However, while the

36

55 dBA L10(1) guideline is a worthwhile goal for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet, due to the level of activity present at most New York City open space areas and parks (except for areas far away from traffic and other typical urban activities) this relatively low noise level is often not achieved. For example, existing noise levels at the waterfront promenade and South Point Park are already above the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline due to noise from vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge and on the FDR Drive. To achieve noise levels that would meet the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline, measures would need to be implemented to control noise from the Queensboro Bridge; the implementation of barriers on the bridge would not be possible because of the bridges landmarked status.

7.

GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

The proposed project would be limited to the project site, which would be developed with a new applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island; the new campus would include academic space, corporate co-location space, an Executive Education Center, and residential uses. A small amount of campus-oriented retail space would also be included, and new open space on the site would also be provided. These new uses would replace the vacant Goldwater Hospital complex, and are expected to contribute to growth in the city and state economies consistent with the overarching goal for the Applied Sciences NYC initiative, which is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. The new uses are not expected to induce substantial additional growth within any specific neighborhood outside of the project site, although the proposed project would introduce residents that would be expected to support existing local retail uses on Roosevelt Island. In addition, the proposed project would not include the introduction or expansion of infrastructure capacity that would result in indirect development; all proposed infrastructure improvements would be made to support development of the project site itself. The upgraded gas line to Roosevelt Island, which would be undertaken by Con Edison in support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, would also not result in indirect development; instead, it would allow existing development on Roosevelt Island to change from electric heat to gas heat. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to induce significant new growth in the surrounding area.

8.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Resources would be expended in the construction and operation of the proposed project. These resources include the materials used in construction; energy in the form of fuel and electricity consumed during construction and operation of the Cornell NYC Tech project; and the human effort required to develop, construct, and operate various components of the project. The resources are considered irretrievably committed because their reuse for some purpose other than the proposed project would be highly unlikely. The proposed project constitutes an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the project site as a land resource, thereby rendering land use for other purposes infeasible, at least in the near term. These commitments of land resources and materials are weighed against the benefits of the proposed project. The proposed project is a key component of the citys Applied Sciences NYC initiative, the overarching goal of which is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. To achieve this goal, the proposed project would transform the project site into a new engineering and applied sciences campus that would contain new academic space, corporate co-location space, an Executive Education Center, and residential uses. A small amount of campus-oriented retail space would also be included, and new open space on the site would be provided.

9.

NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW

This Notice of Completion for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cornell NYC Tech Project has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law.

37

10.

CONTACT OFFICE

Requests for copies of this FEIS should be forwarded to the contact office, Mayors Office of Environmental Coordination, 100 Gold Street 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10038, or by email to rkulikowski@cityhall.nyc.gov. The FEIS is also available on the New York City Mayors Office of Environmental Coordination website: http://www.nyc.gov/oec

Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D. Assistant to the Mayor

March 8, 2013 Date

38

Cornell NYC Tech

Final Environmental Impact Statement
CEQR No.:

12DME004M
ULURP Nos.:

130076ZMM N130077ZRM 130078PPM

Ofce of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D. Cornell University New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services New York City Economic Development Corporation AKRF, Inc. Philip Habib & Associates VHB

Lead Agency:

Lead Agency Contact:

Project Applicants:

Prepared by:

March 2013

Cornell NYC Tech FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)

Project Location:

Community District 8 Roosevelt Island Borough of Manhattan 12DME004M Type I 130076ZMM N130077ZRM 130078PPM

CEQR No. Type of Action: ULURP Nos.

Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact: Project Applicants:

Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D. Cornell University New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services New York City Economic Development Corporation AKRF, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Philip Habib & Associates 102 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 VHB Two Penn Plaza, Suite 2602 New York, NY 10121

Preparers:

Acceptance Date:

March 8, 2013

Another version of the FEIS that shows changes to the document made between publication of the Draft and Final EISs using double underlines and strikethroughs is available for review on the website of the Mayors Office of Environmental Coordination. http://www.nyc.gov/oec

Table of Contents

Foreword....................................................................................................................................F-1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. S-1 1: Project Description ............................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 B. Applied Sciences NYC Initiative and Purpose and Need for the Cornell NYC Tech Project ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 C. Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 1-3 D. Cornell NYC Tech Project Planning ............................................................................... 1-4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-4 Campus Framework ........................................................................................................... 1-4 E. Proposed Actions ............................................................................................................ 1-5 F. Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario ............................................................. 1-7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................... 1-9 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) .............................................................................................. 1-10 Sustainability Measures.................................................................................................... 1-11 Proposed Programming and Population ........................................................................... 1-12 G. Analysis Framework ..................................................................................................... 1-12 Analysis Approach ........................................................................................................... 1-12 Environmental Review Process ........................................................................................ 1-14 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy .................................................................................. 2-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 B. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 2-1 C. Background and Development History ........................................................................... 2-2 Roosevelt Island ................................................................................................................. 2-2 Project Site ......................................................................................................................... 2-3 D. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2-4 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 2-4 Zoning ................................................................................................................................ 2-6 Public Policy ...................................................................................................................... 2-7 E. Future Without the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 2-8 2018 Analysis Year ............................................................................................................ 2-8 2038 Analysis Year ............................................................................................................ 2-9 F. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project..................................................................... 2-10 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) .......................................................................................... 2-10 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) ...................................................................................... 2-21 G. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 2-30 TOC-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

3: Socioeconomic Conditions .................................................................................................... 3-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 B. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 3-1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Determining Whether A Socioeconomic Assessment Is Appropriate ................................ 3-2 Study Area Definition ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 3-3 C. Preliminary Assessment .................................................................................................. 3-4 Direct Residential Displacement ........................................................................................ 3-4 Direct Business Displacement ............................................................................................ 3-4 Indirect Residential Displacement ...................................................................................... 3-4 Indirect Business Displacement .......................................................................................... 3-7 Adverse Impacts On Specific Industries ............................................................................. 3-9 D. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 3-9 Direct Residential Displacement ........................................................................................ 3-9 Direct Business Displacement ............................................................................................ 3-9 Indirect Residential Displacement ...................................................................................... 3-9 Indirect Business Displacement ........................................................................................ 3-10 Adverse Effects On Specific Industries ............................................................................ 3-10 4: Community Facilities and Services ..................................................................................... 4-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 B. Preliminary Screening .....................................................................................................4-1 Direct Effects ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 Indirect Effects.................................................................................................................... 4-2 C. Indirect Effects On Public Elementary and Intermediate Schools .................................. 4-5 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4-5 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 4-6 Future Without the Proposed Project (2038 Analysis Year) .............................................. 4-7 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project (2038 Full Build) ............................................. 4-8 Alternative Schools Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-10 D. Indirect Effects On Public Libraries .............................................................................. 4-10 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 4-10 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................4-11 Future Without the Proposed Project (2038 Analysis Year) ............................................ 4-12 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project (2038 Full Build) ........................................... 4-12 E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 4-14 Indirect Effects On Public Schools ................................................................................... 4-14 Indirect Effects On Libraries ............................................................................................ 4-15 5: Open Space ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 B. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 5-1 Study Areas......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Open Space User Populations ............................................................................................. 5-2 Inventory of Open Space Resources ................................................................................... 5-2 Adequacy of Open Space Resources .................................................................................. 5-2 C. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5-3 TOC-2

Table of Contents

Open Space User Population .............................................................................................. 5-3 Open Space Inventory ........................................................................................................ 5-3 Adequacy of Open Spaces.................................................................................................. 5-5 D. Future Without the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 5-6 2018 Analysis Year ............................................................................................................ 5-6 2038 Analysis Year ............................................................................................................ 5-7 E. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project....................................................................... 5-7 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) ............................................................................................ 5-8 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) ...................................................................................... 5-10 F. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 5-13 6: Shadows ................................................................................................................................. 6-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 B. Definitions and Methodology ......................................................................................... 6-1 Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 6-1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 6-2 Analysis Framework .......................................................................................................... 6-3 Determining Impact Significance ....................................................................................... 6-3 C. Preliminary Screening Assessment ................................................................................. 6-3 Tier 1 Screening Assessment ............................................................................................. 6-4 Tier 2 Screening Assessment ............................................................................................. 6-4 Tier 3 Screening Assessment ............................................................................................. 6-4 Resources of Concern......................................................................................................... 6-6 D. Detailed Shadow Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-6 Phase 1 (2018) .................................................................................................................... 6-7 Phase 2 (2038) .................................................................................................................. 6-11 E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 6-14 PromenadeWest Side.................................................................................................... 6-14 PromenadeEast Side ..................................................................................................... 6-15 Sportspark Outdoor Basketball Court .............................................................................. 6-16 South Point Park ............................................................................................................... 6-16 Firefighter Field................................................................................................................ 6-17 Sutton Place Park ............................................................................................................. 6-17 East River ......................................................................................................................... 6-17 7: Historic Resources .................................................................................................................7-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7-1 B. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 7-1 Archaeological Resources .................................................................................................. 7-1 Architectural Resources ..................................................................................................... 7-2 C. Background History ........................................................................................................ 7-4 D. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 7-6 Project Site and Rezoning Area.......................................................................................... 7-6 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 7-8 E. Future Without the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 7-9 2018 Analysis Year ............................................................................................................ 7-9 2038 Analysis Year .......................................................................................................... 7-10 F. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project..................................................................... 7-10 TOC-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1)........................................................................................... 7-10 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build)....................................................................................... 7-15 G. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 7-18 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources ................................................................................... 8-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8-1 B. Preliminary Assessment .................................................................................................. 8-1 C. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 8-2 D. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 8-3 Project Site and Rezoning Area .......................................................................................... 8-3 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 8-5 E. Future Without the Proposed Project............................................................................. 8-10 2018 Analysis Year........................................................................................................... 8-10 2038 Analysis Year........................................................................................................... 8-10 F. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project ..................................................................... 8-11 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1)........................................................................................... 8-12 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build)....................................................................................... 8-16 G. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 8-19 9: Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 9-1 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9-1 B. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 9-1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 9-1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 9-2 Future Without the Proposed Project (2018 and 2038) ...................................................... 9-2 Future With the Proposed Project ....................................................................................... 9-2 C. Regulatory Context .......................................................................................................... 9-4 Federal ................................................................................................................................ 9-4 State .................................................................................................................................... 9-4 Local Regulations ............................................................................................................... 9-5 D. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 9-5 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 9-5 Aquatic Biota ...................................................................................................................... 9-6 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 9-7 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 9-8 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 9-8 Terrestrial Ecological Communities and Vegetation .......................................................... 9-8 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 9-11 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species and Significant Habitat Areas ... 9-14 E. Future Without the Proposed Project............................................................................. 9-14 2018 Analysis Year........................................................................................................... 9-14 2038 Analysis Year........................................................................................................... 9-16 F. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project ..................................................................... 9-17 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1)........................................................................................... 9-17 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build)....................................................................................... 9-20 G. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 9-22 H. References ..................................................................................................................... 9-24

TOC-4

Table of Contents

10: Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................ 10-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10-1 B. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 10-1 Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................... 10-1 Hazardous Materials Assessment ..................................................................................... 10-2 C. The Future Without the Proposed Project ..................................................................... 10-4 D. The Future With the Proposed Project .......................................................................... 10-4 E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 10-5 11: Water and Sewer Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 11-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11-1 B. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 11-1 C. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 11-2 Sanitary Sewage ............................................................................................................... 11-2 Stormwater ....................................................................................................................... 11-3 D. Future Without the Proposed Project ............................................................................ 11-4 E. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project..................................................................... 11-4 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) .......................................................................................... 11-4 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) ...................................................................................... 11-7 F. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 11-9 12: Solid Waste and Sanitation Services ............................................................................... 12-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 12-1 B. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 12-1 C. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 12-1 Description of Current Sanitation Services ...................................................................... 12-1 Quantitative Analysis of Solid Waste Generation ............................................................ 12-3 D. Future Without the Proposed Project ............................................................................ 12-3 2018 Analysis Year .......................................................................................................... 12-3 2038 Analysis Year .......................................................................................................... 12-3 E. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project..................................................................... 12-3 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) .......................................................................................... 12-3 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) ...................................................................................... 12-5 F. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 12-6 13: Energy ................................................................................................................................ 13-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13-1 B. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 13-1 C. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 13-2 Energy Provider................................................................................................................ 13-2 Recent Energy Conservation Directives........................................................................... 13-2 Distributed Generation and PlaNYC 2030 ....................................................................... 13-3 Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 13-3 D. Future Without the Proposed Project ............................................................................ 13-3 E. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project..................................................................... 13-3 2018 Analysis Year (Phase I) ........................................................................................... 13-4 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) ...................................................................................... 13-4 Cornell NYC Tech Energy Conservation Measures ........................................................ 13-5

TOC-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

F.

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 13-6

14: Transportation .................................................................................................................. 14-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 14-1 B. CEQR Screening Assessment ........................................................................................ 14-1 Level 1 Screening Assessment ......................................................................................... 14-2 Level 2 Screening Assessment ......................................................................................... 14-5 C. Transportation Analyses Methodology........................................................................ 14-15 Traffic Operations ........................................................................................................... 14-15 Transit Operations .......................................................................................................... 14-17 Pedestrian Operations ..................................................................................................... 14-19 Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety Evaluation ................................................................... 14-20 Parking Conditions Assessment ..................................................................................... 14-21 D. Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 14-21 2011 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 14-21 2018 No Action Condition.............................................................................................. 14-27 2018 With Action Condition .......................................................................................... 14-34 2038 No Action Condition.............................................................................................. 14-43 2038 With Action Condition .......................................................................................... 14-51 E. Transit .......................................................................................................................... 14-58 Transit Study Areas ........................................................................................................ 14-58 2011 Existing ConditionsSubway Station Operations ................................................ 14-59 2011 Existing ConditionsBus Line-Haul Operations ................................................. 14-61 2011 Existing ConditionsTram Line-Haul Operations ............................................... 14-61 2018 No Action ConditionSubway Station Operations .............................................. 14-62 2018 No Action ConditionBus Line-Haul Levels ...................................................... 14-63 2018 No Action ConditionTram Line-Haul Operations ............................................. 14-63 2018 With Action Condition Subway Station Operations .......................................... 14-63 2018 With Action ConditionBus Line-Haul Levels ................................................... 14-66 2018 With Action ConditionTramway Line-Haul Levels .......................................... 14-66 2038 No Action ConditionSubway Station Operations .............................................. 14-67 2038 No Action ConditionBus Line-Haul Levels ...................................................... 14-69 2038 No Action ConditionTram Line-Haul Levels .................................................... 14-69 2038 With Action ConditionSubway Station Operations ........................................... 14-69 2038 With Action ConditionBus Line-Haul Levels ................................................... 14-72 2038 With Action ConditionTram Line-Haul Levels ................................................. 14-73 F. Pedestrians ................................................................................................................... 14-73 2011 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 14-73 2018 No Action Condition.............................................................................................. 14-73 2018 With Action Condition .......................................................................................... 14-75 2038 No Action Condition.............................................................................................. 14-75 2038 With Action Condition .......................................................................................... 14-75 G. Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety .................................................................................. 14-80 H. Parking ......................................................................................................................... 14-81 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 14-81 2018 No Action Condition.............................................................................................. 14-82 2018 With Action Condition .......................................................................................... 14-83 2038 No Action Condition.............................................................................................. 14-83 TOC-6

Table of Contents

I.

2038 With Action Condition .......................................................................................... 14-84 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 14-86 Traffic ............................................................................................................................. 14-86 Transit ............................................................................................................................ 14-87 Pedestrians...................................................................................................................... 14-87 Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety..................................................................................... 14-87 Parking ........................................................................................................................... 14-87

15: Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 15-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15-1 B. Pollutants for Analysis .................................................................................................. 15-1 Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................................. 15-2 Nitrogen Oxides, VOCs, and Ozone ................................................................................ 15-2 Lead .................................................................................................................................. 15-3 Respirable Particulate MatterPM10 and PM2.5 .............................................................. 15-3 Sulfur Dioxide .................................................................................................................. 15-4 C. Air Quality Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks .................................................. 15-4 National and State Air Quality Standards ........................................................................ 15-4 NAAQS Attainment Status and State Implementation Plans ........................................... 15-6 Determining the Significance of Air Quality Impacts ...................................................... 15-7 D. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 15-9 Mobile Sources ................................................................................................................. 15-9 Stationary Sources .......................................................................................................... 15-14 E. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 15-20 Modeled CO Concentrations for Existing Traffic Conditions ....................................... 15-21 F. The Future Without the Proposed Project ................................................................... 15-22 2018 Analysis Year ........................................................................................................ 15-22 2038 Analysis Year ........................................................................................................ 15-23 G. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project................................................................... 15-24 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) ........................................................................................ 15-24 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) .................................................................................... 15-28 H. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 15-34 Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................... 15-34 Stationary Sources .......................................................................................................... 15-34 16: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ......................................................................... 16-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16-1 B. Policy, Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks for Reducing GHG Emissions ........ 16-1 C. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 16-2 Pollutants of Concern ....................................................................................................... 16-3 Building Operational Emissions....................................................................................... 16-4 Mobile Source Emissions ................................................................................................. 16-5 Construction Emissions .................................................................................................... 16-5 Emissions from Solid Waste Management ...................................................................... 16-5 D. Projected GHG Emissions from the Proposed Project .................................................. 16-6 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) .......................................................................................... 16-6 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) ...................................................................................... 16-6 E. Elements of the Proposed Project That Would Reduce GHG Emissions ..................... 16-7 TOC-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Build Efficient Buildings .................................................................................................. 16-7 Use Clean Power............................................................................................................... 16-8 Enhance and Use Transit Oriented Development and Sustainable Transportation .......... 16-9 Reduce Construction Operation Emissions ...................................................................... 16-9 Use Building Materials With Low Carbon Intensity ...................................................... 16-10 F. Adaptation to Climate Change .................................................................................... 16-10 Resilience to Climate Change ......................................................................................... 16-11 G. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 16-12 17: Noise ................................................................................................................................... 17-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17-1 B. Acoustical Fundamentals ............................................................................................... 17-1 A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)................................................................................... 17-1 Community Response to Changes in Noise Levels .......................................................... 17-2 Sound Level Descriptors................................................................................................... 17-3 C. Noise Standards and Criteria ......................................................................................... 17-3 New York City Department of Environmental Protection ............................................... 17-3 New York CEQR Noise Criteria ...................................................................................... 17-3 Impact Definition .............................................................................................................. 17-5 D. Noise Prediction Methodology ...................................................................................... 17-5 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 17-5 Baseline Noise Monitoring (Existing Conditions)............................................................ 17-5 Determination of Future Noise Levels.............................................................................. 17-7 Determination of Building Attenuation Requirements ..................................................... 17-8 Determination of Noise Levels in Project Created Open Spaces ..................................... 17-9 Mechanical Equipment ..................................................................................................... 17-9 E. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................17-9 F. Future Without the Proposed Project........................................................................... 17-10 2018 Analysis Year......................................................................................................... 17-10 2038 Analysis Year......................................................................................................... 17-11 G. The Future With the Proposed Project......................................................................... 17-12 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1)......................................................................................... 17-12 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build)..................................................................................... 17-13 H. Building Attenuation for Project Buildings ................................................................. 17-14 I. Noise Levels At Open Space Areas ............................................................................. 17-15 J. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 17-16 18: Public Health ..................................................................................................................... 18-1 19: Neighborhood Character .................................................................................................. 19-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 19-1 B. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 19-1 Neighborhood Character Components.............................................................................. 19-2 Study Areas....................................................................................................................... 19-2 Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................... 19-2 C. Preliminary Assessment ................................................................................................ 19-2 Defining Features.............................................................................................................. 19-2 Potential to Affect the Defining Features of the Neighborhood ....................................... 19-4

TOC-8

Table of Contents

D. Detailed Assessment ..................................................................................................... 19-5 Future Without the Proposed Project ............................................................................... 19-5 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project ........................................................................ 19-6 E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 19-11 20: Construction ...................................................................................................................... 20-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 20-1 B. Governmental Coordination and Oversight .................................................................. 20-2 C. Construction Phasing and Schedule .............................................................................. 20-3 D. Construction Description .............................................................................................. 20-4 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 20-4 General Construction Practices ........................................................................................ 20-5 General Construction Tasks ............................................................................................. 20-7 E. Number of Construction Workers and Material Deliveries ........................................ 20-12 F. Environmental Effects of Project Construction Activities .......................................... 20-12 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 20-13 Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 20-30 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 20-35 Other Technical Areas .................................................................................................... 20-44 G. Barging ........................................................................................................................ 20-48 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20-48 Description ..................................................................................................................... 20-48 Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 20-51 H. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 20-55 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 20-55 Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 20-57 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 20-57 Other Technical Areas .................................................................................................... 20-58 Barging ........................................................................................................................... 20-60 21: Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 21-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 21-1 B. Applied Sciences NYC ................................................................................................. 21-1 C. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 21-2 Description ....................................................................................................................... 21-2 No Action Alternative Compared With the Proposed Actions ........................................ 21-2 D. No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impact Alternative ............................................. 21-7 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 21-7 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 21-7 Construction ..................................................................................................................... 21-8 E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 21-9 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 21-9 No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impact Alternative ................................................ 21-9 22: Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 22-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 22-1 B. Historic and Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 22-1 C. Transportation ............................................................................................................... 22-1

TOC-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Traffic ............................................................................................................................... 22-1 Transit ............................................................................................................................. 22-33 Pedestrians ...................................................................................................................... 22-34 Effects of Traffic Mitigations On Pedestrian Operations ............................................... 22-35 Mitigation Implementation ............................................................................................. 22-36 D. Construction ................................................................................................................ 22-36 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 22-36 Noise Impacts On Open Space ....................................................................................... 22-37 23: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ......................................................................................... 23-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 23-1 B. Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 23-1 C. Transportation................................................................................................................ 23-2 Traffic ............................................................................................................................... 23-2 D. Construction .................................................................................................................. 23-3 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 23-3 Noise Impacts On Open Space ......................................................................................... 23-3 24: Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Actions ....................................................... 24-1 25: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .......................................... 25-1 26: Response to Comments .....................................................................................................26-1

Appendices1
Appendix 1: Special Southern Roosevelt Island District Zoning Text Appendix 2: Consistency Assessment Form Appendix 7: Historic and Cultural Resources Appendix 9: Natural Resources Appendix 10: Hazardous Materials Appendix 11: Water and Sewer Infrastructure Appendix 20: Construction Appendix 26: Written Comments Received on the DEIS

Appendices are numbered to correspond with the first chapter in which they are referenced.

TOC-10

List of Tables
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 1-1 1-2 1-3 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 5-1 5-2 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Program for CEQR ........................................... S-6 Cornell NYC Tech Population ..................................................................................... S-10 Cornell NYC Tech On-Campus Residential Population.............................................. S-11 With Action Condition: Open Space Ratios Summary ................................................ S-16 Mitigation Future With Action Condition: Bus Line Haul Levels .............................. S-41 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Program for CEQR ........................................... 1-8 Cornell NYC Tech Population ..................................................................................... 1-13 Cornell NYC Tech On-Campus Residential Population.............................................. 1-13 Residential Development on Roosevelt Island .............................................................. 2-5 2018 RWCDS Program ............................................................................................... 2-11 2038 RWCDS Program (Full Build Out)..................................................................... 2-21 Average Household Income (1999, 2006-2010) ............................................................ 3-5 Preliminary Screening Analysis Criteria ....................................................................... 4-2 Public Schools Serving the Project Sites, Enrollment and Capacity Data, 2011-2012 School Year ................................................................................................. 4-6 Estimated Number of Students Introduced By Development in the 2038 No-Action Condition ..................................................................................................... 4-7 Estimated Public Elementary and Intermediate School Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization: 2038 No-Action Condition................................................................... 4-8 Estimated Number of Students Introduced in the Study Area: 2038 With Action Condition................................................................................................... 4-8 Estimated Public Elementary and Intermediate School Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization: 2038 With Action Condition ................................................................ 4-9 Estimated Public Elementary and Intermediate School Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization: 2038 With Action Condition, Using the Alternative Methodology ... 4-10 Public Library Serving the Project Site ....................................................................... 4-12 Catchment Area Population in the 2038 No-Action Condition ................................... 4-12 Catchment Area Population in the 2038 With Action Condition ................................ 4-13 Roosevelt Island Open Space Inventory ........................................................................ 5-4 Adequacy of Existing Open Space Resources ............................................................... 5-5 TOC-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 6-1 6-2 9-1 9-2 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 12-1 12-2 13-1 13-2 14-1 14-2 14-3 14-4 14-5 14-6 14-7 14-8 14-9

2018 No-Action Condition: Adequacy of Open Space Resources ................................. 5-7 2018 With-Action Condition: Adequacy of Open Space Resources .............................. 5-9 2038 With-Action Condition: Adequacy of Open Space Resources ............................ 5-11 With-Action Condition: Open Space Ratios Summary ................................................ 5-13 Incremental Shadow DurationsPhase 1 (2018) .......................................................... 6-8 Incremental Shadow DurationsPhase 2 (2038) ........................................................ 6-12 Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area ........................................................... 9-10 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Atlas Results for Block 5851c ............................................ 9-12 Existing Water Consumption Goldwater Hospital ....................................................... 11-3 Project Site Surface Coverage: Existing Conditions .................................................... 11-4 Projected Water Consumption: 2018 ........................................................................... 11-5 NYCDEP Volume Calculation MatrixExisting, No Action and With Action (Phase 1) Volume Comparison .................................................................................... 11-6 Projected Water Consumption: 2038 ........................................................................... 11-7 NYCDEP Volume Calculation MatrixExisting, No Action and With Action (Full Build) Volume Comparison 11-8

Solid Waste Generation of Phase 1 of the Proposed Project ........................................ 12-4 Solid Waste Generation of the Full Build Out of the Proposed Project ....................... 12-6 Annual Energy Consumption, Phase 1 (2018) ............................................................. 13-4 Annual Energy Consumption, Full Build (2038) ......................................................... 13-4 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Program (gsf) ................................... 14-2 Projected Academic Population Residents ................................................................... 14-3 Travel Demand Assumptions ....................................................................................... 14-6 Weekday Trip Generation SummaryPhase 1 (2018) ................................................ 14-8 Weekday Trip Generation SummaryFull Build (2038) .......................................... 14-10 Subway Line Haul Screening Analysis ...................................................................... 14-13 Sidewalk Capacity Analysis Locations ...................................................................... 14-15 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections .................................................................. 14-15 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections .............................................................. 14-16

14-10 LOS Criteria for Subway Station Elements ............................................................... 14-17 14-11 Significant Impact Guidance for Stairs and Passageways .......................................... 14-18 14-12 LOS Criteria for Sidewalks ........................................................................................ 14-19 14-13 Significant Impact Guidance for Sidewalks ............................................................... 14-20

TOC-12

List of Tables

14-14a 2011 Existing Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections ................ 14-23 14-14b 2011 Existing Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements .................. 14-24 14-15 2011 Existing Conditions Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections..... 14-24 14-16 2011 Existing Conditions Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections ................................................................................................................................... 14-26 14-17 2018 Analysis Year No Action Projects .................................................................... 14-28 14-18a 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections ............ 14-30 14-18b 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements ............... 14-30 14-19 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections ............ 14-31 14-20 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections ........ 14-33 14-21a 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections ......... 14-38 14-21b 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements ............ 14-38 14-22 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections ......... 14-39 14-23 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections ..... 14-41 14-24 Phase 2 (2038) No Action Projects ............................................................................ 14-44 14-25a 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections ............ 14-46 14-25b 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements ............... 14-46 14-26 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections ............ 14-46 14-27 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections ........ 14-49 14-28a 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections ......... 14-52 14-28b 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements ............ 14-52 14-29 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections ......... 14-53 14-30 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections ..... 14-55 14-31 Local Bus Routes Serving the Study Area ................................................................. 14-59 14-32 2011 Existing Conditions Subway Control Area Analysis ........................................ 14-59 14-33 2011 Existing Conditions Subway Escalator Analysis .............................................. 14-60 14-34 2011 Existing Conditions Subway Stairway Analysis ............................................... 14-60 14-35 2011 Existing Bus Line-Haul Analysis...................................................................... 14-61 14-36 2011 Existing Tram Line-Haul Analysis ................................................................... 14-61 14-37 2018 No Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis ...................................... 14-62 14-38 2018 No Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis ............................................ 14-62 14-39 2018 No Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis ............................................. 14-63 14-40 2018 No Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis .................................................................. 14-64

TOC-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

14-41 2018 No Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis ............................................... 14-64 14-42 2018 With Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis ................................... 14-65 14-43 2018 With Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis ......................................... 14-65 14-44 2018 With Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis .......................................... 14-66 14-45 2018 With Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis ............................................................... 14-67 14-46 2018 With Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis ............................................ 14-67 14-47 2038 No Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis ...................................... 14-68 14-48 2038 No Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis............................................. 14-68 14-49 2038 No Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis ............................................. 14-69 14-50 2038 No Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis................................................................... 14-70 14-51 2038 No Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis ............................................... 14-70 14-52 2038 With Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis ................................... 14-70 14-53 2038 With Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis ......................................... 14-71 14-54 2038 With Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis .......................................... 14-71 14-55 2038 With Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis ............................................................... 14-72 14-56 2038 With Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis ............................................ 14-73 14-57 2011 Existing Conditions Sidewalk Analysis ............................................................ 14-74 14-58 2018 No Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis .......................................................... 14-76 14-59 2018 With Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis ....................................................... 14-77 14-60 2038 No Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis .......................................................... 14-78 14-61 2038 With Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis ....................................................... 14-79 14-62 Accident Summary ..................................................................................................... 14-81 14-63 2011 Existing Weekday Parking Inventory and Utilization ....................................... 14-82 14-64 2018 No Action Weekday Parking Inventory and Utilization (Projected) ................. 14-82 14-65 Phase 12018 Parking Accumulation Table ............................................................ 14-83 14-66 2038 No Action Weekday Parking Inventory and Utilization (Projected) ................. 14-84 14-67 Phase 22038 Parking Accumulation Table ............................................................ 14-85 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 15-6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) .................................................... 15-5 Mobile Source Analysis Sites .................................................................................... 15-12 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Potential CHP Plants ............................... 15-16 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Potential Boiler Systems in Phase 1 ........ 15-16 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Potential Boiler Systems in Phase 2 ........ 15-17 Sensitive Receptor Sites ............................................................................................. 15-20 TOC-14

List of Tables

15-7 15-8 15-9

Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data ............................................... 15-21 Modeled Existing (2011) 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations (ppm) ...................... 15-21 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations Without the Proposed Project (ppm) ............................................................................................. 15-21

15-10 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations Without the Proposed Project ( g/m3) ........................................................................................... 15-21 15-11 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations Without the Proposed Project (ppm) ............................................................................................. 15-23 15-12 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations Without the Proposed Project ( g/m3) ........................................................................................... 15-23 15-13 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations With and Without the Proposed Project (ppm).......................................................................... 15-24 15-14 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations With and Without the Proposed Project (g/m3) ....................................................................... 15-24 15-15 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Increments (g/m3) ..... 15-25 15-16 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted Annual Average PM2.5 Increments (g/m3) ...... 15-25 15-17 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 CHP Plant (in g/m3).................................................................................... 15-26 15-18 Maximum Modeled Pm2.5 Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 CHP Plant (in g/m3) .............................................................................................. 15-26 15-19 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 Boiler Systems (in g/m3) ............................................................................ 15-27 15-20 Maximum Modeled Pm2.5 Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 Boiler Systems (in g/m3)....................................................................................... 15-27 15-25 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential CHP Plants in the Full Build (in g/m3) ............................................................................. 15-31 15-26 Maximum Modeled Pm2.5 Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential CHP Plants in the Full Build (in g/m3) ............................................................................. 15-31 15-27 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Projects Boiler Systems in the Full Build (in g/m3).................................................................................................. 15-32 15-28 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentrations from the Projects Boiler Systems (in g/m3) . 15-32 16-1 16-2 16-3 17-1 17-2 17-3 Global Warming Potential (GWP) for Major GHGs ................................................... 16-3 Annual Building Energy Consumption ........................................................................ 16-4 Estimated Total Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Proposed Project ................. 16-5 Common Noise Levels................................................................................................. 17-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels ................................................ 17-2 Noise Exposure Guidelines for Use in City Environmental Impact Review ............... 17-4 TOC-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

17-4 17-5 17-6 17-7 17-8 17-9

Required Attenuation Values to Achieve Acceptable Interior Noise Levels ............... 17-4 Noise Receptor Locations ............................................................................................ 17-6 Existing Noise Levels At Noise Receptor Sites 2 Through 8 (in dBA) ....................... 17-9 Existing Noise Levels At Receptor 1 ......................................................................... 17-10 2018 No-Action Noise Levels (in dBA)..................................................................... 17-11 2038 No-Action Noise Levels (in dBA)..................................................................... 17-12

17-10 Phase 1 (2018) With Action Noise Levels (in dBA) .................................................. 17-13 17-11 Full Build (2038) With Action Noise Levels (in dBA) .............................................. 17-14 17-12 Minimum Required Building Attenuation at Project Buildings ................................. 17-15 20-1 20-2 20-3 20-4 20-5 20-6 Construction Oversight in New York City ................................................................... 20-3 Anticipated Construction Schedule .............................................................................. 20-4 Average Number of Daily Workers and Trucks By Quarter ...................................... 20-12 Phase 1 Construction Trip Generation ....................................................................... 20-14 Phase 2 Construction Trip Generation ....................................................................... 20-15 Phase 1 Peak Construction Vehicle Trip Projections ................................................. 20-16

20-7a Phase 2a Peak Construction Vehicle Trip Projections ............................................... 20-16 20-7b Phase 2b Peak Construction Vehicle Trip Projections ............................................... 20-17 20-8 20-9 Phase 1 No Action Construction Traffic Levels of Service ....................................... 20-19 Phase 1 No Action, With Action, Mitigated Conditions Construction AM Peak Hour Traffic Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 20-21

20-10 Phase 1 No Action, With Action, Mitigated Conditions Construction PM Peak Hour Traffic Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 20-23 20-11 Comparison of Weekday Vehicle Trip GenerationConstruction and Operational . 20-26 20-12 Mobile Source Analysis Sites .................................................................................... 20-32 20-13 Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations ........................................ 20-33 20-14 Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations .................................... 20-33 20-15 Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations ................................... 20-34 20-16 Maximum Predicted Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations ..................................... 20-34 20-17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels (dBA)............................... 20-38 22-1a Phase 12018 Analysis Year (2018 With Action Condition) Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................................................... 22-2 22-1b Full Build2038 Analysis Year (2038 With Action Condition) Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary .................................................................................................... 22-3

TOC-16

List of Tables

22-2a 2018 No Action, With Action, and Mitigated Traffic Levels of Service Comparison (Unsignalized Intersections) ........................................................................................ 22-9 22-2b 2018 No Action, With Action and Mitigated Traffic Levels of Service Comparison (Signalized Intersections) .......................................................................................... 22-11 22-3a 2038 No Action, With Action, and Mitigated Traffic Levels of Service Comparison (Unsignalized Intersections) ...................................................................................... 22-17 22-3b 2038 No Action, With Action and Mitigated Traffic Levels of Service Comparison (Signalized Intersections) .......................................................................................... 22-19 22-4 22-5 22-6 Mitigated Future With Action Condition (Capacity Improvement): Bus Line Haul Levels ......................................................................................................................... 22-30 2038 No Action, With Action, and Mitigated Conditions Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 22-31 2038 With Action Condition Crosswalk Analysis With Traffic Mitigation .............. 22-32

TOC-17

List of Figures
Following page S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 3-1 4-1 4-2 5-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 Project Location .......................................................................................................... S-1 Project Site: Current Ownership ................................................................................. S-1 Current Zoning ............................................................................................................ S-3 Proposed Zoning ......................................................................................................... S-4 Proposed Roadway Mapping ...................................................................................... S-5 Phase IIllustrative Site Plan .................................................................................... S-7 Full BuildIllustrative Site Plan ................................................................................ S-8 Proposed Loop Roadway Configuration ..................................................................... S-9 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Site: Current Ownership ................................................................................. 1-1 Current Zoning ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Proposed Zoning ......................................................................................................... 1-6 Proposed Roadway Mapping ...................................................................................... 1-6 Phase IIllustrative Site Plan .................................................................................... 1-9 Full BuildIllustrative Site Plan .............................................................................. 1-10 Proposed Loop Roadway Configuration ................................................................... 1-11 Land Use Study Area .................................................................................................. 2-1 Residential Development on Roosevelt Island ........................................................... 2-4 Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................... 2-6 Coastal Zone ............................................................................................................... 2-8 Future Development Projects ...................................................................................... 2-9 Proposed Zoning ....................................................................................................... 2-13 Socioeconomic Study Area ......................................................................................... 3-3 Public Schools Serving the Study Area ...................................................................... 4-5 Public Libraries Study Area ...................................................................................... 4-11 Open Space Resources ................................................................................................ 5-1 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Assessment ...................................................................................... 6-3 Tier 3 Assessment ....................................................................................................... 6-5 Photos of Waterfront PromenadeWestern Side....................................................... 6-6 Photos of Waterfront PromenadeEastern Side and Basketball Court ..................... 6-6 Three-Dimensional Computer ModelView North .................................................. 6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 218:00 AM ....................................................................... 6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 219:00 AM ....................................................................... 6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 2110:00 AM ..................................................................... 6-7 TOC-18

List of Figures

6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 6-18 6-19 6-20 6-21 6-22 6-23 6-24 6-25 6-26 6-27 6-28 6-29 6-30 6-31 6-32 6-33 6-34 6-35 6-36 6-37 6-38 6-39 6-40 6-41 6-42 6-43 6-44 6-45 6-46 6-47 6-48 6-49 6-50

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 2111:00 AM ......................................................................6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 2112:00 PM ......................................................................6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 212:00 PM ........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 213:00 PM ........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 214:00 PM ........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 67:00 AM ...........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 68:00 AM ...........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 69:00 AM ...........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 610:00 AM .........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 611:00 AM .........................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 62:00 PM ............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 63:00 PM ............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 64:00 PM ............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 May 6/August 65:00 PM ............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 216:00 AM .........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 217:00 AM .........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 218:00 AM .........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 219:00 AM .........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 2110:00 AM .......................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 21 11:00 AM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 211:00 PM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 212:00 PM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 213:00 PM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 214:00 PM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 215:00 PM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 June 216:00 PM ..........................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 218:51 AM ................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 219:30 AM ................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 2110:30 AM ..............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 2111:30 AM ..............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 2112:30 PM...............................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 211:30 PM.................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 212:10 PM.................................................................................6-7 Phase 1 December 212:50 PM.................................................................................6-7 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 218:00 AM ......................................................................6-11 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 219:00 AM ......................................................................6-11 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 2110:00 AM ....................................................................6-11 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 2111:00 AM ....................................................................6-11 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 2112:00 PM ....................................................................6-11 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 213:00 PM ......................................................................6-11 Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 214:00 PM ......................................................................6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 67:00 AM .........................................................................6-11 TOC-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

6-51 6-52 6-53 6-54 6-55 6-56 6-57 6-58 6-59 6-60 6-61 6-62 6-63 6-64 6-65 6-66 6-67 6-68 6-69 6-70 6-71 6-72 6-73 6-74 6-75 6-76 6-77 6-78 6-79 6-80 7-1a 7-1b 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 8-1

Phase 2 May 6/August 68:00 AM ......................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 69:00 AM ......................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 610:00 AM ....................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 611:00 AM ....................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 612:00 PM ....................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 62:00 PM ......................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 63:00 PM ......................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 64:00 PM ......................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 May 6/August 65:00 PM ......................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 216:00 AM ...................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 217:00 AM ...................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 218:00 AM ...................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 219:00 AM ...................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 2110:00 AM .................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 21 11:00 AM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 2112:00 PM ..................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 211:00 PM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 212:00 PM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 213:00 PM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 214:00 PM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 215:00 PM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 June 216:00 PM ....................................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 December 218:51 AM ............................................................................. 6-11 Phase 2 December 219:30 AM ............................................................................. 6-11 Phase 2 December 2110:30 AM ........................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 December 2111:30 AM ........................................................................... 6-11 Phase 2 December 2112:30 PM ............................................................................ 6-11 Phase 2 December 211:30 PM .............................................................................. 6-11 Phase 2 December 212:10 PM .............................................................................. 6-11 Phase 2 December 212:50 PM .............................................................................. 6-11 Project Location Map .................................................................................................. 7-1 Project Aerial Location ............................................................................................... 7-3 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Project SiteGoldwater Hospital ............................................................................... 7-7 Study AreaKnown Architectural Resources ........................................................... 7-8 Study AreaKnown Architectural Resources ........................................................... 7-9 Project Site and Study Area Reference Map ............................................................... 8-3 TOC-20

List of Figures

8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 8-10 8-11 8-12 8-13 8-14 8-15 8-16 8-17 8-18 8-19 8-20 8-21 8-22 8-23 8-24 8-25 8-26 8-27 8-28 8-29 8-30 8-31 8-32 8-33 8-34 8-35 8-36 8-37 8-38

Visual Resources Study Area ......................................................................................8-3 Aerial of Project Site and Rezoning Area....................................................................8-3 Photograph View Locations ........................................................................................8-3 Photographs of Project Site .........................................................................................8-3 Photographs of Project Site .........................................................................................8-4 Photographs of Project Site .........................................................................................8-4 Photographs of Project Site .........................................................................................8-4 Views from the Project Site and Rezoning Area .........................................................8-4 Views from the Project Site and Rezoning Area .........................................................8-5 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-5 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-5 Major Developments on Roosevelt Island ...................................................................8-5 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-5 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-6 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-6 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-6 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-6 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-7 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-7 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-7 Open Spaces on Roosevelt Island ................................................................................8-7 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-8 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-8 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-8 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-9 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-9 Views from Study Area ...............................................................................................8-9 Photographs of Study Area ..........................................................................................8-9 Views from Off-Island Locations ................................................................................8-9 Views from Off-Island Locations ................................................................................8-9 Views from Off-Island Locations ..............................................................................8-10 Phase IIllustrative Site Plan ...................................................................................8-12 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2018 On-Island View North ...............................................................................................8-16 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2018 View from Sutton Place in Manhattan.......................................................................8-16 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2018 View from East River Waterfront in Manhattan .......................................................8-16 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2018 View from Queensbridge Park in Queens .................................................................8-16 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2018 View from Gantry State Park in Queens ...................................................................8-16

TOC-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

8-39 8-40 8-41 8-42 8-43 8-44 8-45 8-46 9-1 9-2 14-1 14-2 14-3 14-4 14-5 14-6 14-7 14-8 14-9 14-10 14-11 14-12 14-13 14-14 14-15 14-16 14-17 14-18 14-19 14-20

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2018 View from Roosevelt Island Tram ............................................................................ 8-16 Full BuildIllustrative Site Plan .............................................................................. 8-17 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2038 On-Island View North ............................................................................................... 8-19 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2038 View from Roosevelt Island Tram ............................................................................ 8-19 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2038 View from Gantry State Park in Queens ................................................................... 8-19 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2038 View from Queensbridge Park in Queens................................................................. 8-19 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2038 View from East River Waterfront in Manhattan ....................................................... 8-19 Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions: 2038 View from Sutton Place in Manhattan ...................................................................... 8-19 Aerial........................................................................................................................... 9-1 FEMA Flood Zone ...................................................................................................... 9-8 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Traffic Increments....................................... 14-12 Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2018 Build Traffic Increments................................. 14-12 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2018 Build Traffic Increments ....................................... 14-12 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2038 Build Traffic Increments....................................... 14-12 Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2038 Build Traffic Increments................................. 14-12 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2038 Build Traffic Increments ....................................... 14-12 Traffic Analysis Locations ...................................................................................... 14-12 Transit Map ............................................................................................................. 14-13 2018 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak Hour ........................................................................................................ 14-14 2018 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak Hour .................................................................................................. 14-14 2018 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak Hour ......................................................................................................... 14-14 2038 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak Hour ........................................................................................................ 14-14 2038 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak Hour .................................................................................................. 14-14 2038 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak Hour ......................................................................................................... 14-14 Transit and Pedestrian Analysis Locations ............................................................. 14-14 Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................. 14-23 Weekday Midday Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................ 14-23 Weekday PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................... 14-23 Future Development Projects in the 2018 No Action Condition ............................ 14-27 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2018 No Build Traffic Volumes .................................... 14-29

TOC-22

List of Figures

14-21 14-22 14-23 14-24 14-25 14-26 14-27 14-28 14-29 14-30 14-31 14-32 14-33 14-34 14-35 14-36 14-37 14-38 14-39 14-40 14-41 14-42 14-43 14-44 14-45 14-46 14-47 15-1 17-1 20-1 20-2

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2018 No Build Traffic Volumes...............................14-29 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2018 No Build Traffic Volumes .....................................14-29 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Traffic Volumes ..........................................14-37 Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2018 Build Traffic Volumes ....................................14-37 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2018 Build Traffic Volumes ...........................................14-37 Future Development Projects in the 2038 NO Action Condition ............................14-43 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2038 No Build Traffic Volumes.....................................14-43 Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2038 No Build Traffic Volumes...............................14-43 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2038 No Build Traffic Volumes .....................................14-43 Weekday AM Peak Hour 2038 Build Traffic Volumes ..........................................14-52 Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2038 Build Traffic Volumes ....................................14-52 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2038 Build Traffic Volumes ...........................................14-52 Existing Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes .....................14-73 Existing Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes ...............14-73 Existing Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes ......................14-73 2018 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes .........14-73 2018 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes ...14-73 2018 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes ..........14-73 2018 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes ......14-75 2018 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes 14-75 2018 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes.......14-75 2038 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes .........14-75 2038 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes ...14-75 2038 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes ..........14-75 2038 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes ......14-75 2038 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes 14-75 2038 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes.......14-75 Air Quality Building Nomenclature ........................................................................15-16 Noise Receptor Location ...........................................................................................17-6 Anticipated Construction Schedule (Phase 1) ...........................................................20-3 Anticipated Construction Schedule (Phase 2) ...........................................................20-3

TOC-23

Foreword
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Cornell NYC Tech Project was certified as complete by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (ODMED), as lead agency under City Environmental Quality Review, and issued for public review and comment on October 10, 2012. A public hearing on the DEIS was held on February 6, 2013 concurrently with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) public hearing held by the New York City Planning Commission at Spector Hall, 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007. Oral and written comments were accepted at that hearing and throughout the public comment period, which was held open until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, February 19, 2013. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) reflects notable changes subsequent to publishing the DEIS, which include the following: Site Plan. As described in the DEIS, the proposed special district would provide for flexibility in architectural design within limits established to ensure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms. Design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in the DEIS were reflective of the design under consideration at that time. Since then, the site plan was updated to reflect some modifications to the likely Phase 1 development and more current building forms for the Phase 2 development. Therefore, the illustrative site plan is updated in the FEIS as are the analyses that depend on building form: Chapter 6, Shadows, Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, Chapter 8, Urban Design and Visual Resources, and Chapter 15, Air Quality. Chapter 4, Community Facilities. The analysis of schools has been updated to reflect the Department of Educations 2011-2012 school year enrollment figures. Chapter 5, Open Space. The open space chapter has been updated to reflect the opening of the Four Freedoms Memorial. Chapter 14, Transportation. The transportation chapter has been updated to account for changes to the traffic analyses based on discussions with the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT). These changes to the analyses were accounted for in the air quality and noise analyses and other FEIS analyses, as appropriate. Chapter 20, Construction. A discussion of a two potential barging techniques under consideration for the Phase 1 construction period has been added to Chapter 20, Construction. The construction chapter has also been updated to account for changes to the traffic analyses based on discussions with NYCDOT. Chapter 21, Mitigation Measures, was revised to account for ongoing coordination with the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The chapter was also updated to account

This Foreword is new to the FEIS.

F-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

for changes to the traffic and pedestrian analyses based on discussions with NYCDOT and the New York City Fire Department. In addition to these changes, the FEIS summarizes the comments made during the public review period and provides responses in a new chapter, Chapter 26, Response to Comments. Where appropriate, the text of other chapters of this FEIS was revised in response to comments, revisions in the analyses, or editorial changes.

F-2

Executive Summary

S.1.

INTRODUCTION

Cornell University, together with the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, is seeking a number of discretionary approvals (the proposed actions) to support and allow for the development of an applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island (the Cornell NYC Tech project or proposed project). As shown on Figure S-1, the project site is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island, south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge. A majority of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20) is owned by the City of New York and is occupied by the Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facilitys Goldwater Memorial Hospital (Goldwater Hospital), which is operated by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC). The remainder of the project site (Block 1372, part of Lot 1) is vacant and owned by the City of New York and leased to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). Figure S-2 shows the project site and reflects its current ownership. Independently of, and prior to, the proposed project, NYCHHC will vacate the Goldwater Hospital and relocate patients and services elsewhere.1 Outside of the hospital site, the Island is controlled by RIOC, under a long-term lease with the city. 2 Under the terms of an agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC Cornell is required to build a total of 300,000 gsf of building space in Phase 1, of which a minimum of 200,000 gsf must be for academic use. 3 Phase 2 requirements include a cumulative total of 1.8 million gsf of building space, of which 620,000 gsf must be for academic use. Construction of the project is expected to begin in 2014 with the first phase of the Cornell NYC Tech project expected to begin operations on Roosevelt Island in Summer 2017; 2018 will be the

NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the closure and relocation of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). Roosevelt Island is owned by the City of New York, and the entire Island except for the Goldwater Hospital campus and the Coler Memorial Hospital campus is leased to the State of New York. RIOC was established by New York State in 1984 to manage the operation, maintenance, and development of the Island. The State's lease on the Island expires in 2068, when control will revert to New York City. Academic use is defined as classrooms, offices for academic personnel, technology transfer offices, laboratories, teaming areas, lecture halls, incubators and accelerators, seminar and meeting rooms (for academic purposes), other uses primarily for teaching, learning and/or academic research, and other ancillary facilities for the use and convenience of academic personnel such as lounges, dining areas and similar facilities. Permitted non-academic uses include community uses, residential buildings for academic personnel (including student lounges located therein), ancillary recreational uses, visitor lodging, eating and drinking establishments, corporate co-location space for technology-related businesses, and other uses ancillary to the academic uses.

S-1

3.5.13

NA V

E8

DIS O

EA ST EN DA V

MA

E7 8S T

E8
E7 9S T E8

1S T

2S T

E8

3S T

PA RK

E7 7S T E7 6S T

0S T

AV

AV

E7

LE XI N GT ON

5S T

E7 4S T

DA V

TH IR

E7 3S T

AV

CO ND

E7 2S T
E7 1S T

Upper East Side

FIR ST AV

SE

ST

E6 6S T E6 5S T

MA

34

AV

9S T

ON

10 ST

4S T

BLV D

Midtown
E6
E6

E6

2S T

1S T

Astoria

VE

E6 3S T

ES TR

RN

36

AV

E6

0S T

E5
E5 E5

DR

12 ST

9S T

11 ST

RO IS OSE LA ND VEL BR T

35

AV

8S T

FD

7S T

E5
E5

ROOSEVELT ISLAND

37

AV

6S T

5S T

FD

Turtle Bay
E5
E5

DR

4 3

4S T

RD

24

RA M

ST

IVE

29
LZ

EA ST R

ST

Long Island City

10 ST

11 ST

42

22

5 ST

44 R

45 AV

44 D R

24

ST

44 AV

RD

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

Steam Plant Southtown Northtown Motorgate Coler Memorial Hospital Campus

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Four Freedoms Park South Point Park Sportspark Tram Station

Project Location
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure S-1

41 AV

QN P

ST

43

AV

27

28

RD

13 ST

9S T

ST

43

12 ST

CR ES

CE

E5 0S T

NT

ST

23

RD

QUEENS

ST

ST

E5

1S T

EA ST

41

22

AV

ST

E5

2S T

41

21

3S T

ST

QU E EE D K NS OC BO H RO BR

40 AV

13 ST

39

14 ST

38 AV

AV

12 ST

E6

7S T

IN

EA ST R

E6 8S T

YO RK AV

MANHATTAN

E7 0S T E6 9S T

33

RD

10.9.12

SEE INSET

INSET - Area of Detail

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

A

Block 1373 Lot 20

Owned by: City of New York Occupied by: Goldwater Memorial Hospital (NYCHHC) Block 1373 Lot 1 (portion) Owned by: City of New York Leased to: RIOC

Goldwater Hospital Building Name DEP South Pump Station Trafc Direction

Project Site: Current Ownership

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure S-2

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

first full year of operation. 4 Phase 1 is anticipated to consist of up to 790,000 gross square feet (gsf) of development consisting of approximately 200,000 gsf of academic space, 100,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, approximately 300,000 gsf of residential space (442 units), and 170,000 gsf for an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. Up to another 20,000 gsf could be developed as a central utility plant, and up to 250 parking spaces could be provided. Phase 2, expected to be completed by 2038, is anticipated to add a maximum of 1.34 million gsf consisting of approximately 420,000 gsf of academic space, 400,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 500,000 gsf of residential space (652 units), and possibly another 20,000 gsf central utility plant. In total, the maximum potential Cornell NYC Tech project program is assumed to comprise up to 2.13 million gsf of development consisting of 620,000 gsf of academic space, 500,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 800,000 gsf of residential space (1,094 units), 170,000 gsf for the Executive Education Center, and 40,000 gsf for the central utility plants. Up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be provided within this program, and at full build, up to 500 parking spaces could also be provided. This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in conformance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617, New York City Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York. The EIS follows the guidance of the June 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (ODMED) is the CEQR lead agency for this proposal.

S.2.

APPLIED SCIENCES NYC INITIATIVE AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT

The City of New York launched its Applied Sciences 5 NYC initiative in 2010 after working with a range of New York Citys business leaders, academics, community groups, and entrepreneurs to identify ambitious, achievable initiatives that the city could undertake to attain local economic growth. From that process, an unmet demand within New York City for top-flight engineers and applied scientists was identified. The purpose of the Applied Sciences competition in New York City was to provide one or more opportunities for leading academic institutions to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus or campuses in New York City. The overarching goal is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. In December 2010, the city issued a Request for Expressions of Interest to gauge universities interest in developing and operating a new applied science and engineering research campus in New York City. In connection with the new campus, the city indicated its willingness to provide city-owned land in addition to a significant capital contribution in site infrastructure. In 2011, the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a university, institution or consortium to develop and operate a new (or expanded) campus in the city. The city selected Cornell
4

Cornell opened a portion of its Cornell NYC Tech academic program in leased space in New York City in 2012. Leasing such space did not require any governmental approvals. Applied sciences is the discipline of applying scientific knowledge from one or more fields to practical problems.

S-2

Executive Summary

University, in conjunction with its academic partner the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, to develop the Applied Sciences NYC project at the Goldwater Hospital site on Roosevelt Islandthe Cornell NYC Tech project. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to focus on research in the applied sciences and fields of study related to the technology sector and will offer graduate degrees only. A defining aspect of the new campuss graduate-level academic programs is the close tie to business and entrepreneurship that will be woven throughout the curriculum. Research will be focused on technology in application areas that have commercial potential in New York City markets. Specifically, New York Citys technology sector and information-driven economy serves as the impetus for the development of many consumer-oriented companies focused specifically on technology to meet end users needs, including some of NYCs core industries: media, advertising, finance, healthcare, real estate, construction, and design.

S.3.

SITE CONDITIONS

The project site, which consists of Manhattan Block 1373, Lot 20 and a portion of Lot 1, is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island and totals approximately 12.5 acres. Goldwater Hospital opened on the Island in 1939 as a chronic care and nursing facility. It consists of the original six-building complex (Buildings A through F) and a circa 1971 addition (Building J). Goldwater Hospital has been determined by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to be eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR-eligible); the complex contains mural paintings commissioned for the hospital as part of the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In 1996, Goldwater Hospital and Coler Memorial Hospital (which is located on the northern portion of the Island) merged to become Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility. As part of a major modernization planning effort that has been ongoing since approximately 2007 and that includes the relocation of Goldwater Hospital patients and services, NYCHHC will move current Goldwater Hospital activities to other facilities and vacate the Goldwater Hospital site. Cornell would receive the site after it has been vacated; demolition of the existing and vacant hospital buildings would occur as part of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project. A sanitary pump station, owned and maintained by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is located in a fenced area on the southeast corner of the project site (see Figure S-2). As shown on Figure S-2, a one-way loop road encircles the project site with traffic flow in a clockwise direction (i.e., southbound on the roadway east of the site, westbound on the roadway south of the site, and northbound to the west of the site). To the north of the site, the street is westbound. A promenade that is not part of the project site extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island along the entirety of its waterfront north of South Point Park, providing a walkway for pedestrians; a concrete seawall forms the barrier along the East River. The project site, like all of Roosevelt Island, is zoned R7-2, a medium-density residential designation (see Figure S-3).

S.4.

CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT PLANNING

Cornell has a long history and a strong presence within New York City. Founded in Ithaca, New York in 1865, Cornell University first established a presence in New York City in 1898, with the founding of what is now known as the Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC). WCMC began S-3

10.9.12

Project Site Rezoning Area

800

2000 FEET

SCALE

Current Zoning
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure S-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

an affiliation with New York Hospital in 1913 and subsequently with what is now New YorkPresbyterian Hospital (1998). The Graduate School of Medical Sciences was founded in 1952 (convergence of two institutionsSloan-Kettering Institute and Weill Cornell Medical College). Cornells Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences are located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan between 65th and 72nd Streets. In addition to medical studies, Cornell has a number of other active academic programs in Manhattan, including programs in financial engineering, labor relations, architecture and planning, and cooperative extension. Continuing its long connection with New York City, and consistent with Cornells plan to expand its engineering and technology programs, in 2011, Cornell responded to the citys RFP to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. Following selection by New York City, Cornell has undertaken various planning activities for the Cornell NYC Tech project, including campus framework planning. Cornells Campus Framework will guide development of the proposed project. The framework will include a discussion of principles that will guide design and implementation of the campus; strategies for campus operations (e.g., vehicular and pedestrian circulation, service access and loading, and parking); principles for site design, including sustainability goals and strategies to meet these goals; and design guidelines that would apply to the campus as a whole and to individual parcels and the sites open spaces. The framework is intended to guide development while allowing Cornell flexibility in implementing the plan over the projects long build out period.

S.5.

PROPOSED ACTIONS

The proposed actions required to facilitate the Cornell NYC Tech project are as follows: Disposition of City-owned property (by lease with a purchase option) from the City of New York to the New York City Land Development Corporation (NYCLDC), which will assign the lease to Cornell. Approval of the lease and sale terms of the disposition parcels pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter. RIOCs actions as an involved agency may include amendment of the 1969 Master Lease originally between New York City and the New York State Urban Development Corporation (RIOCs predecessor in interest) and related actions. Amendment of the NYCHHC operating agreement with the city by the Corporation Board in order to surrender a portion of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20). Zoning Map amendment to change the project site and surrounding area zoning from R7-2 to C4-5, and to map the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District over the same area, as shown on Figure S-4 (the rezoning area). The proposed C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District zoning designation would allow for the commercial uses anticipated with the project up to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Residential uses in the C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be permitted to a maximum FAR of 3.44, and community facility uses would be allowed to a maximum FAR of 6.5. Use Group 17B research labs would also be allowed under the C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District, to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Zoning Text amendment to create the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District and to establish special use, bulk, and public access controls for the rezoning area. The Special S-4

10.9.12

RO SP OS EC EV IAL EL T I SOU SL AN THE D D RN IST RIC T

C4

-5

Project Site Rezoning Area (C4-5 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

800

2000 FEET

SCALE

Proposed Zoning
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure S-4

Executive Summary

District is intended to create a uniform, flexible framework for the ongoing development of the Cornell NYC Tech campus. The Special District goals include the following specific purposes: To provide opportunities for the development of an academic and research and development campus in a manner that benefits the surrounding community; To allow for a mix of residential, retail, and other commercial uses to support the academic and research and development facilities and complement the urban fabric of Roosevelt Island; To establish a network of publicly-accessible open areas that take advantage of the unique location of Roosevelt Island and that integrate the academic campus into the network of open spaces on Roosevelt Island and provide a community amenity; To strengthen visual and physical connections between the eastern and western shores of Roosevelt Island by establishing publicly-accessible connections through the Special District and above grade view corridors; To encourage alternative forms of transportation by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking; To provide flexibility of architectural design within limits established to assure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms; and To promote the most desirable use of land in this area and thus conserve the value of land and buildings, and thereby protect the citys tax revenues. Properties within the proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be subject to special use, bulk, and public access provisions that would supplement or supersede the underlying zoning district. City Map Amendment to map the one-way loop road surrounding the project site and its connection to Main Street as a city street (see Figure S-5). It is also possible that an approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) would be required with respect to a geothermal well system that may be part of the project.

S.6.
S.6.1.

REASONABLE WORST-CASE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the actions discussed above in Section E, Proposed Actions, and beginning in 2014, over a period of approximately 24 years, Cornell anticipates building up to the following on the project site, which represents the maximum likely development program, or reasonable worst-case development scenario (RWCDS) for purposes of analysis in this EIS: Two Cornell buildings for academic purposes. One residential building to house campus leadership and faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. An Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. Three corporate co-location buildings that would include space for private companies that wish to take advantage of the proximity to Cornells academic activities and to Cornells faculty, researchers, and students. These buildings may also house academic space. S-5

10.9.12

R=33.0 <=80-49'-11" L=46.55

U.S. PIERHEAD AS APPROVED BY THE SECRETAR Y OF WAR IN 1857, R=2050.00 <=6-15'-02" L=224.13 AND BULKHEAD MODIFIED NOVE MBER 7, 1917 LINE

2 19

35.54

-3

5'2-2 17 8'6-3 17

7'-

" 51 7'-4 1 18

-0 7 17

48 "
APPROXIMATE

" 16 4'-

" 27 3'

12.8
50 32' 15'

P.T.

90.17
" 38
EXISTING
P.T.

9 10.6 1

11.36
3'

121.91
112.90

3'

WEST
11.74
126.68

71.05 190.42'
6 13.3 7 14.5
89.80' 6 15.5

89.16

LOOP

161.75'
85.32'
LINE 73.53' 9 15.1

SHORE

87.94
50

115.64
" 09 2'8-1 17
P.T.

71.55
R=2000.00 <=6-15'-02" L=218.67
473.01 473.01

88.38
P.C.

ROAD
15.7 5

473.06 112.23' 473.06 96.96' 61.28' 7 8 14.4 14.7

3'-0 0 18

" 15
172.81

185

26" 01'-

13.9

47.73' 38.32' 1 13.5

32' 15'
50

103.45

U.S. PIERHEAD AND AS APPROVED BULKHEAD BY THE SECRETAR LINE Y OF WAR IN 1857, R=522.00 MODIFIED NOVE MBER 7, 1917 <=10-38'-41" L=96.98 APPROX. EXISTING SHORE

P.C.

32' 15 ' 50

P.C.

3'

32' 15' 50

3'

32' 15'

" 12 2'-2 7 16 4 9" .5 '-4 15 -10 99 139.82

187
183-21

3'

15.8
'-22"

182-06'-38" 177-53'-22"

4 17.2

6'-5 9 17

" 45

123.40

6 48.72' 14.6

15.9

307.96 76.72' 76.75' .34 STREET 15

PRIVATE

LINE
P.C. P.C.

82.16'

P.T.

182

3'

32' 15'

50

3" -34'-3

-0 90

0'-

" 07

14.3

9 17.0
92.44 84 -5 8'27 "

P.T .

262.68
P.T.

. P.C . P.T

R=28.00 <=87-14'-48" L=42.64

SERVICE

3'
182-40'-01"

5 17 32 .69 " 46 .96 -39'1 17 100.00

6
45

14.0

. P.T . P.C
34

8 18

14 0'-2 .54 38

"

24.3

1 23.7 7

21.270 P 22.1

R=50.00 <=81-09'-07" L=70.82

WIDTH VARIES

R=2810.00 <=4-58'-41" L=244.14

<=174-40'-29"

12.6

4
45 33.5' 3'

R=9.00 <=111-09'-59" L=17.46

705.72

1373

<=155-21'-15"

R=15.00 <=81-09'-07" L=21.25

P.T.
2 .5 43 05" 7'-2 5 18
197.62'

15.16'
100.00

4 13.7

144.37
12.7 2 .90 .65 10.7 1044.81 ' 10 62.80' 10.00' 7

37.9

14.94'

EAST LOOP
P.C.
EXISTING SHORE

-3 4 17

2'-

55

"

R=2860.00 <=4-58'-41" L=248.49

APPROXIMA TE

6 1 7 10.3 8 69.03' 10.7 10.6 40.08' 10.3 11.58' 705.72

705.72
50 15' 32'

R=478.00 <=21-13'-03" L=177.01

18.8

4 3 16.5 15' 32' 9' 56

50 15' 32'

ROAD
3'
705.72
P.T.

R=20.00 <=53-40'-36" L=18.74

51.98'
3 14.0 .52 5 13 12.7 30 44.0 .41'12.50 3

R=150.00 <=20-14'-35" L=53.00

R=116.00 <=59-04'-21" L=119.60

6 P.T. 20.1 50 9' 32' 9'

U.S. AS AP PIE PR OV RH ED BY TH EAD LINE AND E SECR BULKHE ETARY OF WAR AD LIN IN 1857, E MODIF IED NO VEMBER 7,

R=428.00 <=21-28'-3 L=160.43 7"

P.T. P.C.C.

R=75.00 <=41-53'-56" L=54.85

R=36.00 <=107-42'-52" L=67.68

<=3 544'31" R=11 <= 6.0 0 1 L=3 9-29'9.46 22" P.R .CN . 12 238 R=5 E167 .36 10.2 <=7 0.00 6 L=6 0-07'1.20 46"
RAD .

294.79

1917

R=60.00 <=18-12'L=19.07 35"

11.54 22.35'

EAST 173.79'
294.79

8 13.8

MAIN
P.T.
P.C.
R=125.00 <=45-12'-39 " L=98.64

STR E
P.C.
APPR OXIM ATE

78.1 6

P.C .

P. C.

P.C.

ET
78.1 6

6 12.7

EXISTING

R=100.00 <=20-14'-35" L=35.33

R=86.00 <=107-42'-52" L=161.68

SHORE

Roadway Mapping Area

Proposed Roadway Mapping

Cornell NYC Tech

D. RA

181 -4 3'-0 9" 41.2

49.72'
-2 5'-

WIDTH VARIES 5 15.0

34 "

65.41' 155.22

50 32' 15'

55'44"

R=40.00 <=70-58'-18" L=49.55

WEST MAIN 239.56'

17.56' 61.31'

RO AD

16.6

32' 15' 50 179-47'-18" 4

SOUTH LOOP ROAD NORTH LOOP ROAD

1373
448.72

1 16.0 56 15' 32' 9'

WEST MAIN STREET

R=572.00 <=10-38'-41" L=106.27

P.C.

177.24

R=15.00 <=87-14'-48" L=22.84

P.R.C . N123 00.60 E16603.21 R=96.00 <=42-22'-11" L=70.99

273.85

73.56

70.84

103.35'

R=96.00 <=94-37'-16" L=158.54

11.5'

38' 60

10.5'

1373
22.4 24.0 2
ED KOCH BRIDGE (ABOVE) (QUEENSBORO BRIDGE)
477.45 37.07' 32.97

<=48-4

P.C.

81.82' 119.29

ST.

117.73

9'-30"

RA

D.
<=146-23'-07"

8'

106.04

'23.68'

R=24'

256.
86.50'

MAIN STR E
8'

36

R=486.00 <=10-46'-4 8" L=91.44

21'

P.T.
8.5'
P.T.

38' 8' 67

P.T.

15' 32' 50

RA

284.
37.94'
P.T.

ET
EAST MAIN ST.

P.C.

P.C.

D.

P.C.

67

21'

WIDTH VARIES

15

186.59'

3'

38'

P.C.

21'

131.65

P.C. .C. P.R

201.15

P.T.

R=1000.00 <=10-46'-48" L=188.15

3'

P.T.

1373

P.C.

P.C.

P.R .C P.T. .

P.T.

15'
50 32'

3'

P.T.

LIN

U.S. PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD AS APPROVED LINE BY THE SECR ETARY OF WAR IN 1857,

MODIFIED NOVE MBER

7, 1917

Figure S-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

A mixed-use building that comprises academic space at the base with a residential tower rising above the base. A mixed-use building that contains corporate co-location uses at the base with a residential tower rising above the base for Cornell faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, masters students, and leadership. A modest amount of campus-oriented retail uses. Retail space would include uses such as a restaurant, cafs, newsstands, or a University bookstore and would serve the Cornell NYC Tech residents and workers. One or two central utility buildings to serve the campus; and Publicly-accessible open space. Under the proposed zoning text, at least 20 percent of the project siteor 2.5 acresmust be publicly-accessible open space. While it is Cornells intention to create more than this minimum requirement, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the EIS assumes the minimum amount of publicly-accessible open space. In addition to these uses, it is anticipated that up to 500 parking spaces could be provided at the project site, with 250 spaces in Phase 1 and another 250 spaces provided in Phase 2. In support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, Con Edison would upgrade an existing gas line to Roosevelt Island. The upgrade would require the replacement of some piping and the change-out of pressure regulators within the Con Edison system. Table S-1 summarizes the proposed development by use and by phase. Overall, by 2038, the proposed actions are anticipated to result in the development of up to approximately 2.13 million gross square feet of new uses.

Table S-1 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Program for CEQR (1)

Full Build Phase 1: 2018 Phase 2: 2038 (Phases 1 and 2) Gross Units/ Gross Units/ Gross Units/ Square Rooms/ Square Rooms/ Square Rooms/ Use Footage Spaces Footage Spaces Footage Spaces Academic 200,000 N/A 420,000 N/A 620,000 N/A Residential Housing (Total) (2) Faculty Housing 104 142 246 Student Housing 338 510 848 Residential Total 300,000 442 500,000 652 800,000 1,094 Corporate Co-location 100,000 N/A 400,000 N/A 500,000 N/A Executive Education Center (3) 170,000 225 0 N/A 170,000 225 Utility Plant 20,000 20,000 N/A 40,000 Parking 250 250 500 Total (4) 790,000 1,340,000 2,130,000 Notes: (1) Under the agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC, Cornell is obligated to build no less than 300,000 sf of buildings, of which at least 200,000 sf shall be academic space by June 30, 2017; by 2037, Cornell is obligated to build a minimum of 1,800,000 sf of total building space of which a minimum of 620,000 sf must be academic use. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase. (2) Residential units would be the same size but could be occupied differently (e.g., a faculty family may occupy a multi-bedroom unit while such units may also be rented by unrelated students without families as two or three shares). (3) The conference facilities would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the 170,000 gsf Executive Education Center. (4) It is anticipated that for analysis purposes up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be included on the site (e.g., caf, a restaurant, newsstand, bookstore, etc.).

S-6

Executive Summary

The total square footage of the buildings represents the reasonable worst-case development scenario for purposes of the environmental review. Individual program elements can be considered illustrative; variations in the allocation of the specific space types, especially in construction after Phase 1, may occur. However, the maximum total square footage is expected to remain substantially the same. The following sections describe the proposed reasonable worst-case development site plan for Phase 1 and at full build out of the project (i.e., once Phases 1 and 2 are complete). S.6.2. PHASE 1

Figure S-6 shows an illustrative site plan for Phase 1. As shown in the figure, the Phase 1 buildings, which would include academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings, would be developed in the northern portion of the project site. The Phase 1 central utility plant would be located toward the northern edge of the site. Open space would also be included as part of Phase 1. Specifically, Phase 1 would include: A Cornell building for academic purposes. This building is anticipated to be approximately 150,000 gsf in size and could be up to 8 stories in height. At this time, designs for this building reflect an academic building that has a 32,000 sf footprint and is four stories tall (approximately 60 feet, 69 feet including the building canopy). A corporate co-location building. This building is anticipated to be approximately 150,000 sf in size and could be up to 8 stories in height. This building would house approximately 100,000 sf of corporate co-location use and 50,000 sf of academic space. At this time, designs for this building reflect a corporate co-location building that has a 30,000 sf footprint and is five stories tall (approximately 74 feet). A residential building of approximately 300,000 sf for campus faculty and students. This building is anticipated to be up to approximately 31 stories in height (approximately 320 feet) with current designs showing a 10,800 sf footprint. An Executive Education Center. This building would be approximately 170,000 sf in size with up to 225 hotel rooms. The conference facility would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the building. The building could be up to 17 stories; current plans for this building reflect a building with a 21,000 sf footprint and a height of 13 stories (161 feet). Approximately 10,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail would be included on the site and could include uses such as a restaurant, cafs, newsstand, or bookstore. The central utility plant would house in-coming utility services and provide space for centralized electric production or co-generation facilities. As discussed above, Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. To meet this goal, an array of photovoltaic (PV) panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building; it may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building. The open space to be developed as part of Phase 1 would total 1.3 acres. Portions of the southern portion of the project site are anticipated to be developed with several interim uses, potentially including a nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a planted meadow). As part of Phase 1, the roadway circling the project site would be widened with temporary construction to provide a functional 32-foot-wide travelway around the project site. The portion of the roadway adjacent

S-7

3.4.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY ACADEMIC CAMPUS LAWN

THE STREET

CAMPUS PLAZA INTERIM LANDSCAPE

ENTRY COURT

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

SOUTH LOOP ROAD

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT CORPORATE CO-LOCATION

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Phase I - Illustrative Site Plan

Figure S-6

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

to the Phase 1 development would be built to final conditions as the Phase 1 buildings are completed. S.6.3. FULL BUILD (PHASES 1 AND 2)

Figure S-7 shows the illustrative site plan for full build out of the proposed project (Phases 1 and 2). As shown in the figure, at full build, the project site would be developed with academic, corporate colocation, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings. At full build, the project site would include the Phase 1 buildings described above and the following additional buildings: One additional Cornell building for academic purposes. This buildings is assumed to be approximately 154,000 gsf in size, rising to a height of up to 12 stories, although current plans show the building at 7 stories. Two additional corporate co-location buildings. The second and third buildings are assumed to be approximately 185,000 and 140,000 gsf in size, respectively, and up to approximately 10 stories in height, although current plans show the buildings at 7 and 6 stories, respectively. A mixed-use building containing academic and residential uses. The base, which would be for academic use, would rise to a height of approximately 101 feet (7 stories) with 266,000 sf. The residential tower would rise to a height of 235 feet and is assumed to contain 211,900 sf. A mixed use building that comprises corporate co-location space at its base with a residential tower rising above for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. The base would rise to a height of approximately 74 feet with 75,000 sf of space for the corporate co-location use; the tower would rise to a height of 280 feet and contain another 288,100 sf of residential space. The new residential area would provide another 527 units for campus faculty and students. Altogether, at full build, approximately 1,094 units would be provided. Another approximately 15,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail would be included on the project site (for a total of 25,000). A potential second central utility building would provide additional space for distributed electrical or co-generation facilities to serve the additional campus buildings, similar to the plans for the Phase 1 utility plant. In addition to the open spaces developed as part of Phase 1, at full build, there would be another 1.2 acres of open space for a total of a minimum of 2.5 acres of open space. It is anticipated that the sites open spaces would be landscaped with a mix of evergreen and flowering trees and other plantings. At full build, the loop roadway circling the project site would be built out to its mapped right-ofway width, which is 50 feet with two exceptions: the southeast portion of the roadway, which would have a width of 45 feet so as not to encroach upon the south pump station (access to the pump station would be maintained), and north loop road, which would have a width of 56 feet. The typical section (50-foot width) of the loop roadway would be configured to have (beginning on the campus side) a 15-foot-wide sidewalk, an 8-foot-wide parking lane, an 11-foot-wide travel lane, a 3-footwide striped buffer, a 10-foot-wide two-way Class II bicycle path, with a 3-foot buffer on the outboard side (see Figure S-8). As in the existing condition, the road would be one-way clockwise with southbound traffic on the east side of the project site and northbound traffic on the west S-8

3.4.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN CAMPUS LAWN ACADEMIC RESIDENTIAL CORPORATE CO-LOCATION ENTRY COURT CAMPUS PLAZA CAMPUS GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN THE STREET CORPORATE CO-LOCATION RESIDENTIAL ACADEMIC CAMPUS LAWN CORPORATE CO-LOCATION SOUTH LOOP ROAD ACADEMIC

STREET

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Full Build - Illustrative Site Plan

Figure S-7

10.9.12

Proposed Loop Roadway Conguration

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure S-8

Executive Summary

side. The loop road would provide access to the campuss loading areas, which would be located primarily on the east side of the campus. Drop off and pick up areas may be provided in front of the Executive Education Center and potentially at central locations serving the academic buildings. Final design of the roadway and pedestrian crosswalks and controls would be coordinated with RIOC and the New York City Department of Transportation; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York. As shown in Figure S-3, to the north of the loop roadway, additional roadway segments would be mapped to the connection with Main Street. These additional segments would be mapped at a width of 50 feet except for the segment of West Main Street just west of the connection with Main Street, which would be mapped with a width of 60 feet. S.6.4. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES

As part of the sustainable design energy measures, to the extent feasible, the proposed project may include the following: On-site utility buildings that could total approximately 40,000 gsf. The utility plants would provide space for in-coming utility services and may also include equipment to supply power, chilled water, and heat to portions of the campus. PV panels. As described above, an array of PV panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building. PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures as needed to achieve the renewable electricity goals of the campus. A system of up to 400 geothermal wells. The wells would be closed-loop wells and are anticipated to reach approximately 500 feet deep. The well systems would be entirely subsurface and would be located beneath the central open space. Strict energy targets for campus buildings. Supporting the academic program using as little energy as necessary is critical for long-term sustainability of the campus. In addition to energy measures, the proposed project would be planned and designed to achieve other sustainability targets, including effective stormwater management and filtration, pedestrian and bike transportation options, low-impact building materials, reduction of heat islands, and other measures that are typical of the LEED green building program. Design measures to accommodate recycling, such as separate receptacles for recyclables, recycling chutes, and/or storage areas would also be included. S.6.5. PROPOSED PROGRAMMING AND POPULATION

Cornell intends for its academic program to be flexible and inter-disciplinary with initial areas of focus around connective media, health, and the built environment. The academic program would offer degrees at the masters and doctorate levels; undergraduate degrees would not be offered. Academic and corporate co-location buildings would be oriented towards the non-biological applied sciences and engineering. The academic program would be complemented by an Executive Education Center as well as the corporate co-location use, which would be commercial space expected to be occupied by related industries.

S-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The anticipated RWCDS project population by phase is shown below in Table S-2. Table S-2 represents the number of faculty, staff, students, and others who would be generated due to the new academic programs as well as the number of workers that would be introduced by the corporate co-location programs, the Executive Education Center, and the other uses at the campus. Table S-3 shows the anticipated population that would be housed on the project site and also includes an estimate of the on-site populations dependents and families. As housing at the Cornell NYC Tech campus would be open only to Cornell University affiliates and not the general population, the standard demographic assumptions used for Manhattan would not apply to this project. In order to estimate on-campus population at Cornell NYC Tech, Cornell has based its projections on housing patterns at Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan and the College of Engineering and applied sciences departments at its Ithaca campus.

Table S-2 Cornell NYC Tech Population (1)

Use Leadership and Staff Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) Visitors/Adjuncts Funded Researchers PostDocs Ph.D. Candidates Master's Students Total (Cornell NYC Academic Population) Workers Conference Facility Hotel Workers Workers Workers Total (Worker Population) Total (Academic and Worker Population) Phase 1 74 93 18 45 37 260 300 827 400 13 84 3 20 30 550 1,377 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) 133 286 33 125 125 750 1,750 3,203 2,000 13 84 6 50 75 2,228 5,431

Academic

Worker Population Corporate Co-Location(2) Executive Education Center (3) Utility Plant Residential (4) Retail (5)

Notes: (1) Under the terms of the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is obligated to have no fewer than 75 faculty and 390 students (Ph.D. candidates and master's students) by 2018, and no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students when the campus is fully operational. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase. (2) Corporate co-location worker population assumes 4 employees per 1,000 gsf. (3) Conference facility assumes 1 employee per 2,000 gsf; hotel assumes 1 worker per 2.67 rooms. (4) Residential worker population assumes 1 employee per 22 dwelling units. (5) Retail worker population assumes 3 employees per 1,000 gsf, with 10,000 gsf of retail in Phase 1 and 25,000 gsf of retail in the Full Build condition.

S-10

Executive Summary

Table S-3 Cornell NYC Tech On-Campus Residential Population

Total On-Campus Population Off-Campus Academic Academic Population Type (1) Population Population Partners Children Phase 1 Leadership and Staff 74 72 2 2 2 75 Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) 93 18 56 15 2 Visitors/Adjuncts 18 16 1 0 0 Funded Researchers 45 45 0 0 30 Postdoctoral Fellows 37 7 15 3 208 Ph.D. Candidates 260 52 104 21 255 Master's Students 300 45 51 0 Total 827 255 572 229 41 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) Leadership and Staff 133 131 3 2 1 172 Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) 286 114 129 34 8 Visitors/Adjuncts 33 25 4 1 0 Funded Researchers 125 125 0 0 76 Postdoctoral Fellows 125 49 38 8 450 Ph.D. Candidates 750 300 225 45 942 Master's Students 1,750 808 188 0 Total 3,203 1,552 1,651 586 89 Note: (1) No Staff or Researchers would be accommodated in on-campus housing Total Academic Population Total

842

2,326

S.7.

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Each chapter of the EIS assesses whether development resulting from the proposed actions could result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In disclosing impacts, the EIS considers a proposed projects potential adverse impacts on the environmental setting. Because the proposed project would be operational in future years, 6 its environmental setting is not the current environment, but the future environment. Therefore, the technical analyses and consideration of alternatives first assess current conditions and then forecast these conditions to 2018 and 2038, corresponding to the completion of Phases 1 and 2, respectively, for the purposes of determining potential impacts. The EIS provides a description of Existing Conditions for the year 2012 and assessments of future conditions without the proposed project in both 2018 and 2038 (the Future without the Proposed Project or NoAction condition) and the future with the proposed project (or With Action condition). To forecast the No-Action condition, information on known land-use proposals and, as appropriate, changes in anticipated overall growth, is incorporated. The differences between the Future Without and With the Proposed Project are assessed for whether such differences are adverse and/or significant; any significant adverse environmental impacts are disclosed. The EIS also identifies and analyzes appropriate mitigation for any identified significant adverse environmental impacts. While the buildings at Goldwater Hospital would most likely be demolished and replaced with another appropriate use if the Cornell NYC Tech project did not proceed, for purposes of conservatively assessing impacts, the EIS accounts for a No-Action condition in which
6

As discussed above, Cornell is obligated to complete construction of Phase 1 by 2017 and Phase 2 by 2037. The Draft EIS uses 2018 and 2038 as the analysis years, as those represent the first full years of operation for Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.

S-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Goldwater Hospital would remain vacant, but the buildings would remain in place. The EIS accounts for the hospitals demolition and redevelopment of the project site as part of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project, as described in Section S.6, Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario, is the RWCDS for environmental review purposes.

S.8.
S.8.1.

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, or public policy. The proposed project would add new academic, residential, commercial, utility, parking, and publicly accessible open space uses on the project site. While the density of development on the project site would increase as a result of the proposed project, the proposed project would improve land use conditions by creating a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development on a site that would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. The mix of uses within the proposed Cornell NYC Tech campus would be complementary to each other and would be supportive of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. The proposed development would be compatible with land uses in the broader study area, as the proposed uses would be complementary to surrounding open space, transportation, retail, and residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant adverse land use impacts. The proposed project would result in two zoning changes: the project site would be rezoned from an R7-2 designation to a C4-5 designation; and the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be created and mapped over the rezoning area. The zoning changes are necessary to facilitate the development of a mixed-use campus, and would include controls on lot area, the bulk and height of the development, and the provision of publicly accessible open space. The proposed project would support and further the objectives of applicable public policies, including the citys applied sciences initiative, PlaNYC 2030, the Waterfront Revitalization Program, and RIOCs General Development Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable public policies, and would therefore not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts. S.8.2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts as measured by the five socioeconomic areas of concern prescribed in the CEQR Technical Manual. The following summarizes the conclusions drawn from the analysis. S.8.2.1. DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

The proposed project would not directly displace any residents from the project site. Therefore a preliminary screening assessment was sufficient to conclude that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts due to direct residential displacement.

S-12

Executive Summary

S.8.2.2.

DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT

Goldwater Hospitallocated on the project sitewill vacate its current site in the future with or without the proposed project. As the proposed project would develop a vacant site, it would not directly displace any businesses or institutions. Therefore a preliminary screening assessment was sufficient to conclude that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts due to direct business displacement. S.8.2.3. INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

The preliminary assessment concluded that the residential population introduced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in adverse indirect residential displacement impacts in the study area. The proposed projects 1,094 residential units would introduce 2,326 residents to the study area, consisting of University leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students, as well as their residential partners and children. These residential units would be oncampus and only available to this academic population and would therefore have no potential to generate indirect effects in the study area. It is possible that the remaining off-campus academic population of 1,552 students, faculty, and staff, as well as the estimated 2,228 non-academic employees could seek new housing opportunities in the study area or within a reasonable commuting distance of the campus. These households, whether new to the market or representing households already in New York City, would participate in the private residential marketplace and would be dispersed over a larger area than just the local study area. Moreover, since the income profile of the academic and worker population is not expected to exceed that of the average household income of the study area, it is not expected that potential new demand would change the market profile such that it would result in indirect residential displacement. For these reasons, the population introduced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant adverse indirect residential displacement impacts. S.8.2.4. INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT

The preliminary assessment concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts due to indirect business displacement. While the proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of new economic activity to the study area, it is expected that the Cornell NYC Tech campus would add economic variety and vitality to complement the growing residential population on the island. The additional expenditure potential generated by the estimated new residential population of 2,326 and a daily academic and total worker population of approximately 3,781 could provide new sales to the existing retail base on the island. Roosevelt Island has historically struggled to create a vibrant retail sector given a trade area that is basically limited to existing residents and workers. At the same time, the new retail component associated with the campus is expected to add about 25,000 sf of retail primarily oriented to the student and worker population which would not be expected to change the overall supply and demand for retail in the core Main Street and Southtown areas. As a result, the proposed project would not be expected to result in indirect business displacement within the study area.

S-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

S.8.2.5.

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES

The preliminary assessment found that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on specific industries. The proposed project would not directly displace any businesses, nor would it have substantial adverse effects on business conditions in any industry or any category of business within or outside the study area. S.8.3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to community facilities. Based on a preliminary screening, detailed analyses were warranted of the proposed project potential impacts on: public elementary and intermediate schools for the 2038 analysis year; and public libraries for the 2038 analysis year. The detailed analyses found that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on community facilities. S.8.3.1. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The analysis of indirect effects on public schools concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public elementary or intermediate schools. The project site is located within Sub-district 5 of Community School District (CSD) 2. Based on information provided by Cornell University, the proposed project would generate approximately 49 elementary school students and 16 intermediate school students, by 2038. Elementary Schools Although elementary schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a shortage of seats in 2038, the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. As a result, they would not substantially increase the elementary school utilization rate; the increase would be approximately 1 percent, which is below the CEQR Technical Manual threshold of 5 percent or more for a significant adverse impact. Because the proposed project would increase the elementary school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools. Intermediate Schools Intermediate schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a surplus of seats in 2038, and the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. The sub-district would operate with a surplus of 91 seats, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by approximately 1 percent. Because intermediate schools in the study area would not operate at 100 percent utilization or greater, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools. Alternative Schools Analysis Using a more conservative alternative methodology, the full build out of the proposed project would generate 75 elementary school students, 25 intermediate school students, and 36 high

S-14

Executive Summary

school students (although Cornell University does not anticipate that this many children would be introduced by the proposed project). With these additional 75 elementary school students, elementary school utilization would increase to 129 percent Sub-district 5 of CSD 2; with the additional 25 intermediate school students, intermediate school utilization would increase to 96 percent in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. The increase in utilization for elementary schools in the sub-district would be 1 percent, which is below the 5 percent threshold for a significant adverse impact. The increase in utilization for intermediate schools in the sub-district would be 1 percent, and intermediate schools would operate with surplus capacity. Therefore, although the alternative methodology would introduce a greater number of students to the study area, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse schools impacts under the alternative schools analysis. S.8.3.2. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON LIBRARIES

The proposed project would introduce approximately 2,326 residents to the project site by 2038. With this additional population, the Roosevelt Island branch would serve 15,170 residents, an increase of approximately 18.1 percent. Independent of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch will relocate to 504 Main Street before the analysis year, doubling its space. The holdings per resident ratio is anticipated to be 2.41. With the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch catchment area population would increase approximately 18.1 percent. However, the holdings per resident ratio of the study area in the With Action condition (2.41) would continue to be higher than the overall ratio in Manhattan (1.20), indicating that the study area would continue to be well-served by the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents of the study area would have access to the entire NYPL system through the inter-library loan system and could have volumes delivered directly to the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents who work off-Island (such as the partners of Cornell NYC Tech faculty, staff, and students) would also have access to libraries near their place of work. Moreover, the Cornell NYC Tech community would have access to the resources of the Cornell University Libraries (CUL) system, one of the worlds largest research libraries, with approximately 7.8 million print volumes and over 80,000 electronic serial titles, which would be expected to reduce the incremental demand on the NYPL system to some extent. Therefore, while the percentage increase in catchment area population exceeds the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of five percent, the population introduced by the proposed project would not impair the delivery of library services in the study area, and the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public libraries. S.8.4. OPEN SPACE

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with regard to open space. By 2018, the ratio of passive open space per 1,000 non-residents in the -mile (commercial) study area would be 14.20 acres, which represents a decrease of 83.8 percent from the NoAction condition (see Table S-4). By 2038 this ratio would be 3.66, which represents a decrease of 95.8 percent from the No-Action condition. However the large decreases in the ratio are due to the fact that the No-Action worker population in the commercial study area is very small (142 workers), resulting in a very high No-Action ratio of passive open space to workers. The WithAction passive open space ratios would remain greatly above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents. Therefore, while the decrease in the passive open space ratio S-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

would be greater than the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to open space resources in the commercial study area by 2018 and 2038, as the commercial study area would remain well-served.

Table S-4 With Action Condition: Open Space Ratios Summary

DCP Planning Goal 0.15 2.5 2.0 0.5 Open Space Ratios (acres per 1,000 people) No-Action With Action Existing Condition (2018 Condition Conditions and 2038) (2018/ 2038) Non-Residential (-Mile) Study Area 53.43 87.68 14.20/ 3.66 Residential (-Mile) Study Area 3.04 2.71 2.63/ 2.43 1.42 1.26 1.20/ 1.09 1.63 1.45 1.43/ 1.34 Percent Change No-Action to With Action Condition (2018/ 2038) -83.8%/ -95.8% -3.1%/ -10.6% -5.1%/ -14.0% -1.3%/ -7.6%

Ratio Passive/Workers Total/Residents Active/Residents Passive/Residents

By 2018, the ratio of total, active, and passive open space per 1,000 residents in the -mile (residential) study area would be 2.63, 1.20, and 1.43, respectively. The total open space ratio would continue to exceed the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The total and passive ratios would exceed the DCP planning goals of 2.5, and 0.5, respectively, and the active ratio would be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Compared to the No-Action condition, the total ratio would decrease by 3.1 percent, the active ratio would decrease by 5.1 percent, and the passive ratio would decrease by 1.3 percent. As the small decreases in the total and passive open space ratios would be less than 5 percent, and these ratios would continue to exceed DCP planning goals, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. Although the active ratio would decline, and would continue to be below the DCP planning goal, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall, and the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project, due to the relatively high daytime population and low proportion of school-aged children that would be introduced. Therefore, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant open space impacts in the residential study area. By 2038, the ratio of total, active, and passive open space per 1,000 residents in the residential study area would be 2.43, 1.09, and 1.34, respectively. The total ratio would exceed the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, and would be slightly below the DCP planning goal of 2.5. The passive ratio would exceed the DCP planning goal of 0.5, and the active ratio would be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Compared to the No-Action condition, the total ratio would decrease by 10.6 percent, the active ratio would decrease by 14.0 percent, and the passive ratio would decrease by 7.6 percent. Although these decreases in the open space ratios exceed the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the total open space ratio of 2.43 would remain well above the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. As the proposed project would not result in a 5 percent decrease in an open space ratio in an area currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. Although the active ratio would decline, and would continue to be below the DCP planning goal, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall, and the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project, due to the relatively high daytime population and the low proportion of school-aged

S-16

Executive Summary

children that would be introduced. Therefore, the full build out of the proposed project would not result in any significant open space impacts in the residential study area. S.8.5. SHADOWS

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse shadows impacts. The following summarizes the analyses, organized by resource of concern, leading to this conclusion. S.8.5.1. Phase 1 A portion of the northern section of the promenade would receive approximately three hours of new shadows in the morning and mid-day in the spring, summer and fall, and three and three quarters hours in the winter. The incremental shadows would move over the course of this period, affecting different areas at different times. At least one area would receive about three hours of new shadows; some other areas would receive between one and two and a half hours. With no structures to the west, the promenade would consequently be in full sun from mid-day to the end of the analysis period. All individual trees would remain in direct sun for a minimum of approximately four hours on March 21/September 21, and for six hours or more in May through August. Therefore, the health of the vegetation would not likely be significantly impacted by the proposed projects shadows at any time during the growing season. In terms of the impacts of shadows on users of the promenade, the linear nature of the space and the proximity of other seating areas in direct sun elsewhere along the western or eastern promenade, and in South Point Park, provide many alternatives to users who would seek out a seating or walking area in the sun, in any season. Therefore, users of the promenade would not be significantly impacted by the project generated shadow. Phase 2 Shadows from the Phase 2 development would affect the southern part of the promenade in a similar way to that of Phase 1 shadows on the northern section, at least in terms of vegetation. Despite long durations of incremental shadows, each tree would continue to receive a minimum five hours of direct sun in March 21/September 21 (most trees would receive more) and seven or more hours from May to August. Therefore, the health of the vegetation would not likely be significantly impacted by the proposed projects shadows at any time during the growing season. In Phase 2, from the perspective of the user, a larger proportion of the western promenade would be in incremental shadow in the mornings throughout the year. However, the linear nature of the space would continue to provide sunlit seating areas in some locations, and there would be larger sunlit seating areas in the adjacent spaces of South Point Park and the eastern promenade. Even in the winter, these adjacent waterfront spaces would be mostly in sun throughout the morning when the western promenade would be mostly in shadow. Users of the promenade would therefore not be significantly impacted by the project generated shadow. S.8.5.2. Phase 1 Incremental shadow durations would range from one hour 40 minutes in March and September to three hours 50 minutes on the summer solstice, occurring in the middle to late afternoon. PROMENADEEAST SIDE PROMENADEWEST SIDE

S-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

These new shadows would fall in the northern part of the promenade. The vegetation in this area would receive more than six hours of direct sunlight throughout the morning and early afternoon through the growing season (March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21 analysis days), due to the lack of any nearby structures to the east and southeast, and would not be significantly impacted by the project. As noted for the western side of the promenade above, users would be able to use adjacent sunlit sections of the promenade or South Point Park during the late afternoons when portions of the eastern promenade are in incremental shadow, and therefore significant shadow impacts would not occur to the users of this space with the proposed project. Phase 2 In 2038 with the proposed project, incremental shadow durations on the eastern promenade would range from two hours in March and September to four hours on June 21, occurring in the middle to late afternoon. However, as in Phase 1, individual trees and other plants would continue to receive more than six hours of sunlight throughout the morning and early afternoon through the growing season (March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21 analysis days), which would be sufficient to maintain their health; therefore, they would not be significantly impacted by the project. For park users, even in the late afternoons of the May 6/August 6 and June 21 analysis days when fairly large sections of the eastern promenade are shaded by the proposed development, the linear nature of the space would continue to provide sunlit seating areas in some limited locations, and there would be larger sunlit seating areas in the adjacent spaces of South Point Park and the western promenade. Therefore, no significant shadow impacts would result from the proposed development. S.8.5.3. Phase 1 The Phase 1 development, particularly the residential building, would cast shadows on the court between two and a half hours, in early spring and fall, to five hours on the summer solstice. In March and September, incremental shadow from the Phase 1 residential building would last from 2:00 PM to 4:29 PM but would not eliminate all remaining sunlight until the final 29 minutes of the analysis day. In May through August, the extent and duration of the new shadow would be greater, and would eliminate remaining sunlight for 30 minutes around 3:00 PM. On June 21 incremental shadow would fall on large portions of the court for about an hour and a half in the middle of the afternoon, and would remove remaining sunlight from 4:50 PM to 6:01 PM, though nearly the entire court would be in existing shadow at that time. However, the court is mostly or completely in sun throughout the morning and early afternoon in these seasons, and, particularly in the heat of these late spring and summer months, this limited extent and duration of new shadow on a basketball court would likely not significantly impact the users. In December only three minutes of incremental shadow would occur in Phase 1. Phase 2 In Phase 2, there would be 10 additional minutes of incremental shadow on the basketball court, occurring on the December 21 analysis day, which would not alter the conclusions from Phase 1. SPORTS PARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURT

S-18

Executive Summary

S.8.5.4.

SOUTH POINT PARK

No project-generated shadow would reach South Point Park in Phase 1. With Phase 2 development, new shadows would fall on the northern or northwestern portion of this park early in the late spring and summer mornings, ranging from about an hour and a half on May 6/August 6 to two hours on the summer solstice. Given that this area of the park would be in full sun for the remainder of the analysis day in these seasons (i.e. nine to ten hours), no significant shadow impacts would occur. S.8.5.5. FIREFIGHTER FIELD

Incremental shadow would fall on a small portion of this field for about an hour and ten minutes on the December 21 analysis day only. Given the limited size and duration of the incremental shadow, the active-use nature of the resource, and the fact that parts of the field would remain in sun during the affected period, significant shadow impacts would not occur. S.8.5.6. SUTTON PLACE PARK

Four minutes of new shadow on the December 21 analysis day only would not result in shadow impacts. S.8.5.7. EAST RIVER

The proposed project would cast new shadows on portions of the west channel of the East River in the mornings and portions of the east channel in the afternoons in all seasons, primarily affecting areas adjacent to the shoreline. While the total duration of new shadow would be generally between four and a half and five hours on the west channel and between a few minutes and up to nearly four hours on the east channel, depending on the season, most affected areas in both channels would receive shorter durations as the shadows move west to east and clockwise over the course of the day. The areas that would receive the longest durations of new shadows would continue to receive more than six hours of sunlight over the course of each analysis day, because there are no other nearby structures casting shadows besides the ones on the proposed project site. The current flows swiftly in the East River and would move phytoplankton and other natural elements quickly through the shaded areas. Therefore, given their limited duration and extent over the course of each analysis day, incremental shadows generated by the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on primary productivity within the East River. S.8.6. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to archaeological resources, but would result in a significant adverse impact with regard to architectural resources. The following summarizes the analyses leading to this conclusion. S.8.6.1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study prepared for the project site and rezoning area determined that the project site has no sensitivity for precontact archaeological resources and low sensitivity for archaeological resources dating to the historic period. In a comment letter dated March 26, 2012, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase 1A study, and the New York State S-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) determined in its June 19, 2012 findings letter that it also has no archaeological concerns for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse archaeological impacts. S.8.6.2. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would result in a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Pursuant to Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (SHPA), a study was prepared in consultation OPRHP to evaluate the feasibility of retaining elements of the Goldwater Hospital complex to avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. The Alternatives Analysis found that only the alternative that maintains the Goldwater Hospital complex in its entirety would avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. However, this alternative would not fulfill the citys requirement for developing an applied sciences and engineering campus containing 620,000 gsf of academic space, nor would it allow for the overall development of the citys minimum requirement of 1.8 million gsf of space for an applied sciences and engineering campus. In addition, the hospitals existing 647,900 gsf is contained in buildings that, in general, do not meet the requirements for academic and corporate co-location buildings. Similarly, the expansion alternative would meet certain square footage and programming needs, however, the type of space that could be developed would not provide the spatial configuration needed for dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs for academic or corporate co-location uses, which are central to the projects purpose and need. In consideration of Cornells purpose and need for the proposed project, it is not possible to retain and reuse the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the proposed project. Therefore, there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid a significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex. Measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. Overall, the addition of new shorter and taller buildings and landscaping elements on the project site would alter the settings of the three architectural resources in the study areathe Strecker Memorial Laboratory, the Steam Plant, and the Queensboro Bridge. However, the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the Steam Plant would continue to be located in the context of taller buildings and views to these architectural resources would not be obstructed by the proposed project. While the setting and views to the Queensboro Bridge would change with the full build out of the project site, in no cases would views of the bridge be fully obstructed. Further, many prominent views to the bridge would remain available. These changes to the settings and views of the study areas architectural resources would not adversely affect the characteristics for which the historic properties meet or may meet S/NR and New York City Landmarks (NYCL) criteria. S.8.7. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Overall, while the proposed project would result in substantial changes to the urban design of the project site and views to visual resources, it would not have any significant adverse impacts related to urban design and visual resources.

S-20

Executive Summary

S.8.7.1.

PROJECT SITE

With the development of the proposed buildings, the height and bulk of structures on the project site would change substantially. The increased scale, both in terms of bulk and height, of the new buildings on the project site would be a prominent change from the appearance and character of the project site in the No-Action condition. The project site would go from hosting several vacant hospital buildings to being occupied by tall, bulky structures, creating a distinctive and recognizable campus. While considerable, this change is not anticipated to be significantly adverse. The total FAR that could be developed on site would not change from the No-Action condition, and the proposed development would comply with the bulk, height, lot coverage, and setback regulations of the proposed special district. Compared to the No-Action condition, in the future with the proposed project the visual appearance and thus the pedestrian experience of the project site would change considerably; however, this change would not meet the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for a significant adverse urban design impact in that it would not alter the arrangement, appearance, or functionality of the project site or rezoning area such that the alteration would negatively affect a pedestrians experience of the area. The proposed project would improve the pedestrian experience on the project site, and maintain pedestrian access to the waterfront. New open spaces would provide places to rest and play and would visually enhance the experience of walking around the project site. Greater levels of pedestrian activity generated by the proposed uses on the sites would be self-reinforcing, making the project area more inviting and appealing to visit. Views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens would still be available from numerous vantage points within the project site and rezoning area. Furthermore, the special district would require that a visual corridor of at least 50 feet be established through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. As in the No-Action condition, however, the expansiveness of views from the project site and rezoning area would be somewhat limited by the substantial tree coverage that surrounds the project site, which is anticipated to be expanded on the site through the extensive tree planting program. S.8.7.2. STUDY AREA

Urban Design The development associated with the proposed project would not result in any changes to the street pattern, block shapes, buildings, or streetscape of the study area. In the future with the proposed project the visual appearance of the project siteand thus the pedestrians experience of the study areawould change considerably. The portion of the Island south of the Queensboro Bridge would be filled with new, active development. The majority of the buildings to be developed would be consistent with the taller buildings on the north side of the Island. At approximately 320 feet in height, the proposed Phase 1 residential building would be taller than any of the buildings that would exist on the Island in the No-Action condition; however, it would be slightly lower than the height of the two Queensboro Bridge towers on the Island, which are approximately 350 feet tall. The proposed open spaces would visually enhance the experience of walking around the study area, and would help to integrate the new campus with the rest of the Island. The proposed mapping action would make the mapped street pattern consistent with the pedestrians current experience of the loop road, and the addition of the bicycle path and sidewalk to the loop road would improve access and circulation to the southern portion of the study area.

S-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Visual Resources In the future with the proposed project, pedestrian-level views in the on- and off-Island portions of the study area would include the more dense development anticipated on the project site. While the context of on-Island views from north and south of the project site would change considerably with the new development, these views are anticipated to be an improvement over the views in the No-Action condition, which would include vacant buildings on the project site. Existing view corridors and views to visual resources along the limited on-Island streets would not be obstructed, except for some views of the Queensboro Bridge towers; however, the bridge would remain highly visible throughout the rest of the on-Island study area. The waterfront promenade would continue to provide the most expansive views to on- and off-Island resources. The context of the limited views to the visual resources on the north side of the Island is not anticipated to change considerably. From the more distant off-Island views, it is anticipated that the campus would appear more consistent with the development on the north side of the Island, which will include the completion of the Southtown development and which will include buildings of 21, 25, and 29 stories, and adjacent portions of Manhattan. Some views to towers in the Queens skyline could be obstructed from Manhattan by the fully-developed campus; however, these buildings would still be visible from other viewpoints. Views of the Queensboro Bridge would now include a tall residential building in close proximity, and the proposed tallest buildings could obstruct some views to certain elements of the bridge; however, the proposed buildings would be shorter than the bridge anchorages, and the bridge would continue to be seen from many locations. Furthermore, due to the scale and breadth of the bridge, including the spans that continue east and west beyond Roosevelt Island, the bridges visual prominence in the study area would not be significantly adversely affected by the full build-out of the project site. Overall, the changes in views with the proposed projectwhile considerablewould not constitute a significant adverse effect on visual resources. S.8.8. NATURAL RESOURCES

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources, including: water quality, aquatic biota, tidal wetlands, essential fish habitat, or threatened or endangered aquatic species. The implementation of green infrastructure, and other measures implemented as part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River and NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands from the project site. Grass cover of the project site would increase from the existing and No Action area of 3.1 acres (25 percent) to 3.46 acres (28 percent) at full build. No areas of the 100-year floodplain occur within the project site. Because the floodplain within and adjacent to the study area is affected by coastal flooding, it would not be affected by construction or regrading/filling of the 500-year floodplain that would occur as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage, or increase the exposure of public utilities to flood hazards. The design of the buildings within the project site would be consistent with the New York City Building Code requirements for construction within the 100-year floodplain and any subsequent revisions to these requirements (e.g., adoption of the FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation [ABFE]). The project proposes to set the minimum elevation of the main entrance level to 17.4 feet Belmont Island Datum, which would be about 4 feet above the current 100-year flood elevation and at least 1 foot above the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation. Therefore, the project

S-22

Executive Summary

would have resilience for at least a one foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation (using the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation) due to sea level rise, which is within the likely range of sea level rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. The main entrance level for each building would be consistent with the New York City Building Code. The below-grade area for all on-site structures would be waterproofed and designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure exerted by groundwater during a 100-year flood event, consistent with the New York City Building Code. Therefore, the design for the structures at full build would minimize the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage under current and projected flood conditions, and no significant adverse impacts are expected. Phase 1 and full build of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to terrestrial ecological communities and vegetation. Tree replacement would be consistent with city tree replacement requirements using tree species approved by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in the development of landscaped open space within the project site which would be expected to provide suitable habitat for the urban tolerant species currently present within the study area and would have the potential to enhance the quality of habitat through the introduction of increased diversity and use of native plant species. Bird-safe building features would be considered in final building and landscaping designs to reduce the potential for daytime bird collisions with lowerstory reflective glass, thus reducing potential loss of resident and migratory bird species. S.8.9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials, with the measures described below. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified potential on-site sources of contamination, including historical fill materials of unknown origin; historical laboratories, a photography room and an incinerator room associated with the hospital; underground electrical transformer vaults potentially utilizing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing transformer oil; and four diesel petroleum storage tanks (one 5,000-gallon underground storage tank [UST] and three aboveground storage tanks [ASTs] ranging from 110 to 330 gallons) used for emergency generators. Based on these potential concerns, a Phase II Environmental Site Investigation was performed that included the collection and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples. The analysis indicated that levels of certain semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals in the soil samples were somewhat elevated, but most likely attributable to the historical fill materials rather than a spill or release. Soil concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and PCBs met the most stringent state guidelines. Results for the groundwater samples met state drinking water standards 7 with the exception of levels of certain metals, some of which were likely related to the urban fill materials, whereas others were likely natural. To reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during and following construction of the proposed project, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) have been
7

Groundwater on Roosevelt Island is not used as a source of potable water and would not be used as such in the future.

S-23

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

prepared and approved by NYCDEP. The RAP and CHASP would be implemented during project construction. The RAP addresses requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). Lead-based paint, asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and PCB-containing electrical equipment and fluorescent lighting fixtures may be present within the existing structures or elsewhere on the project site. During and following construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to ACM, lead-based paint, PCBs and chemical use and storage would be followed. S.8.10. WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Phase 1 and full build sanitary sewage generation would increase compared to the No Action condition. The increases would be minimal and would continue to be conveyed via gravity sanitary sewers in East and West Roads. New sanitary sewer connections to the East and West Road sanitary sewers from the new buildings would be built. The sanitary pump stations and force mains located on the Island would remain in operation and would continue to convey sanitary flow to the interceptor in Vernon Boulevard in Queens. The south pump station has adequate capacity to handle the flows from Phase 1. When design begins for the final phase of the project, NYCDEP will be consulted to determine if upgrades are needed at the south pump station; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York. The proposed project would not significantly impact the existing WWTP infrastructure. Phase 1 and full build stormwater runoff volumes would decrease or remain the same as compared to the No Action condition. Stormwater runoff would continue to discharge into the East River. In addition, a SWPPP would be implemented for both phases of the project. The SWPPP would meet NYSDEC standard requirements and design guidelines for temporary erosion and sediment control and for post-construction stormwater management and would improve the quality of the stormwater prior to its discharge to the East River via the existing outfalls. Overall, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the citys wastewater and stormwater conveyance or wastewater treatment infrastructure. S.8.11. SOLID WASTE

No significant adverse impacts on solid waste and sanitation services are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project site is served by an existing system of solid waste collection and disposal services provided by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and by commercial carters. The net increment of solid waste under the proposed project would be a minimal addition to the citys solid waste stream, and the proposed project would include sustainability measures that would reduce waste generation. Therefore, the proposed project

S-24

Executive Summary

would not result in a significant adverse impact on solid waste and sanitation services and would be consistent with the citys Solid Waste Management Plan. S.8.12. ENERGY

The proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact with respect to the transmission and generation of energy. The proposed project would comply with the New York City Energy Conservation Code and Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State, incorporating all measures relating to energy efficiency and thermal transmittance. By 2038, full development of the proposed project is projected to result in a combined 173,684 million British thermal units (Btu) of energy demand annually. The proposed projects total combined energy intensity for full build is 81,542 Btu per square foot. This is substantially lower than the average intensities in New York City. The proposed project would incorporate a number of measures intended to reduce energy consumption. Cornell has committed to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification for all project buildings. Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. The building would use on-campus generated solar power and be heated and cooled using onsite geothermal energy. S.8.13. TRANSPORTATION

Significant adverse transportation impacts were identified in the areas of traffic, transit, and pedestrians. Mitigation measures for these impacts are discussed below in section S.8.21, Mitigation. S.8.13.1. TRAFFIC

Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized intersections), Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at five intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, three in the weekday midday peak hour, and four in the weekday PM peak hour. Full build of the project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at nine intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, seven in the weekday midday peak hour, and 11 in the weekday PM peak hour. To a large extent, many of the significant adverse traffic impacts can be attributed to background traffic growth plus a substantial volume of No Action development generated traffic, especially over the extended period between existing conditions and analysis year 2038. Measures to mitigate these significant impacts are discussed in section S.8.21, Mitigation. S.8.13.2. TRANSIT

The transit analyses examined the projects potential to affect the subway (station elements at the Roosevelt Island subway station [F line] and the F line subway cars [i.e., line-haul analysis]); the Roosevelt Island tramway; and the bus system (i.e., the Q102 bus and the Roosevelt Island red bus). The screening assessment concluded that a detailed examination of subway line-haul analysis is not warranted. However, bus and tramway line-haul analyses, and a detailed analysis of station elements at the Roosevelt Island subway station (F line) were prepared.

S-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Under Phase 1, the proposed project would not result in an impact on the Q102 bus route in the eastbound direction during the PM peak period. Under full build condition, the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts on bus line-haul levels on the eastbound and westbound Q102 route during the AM and PM peak periods as well as on the Red Bus route in the southbound and northbound direction during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Potential measures to mitigate the projected significant adverse bus line-haul impacts are described in section S.8.21, Mitigation. The project would not result in impacts to the subway station or tramway. S.8.13.3. PEDESTRIANS

Weekday peak period pedestrian conditions were evaluated at key sidewalk elements at five intersections. Under Phase 1, there would be no significant adverse pedestrian impacts. In the full build condition, significant adverse impacts are anticipated for two pedestrian elements: West Road: The east sidewalk between West Main Street and the subway station during the AM, midday and PM peak periods; and West Main Street: The east sidewalk between the Tram Station West bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge during the AM, midday and PM peak periods. Measures that can be implemented to mitigate these significant adverse pedestrian impacts are discussed in section S.8.21, Mitigation. S.8.13.4. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

Accident data for the study area intersections were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for the 3-year time period between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011. A total of 30 reportable and non-reportable accidents, no fatalities, 17 injuries, and 1 pedestrian/bicyclist-related accident occurred at the study area intersections. A rolling total of accident data has not identified any study area locations as high pedestrian accident locations in the 2008 to 2011 period. S.8.13.5. PARKING Up to 500 spaces could be built on-site under the proposed actions, with 250 spaces assumed under Phase 1 and 500 spaces under full build. Under Phase 1, 250 spaces would accommodate the projected daytime peak demand of approximately 220 spaces and overnight parking demand of about 155 spaces. Under full build, the 500 space supply would not accommodate the projected peak daytime demand of approximately 615 spaces but would accommodate overnight demand of about 290 spaces. There is expected to be sufficient parking elsewhere on Roosevelt Island within the Motorgate garage to accommodate the projected daytime on-site parking shortfall under the full build condition. With the proposed actions, parking is not required to be provided at the site. If no parking were provided on-site in Phase 1, both daytime and overnight parking needs would be met by available Motorgate garage spaces. If no parking were provided on-site under the full build condition, daytime parking needs would be met by the available Motorgate garage spaces. However, there would be an overnight parking shortfall of about 45 spaces, which would need to be accommodated beyond -mile from the site and the Motorgate garage. There would also potentially be additional on-street overnight parking available pending the design of the campus

S-26

Executive Summary

roadways to accommodate the projected parking shortfall if no parking was provided on-site under the full build condition (although no credit for this potential additional parking resource has been taken). S.8.14. AIR QUALITY

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts. The following summarizes the analyses leading to this conclusion. S.8.14.1. MOBILE SOURCES

The maximum predicted pollutant concentrations and concentration increments from mobile sources in Phase 1 and the full build of the proposed project would be below the applicable air quality impact criteria. Concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) due to project-generated traffic at intersections in the study area would not result in any violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It was also determined that CO impacts from mobile sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed CEQR de minimis criteria, while incremental increases in fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would not exceed the citys current interim guidance criteria. Emissions due to the proposed projects parking garage were found to result in no significant adverse air quality impacts. S.8.14.2. STATIONARY SOURCES

Based on detailed stationary source analyses, no potential for significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from the potential combined heat and power (CHP) plants associated with the Phase 1 and full build development (i.e., the central utility plants). To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings, the project would have to meet certain measures on the placement of fossil fuel-fired exhaust stacks. For potential fossil fuel fired boiler systems, specific measures are proposed to ensure that boiler systems would not have significant adverse impacts. With these restrictions in place, no significant adverse air quality impacts are predicted from the proposed projects stationary sources. Prior to final design of Phase 1 buildings and during design of Phase 2, Cornell will consult with NYCDEP to determine the correct placement and height of stacks for buildings that may have undergone design or other changes; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York). S.8.15. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with regard to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The building energy use and vehicle use associated with the proposed project would result in up to approximately 8 thousand metric tons of CO2e emissions per year in Phase 1 and up to approximately 20 thousand metric tons of CO2e in full build. The GHG emissions intensity of 9 to 10 kg CO2e per gsf, would be substantially lower than the emissions intensity for similar uses. The proposed project would result in the development of a high-technology sustainable campus that is energy efficient and uses low-carbon and renewable power sources, which would further reduce the emissions from the proposed project, quoted above. The proposed site would be walkable and supportive of transit and non-motorized commuting and would strive to minimize GHG emissions from construction activity and emissions associated with the production and transport of construction S-27

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

materials. The proposed projects design includes many features aimed at reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions, and would be consistent with the citys citywide GHG reduction goal. By designing the FFE to be at least one to five feet above the ABFE 100-year flood elevation, the project would be resilient to sea level rise within the likely range of rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. S.8.16. NOISE

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse noise impacts. Traffic generated by the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant increases in noise levels in either analysis year at any nearby sensitive receptors. To meet CEQR interior noise level requirements, the analysis recommends up to 28 dBA of building attenuation for certain project buildings (the Phase 1 academic building, the Phase 1 residential building, and the Executive Education Center [hotel]). Noise levels in the newly created open spaces would be greater than the 55 dBA L10(1) recommended by CEQR criteria, but would be comparable to other parks on Roosevelt Island and elsewhere in New York City. Mechanical equipment associated with project buildings would be designed to meet all applicable noise regulations, and would therefore not have the potential to result in a significant noise impact. S.8.17. PUBLIC HEALTH

The proposed project would not result in significant unmitigated adverse impacts in any of the technical areas related to public health; it would, however, at times result in temporary unmitigated significant adverse noise impacts during construction. Therefore, the potential effects of construction-period noise impacts on public health were examined. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the one-hour equivalent noise level (Leq(1)) of between 3 and 5 decibels A-weighted (dBA), depending upon the noise level without the proposed project. The CEQR noise thresholds are based on quality of life considerations and not on public health considerations. In terms of public health, significance is not determined based upon the incremental change in noise level, but is based principally upon the magnitude of the noise level and duration of exposure. Cornell would implement a noise mitigation plan as required under the New York City Noise Code: this plan would outline measures that would include a variety of source and path controls. Even with these measures, the construction analysis identified the potential for significant adverse noise impacts on open spaces (see section S.8.19, Construction). For the open spaces that would experience exceedances (i.e., open space areas along Main Street during Phase 1 and the promenade and South Point Park adjacent to the project site during Phase 2), there are no feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to eliminate the significant noise impacts at these locations. Because people would be able to use a variety of other open spaces on Roosevelt Island during the periods of construction during which there would be noise exceedances, these exceedances are not expected to result in a public health impact. Overall, noise exceedances during the construction period would not result in significant adverse health impacts.

S-28

Executive Summary

S.8.18.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to neighborhood character. The proposed project would result in a positive effect on the neighborhood character in the primary and secondary study areas with the completion of Phase 1 and full build out of the proposed project. Instead of a vacant hospital complex, the primary and secondary study areas would benefit from a new active, mixed-use academic oriented development, with a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space by 2038. This development would be in keeping with the defining characteristics of the neighborhood character of the primary and secondary study areas. By contrast, in the No Action condition, the vacant hospital complex could detract from the natural setting and open space resources of the study areas, which are defining neighborhood character features. Changes associated with Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project with regard to land use, zoning, and public policy; shadows; socioeconomic conditions; open space; urban design and visual resources; and noise are not expected to adversely affect neighborhood character. With regard to historic and cultural resources, although the demolition of the hospital campus would result in a significant adverse impact to historic resources, it would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. Absent the proposed project, the hospital complex would be vacant, would detract from the physical setting of the project site, and would not contribute positively to neighborhood character in either analysis year. The demolition of the hospital and its replacement with Phase 1 and the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus would have beneficial land use effects on the primary study area. Therefore, demolition of the hospital complex would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. With regard to transportation, the proposed project would increase levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity on Roosevelt Island. While some significant adverse impacts (traffic, bus, and sidewalk) would require mitigation, the increased activity from the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on neighborhood character on Roosevelt Island in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. The combined effect of changes to the defining elements would not create a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. The major physical changes from the proposed project would occur only on the project site, which is physically separated from the secondary study area by the Queensboro Bridge. Within the primary study area, the neighborhood character would benefit from the 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space that would be provided on the project site by 2038, which would support a defining characteristic of the area. While the development on the project site by 2018 and 2038 would noticeably change the character of the area, these changes would not be considered adverse. Instead, Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would add new activity, vibrancy, and vitality that would be compatible with the defining characteristics of the primary and secondary study areas neighborhood character. S.8.19. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

The proposed project would result in significant adverse construction impacts related to transportation and noise (i.e., noise impacts on open space).

S-29

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

S.8.19.1.

TRANSPORTATION

During Phase 1 construction of the proposed project, significant adverse impacts are expected to result for traffic and transit conditions. During Phase 2 construction, significant adverse impacts are expected to result for traffic, transit, and pedestrian conditions. Phase 2 construction is expected to occur in two separate development segments, Phase 2A, which would commence in mid-2024 and continue through 2028, and Phase 2B, which would occur between 2034 and 2037. These findings are summarized below. Traffic The maximum Phase 1 construction activities would result in 397 passenger car equivalents (PCEs) between 6 and 7 AM and 345 PCEs between 3 and 4 PM on weekdays in the fourth quarter of 2015. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the construction peak hours of 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM was conducted at seven key study locations to identify potential traffic impacts during Phase 1 construction. According to these analyses, significant adverse traffic impacts are projected to occur during Phase 1 construction at four of the seven study locations analyzed. Three of these impacted locations could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by NYCDOT while impacts at the one location would be partially mitigated, similar to those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. For Phase 2 construction, the cumulative operational and construction traffic would be of lower magnitudes than what the overall project would generate when completed in 2038. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts during peak Phase 2 construction would be within the envelope of significant adverse traffic impacts identified for the 2038 analysis year in Transportation, and mitigatable and unmitigatable impacts in section S.8.21, Mitigation would apply to Phase 2 construction conditions as well. The required mitigation measures for those locations that could be mitigated are expected to be part of those presented for the 2038 full build out of the proposed project. These mitigation measures could be implemented at the discretion of RIOC and/or NYCDOT during construction of Phase 2. Parking With approximately 100 parking spaces expected to be allocated on-site and assuming the use of the available parking at the Motorgate garage, the projected construction worker parking demand during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction is expected to be fully accommodated at one of these parking locations. Cornell has committed to fund the costs of snow removal on the upper deck of the Motorgate garage in the event that construction worker parking requires that the upper deck of the garage be opened during winter months. Transit Transit trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse subway and Q102 bus line-haul impacts during Phase 1 construction. However, because most construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would rely on the Red Bus for travel to/from the project site, during off-peak hours when the Red Bus operates at lower frequencies, there is a potential for a significant adverse line-haul impact on the Red Bus that would warrant an increase in its service during off-peak hours (three additional buses during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours).

S-30

Executive Summary

After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island subway station and bus routes would experience increases in passengers generated by the completed uses. However, during the commuter peak periods, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker trips with those generated by the completion of Phase 1 and/or Phase 2A would be less than the total projected for the operational Phase 2 full build-out condition. As a result, Phase 2 construction efforts would not result in any significant adverse subway impacts. And although Phase 2 construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would also generate additional demand for Red Bus service, the existing Red Bus service is expected to be adequate in fully accommodating construction worker travel between the Motorgate garage and the project site. However, because the Q102 bus route would be significantly impacted by the projected increase in demand from the completed Phase 1 buildings, this impact would also occur during Phase 2 construction. Pedestrians Pedestrian trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts during Phase 1 construction. After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker pedestrian trips with those generated by the completed Phase 1 and Phase 2A buildings during the commuter peak hours may result in similar significant adverse pedestrian impacts as those discussed above in section S.8.13, Transportation, and may warrant the earlier implementation of the recommended sidewalk widening described in section S.8.21, Mitigation. S.8.19.2. AIR QUALITY

No significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected at any sensitive receptor locations due to the on-site construction activities of the proposed project. To ensure that the construction of the proposed project would result in the lowest practicable diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, the project would implement an emissions reduction program for all construction activities, including: diesel equipment reduction; clean fuel; best available tailpipe reduction technologies; utilization of newer equipment; source location; dust control; and idle restriction. The project site is generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses, with the nearest existing residential building located more than 600 feet north of the project site. The nearest sensitive locations are South Point Park, located to the south of the project site, and the waterfront promenades along the east river, located to the east and west of the project site. In addition, construction activities during construction of Phase 2 may occur near the completed Phase 1 project buildings and the associated open spaces. Given the size of the project site and space available, most of the heavy diesel engines, deliveries, and intense activities such as concrete pumping would take place away from South Point Park, the waterfront promenades, and the Phase 1 completed buildings and the associated open space locations to the extent practicable. A detailed analysis of the off-site emissions determined that the CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations would be below their corresponding NAAQS and interim guidance criteria. Therefore, no significant adverse air quality impacts are expected from off-site construction sources.

S-31

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

S.8.19.3. Noise

NOISE AND VIBRATION

The proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise on open space. Construction on the proposed development sites would include noise control measures as required by the New York City Noise Control Code, including both path and source controls. Even with these measures, the results of detailed construction analyses indicate that the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise, as follows: During construction of Phase 1, the open space areas along Main Street would experience exceedances due to trucks and workers travelling on Main Street to and from the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM); During construction of Phase 2, South Point Park and the waterfront promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site would experience noise levels in the mid to high 70s of dBA for over 24 months. These exceedances would be due to the operation of on-site construction equipment. Vibration Development pursuant to the proposed actions is not expected to result in significant adverse construction impacts with respect to vibration. Use of construction equipment that would have the most potential to exceed the 65 VdB criterion within a distance of 600 feet of sensitive receptor locations (e.g., equipment used during pile driving) would be perceptible and annoying. Therefore, for limited time periods, perceptible vibration levels may be experienced by occupants and visitors to all of the buildings and locations on and immediately adjacent to the construction sites. However, the operations which would result in these perceptible vibration levels would only occur for finite periods of time at any particular location and, therefore, the resulting vibration levels, while perceptible, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. S.8.19.4. OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS

Historic and Cultural Resources The proposed project would demolish the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Cornell has consulted with OPRHP and LPC regarding appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in an LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. See Section S.8.21, Mitigation. Hazardous Materials Studies of the project site indicate that existing buildings may contain hazardous materials such as ACM and lead-based paint. Soil that would be disturbed by the proposed project includes urban fill materials with elevated concentrations of certain metals and SVOCs. Demolition and excavation activities could disturb these hazardous materials and potentially increase pathways for human or environmental exposure. To reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during the construction of the proposed project, a RAP and an associated CHASP were prepared and submitted to NYCDEP

S-32

Executive Summary

and approved by NYCDEP in a letter dated November 8, 2012. The RAP and CHASP would be implemented during project construction. The RAP addresses requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). In addition, during construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to ACM, lead-based paint, PCBs and chemical use and storage would be followed. With these measures in place, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would occur as a result of the proposed project. Natural Resources Natural resources within and around the project site are highly limited, and construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 are not considered to have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to those resources. Groundwater within the project site is not potable and soil levels of some compounds are elevated; construction of the proposed project would not be expected to have adverse impacts to groundwater quality or result in human or environmental exposure to contaminants. Re-grading and filling of the small area of 500-year floodplain within the project site during Phase 1 and the Phase 2 would not increase local flood risk. No in-water construction activities would occur during Phase 1 or Phase 2, and soil disturbing activities associated with Phase 1 activities would be conducted in accordance with the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. As such, no direct or indirect impacts to water quality, littoral zone tidal wetland, aquatic biota, or other aquatic resources of the East River (including state or federally protected species and Essential Fish Habitat) would occur as a result of Phase 1 or Phase 2 construction. Construction would require the disturbance of ecological communities present on site and the removal of certain trees that are of locally common and abundant species. Wildlife occurring in the area is composed of urban-adapted, disturbance-tolerant generalists that would not be affected by construction noise. Some wildlife would be temporarily displaced from the site during project construction, but would be expected to easily locate temporary alternative habitat nearby and return to the project site upon completion. Threatened or endangered species have low potential to occur within the project site or offshore, and would not be significantly impacted by the minimal and temporary land disturbance that would occur during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction. Open Space Construction of the proposed project would occur in close proximity to South Point Park, an open space resource located immediately south of the Goldwater Hospital site and immediately north of the future Four Freedoms Park site, and the waterfront promenade, a walkway for pedestrians that extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island north of South Point Park. Both open spaces are expected to remain open during the entire construction period, and access to these open spaces would be maintained. Construction activities would be conducted with the care mandated by the close proximity of several open spaces to the proposed project. Dust control measuresincluding watering of

S-33

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

exposed areas and dust covers for truckswould be implemented to ensure compliance with the New York City Air Pollution Control Code, which regulates construction-related dust emissions. At limited times over the course of the entire construction period, construction activities such as structural demolition, excavation, and foundations may generate noise that could impair the enjoyment of nearby open space users. Although construction fences around the project site may shield the open spaces from construction activities, as described above in noise, elevated noise levels are predicted to occur for two or more consecutive years at open space receptors immediately adjacent to the project site during Phase 2 construction. In addition, impacts are projected to occur on open spaces along Main Street during Phase 1 construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in significant adverse noise impacts on open spaces. Socioeconomic Conditions Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on socioeconomic conditions. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area or affect the operations of any nearby businesses, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site. Lane closures are not expected to occur in front of entrances to any existing or planned retail businesses, and construction activities would not obstruct major thoroughfares used by customers or businesses. Utility service would be maintained to all businesses. Overall, construction of the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on surrounding businesses. Community Facilities No community facilities are located near the construction site. Construction workers would not place any burden on public schools and would have minimal, if any, demands on libraries, child care facilities, and health care facilities. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site, and would not materially affect emergency response times. New York Police Department (NYPD) and FDNY emergency services and response times would not be materially affected due to the geographic distribution of the police and fire facilities and their respective coverage areas. Land Use and Neighborhood Character Construction activities would affect land use on the project site but would not alter surrounding land uses. As is typical with construction projects, during periods of peak construction activity there would be some disruption, predominantly noise, to the nearby area. There would be construction trucks and construction workers coming to the site. There would also be noise, sometimes intrusive, from construction work as well as trucks and other vehicles backing up, loading, and unloading. These disruptions would have minimal effects on land uses within the study area, particularly as most construction activities would take place within the project site, which is located south of the Queensboro Bridge and not within a Central Business District or along a major thoroughfare, and generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses. Nevertheless, throughout the construction period, measures would be implemented to control noise, vibration, and dust on construction sites, including the erection of construction fencing and in some areas fencing incorporating sound-reducing measures. Construction activity associated with the proposed project would be localized and would not alter the character of the larger neighborhoods surrounding the project site.

S-34

Executive Summary

S.8.19.5.

BARGING ALTERNATIVE TO TRUCK MATERIAL DELIVERIES

The EIS analysis of construction-period effects represents a reasonable worst-case construction scenario in which all materials are delivered to and removed from the Cornell NYC Tech project site by truck. However, Cornell is considering alternatives to this truck-based approach and is exploring the feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 1 construction period. 8 Two barging techniques are under considerationa Harbor Barge and a Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge. The Harbor Barge could be used for the removal of bulk materials from the project site, such as gravel, soil, and demolition materials, and for the delivery of bulk materials. The Roll-On/RollOff Barge could be used for the delivery of materials typically loaded on trucks, such as structural steel; cladding materials; materials for interior work (partition systems; mechanical, electric and plumbing materials; finishes; furniture, fixtures, and equipment [FF&E]); and sitework materials (e.g., planters, pavers, trees, sod, solar panels, among other materials). Additional actions/approvals would be required for use of either barging technique and would include actions from USACE, the U.S. Coast Guard, NYSDEC, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. In addition, use of barges would have to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, through the New York State Department of States Coastal Management Program and approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans (i.e., the Citys Waterfront Revitalization Program). Use of barging (either technique) would require some closure of a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site. Cornell is committed to maintaining accessboth pedestrian and vehicularto South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park at all times during construction of the proposed project. Use of the Harbor Barge technique would result in an estimated reduction of between 20 and 25 percent of overall trucks trips over the Phase 1 construction period. Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique could result in an estimated reduction of between 25 and 35 percent of overall trucks trips. Therefore, use of either technique would result in a reduction of the average daily truck number and would result in a reduction of the peak number as well. While use of barging would result in a reduction of construction truck traffic on Main Street, it is not expected to materially change the conclusions of the detailed construction traffic or air quality analyses. Use of either barging technique would result in some localized increases in noise levels from barge operations that could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities (i.e., along the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site). For the Harbor Barge, these localized noise increases would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on the Roosevelt Island promenade since this barge technique would be used predominantly in the first year of Phase 1 construction and would not be in use continuously during this time. For the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge, localized increases in noise levels could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities for approximately three years. These localized noise increases may result in significant noise impacts during Phase 1 construction on the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the project site. Neither barging option would be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on natural resources. Neither barging option would result in conclusions different than the truck-based

The feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 2 construction period would be explored when details on the Phase 2 construction components become more defined.

S-35

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

approach in the areas of socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character. S.8.20. S.8.20.1. ALTERNATIVES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Consideration of the No Action Alternative is intended to provide the lead and involved agencies with an assessment of the expected environmental impacts of no action on their part. The No Action Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented (i.e., none of the discretionary approvals proposed as part of the proposed project would be adopted), and that the Goldwater Hospital complex would be vacant. The significant adverse impacts anticipated for the proposed projectin the areas of historic resources, transportation, and construction-period traffic, transit, pedestrians, and noise on open spacewould not occur with the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with the City of New Yorks Applied Sciences NYC initiative since it would not realize the benefits of bringing a leading academic institution to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. The No Action Alternative would not achieve the Applied Sciences NYC initiatives overarching goal of maintaining and increasing New York Citys global competitiveness, diversifying the citys economy, driving economic growth, and creating jobs for New Yorkers. This alternative would not provide a new campus for Cornell that will encourage close collaboration between graduatelevel academic programs and business and entrepreneurship. S.8.20.2. NO UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ALTERNATIVE

Historic and Cultural Resources Preservation of the hospital complex and its reuse for the Cornell NYC Tech project was explored but was found to not be feasible. Consequently, there is no feasible alternative that would successfully meet the goals and objectives of Cornell University and the City of the New York, while still preserving the existing hospital complex as a way of avoiding the significant impact on this historic architectural resource. Transportation To avoid the operational period traffic impacts, development at the site would need to be significantly reduced and would need to be limited to just Phase 1 development. Such limited development would not meet the long-term goals and objectives of the proposed project of building a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City with flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs that would accelerate existing sectors of NYCs economy. Construction For the traffic impacts, there would be one partially mitigated impact in the construction PM peak hour. For noise, no feasible alternative has been identified to avoid the Phase 1 construction noise level exceedances at open spaces along Main Street or to avoid the construction noise level increases at the promenade and South Point Park (see section S.8.21, Mitigation and S.8.22, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts). Even accounting for the types of measures incorporated into the

S-36

Executive Summary

proposed project to reduce construction noise, any development comparable in scale to the proposed project (i.e., that would involve demolition of the Goldwater Hospital campus, multi-year construction at any one location, and the construction of multi-story buildings) would have the potential to result in unmitigated significant adverse construction noise impacts at these open spaces. S.8.21. S.8.21.1. MITIGATION HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The proposed project would demolish the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Measures to partially mitigate significant adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in a LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. Mitigation measures include the following: 1. Preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level II documentation of the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would include photographic documentation, historic plans, and an accompanying historical narrative. 2. Cornell has investigated the locations and conditions of the murals that were commissioned for Goldwater Hospital as part of the Federal Art Project (FAP) of the WPA. To date, Cornell has confirmed that four abstraction murals (works by Bolotowsky, Swinden, Rugolo, and Chanase) were installed in Goldwater Hospital, but that three of these have been painted over. Only Ilya Bolotowskys Abstraction has been conserved and is currently visible. Cornell has also investigated four additional murals (works by Goldman, Haupt, and two by Browne) and determined that they are not present in Goldwater Hospital. These murals were identified by the New York City Public Design Commission as having been commissioned, but there is no record of their installation. The investigations, conducted by EverGreene Architectural Arts and meeting the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) standards, did not confirm the presence of these four murals at Goldwater Hospital. a. Cornell would prepare a report on the findings of the investigations. A copy of the report shall be provided to OPRHP and LPC for review and comment. b. Cornell would, in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, develop and implement appropriate measures to remove and restore the four extant WPA murals to the extent practicable. Cornell would then promptly deliver all removed and restored WPA artwork to appropriate repositories, as identified in consultation with OPRHP and LPC. c. In consultation with OPRHP and LPC, Cornell would develop a digital media display about the murals, including information obtained through Cornells investigations of the murals. The digital media display shall be submitted to OPRHP and LPC at the preliminary and pre-final stages for OPRHP and LPC comment. The location and management of the digital exhibit would be established through ongoing consultation with OPRHP and LPC.

S-37

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Cornell would develop and install one or more plaques or historic markers on the new academic campus that would provide information and a photograph describing and illustrating the history of the site, the Goldwater Hospital, and the WPA murals. Design for the interpretive materials shall be submitted to OPRHP and LPC at the preliminary and pre-final stages of development for OPRHP and LPC comment. S.8.21.2. Traffic The overall finding of the traffic mitigation analysis is that all six intersections under the 2018 analysis year and eight of the 11 intersections under the 2038 analysis year that would experience impacts could be fully mitigated with readily implementable traffic improvement measures, including signal timing and phasing changes, new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping. One additional intersection under the 2038 With Action could be partially mitigated by adjusting the traffic signal timing. These measures represent some of the standard traffic capacity improvements that are typically implemented by NYCDOT. Phase 1 Impacts at the following locations would be mitigated with the measures outlined: Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. 36th Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM and midday peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Broadway and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. 41st Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during the AM and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. These conditions could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM peak hour and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing and allowing through movements and left turns from the 11-foot wide exclusive left-turn lane on the eastbound approach of Hoyt Avenue South. Full Build Impacts at the following two locations on Roosevelt Island could be mitigated with the measures described here. West Road and Main Street: Impacts would occur during the PM peak hour and could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal. Because installing a single traffic signal would not control all the traffic movements at this triangle-shaped intersection, and it is desirable to eliminate the observed, illegal northbound movements occurring against southbound traffic on the north leg of the triangle, it is recommended to normalize this intersection to eliminate superfluous vehicular turning conflicts and pedestrian conflicts so that the south leg no longer carries vehicular traffic and is TRANSPORTATION

S-38

Executive Summary

pedestrianized. This improvement would allow vehicular and pedestrian movements to occur at the intersection of West Road and Main Street and be under the control of a single new traffic signal. This would also provide unrestricted pedestrian access to the existing triangle from west of Main Street and east of West Road. It should be noted that this would divert existing trips (mainly passenger vehicles) that use the traffic triangle as a U-turn to one block south to the traffic circle at East Road; about 80 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour and about 40 vehicles per hour in the midday and PM peak hours would be diverted in the 2038 full build condition. Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street: Impacts would occur during the AM and the PM peak hour. Both conditions could be mitigated by installing a traffic signal. Impacts at the following location in Queens would be partially mitigated. Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. These impacts could be fully mitigated for the midday peak hour and partially mitigated for the AM and PM peak hours by modifying the traffic signal cycle. Impacts at the following locations in Queens would be unmitigatable. Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. Impacts at the following locations in Queens would be mitigated with the measures identified. 36th Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts were identified at during all peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing and making other modifications (these modifications would include shifts to the centerline and restriping certain approaches). Broadway and 21st Street: Impacts were identified during all peak hours and could be mitigated by prohibiting parking along certain approaches, shifts to the centerline and restriping certain approaches, and modification to signal timing. 36th Avenue and 31st Street: Impacts would occur during the midday and PM peak hours and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. 41st Avenue and Vernon Boulevard: Impacts would occur during the AM and PM peak hour and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing. Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during all peak hours. Overall, the intersection could be mitigated by prohibiting parking, restriping, and shifting the centerline of certain approaches and modifying the signal timing. Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street: Impacts would occur during the AM and PM peak hours. Both conditions could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing and allowing through movements and left turns from the 11-foot-wide exclusive left-turn lane on the eastbound approach of Hoyt Avenue South.

S-39

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Transit The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse subway station or tramway impacts in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. However, it would result in significant adverse impacts to bus line-haul levels for the Q102 bus and the Red Bus as described above in section S.8.13, Transportation. Table S-5 provides comparisons of existing service and the number of buses required to fully mitigate the identified significant adverse line-haul. Mitigation for the full build condition accounts for all buses needed to accommodate the full build projected passenger volumes independent of the Phase 1 mitigation. NYCT and RIOC routinely monitor changes in bus ridership and make the necessary service adjustments where warranted.

Table S-5 Mitigated Future With Action Condition (Capacity Improvement): Bus Line Haul Levels
Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound Buses per Hour Buses per Hour Peak Route Period Existing Mitigation Existing Mitigation AM 4 n/a 3 n/a 2018 Q102 PM 2 3 2 n/a AM 4 6 3 5 2038 Q102 PM 2 7 2 6 AM 8 n/a 8 10 Red 2038 Bus PM 8 9 8 n/a Notes: The Q102 bus route operates standard buses with a guideline capacity of 54 passengers per bus and the Red Bus route operates with a guideline capacity of 55 passengers per bus. Analysis Year

Pedestrians For 2018, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on pedestrian operations. Under the full build condition, the proposed project would result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts at the following locations on West Road and West Main Street: West Road: The east sidewalk between West Main Street and the subway station. The significant adverse impacts at this sidewalk would be fully mitigated by widening its existing width of 6.4 feet to 8.9 feet, thereby increasing its effective width from 2.7 feet to 5.2 feet. West Main Street: The east sidewalk between the Tram Station West bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge. The significant adverse impacts at this sidewalk would be fully mitigated by widening its existing width of 6.4 feet to 8.0 feet, thereby increasing its effective width from 3.6 feet to 5.2 feet. These mitigation measures have been determined to be feasible. Mitigation Implementation Subject to approvals of the relevant agencies, including NYCDOT, RIOC, and NYCT, the recommended mitigation measures would be implemented to mitigate the projected significant adverse transportation impacts at the completion of the projects Phase 1-2018 and Full Build2038 conditions. Between Phase 1-2018 and Full Build-2038 conditions, Cornell will coordinate the implementation schedule for traffic mitigation measures shown above for 2038 conditions with RIOC and NYCDOT.

S-40

Executive Summary

S.8.21.3.

CONSTRUCTION

The proposed project would result in significant adverse construction impacts related to transportation and noise (i.e., construction noise impacts on open space). Traffic Four intersections (of the seven analyzed) would experience significant adverse traffic impacts during Phase 1 construction. Impacts at three of the four intersections could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by NYCDOT. Significant impacts at one location could only be partially mitigated. These measures would also be consistent with those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. For Phase 2 construction, the cumulative operational and construction traffic would be of lower magnitudes than what the overall project would generate when completed in 2038. Therefore, potential traffic impacts during peak Phase 2 construction would be within the envelope of significant adverse traffic impacts identified for the full build condition in Transportation, and mitigatable and unmitigatable impacts identified above would apply to Phase 2 construction conditions as well. The required mitigation measures for those locations that could be mitigated are expected to be part of those presented for the full build-out of the proposed project. These mitigation measures could be implemented at the discretion of NYCDOT during construction of Phase 2. s Transit During construction of Phase 1, because most construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would rely on the Red Bus for travel to/from the project site, during off-peak hours when the Red Bus operates at comparatively lower frequencies, there is a potential for a line-haul impact on the Red Bus that would warrant an increase in its service during off-peak hours (i.e., three additional buses during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours). Cornell has committed to fund the operating costs associated with providing additional Red Bus service if project activity adversely impacts the Red Bus service during the construction period. A significant adverse impact has been identified for the Q102 bus route due to the projected increase in demand from the completed buildings, and this impact would continue during the Phase 2 construction period. Mitigation measures identified above for the operational impact would be proposed to mitigate the construction-period impact. Pedestrians Pedestrian trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts during Phase 1 construction. After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker pedestrian trips with those generated by the completed Phase 1 and Phase 2A buildings during the commuter peak hours may result in similar significant adverse pedestrian impacts as those discussed in section S.8.13, Transportation, and may warrant the earlier implementation of the recommended sidewalk widening described above. S.8.21.4. NOISE IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE

No practical and feasible mitigation measures have been identified that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline within the impacted open space areas S-41

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

(i.e., the open spaces along Main Street, the waterfront promenade, or South Point Park), and this impact is considered unavoidable (see section S.8.22, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Project). S.8.22. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the following two criteria: (1) there are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impact; and (2) there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed actions that would meet the purpose and need for the actions, eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse impacts. S.8.22.1. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. An alternatives analysis prepared in consideration of the potential to retain and reuse all or portions of the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the Cornell NYC Tech project concluded that it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project, Cornell University, and the City of the New York while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex. Consequently, there is no feasible alternative that would avoid a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. In a letter dated September 19, 2012 commenting on the alternatives analysis, OPRHP concluded that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives at this time to demolition of these historic buildings. LPC concurred with OPRHPs comments in a letter dated September 25, 2012. Therefore, because it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex, measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in an LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. S.8.22.2. Traffic The proposed project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at locations within the traffic study area. All of the locations that would be significantly impacted under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition and most of the locations that would be significantly impacted under the Full Build 2038 With Action condition could be mitigated using standard traffic improvements, such as signal timing and phasing changes, installation of new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping. In the 2038 analysis year, two of the 14 study locations would experience unmitigatable impacts. The intersections of Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street and Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street would experience unmitigatable impacts during the AM, midday and PM peak hours. In addition, the intersection of 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge and Vernon Boulevard would only be partially mitigatable during the AM and PM peak hours. TRANSPORTATION

S-42

Executive Summary

S.8.22.3.

CONSTRUCTION

Transportation Traffic During construction, one of the seven study locations would experience partially mitigatable impacts in the PM peak hour. During the PM construction peak hour, 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge and Vernon Boulevard would experience partially mitigatable impacts. The impacts at this partially mitigated intersection are described in Section S.8.21, Mitigation. Noise Impacts on Open Space There are no practical and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline within any of the open space areas (i.e., the open spaces along Main Street, the waterfront promenade, or South Point Park). Noise levels in these spaces would exceed the 55 dBA L10(1) noise level recommended for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet by the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual noise exposure guidelines. However, while the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline is a worthwhile goal for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet, due to the level of activity present at most New York City open space areas and parks (except for areas far away from traffic and other typical urban activities) this relatively low noise level is often not achieved. For example, existing noise levels at the waterfront promenade and South Point Park are already above the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline due to noise from vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge and on the FDR Drive. To achieve noise levels that would meet the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline, measures would need to be implemented to control noise from the Queensboro Bridge; the implementation of barriers on the bridge would not be possible because of the bridges landmarked status. S.8.23. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project would be limited to the project site, which would be developed with a new applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island; the new campus would include academic space, corporate co-location space, an Executive Education Center, and residential uses. A small amount of campus-oriented retail space would also be included, and new open space on the site would also be provided. These new uses would replace the vacant Goldwater Hospital complex, and are expected to contribute to growth in the city and state economies consistent with the overarching goal for the Applied Sciences NYC initiative, which is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. The new uses are not expected to induce substantial additional growth within any specific neighborhood outside of the project site, although the proposed project would introduce residents that would be expected to support existing local retail uses on Roosevelt Island. In addition, the proposed project would not include the introduction or expansion of infrastructure capacity that would result in indirect development; all proposed infrastructure improvements would be made to support development of the project site itself. The upgraded gas line to Roosevelt Island, which would be undertaken by Con Edison in support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, would also not result in indirect development; instead, it would allow existing development on Roosevelt Island to change from electric heat to gas heat. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to induce significant new growth in the surrounding area.

S-43

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

S.8.24.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Resources would be expended in the construction and operation of the proposed project. These resources include the materials used in construction; energy in the form of fuel and electricity consumed during construction and operation of the Cornell NYC Tech project; and the human effort required to develop, construct, and operate various components of the project. The resources are considered irretrievably committed because their reuse for some purpose other than the proposed project would be highly unlikely. The proposed project constitutes an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the project site as a land resource, thereby rendering land use for other purposes infeasible, at least in the near term. These commitments of land resources and materials are weighed against the benefits of the proposed project. The proposed project is a key component of the citys Applied Sciences NYC initiative, the overarching goal of which is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. To achieve this goal, the proposed project would transform the project site into a new engineering and applied sciences campus that would contain new academic space, corporate colocation space, an Executive Education Center, and residential uses. A small amount of campusoriented retail space would also be included, and new open space on the site would be provided.

S-44

Chapter 1: A. INTRODUCTION

Project Description

Cornell University, together with the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, is seeking a number of discretionary approvals (the proposed actions) to support and allow for the development of an applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island (the proposed project). These actions include the disposition of City-owned property and the approval of the lease and sale terms for the disposition; a modification of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) lease with the City; an amendment of the New York City Health and Hospitals (NYCHHC) operating agreement with the City; zoning map and text amendments; and a City map amendment. As shown on Figure 1-1, the project site is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island, south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge. A majority of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20) is owned by the City of New York and is occupied by the Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facilitys Goldwater Memorial Hospital (Goldwater Hospital), which is operated by NYCHHC. The remainder of the project site (Block 1372, part of Lot 1) is vacant and owned by the City of New York and leased to RIOC. Figure 1-2 shows the project site and reflects its current ownership. Independently of, and prior to, the proposed project, NYCHHC will vacate the Goldwater Hospital and relocate patients and services elsewhere.1 Outside of the hospital site, the Island is controlled by RIOC, under a long-term lease with the City.2 North of the Queensboro Bridge, Roosevelt Island is a predominantly residential community with community facility, open space, and transportation and utility uses. It is under the political jurisdiction of the borough of Manhattan. Under the terms of an agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC Cornell is required to build a total of 300,000 gsf of building space in Phase 1, of which a minimum of 200,000 gsf must be for academic use. Phase 2 requirements include a cumulative total of 1.8 million gsf of building space, of which 620,000 gsf must be for academic use. Academic use is defined as classrooms, offices for academic personnel, technology transfer offices, laboratories, teaming areas, lecture halls, incubators and accelerators, seminar and meeting rooms (for academic purposes), other uses primarily for teaching, learning and/or academic research, and other ancillary facilities for the use and convenience of academic personnel such as lounges, dining areas and similar facilities. Permitted non-academic uses
1

NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the closure and relocation of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). Roosevelt Island is owned by the City of New York, and the entire Island except for the Goldwater Hospital campus and the Coler Memorial Hospital campus is leased to the State of New York. RIOC was established by New York State in 1984 to manage the operation, maintenance, and development of the Island. The States lease on the Island expires in 2068, when control will revert to New York City.

1-1

3.5.13

NA V

E8

DIS O

EA ST EN DA V

MA

E7 8S T

E8
E7 9S T E8

1S T

2S T

E8

3S T

PA RK

E7 7S T E7 6S T

0S T

AV

AV

E7

LE XI N GT ON

5S T

E7 4S T

DA V

TH IR

E7 3S T

AV

CO ND

E7 2S T
E7 1S T

Upper East Side

FIR ST AV

SE

ST

E6 6S T E6 5S T

MA

34

AV

9S T

ON

10 ST

4S T

BLV D

Midtown
E6
E6

E6

2S T

1S T

Astoria

VE

E6 3S T

ES TR

RN

36

AV

E6

0S T

E5
E5 E5

DR

12 ST

9S T

11 ST

RO IS OSE LA ND VEL BR T

35

AV

8S T

FD

7S T

E5
E5

ROOSEVELT ISLAND

37

AV

6S T

5S T

FD

Turtle Bay
E5
E5

DR

4 3

4S T

RD

24

RA M

IVE

29
LZ

EA ST R

ST

Long Island City

10 ST

11 ST

42

22

5 ST

44 R

45 AV

44 D R

24

ST

44 AV

RD

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

Steam Plant Southtown Northtown Motorgate Coler Memorial Hospital Campus

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Four Freedoms Park South Point Park Sportspark Tram Station

Project Location
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 1-1

41 AV

QN P

ST

43

AV

27

28 ST

ST

RD

13 ST

9S T

43

12 ST

CR ES

CE

E5 0S T

NT

ST

23

RD

QUEENS

ST

ST

E5

1S T

EA ST

41

22

AV

ST

E5

2S T

41

21

3S T

ST

QU E EE D K NS OC BO H RO BR

40 AV

13 ST

39

14 ST

38 AV

AV

12 ST

E6

7S T

IN

EA ST R

E6 8S T

YO RK AV

MANHATTAN

E7 0S T E6 9S T

33

RD

10.9.12

SEE INSET

INSET - Area of Detail

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

A

Block 1373 Lot 20

Owned by: City of New York Occupied by: Goldwater Memorial Hospital (NYCHHC) Block 1373 Lot 1 (portion) Owned by: City of New York Leased to: RIOC

Goldwater Hospital Building Name DEP South Pump Station Trafc Direction

Project Site: Current Ownership

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 1-2

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

include community uses, residential buildings for academic personnel (including student lounges located therein), ancillary recreational uses, visitor lodging, eating and drinking establishments, corporate co-location space for technology-related businesses, and other uses ancillary to the academic uses. Construction of the Cornell NYC Tech project is expected to begin in 2014 with the first phase of the project expected to begin operations on Roosevelt Island in Summer 2017; 2018 will be the first full year of operation. 3 Phase 1 is anticipated to consist of up to 790,000 gross square feet (gsf) of development consisting of approximately 200,000 gsf of academic space, 100,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, approximately 300,000 gsf of residential space (442 units), and 170,000 gsf for an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. Up to another 20,000 gsf could be developed as a central utility plant, and up to 250 parking spaces could be provided. Phase 2, expected to be completed by 2038, is anticipated to add a maximum of 1.34 million gsf consisting of approximately 420,000 gsf of academic space, 400,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 500,000 gsf of residential space (652 units), and possibly another 20,000 gsf central utility plant. In total, the maximum potential Cornell NYC Tech project program is assumed to comprise up to 2.13 million gsf of development consisting of 620,000 gsf of academic space, 500,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 800,000 gsf of residential space (1,094 units), 170,000 gsf for the Executive Education Center, and 40,000 gsf for the central utility plants. Up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be provided within this program, and at full build, up to 500 parking spaces could also be provided. This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in conformance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617, New York City Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York. The EIS follows the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual, dated June 2012. The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (ODMED) is the CEQR lead agency for this proposal.

B. APPLIED SCIENCES NYC INITIATIVE AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT
The City of New York launched its Applied Sciences 4 NYC initiative in 2010 after working with a range of New York Citys business leaders, academics, community groups, and entrepreneurs to identify ambitious, achievable initiatives that the city could undertake to attain local economic growth. From that process, an unmet demand within New York City for top-flight engineers and applied scientists was identified. The purpose of the Applied Sciences competition in New York City was to provide an opportunity for one or more leading academic institutions to build world-class applied sciences and engineering campuses in New York City. The overarching goal is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers.
3

Cornell opened a portion of its Cornell NYC Tech academic program in leased space in New York City in 2012. Leasing such space did not require any governmental approvals. Applied sciences is the discipline of applying scientific knowledge from one or more fields to practical problems.

1-2

Chapter 1: Project Description

In December 2010, the city issued a Request for Expressions of Interest to gauge universities interest in developing and operating a new applied science and engineering research campus in New York City. In connection with the new campus, the city indicated its willingness to provide city-owned land in addition to a significant capital contribution in site infrastructure. In 2011, the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a university, institution or consortium to develop and operate a new (or expanded) campus in the city. The city selected Cornell University, in conjunction with its academic partner the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, to develop the Applied Sciences NYC project at the Goldwater Hospital site on Roosevelt Islandthe Cornell NYC Tech project. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to focus on research in the applied sciences and fields of study related to the technology sector. A defining aspect of the new campuss graduate-level academic programs is the close tie to business and entrepreneurship that will be woven throughout the curriculum. Research will be focused on technology in application areas that have commercial potential in New York City markets. Specifically, New York Citys technology sector and information-driven economy serves as the impetus for the development of many consumer-oriented companies focused specifically on technology to meet end users needs, including some of NYCs core industries: media, advertising, finance, healthcare, real estate, construction, and design. The Cornell NYC Tech campus will be centered on flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs instead of traditional academic departments. This model will serve as a focal point for accelerating existing sectors of NYCs economy and driving the formation of new technology businesses through close ties to customers and core industry knowledge.

C. SITE CONDITIONS
The project site, which consists of Manhattan Block 1373, Lot 20 and a portion of Lot 1, is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island and totals approximately 12.5 acres. Goldwater Hospital opened on the Island in 1939 as a chronic care and nursing facility. As shown on Figure 1-2, the facility consists of the original six-building complex (Buildings A through F) and a circa 1971 addition (Building J). In 1996, Goldwater Hospital and Coler Memorial Hospital (which is located on the northern portion of the Island) merged to become Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility. As part of a major modernization planning effort, including the relocation of Goldwater Hospital patients and services, that has been on-going since approximately 2007, NYCHHC will move current Goldwater Hospital activities to other facilities and vacate the Goldwater Hospital site. Cornell would receive the site after it has been vacated, demolition of the existing and vacant hospital buildings would occur as part of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project. Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, provides more detail on NYCHHCs plans to vacate the project site. A sanitary pump station, owned and maintained by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is located in a fenced area on the southeast corner of the project site (see Figure 1-2). This pump station is called the South Pump Station, and it collects sanitary sewage from the buildings south of the Queensboro Bridge and pumps these flows to a gravity sewer within Main Street that eventually discharges to Roosevelt Islands main pump station. As shown on Figure 1-2, a one-way loop road encircles the project site with traffic flow in a clockwise direction (i.e., southbound on the roadway east of the site, westbound on the roadway south of the site, and northbound to the west of the site). To the north of the site, the street is westbound. 1-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

A promenade that is not part of the project site extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island along the entirety of its waterfront north of South Point Park, providing a walkway for pedestrians; a concrete seawall forms the barrier along the East River. The project site, like all of Roosevelt Island, is zoned R7-2, a medium-density residential designation (see Figure 1-3).

D. CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT PLANNING

INTRODUCTION Cornell has a long history and a strong presence within New York City. Founded in Ithaca, New York in 1865, Cornell University first established a presence in New York City in 1898, with the founding of what is now known as the Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC). WCMC began an affiliation with New York Hospital in 1913 and subsequently with what is now New YorkPresbyterian Hospital (1998). The Graduate School of Medical Sciences was founded in 1952 (convergence of two institutionsSloan-Kettering Institute and Weill Cornell Medical College). Cornells Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences are located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan between 65th and 72nd Streets. In addition to medical studies, Cornell has a number of other active academic programs in Manhattan, including programs in financial engineering, labor relations, architecture and planning, and cooperative extension. Continuing its long connection with New York City, and consistent with Cornells plan to expand its engineering and technology programs, in 2011, Cornell responded to the citys RFP to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. Following selection by New York City, Cornell has undertaken various planning activities for the Cornell NYC Tech project, including campus framework planning as discussed in the next section. CAMPUS FRAMEWORK Cornell is developing a Campus Framework to guide development of the proposed project. The framework will include a discussion of principles that will guide design and implementation of the campus; strategies for campus operations (e.g., vehicular and pedestrian circulation, service access and loading, and parking); principles for site design, including sustainability goals and strategies to meet these goals; and design guidelines that would apply to the campus as a whole and to individual parcels and the sites open spaces. The framework is intended to guide development while allowing Cornell flexibility in implementing the plan over the projects long build out period. This section summarizes that framework. CAMPUS FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLES The campus framework principles are intended to inform the campus design, and consist of the following: Create a River to River Campus Vision. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to create a campus that will recognize the existing Roosevelt Island promenade and the Islands water frontage as important adjacent elements of the campus site. Create a Diverse Collection of Active Open Spaces. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to create a diverse array of publicly-accessible open spaces that extend from the loop road into the campus. Cornell intends to design and program these spaces so that each space is clearly defined in its character and use. The sites open spaces are also intended to facilitate movement within the campus, both north to south and east to west. 1-4

10.9.12

Project Site Rezoning Area

800

2000 FEET

SCALE

Current Zoning
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 1-3

Chapter 1: Project Description

Create a Symbiotic Cycle between Indoor and Outdoor Spaces. To ensure an active and engaging campus, the Cornell NYC Tech project intends to activate the lower floors of the campus buildings by encouraging both indoor and outdoor amenities. Create a North-South Pedestrian Spine. The Cornell NYC Tech project would include a north-south pedestrian spine, a pedestrian thoroughfare that is intended to create a dense, urban scale circulation spine uniting the campus from north to south. Optimize Campus Buildings for Use and Performance. The Cornell NYC Tech project site plan would orient the academic and corporate co-location buildings along the north-south pedestrian spine to encourage connections between such buildings. The residential and the Executive Education Center buildings would be located along the loop road to optimize access to light and air. Create a Livable and Sustainable Campus. The Cornell NYC Tech project campus plan is intended to enhance pedestrian flows, to maximize views of the East River, Manhattan and Queens, and to take advantage of the solar orientation with the goals of enhancing the health, comfort, and productivity of the projects workers and residents. CAMPUS OPERATIONS The framework will outline strategies for campus operations related to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, service access and loading, and parking. PRINCIPLES FOR SITE DESIGN The proposed project would incorporate a number of sustainable design measures that would reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition to meeting all applicable local laws regarding energy, Cornell has agreed to achieve a minimum of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification for all project buildings and has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. This means that the campus collectively would generate enough renewable electricity to offset the cumulative electrical power, heating, and cooling energy use of the Phase 1 academic building on an annual basis. DESIGN GUIDELINES The framework will outline a series of design guidelines for the campus that are intended to guide campus development over time, building by building, by providing flexibility while ensuring the integrity of the campus as a whole. The design guidelines will inform the specific building design, and relate specifically to frontage, entry points, transparency, and activation of the ground and second floors.

E. PROPOSED ACTIONS
The proposed actions required to facilitate the Cornell NYC Tech project are as follows: Disposition of City-owned property (by lease with a purchase option) from the City of New York to the New York City Land Development Corporation (NYCLDC), which will assign the lease to Cornell. Approval of the lease and sale terms of the disposition parcels pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter. RIOCs actions as an involved agency may include amendment of the 1969 Master Lease originally between New York City and the New York State Urban Development Corporation (RIOCs predecessor in interest) and related actions. 1-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Amendment of the NYCHHC operating agreement with the city by the Corporation Board in order to surrender a portion of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20). Zoning Map amendment to change the project site and surrounding area zoning from R7-2 to C4-5, and to establish the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District over the same area, as shown on Figure 1-4 (the rezoning area). R7-2 districts allow residential uses at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.44, and community facility uses with a maximum FAR of 6.5. Commercial uses and manufacturing uses are not permitted under the R7-2 zoning designation. The proposed C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District zoning designation would allow for the commercial uses anticipated with the project up to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Residential uses in the C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be permitted to a maximum FAR of 3.44, and community facility uses would be allowed to a maximum FAR of 6.5. Use Group 17B research labs would also be allowed under the C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District, to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Zoning Text amendment to create the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District and to establish special bulk, use, parking, and public access controls for the rezoning area. The Special District is intended to create a uniform, flexible framework for the ongoing development of the Cornell NYC Tech campus. The proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island District text and accompanying maps are presented in Appendix 1. The Special District goals include the following specific purposes: To provide opportunities for the development of an academic and research and development campus in a manner that benefits the surrounding community; - To allow for a mix of residential, retail, and other commercial uses to support the academic and research and development facilities and complement the urban fabric of Roosevelt Island; - To establish a network of publicly accessible open areas that take advantage of the unique location of Roosevelt Island and that integrate the academic campus into the network of open spaces on Roosevelt Island and provide a community amenity; - To strengthen visual and physical connections between the eastern and western shores of Roosevelt Island by establishing publicly accessible connections through the Special District and above grade view corridors; - To encourage alternative forms of transportation by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking; - To provide flexibility of architectural design within limits established to assure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms; and - To promote the most desirable use of land in this area and thus conserve the value of land and buildings, and thereby protect the citys tax revenues. Properties within the proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be subject to special bulk, use, parking, and public access provisions that would supplement or supersede the underlying zoning district. City Map Amendment to map the one-way loop road surrounding the project site and its connection to Main Street as a city street (see Figure 1-5). As shown on the figure, the roadway would be called West Loop Road to the west of the site, North Loop Road to the north of the site, East Loop Road to the east of the site, and South Loop Road to the south of the site. The

1-6

10.9.12

RO SP OS EC EV IAL EL T I SOU SL AN THE D D RN IST RIC T

C4

-5

Project Site Rezoning Area (C4-5 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

800

2000 FEET

SCALE

Proposed Zoning
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 1-4

10.9.12

R=33.0 <=80-49'-11" L=46.55

U.S. PIERHEAD AS APPROVED BY THE SECRETAR Y OF WAR IN 1857, R=2050.00 <=6-15'-02" L=224.13 AND BULKHEAD MODIFIED NOVE MBER 7, 1917 LINE

2 19

35.54

-3

5'2-2 17 8'6-3 17

7'-

" 51 7'-4 1 18

-0 7 17

48 "
APPROXIMATE

" 16 4'-

" 27 3'

12.8
50 32' 15'

P.T.

90.17
" 38
EXISTING
P.T.

9 10.6 1

11.36
3'

121.91
112.90

3'

WEST
11.74
126.68

71.05 190.42'
6 13.3 7 14.5
89.80' 6 15.5

89.16

LOOP

161.75'
85.32'
LINE 73.53' 9 15.1

SHORE

87.94
50

115.64
" 09 2'8-1 17
P.T.

71.55
R=2000.00 <=6-15'-02" L=218.67
473.01 473.01

88.38
P.C.

ROAD
15.7 5

473.06 112.23' 473.06 96.96' 61.28' 7 8 14.4 14.7

3'-0 0 18

" 15
172.81

185

26" 01'-

13.9

47.73' 38.32' 1 13.5

32' 15'
50

103.45

U.S. PIERHEAD AND AS APPROVED BULKHEAD BY THE SECRETAR LINE Y OF WAR IN 1857, R=522.00 MODIFIED NOVE MBER 7, 1917 <=10-38'-41" L=96.98 APPROX. EXISTING SHORE

P.C.

32' 15 ' 50

P.C.

3'

32' 15' 50

3'

32' 15'

" 12 2'-2 7 16 4 9" .5 '-4 15 -10 99 139.82

187
183-21

3'

15.8
'-22"

182-06'-38" 177-53'-22"

4 17.2

6'-5 9 17

" 45

123.40

6 48.72' 14.6

15.9

307.96 76.72' 76.75' .34 STREET 15

PRIVATE

LINE
P.C. P.C.

82.16'

P.T.

182

3'

32' 15'

50

3" -34'-3

-0 90

0'-

" 07

14.3

9 17.0
92.44 84 -5 8'27 "

P.T .

262.68
P.T.

. P.C . P.T

R=28.00 <=87-14'-48" L=42.64

SERVICE

3'
182-40'-01"

5 17 32 .69 " 46 .96 -39'1 17 100.00

6
45

14.0

. P.T . P.C
34

8 18

14 0'-2 .54 38

"

24.3

1 23.7 7

21.270 P 22.1

R=50.00 <=81-09'-07" L=70.82

WIDTH VARIES

R=2810.00 <=4-58'-41" L=244.14

<=174-40'-29"

12.6

4
45 33.5' 3'

R=9.00 <=111-09'-59" L=17.46

705.72

1373

<=155-21'-15"

R=15.00 <=81-09'-07" L=21.25

P.T.
2 .5 43 05" 7'-2 5 18
197.62'

15.16'
100.00

4 13.7

144.37
12.7 2 .90 .65 10.7 1044.81 ' 10 62.80' 10.00' 7

37.9

14.94'

EAST LOOP
P.C.
EXISTING SHORE

-3 4 17

2'-

55

"

R=2860.00 <=4-58'-41" L=248.49

APPROXIMA TE

6 1 7 10.3 8 69.03' 10.7 10.6 40.08' 10.3 11.58' 705.72

705.72
50 15' 32'

R=478.00 <=21-13'-03" L=177.01

18.8

4 3 16.5 15' 32' 9' 56

50 15' 32'

ROAD
3'
705.72
P.T.

R=20.00 <=53-40'-36" L=18.74

51.98'
3 14.0 .52 5 13 12.7 30 44.0 .41'12.50 3

R=150.00 <=20-14'-35" L=53.00

R=116.00 <=59-04'-21" L=119.60

6 P.T. 20.1 50 9' 32' 9'

U.S. AS AP PIE PR OV RH ED BY TH EAD LINE AND E SECR BULKHE ETARY OF WAR AD LIN IN 1857, E MODIF IED NO VEMBER 7,

R=428.00 <=21-28'-3 L=160.43 7"

P.T. P.C.C.

R=75.00 <=41-53'-56" L=54.85

R=36.00 <=107-42'-52" L=67.68

<=3 544'31" R=11 <= 6.0 0 1 L=3 9-29'9.46 22" P.R .CN . 12 238 R=5 E167 .36 10.2 <=7 0.00 6 L=6 0-07'1.20 46"
RAD .

294.79

1917

R=60.00 <=18-12'L=19.07 35"

11.54 22.35'

EAST 173.79'
294.79

8 13.8

MAIN
P.T.
P.C.
R=125.00 <=45-12'-39 " L=98.64

STR E
P.C.
APPR OXIM ATE

78.1 6

P.C .

P. C.

P.C.

ET
78.1 6

6 12.7

EXISTING

R=100.00 <=20-14'-35" L=35.33

R=86.00 <=107-42'-52" L=161.68

SHORE

Roadway Mapping Area

Proposed Roadway Mapping

Cornell NYC Tech

D. RA

181 -4 3'-0 9" 41.2

49.72'
-2 5'-

WIDTH VARIES 5 15.0

34 "

65.41' 155.22

50 32' 15'

55'44"

R=40.00 <=70-58'-18" L=49.55

WEST MAIN 239.56'

17.56' 61.31'

RO AD

16.6

32' 15' 50 179-47'-18" 4

SOUTH LOOP ROAD NORTH LOOP ROAD

1373
448.72

1 16.0 56 15' 32' 9'

WEST MAIN STREET

R=572.00 <=10-38'-41" L=106.27

P.C.

177.24

R=15.00 <=87-14'-48" L=22.84

P.R.C . N123 00.60 E16603.21 R=96.00 <=42-22'-11" L=70.99

273.85

73.56

70.84

103.35'

R=96.00 <=94-37'-16" L=158.54

11.5'

38' 60

10.5'

1373
22.4 24.0 2
ED KOCH BRIDGE (ABOVE) (QUEENSBORO BRIDGE)
477.45 37.07' 32.97

<=48-4

P.C.

81.82' 119.29

ST.

117.73

9'-30"

RA

D.
<=146-23'-07"

8'

106.04

'23.68'

R=24'

256.
86.50'

MAIN STR E
8'

36

R=486.00 <=10-46'-4 8" L=91.44

21'

P.T.
8.5'
P.T.

38' 8' 67

P.T.

15' 32' 50

RA

284.
37.94'
P.T.

ET
EAST MAIN ST.

P.C.

P.C.

D.

P.C.

67

21'

WIDTH VARIES

15

186.59'

3'

38'

P.C.

21'

131.65

P.C. .C. P.R

201.15

P.T.

R=1000.00 <=10-46'-48" L=188.15

3'

P.T.

1373

P.C.

P.C.

P.R .C P.T. .

P.T.

15'
50 32'

3'

P.T.

LIN

U.S. PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD AS APPROVED LINE BY THE SECR ETARY OF WAR IN 1857,

MODIFIED NOVE MBER

7, 1917

Figure 1-5

Chapter 1: Project Description

portions of the roadways north of the project site that would connect to Main Street would be called West Main Street and East Main Street. It is also possible that an approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) would be required with respect to a geothermal well system that may be part of the project.

F. REASONABLE WORST-CASE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

INTRODUCTION As discussed above in Section E, Proposed Actions, the proposed actions include zoning and text amendments that would change the allowable development potential of the project site. Pursuant to this zoning, and beginning in 2014, over a period of approximately 24 years, Cornell anticipates building up to the following on the project site, which represents the maximum likely development program, or reasonable worst-case development scenario for purposes of analysis in this EIS: Two Cornell buildings for academic purposes. The academic buildings would accommodate classrooms (i.e., classrooms, lecture halls, seminar rooms, auditoria, meeting rooms, and breakout spaces), faculty and staff offices, research space for faculty and scientists,5 and space for commercial activities, from student projects to corporate-sponsored research. Ancillary space would also be provided for exhibits, interactive and social gatherings, cafs, and other amenities as well as meeting space for the adjacent Executive Education Center. Within the academic space (though possibly to be located in the corporate co-location buildings), there would be retail in support of the academic program; incubator space, with services and facilities that would support start-up businesses; accelerator space, where partnerships would be made between local accelerators and entrepreneurs; and demonstration space, with areas for venture capitalists, corporate partners, faculty, and students to come together to view and discuss new business and products. One residential building to house campus leadership and faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. The residential units would consist of a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. An Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. The Executive Education Center would accommodate meetings, events, and conferences arising from the campuss academic programs and commercial activities. Three corporate co-location buildings. These buildings would provide space for private companies that wish to take advantage of the proximity to Cornells academic activities and to Cornells faculty, researchers, and students. These buildings may also house academic space. A mixed-use building that comprises academic space at the base with a residential tower rising above the base for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. A mixed-use building that comprises corporate co-location uses at the base with a residential tower rising above the base for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. A modest amount of campus-oriented retail uses. Retail space would include uses such as a restaurant, cafs, newsstands, or a University bookstore and would serve the Cornell NYC Tech residents and workers.
5

The proposed project is not expected to include chemical or biological laboratories.

1-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

One or two central utility buildings to serve the campus; and Publicly-accessible open space. The open spaces proposed for the site would have mixed programming, with some open spaces geared toward more active social engagement and others that would encourage quieter contemplation. The open space network would be designed to encourage movement within the campus. Under the proposed zoning text, at least 20 percent of the project siteor 2.5 acresmust be publicly-accessible open space. While it is Cornells intention to create more than this minimum requirement, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the EIS assumes the minimum amount of publicly-accessible open space. In addition to these uses, parking may be provided for the Executive Education Center and for the three corporate co-location buildings. It is anticipated that up to 500 spaces could be provided at the project site, with 250 spaces in Phase 1 and another 250 spaces provided in Phase 2. In support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, Con Edison would upgrade an existing gas line to Roosevelt Island. The upgrade would require the replacement of some piping and the change-out of pressure regulators within the Con Edison system. Development of the project would require the demolition of the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings. As discussed above, independently of, and prior to, the proposed project, NYCHHC will vacate the Goldwater Hospital site and relocate patients and services elsewhere. Table 1-1 summarizes the proposed development by use and by phase.

Table 1-1 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Program for CEQR (1)

Use Academic Residential Housing (Total) (2) Faculty Housing 104 142 246 Student Housing 338 510 848 Residential Total 300,000 442 500,000 652 800,000 1,094 Corporate Co-Location 100,000 N/A 400,000 N/A 500,000 N/A Executive Education Center (3) 170,000 225 0 N/A 170,000 225 Utility Plant 20,000 20,000 N/A 40,000 Parking 250 250 500 Total (4) 790,000 1,340,000 2,130,000 Notes: (1) Under the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is obligated to build no less than 300,000 sf of buildings, of which at least 200,000 sf shall be academic space by June 30, 2017; by 2037, Cornell is obligated to build a minimum of 1,800,000 sf of total building space of which a minimum of 620,000 sf must be academic use. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase. (2) Residential units would be the same size but could be occupied differently (e.g., a faculty family may occupy a multi-bedroom unit while such units may also be rented by unrelated students without families as two or three shares). (3) Conference facilities would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the 170,000 gsf Executive Education Center. (4) It is anticipated that for analysis purposes up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be included on the site (e.g., caf, a restaurant, newsstand, bookstore, etc.). Phase 1: 2018 GrossSquare Units/ Footage Rooms/Spaces 200,000 N/A Phase 2: 2038 Gross Square Units/Rooms/ Footage Spaces 420,000 N/A Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) Gross Square Units/ Footage Rooms/Spaces 620,000 N/A

Overall, by 2038, the proposed actions are anticipated to result in the development of up to approximately 2.13 million gross square feet of new uses. The total square footage of the buildings represents the reasonable worst-case development scenario for purposes of the environmental review. Individual program elements can be considered illustrative; variations in the allocation of the specific space types, especially in 1-8

Chapter 1: Project Description

construction after Phase 1, may occur. However, the maximum total square footage is expected to remain substantially the same. As noted above, under the agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC, Cornell is obligated to build no less than 300,000 square feet of buildings by June 30, 2017, of which at least 200,000 square feet shall be academic space. Cornell is also obligated to build a minimum of 1,800,000 square feet of total building space by 2037, of which a minimum of 620,000 square feet must be academic use. The following sections describe the proposed reasonable worst-case development site plan for Phase 1 and at full build out of the project (i.e., once Phases 1 and 2 are complete). PHASE 1 Figure 1-6 shows an illustrative site plan for Phase 1. As shown in the figure, the Phase 1 buildings, which would include academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings, would be developed in the northern portion of the project site. The Phase 1 central utility plant would be located toward the northern edge of the site. Open space would also be included as part of Phase 1. Specifically, Phase 1 would include: A Cornell building for academic purposes. This building is anticipated to be approximately 150,000 gsf in size and could be up to 8 stories in height. At this time, designs for this building reflect an academic building that has a 32,000 sf footprint and is four stories tall (approximately 60 feet, 69 feet including the building canopy). A corporate co-location building. This building is anticipated to be approximately 150,000 sf in size and could be up to 8 stories in height. This building would house approximately 100,000 sf of corporate co-location use and 50,000 sf of academic space. At this time, designs for this building reflect a corporate co-location building that has a 30, 000 sf footprint and is five stories tall (approximately 74 feet). A residential building of approximately 300,000 sf for campus faculty and students. This building is anticipated to be up to approximately 31 stories in height (approximately 320 feet) with a 10,800 sf footprint. An Executive Education Center. This building would be approximately 170,000 sf in size with up to 225 hotel rooms. The conference facility would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the building. The building could be up to 17 stories; current plans for this building reflect a building with a 21,200 sf footprint and a height of 13 stories (161 feet). Approximately 10,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail would be included on the site and could include uses such as cafs, a restaurant, newsstand, or bookstore. The central utility plant would house in-coming utility services and provide space for centralized electric production or co-generation facilities as appropriate to the campus development and technological advancements over time. These facilities may include gas-fired fuel cells (with or without heat recovery and use), gas-fired micro-turbines providing electricity and generating hot water for the facilities using waste combustion heat, or similar technologies. The open space to be developed as part of Phase 1 would total 1.3 acres. As discussed above, Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. To meet this goal, an array of photovoltaic (PV) panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building; it may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building.

1-9

3.4.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY ACADEMIC CAMPUS LAWN

THE STREET

CAMPUS PLAZA INTERIM LANDSCAPE

ENTRY COURT

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

SOUTH LOOP ROAD

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT CORPORATE CO-LOCATION

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Phase I - Illustrative Site Plan

Figure 1-6

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Portions of the southern portion of the project site are anticipated to be developed with several interim uses, potentially including a nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a planted meadow). As part of Phase 1, the loop roadway circling the project site would be widened with temporary construction to provide a functional 32-foot-wide travelway around the project site. The portion of the roadway adjacent to the Phase 1 development would be built to final conditions as the Phase 1 buildings are completed. FULL BUILD (PHASES 1 AND 2) Figure 1-7 shows the illustrative site plan for full build out of the proposed project (Phases 1 and 2). As shown in the figure, at full build, the project site would be developed with academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings. A second central utility building could be located at the southern end of the project site, and additional open spaces would be included in the site. At full build, the project site would include the Phase 1 buildings described above and the following additional buildings: One additional Cornell building for academic purposes. This building is assumed to be approximately 154,000 gsf in size rising to a height of up to 12 stories, although current designs show the building at 7 stories. Two additional corporate co-location buildings. The second and third buildings are assumed to be approximately 185,000 and 140,000 gsf in size, respectively, and approximately 10 stories in height, although current plans show the buildings at 7 and 6 stories, respectively. A mixed-use building containing academic and residential uses. The base, which would be for academic use, would rise to a height of approximately 101 feet (7 stories) with 266,000 sf. The residential tower would rise to a height of 235 feet and is assumed to contain 211,900 sf. A mixed use building that comprises corporate co-location space at its base with a residential tower rising above for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. The base would rise to a height of approximately 74 feet with 75,000 sf of space for the corporate co-location use; the tower would rise to a height of 280 feet and contain another 288,100 sf of residential space. The new residential area would provide another 527 units for campus faculty and students. Altogether, at full build, approximately 1,094 units would be provided. Another approximately 15,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail would be included on the project site (for a total of 25,000). A potential second central utility building could provide additional space for distributed electrical or co-generation facilities to serve the additional campus buildings, similar to the plans for the Phase 1 utility plant. In addition to the open spaces developed as part of Phase 1, at full build, there would be another 1.2 acres of open space for a total of a minimum of 2.5 acres of open space. It is anticipated that the sites open spaces would be landscaped with a mix of evergreen and flowering trees and other plantings. At full build, the loop roadway circling the project site would be built out to its mapped right-ofway width, which is 50 feet with two exceptions: the southeast portion of the roadway, which would have a width of 45 feet so as not to encroach upon the south pump station (access to the pump station would be maintained), and north loop road, which would have a width of 56 feet. The typical

1-10

3.4.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN CAMPUS LAWN ACADEMIC RESIDENTIAL CORPORATE CO-LOCATION ENTRY COURT CAMPUS PLAZA CAMPUS GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN THE STREET CORPORATE CO-LOCATION RESIDENTIAL ACADEMIC CAMPUS LAWN CORPORATE CO-LOCATION SOUTH LOOP ROAD ACADEMIC

STREET

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Full Build - Illustrative Site Plan

Figure 1-7

Chapter 1: Project Description

section (50-foot width) of the loop roadway would be configured to have (beginning on the campus side) a 15-foot-wide sidewalk, an 8-foot-wide parking lane, an 11-foot-wide travel lane, a 3-footwide striped buffer, a 10-foot-wide two-way Class II bicycle path, with a 3-foot buffer on the outboard side (see Figure 1-8). As in the existing condition, the road would be one-way clockwise with southbound traffic on the east side of the project site and northbound traffic on the west side. The loop road would provide access to the campuss loading areas, which would be located primarily on the east side of the campus. Drop off and pick up areas may be provided in front of the Executive Education Center and potentially at central locations serving the academic buildings. Final design of the roadway and pedestrian crosswalks and controls would be coordinated with RIOC and the New York City Department of Transportation; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York). The reconstructed roadway would also include a 10-foot wide Class II bicycle path, with a 3-foot-wide striped buffer, with two-way traffic flow. The bicycle path would provide connections to the parks south of the site as well as to open space and recreation facilities north of the project site. As shown in Figure 1-3, to the north of the loop roadway, additional roadway segments would be mapped to the connection with Main Street. These additional segments would be mapped at a width of 50 feet except for the segment of West Main Street just west of the connection with Main Street, which would be mapped with a width of 60 feet. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES As part of the sustainable design energy measures, to the extent feasible, the proposed project may include the following: On-site utility buildings that could total approximately 40,000 gsf. The utility plants would provide space for in-coming utility services and may also include equipment to supply power, chilled water, and heat to portions of the campus. As the campus develops, it may also evolve to contain (in this structure or added facilities) distributed energy generation units that would operate on natural gas (fuel cells, micro-turbines, or novel engine-generators) to support the campus energy demand while reducing fossil fuel needs (and thus reducing the campus carbon footprint). Photovoltaic (PV) panels. As described above, an array of photovoltaic (PV) panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building; it may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate colocation building. PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures as needed to achieve the renewable electricity goals of the campus. A system of up to 400 geothermal wells. The wells would be closed-loop wells and are anticipated to reach approximately 500 feet deep. The well systems would be entirely subsurface and would be located beneath the central open space. Strict energy targets for campus buildings. Supporting the academic program using as little energy as necessary is critical for long-term sustainability of the campus. In addition to energy measures, the proposed project would be planned and designed to achieve other sustainability targets, including effective stormwater management and filtration, pedestrian and bike transportation options, low-impact building materials, reduction of heat islands, and other measures that are typical of the LEED green building program. Design measures to

1-11

10.9.12

Proposed Loop Roadway Conguration

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 1-8

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

accommodate recycling, such as separate receptacles for recyclables, recycling chutes, and/or storage areas would also be included.6 PROPOSED PROGRAMMING AND POPULATION Cornell intends for its academic program to be flexible and inter-disciplinary with initial areas of focus around connective media, health, and the built environment. The academic program will offer degrees at the masters and doctorate levels; undergraduate degrees would not be offered. Academic and corporate co-location buildings would be oriented towards the non-biological applied sciences and engineering. The academic program would be complemented by an Executive Education Center as well as the corporate co-location use, which would be commercial space expected to be occupied by related industries. The anticipated Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) project population by phase is shown below in Table 1-2. Table 1-2 represents the number of faculty, staff, students, and others who would be generated due to the new academic programs as well as the number of workers that would be introduced by the corporate co-location programs, the Executive Education Center, and the other uses at the campus. Table 1-3 shows the anticipated population that would be housed on the project site and also includes an estimate of the on-site populations dependents and families. As housing at the Cornell NYC Tech campus would be open only to Cornell University affiliates and not the general population, the standard demographic assumptions used for Manhattan would not apply to this project. In order to estimate on-campus population at Cornell NYC Tech, Cornell has based its projections on housing patterns at Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan and the College of Engineering and applied sciences departments at its Ithaca campus.

G. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
The proposed actions would change the regulatory controls governing land use and development on the project site and would allow its development over the long term. This EIS analyzes the proposed actions potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. As necessary, the EIS considers alternatives that would reduce or eliminate impacts identified in the technical analyses and proposes mitigation for such impacts, to the extent practicable mitigation exists. The approach to the EIS analysis is discussed below. ANALYSIS APPROACH Each chapter of the EIS assesses whether development resulting from the proposed actions could result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

Solid waste on Roosevelt Island is collected by an automated vacuum collection (AVAC) system, except for the Goldwater and Coler Hospitals, whose waste is handled by DSNY. Waste collected by AVAC is transported through pneumatic tubes to a central facility where it is compacted and collected by DSNY trucks. Operation of the AVAC system is the responsibility of RIOC. Cornell does not intend to connect to the AVAC system.

1-12

Chapter 1: Project Description

Table 1-2 Cornell NYC Tech Population (1)

Use Leadership and Staff Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) Visitors/Adjuncts Funded Researchers PostDocs Ph.D. Candidates Master's Students Total (Cornell NYC Academic Population) Workers Conference Facility Hotel Workers Workers Workers Total (Worker Population) Total (Academic and Worker Population) Phase 1 74 93 18 45 37 260 300 827 400 13 84 3 20 30 550 1,377 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) 133 286 33 125 125 750 1,750 3,203 2,000 13 84 6 50 75 2,228 5,431

Academic

Worker Population Corporate Co-Location(2) Executive Education Center (3) Utility Plant Residential (4) Retail (5)

Notes: (1) Under the terms of the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is obligated to have no fewer than 75 faculty and 390 students (Ph.D. candidates and master's students) by 2018, and no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students when the campus is fully operational. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase. (2) Corporate co-location worker population assumes 4 employees per 1,000 gsf. (3) Conference facility assumes 1 employee per 2,000 gsf; hotel assumes 1 worker per 2.67 rooms. (4) Residential worker population assumes 1 employee per 22 dwelling units. (5) Retail worker population assumes 3 employees per 1,000 gsf, with 10,000 gsf of retail in Phase 1 and 25,000 gsf of retail in the Full Build condition.

Table 1-3 Cornell NYC Tech On-Campus Residential Population

Total On-Campus Population Off-Campus Academic Academic Population Type (1) Population Population Partners Children Phase 1 Leadership and Staff 74 72 2 2 2 75 Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) 93 18 56 15 2 Visitors/Adjuncts 18 16 1 0 0 Funded Researchers 45 45 0 0 30 Postdoctoral Fellows 37 7 15 3 208 Ph.D. Candidates 260 52 104 21 255 Master's Students 300 45 51 0 Total 827 255 572 229 41 Full Build (Phases 1 and 2) Leadership and Staff 133 131 3 2 1 172 Faculty (Tenure Track and Research) 286 114 129 34 8 Visitors/Adjuncts 33 25 4 1 0 Funded Researchers 125 125 0 0 76 Postdoctoral Fellows 125 49 38 8 450 Ph.D. Candidates 750 300 225 45 942 Master's Students 1,750 808 188 0 Total 3,203 1,552 1,651 586 89 Note: (1) No Staff or Researchers would be accommodated in on-campus housing Total Academic Population Total

842

2,326

1-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

In disclosing impacts, the EIS considers a proposed projects potential adverse impacts on the environmental setting. Because the proposed project would be operational in future years, 7 its environmental setting is not the current environment, but the future environment. Therefore, the technical analyses and consideration of alternatives first assess current conditions and then forecast these conditions to 2018 and 2038, corresponding to the completion of Phases 1 and 2, respectively, for the purposes of determining potential impacts. The EIS provides a description of Existing Conditions for the year 2012 and assessments of future conditions without the proposed project in both 2018 and 2038 (the Future without the Proposed Project or NoAction condition) and the future with the proposed project (or With Action condition). To forecast the No-Action condition, information on known land-use proposals and, as appropriate, changes in anticipated overall growth, are incorporated. The differences between the Future Without and With the Proposed Project are assessed for whether such differences are adverse and/or significant; any significant adverse environmental impacts are disclosed. The EIS also identifies and analyzes appropriate mitigation for any identified significant adverse environmental impacts. While the buildings at Goldwater Hospital would most likely be demolished and replaced with another appropriate use if the Cornell NYC Tech project did not proceed, for purposes of conservatively assessing impacts, the EIS accounts for a No-Action condition in which Goldwater Hospital would remain vacant, but the buildings would remain in place. The EIS accounts for the hospitals demolition and redevelopment of the project site as part of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project, as described in Section D, Proposed Development Program, is the RWCDS for environmental review purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW All state, county, and local government agencies in New York, except the State Legislature and the courts, must comply with SEQRA. Pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations, New York City has established rules for its own process: City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). The environmental review process provides a means for decision-makers to systematically consider environmental effects along with other aspects of project planning and design, to propose reasonable alternatives, and to identify, and when practicable, mitigate significant adverse environmental effects. The process also facilitates public involvement in the process by providing the opportunity for public comment on the Draft EIS. The environmental review process is outlined below. Establishing a Lead Agency. Under CEQR, the lead agency is the public entity responsible for conducting the environmental review. Usually, the lead agency is also the entity primarily responsible for carrying out, funding, or approving a proposed action. For the Cornell NYC Tech project, the lead agency is the New York City Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development.

As discussed above, Cornell is obligated to complete construction of Phase 1 by 2017 and Phase 2 by 2037. The DEIS uses 2018 and 2038 as the analysis years, as those represent the first full years of operation for Phase 1 and Phase 2.

1-14

Chapter 1: Project Description

Determination of Significance. The lead agencys first charge is to determine whether a proposed action might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. To make this determination, the lead agency prepared an Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS). Based on the information contained in the EAS, the lead agency determined that the proposed development plan could have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts and issued a Positive Declaration on April 18, 2012, initiating the preparation of an EIS. Scoping. Scoping, or creating the scope of work, focuses the environmental impact analyses on the key issues to be studied. In addition to the Positive Declaration, the lead agency issued a draft Scope of Work for the EIS on April 18, 2012. This was made available to government agencies, elected officials, and Manhattan Community Board 8 and Queens Community Boards 1 and 2. The document was also made available for review by the public on the lead agencys website and on the New York City Economic Development Corporations website. A public scoping meeting was held on May 22, 2012, at the Manhattan Park Community Center at 8 River Road, Roosevelt Island, New York. Written and emailed comments were accepted through June 8, 2012, and a final Scope of Work, reflecting comments made during scoping, was issued on October 5, 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS, prepared in accordance with the final Scope of Work, is a comprehensive document that systematically considers the expected environmental impacts of a proposed action, evaluates reasonable alternatives, and identifies feasible mitigation measures that, to the maximum extent practicable, address the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action. The lead agency reviewed all aspects of the DEIS to determine its adequacy and adherence to the work effort outlined in the final Scope of Work. Once the lead agency was satisfied that the DEIS was complete for the purposes of public review and comment, it issued a Notice of Completion and circulated the DEIS for review among government agencies and the general public. Circulation of the DEIS marks the beginning of a public review period, during which time a public hearing is held to solicit comments on the DEIS. The Notice of Completion was issued on October 10, 2012, and the public hearing was held on February 6, 2013. Public Review. Publication of the DEIS and issuance of the Notice of Completion signal the beginning of the public review period. During this time, which must extend for a minimum of 30 days, the public may review and comment on the DEIS, either in writing or at a public hearing convened for the purpose of receiving such comments. When the CEQR process is coordinated with another city process that requires a public hearing, such as Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, the hearings may be held jointly. The lead agency must publish a notice of the hearing at least 14 days before it takes place and must accept written comments for at least 10 days following the close of the hearing. A hearing was held for the proposed project on February 6, 2013. Comments were received during the period leading up to and through the DEIS public hearing, and written comments were accepted through the close of the DEIS public comment period, which ended on February 19, 2013. All substantive comments received on the DEIS, at the hearing, or during the comment period become part of the CEQR record and are summarized and responded to in this Final EIS (FEIS) (see Chapter 26, Response to Comments on the DEIS). Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Once the public comment period for the DEIS closes, the lead agency will prepare the FEIS. This document will include a summary of, and response to, each substantive comment made about the DEIS. Once the lead agency 1-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

determines that the FEIS is complete, it will issue a Notice of Completion and circulate the FEIS. Statement of Findings. To demonstrate that the responsible public decision-maker has taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of a proposed action, each public agency taking a discretionary action regarding an action must adopt a formal set of written findings, reflecting its conclusions about the significant adverse environmental impacts, potential alternatives, and potential mitigation measures. The findings may not be adopted until 10 days after the Notice of Completion has been issued for the FEIS. Once each agencys findings are adopted, it may take its actions (or take no action). COORDINATION WITH OTHER REVIEW PROCESSES The CEQR environmental process is intended to provide decision-makers with an understanding of the environmental consequences of actions undertaken by an agency. Often, the environmental review process is integrated and coordinated with other decision-making processes utilized by government agencies. Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 Because RIOC, which is a State agency, is an involved agency and would have to approve a modification of its lease with the city, the Cornell NYC Tech project is being reviewed in accordance with Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (SHPA), which requires that state agencies consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to consider the impacts of their actions on historic properties. Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) For the Cornell NYC Tech project, the environmental review under CEQR is being conducted in coordination with public review under the citys Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The citys ULURP, mandated by Sections 197-c and 197-d of the City Charter, requires the City Planning Commission (CPC) to review applications affecting the land use of the city. ULURP is a standardized procedure for the review of applications affecting land use by the CPC and the public. Summary of Actions Subject To ULURP Sections 197-c and 197-d of the City Charter set forth the specific land use actions by the CPC are subject to ULURP. For the Cornell NYC Tech project, the following proposed actions described earlier in this chapter (see Section C, Proposed Actions) are subject to ULURP: Disposition of Land: consisting of the disposition of City-owned property (by lease with a purchase option) from the City of New York to NYCLDC, which will assign the lease to Cornell Zoning Map Amendments: including rezoning the project site and surrounding area from R7-2 to C4-5 and establishing the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District on the rezoning area. Changes to the City Map: including the mapping of the one-way loop road surrounding the project site as a city street. The zoning text amendment to establish the new Special Southern Roosevelt Island District is not subject to ULURP but it is subject to the same public review process. Applications for zoning text amendments are not subject to the ULURP time period, allowing them as much time as necessary for public review. In addition, the other potential public actions required by the 1-16

Chapter 1: Project Description

project (amendment of the NYCHHC operation agreement with the city; Mayoral approval of the lease and sale terms of the disposition parcels; and RIOC approval of a modification of its lease with the city) are not subject to ULURP. Cornell and NYCEDC are co-applicants for the city map amendment, zoning map amendment, and zoning text amendments; NYCEDC and DCAS are co-applicants for the disposition. Public Review Under ULURP ULURP is a process specially designed to allow public review of a proposed action at four levels: the Community Board, the Borough President, and (if applicable) Borough Board, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council. The procedure sets time limits for review at each stage to ensure a maximum total review period of approximately seven months. For a zoning text amendment, a non-ULURP public review process does not have any time limits associated with it. However, it is expected that the non-ULURP text amendment would move through this process concurrently with the ULURP zoning map amendment. The ULURP process begins with a certification by CPC that the ULURP application is complete. If the particular application is subject to environmental review (see above), a negative declaration, conditional negative declaration, or a notice of completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be issued before an application can be certified. The application is then forwarded to the Community Board (Manhattan Community Board 8 for the proposed project), which has 60 days in which to review and discuss the proposal, hold public hearings, and adopt recommendations regarding the application. Once this step is complete, the Borough President reviews the application for up to 30 days. CPC must hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application within 60 days of the expiration of the Borough Presidents review period. For projects for which a Draft EIS has been prepared, the public hearing is a joint ULURP/CEQR public hearing (the record for commenting remains open for 10 days after the hearing to receive written comments). Comments made at the DEIS public hearing are incorporated into an FEIS; the FEIS must be completed at least 10 days before CPC makes its decision on the application. CPC may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application. The next step in the ULURP process is review by the City Council. The City Council does not automatically review all ULURP actions that are approved by CPC. Zoning map changes and zoning text changes (not subject to ULURP) must be reviewed by City Council; the Council may elect to review certain other actions. The City Council has 50 days to review the application and during this time must hold a public hearing on the action and approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application. If the Council proposes a modification to the proposed action, the ULURP review process stops for 15 days, providing time for a CPC determination on whether the modification is within the scope of the environmental review and ULURP review. If it is, then the Council may proceed with the modification; if not, then the Council may only vote on the action as approved by CPC. Following the Councils vote, the Mayor has 5 days in which to veto the Councils action. The City Council may override the mayoral veto within 10 days.

1-17

Chapter 2: A. INTRODUCTION

Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Under the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual guidelines, a land use analysis evaluates the uses and development trends in the area that may be affected by a proposed project, and determines whether that proposed project is compatible with those conditions or may affect them. The analysis also considers the projects compliance with, and effect on, the areas zoning and other applicable public policies. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, Cornell University, together with the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), is seeking a number of discretionary approvals to support and allow for the development of an applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island (the proposed project). The proposed project would result in the development of up to approximately 2.13 million square feet (sf) consisting of academic space; residential units for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students; corporate co-location space; an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities; and two central utility plants. Campus-oriented retail would be provided within this program, and the proposed project would also result in a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, as well as up to 500 parking spaces. As shown on Figure 2-1, the project site is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island, south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge. This chapter analyzes the change in zoning, land use, and density on the project site and also analyzes the potential effects of the proposed project on a larger study area, which is defined as the entirety of Roosevelt Island. As detailed in this chapter, the Cornell NYC Tech project would improve land use conditions by creating a vibrant mixeduse academic-oriented development on a site that would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. The proposed project would be supportive of applicable public policies, and would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, or public policy.

B. METHODOLOGY
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a detailed assessment of land use, zoning, and public policy is appropriate if a proposed project would result in a notable change in land use or would substantially affect regulations or policies governing land use. An assessment of zoning is typically performed in conjunction with a land use analysis when the action would result in a change in zoning or result in the loss of a particular use. Therefore, a detailed analysis has been prepared that describes existing and anticipated future conditions for the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, assesses the nature of any changes to these conditions that would be created by the proposed project, and identifies those changes, if any, that could be significant or adverse. This chapter analyzes the effects of the proposed project on: the project site, where the land use effects of the proposed project are direct; the rezoning area, which encompasses the project site, 2-1

2.27.13

DIS ON AV

E8

EA ST EN DA V

MA

E7 8S T

E8
E7 9S T E8

1S T

2S T

E8

3S T

KA V

PA R

E7 7S T E7 6S T

0S T

AV

E7

LE XI N GT ON

5S T

E7 4S T

AV

TH IR D

E7 3S T

AV CO ND SE

E7 2S T
E7 1S T

E7 0S T E6 9S T E6 8S T

FIR ST AV

33

YO RK

AV

RD

ST

E6 6S T E6 5S T

MA IN

34
35

AV

BLV

ES TR D

9S T

ON

10 ST

E6

4S T

AV

E6
E6

2S T

1S T

VE

E6 3S T

RN

36

AV

E6

0S T

E5
E5 E5

DR

12 ST

9S T

11 ST

8S T

FD

37

AV

7S T

E5
E5

6S T

5S T

FD

DR

E5
E5
E5

4S T

QU E

EN

40 AV

13 ST

24

RA

IVE

11 ST

10 ST

EA ST R

42

22

5 ST

44 R

45 AV

44 D R

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

LZ

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary Residential Residential with Commercial Below Hotels Commercial and Ofce Buildings

Industrial and Manufacturing Transportation and Utility Public Facilities and Institutions Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Parking Facilities Vacant Land Vacant Building Under Construction

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Land Use Study Area

Figure 2-1

Cornell NYC Tech

41 AV

QN P

29

ST

43

AV

27

28 ST

ST

RD

13 ST

9S T

43

12 ST

CR ES

CE

E5 0S T

NT

ST

23

RD

ST

ST

E5

1S T

EA ST

41

22

2S T

41

RD

21

3S T

BR

ST

SB

OR O

39

AV

ST

14 ST

38 AV

AV

12 ST

E6

7S T

EA ST R

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

the adjacent roadway, and the promenade, and would also be directly affected; and a study area, where indirect effects may occur. The study area for this analysis is defined as being all of Roosevelt Island, where the proposed project would have the greatest potential to affect land use trends. Various sources were used to comprehensively analyze the land use, zoning, and public policy characteristics of the study area, including field surveys, land use and zoning maps, and online sources from Cornell University, the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP), the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation of the State of New York (RIOC), and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC).

C. BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

ROOSEVELT ISLAND Roosevelt Island, a 147-acre island in the East River between Manhattan and Queens, was formerly known as Blackwell Island, named after the family that owned it until 1823. The first development occurred on the Island when the City of New York purchased it and established Blackwells Prison, which opened in 1832. Subsequently, the New York Lunatic Asylum opened on the Island in 1841, followed by Penitentiary Hospital in 1849, the citys first almshouses in 1850, a minimum security workhouse for petty crime offenders also in 1850, Smallpox Hospital (the nations first hospital to treat patients with smallpox) in 1856, and Charity (City) Hospital in 1857. In 1921, the Island was renamed Welfare Island, reflecting its dominant land use. Goldwater Hospital opened in 1939, followed by Bird S. Coler Hospital in 1952. By this time, many of the older establishments on the Island had closed, and their abandoned structures were used for training by the New York City Fire Department (FDNY). By the 1960s, Goldwater Hospital, Coler Hospital, and FDNY training activities were the only active uses on the Island. In 1968, the city initiated plans for the redevelopment of Welfare Island, which was renamed in 1973 in honor of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New York State Urban Development Corporation ([NYSUDC] today, doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation [ESDC]) signed a 99-year lease for the Island with the City of New York in 1969, and retained architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee to create a General Development Plan (GDP) for the proposed redevelopment. Under Johnson and Burgees plans, the Islands first residential complex opened in 1975, followed by three additional housing complexes in 1976, at which time the Island contained 2,141 apartments. Also in 1976, the aerial Tramway connecting the Island to the east side of Manhattan opened, as subway service to the Island was not yet available. The next residential development was completed in 1989, when Manhattan Park, containing 1,107 apartments, opened. With subsequent development, today the Island contains approximately 5,000 dwelling units that house approximately 12,000 residents. A subway station was opened on Roosevelt Island in 1990. ROOSEVELT ISLAND OPERATING CORPORATION RIOC was established by New York State in 1984 to manage the operation, maintenance, and development of the Island. Prior to the establishment of RIOC, there were other State agencies in charge of the Islands operations, such as the Welfare Island Development Corporation and later the Roosevelt Island Development Corporation. The RIOC Board of Directors is composed of nine members, including: the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, who serves as the chair; the New York State Director of the Budget; and seven public members nominated by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. Of the seven public members, two members are recommended by the Mayor of New 2-2

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

York City, and five members must be residents of the Island. RIOC is charged with assuming the 99-year lease with the City of New York that was entered into in 1969, and implementing the GDP. The City of New York provides basic municipal services and maintenance of the Roosevelt Island Bridge, and MTA is responsible for the subway station on the Island and the bus service to Queens. RIOC supplements these services, and is responsible for the following: Red Bus: the on-Island bus system, Red Bus offers service connecting the tramway and subway station to locations throughout the Island. Automated Vacuum Collection (AVAC): AVAC is the Islands pneumatic tube garbage collection system. Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department (RIPSD): the Islands law-enforcement agency that protects the Island's property including all community facilities, storefronts, and certain contracted residential buildings, and enforces state and city laws on the Island. RIPSD employs approximately 40 officers. Street cleaning services on the Island. Parks and sports fields on the Island, including the Sportspark facility. Motorgate: a multi-level parking facility located north-adjacent to the Roosevelt Island Bridge. Landmarks: RIOC is responsible for the upkeep of six New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)-designated historic buildings. The States lease on the Island expires in 2068, when control will revert to New York City. PROJECT SITE Goldwater Hospital opened on the Island in 1939 as a chronic care and nursing facility. In 1996, Goldwater Hospital and Bird S. Coler Memorial Hospital (which is located on the northern portion of the Island) merged to become Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility, with each of the hospitals functioning as campuses of the broader organization. The facilities are operated by NYCHHC. As part of a major modernization planning effort that has been on-going since approximately 2007 and that has included the relocation of Goldwater Hospital patients and services, NYCHHC will move current Goldwater Hospital activities to other facilities and vacate the project site, leaving the site property available for redevelopment. NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the Goldwater North project, which includes the closure, relocation, and right-sizing of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). NYCHHC will transfer operations from the project site to other sites including the former North General Hospital facility, located at 1879 Madison Avenue in Harlem, and the Coler Hospital campus. Patients who do not need the type of extended care facilities offered by the new Goldwater North Hospital or Coler Hospital will be relocated to a variety of special needs housing facilities. The existing, vacant, approximately 276,000-gsf former North General Hospital building will be converted and redeveloped to house a 365 bed facility, including 201 long-term acute care beds, and a 164-bed skilled nursing facility.

2-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

D. EXISTING CONDITIONS
LAND USE PROJECT SITE Currently, the project site contains: Goldwater Hospital, which is located on Block 1373, Lot 20; and vacant land leased by the City of New York to RIOC, which is located on a portion of Block 1372, Lot 1. The hospital campus is situated on 9.89 acres of land that are owned by the City of New York, and contains seven existing buildings, interconnected by a central corridor (including a basement floor tunnel) that enables hospital personnel and materials to traverse the length of the complex. All buildings were constructed in 1939 except for one that was built in 1968 (the Activities Building). The existing buildings are masonry and steel construction and range in height from one to seven stories. The Goldwater Hospital campus currently operates with 991 beds. The hospital provides medical, recuperative, rehabilitative, and long-term specialty services, including specialized Alzheimers and physical rehabilitation services. A licensed practical nurse training program also operates at the Goldwater site. As noted above, the Goldwater Hospital campus, along with the Coler Hospital campus, is part of the Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility, which is operated by NYCHHC. NYCHHC is vacating the Goldwater Hospital campus during the next year, and it will be vacant by the end of 2013. The remainder of the project site consists of 2.51 acres of vacant land that is owned by the City of New York and leased to RIOC. On the west side of the hospital facility, the vacant land contains landscaping, and on the east side there are paved parking lots. REZONING AREA The rezoning area is bounded to the north by RIOCs Sportspark facility, to the south by South Point Park, and to the east and west by the pierhead line in the East River. The rezoning area consists of: the project site (described above); a one-way circulation roadway encircling the project site (the loop road); and a concrete seawall, which forms the barrier along the East River to the east and west of the project site. The circulation roadway is not part of the formal city street system, and for the most part is not improved to New York City Fire Department (FDNY) standards. On both sides of the project site, the seawall includes a pedestrian and bicycle promenade, which extends throughout the Island north of South Point Park. The circulation roadway, promenade and seawall are all on property that is owned by the City of New York and controlled by RIOC through the long-term lease. STUDY AREA Roosevelt Island is a predominantly residential community with supporting retail, community facility, open space, transportation, and utility uses. The Island is under the political jurisdiction of the Borough of Manhattan, but receives its police, sanitation and fire services from Queens. The Roosevelt Island Bridge to Queens is the only vehicular access point to the Island. Residential uses on the Island are characterized by mid- and high-rise apartment buildings. Table 2-1 summarizes residential uses on the Island and Figure 2-2 shows their location.

2-4

2.27.13

2 7 4 1

3 5

Project Site Boundary Rezoning Area

1

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Residential Development (See Table 2-1)

Residential Development on Roosevelt Island

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 2-2

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Table 2-1 Residential Development on Roosevelt Island

Name Year Built Description Island House 1975 400-unit complex, retail at street level Rivercross 1976 377-unit complex, retail at street level Westview 1976 371-unit complex, retail at street level Roosevelt Landings 4 (formerly Eastwood) 1976 1,003-unit complex, retail at street level 5 Manhattan Park 1989 1,107 units in five buildings 6 Octagon 2006 500 units integrated with restored historic building 7 Southtown 2003-2007 1,202 units with some retail uses in six buildings Note: See Figure 2-2. Source: GIS data; Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation: Performance Measure Report (2011) Map No. 1 2 3

The original residential core of the Island consists of the four complexes that were completed by 1976: Island House, Rivercross, Westview, and Eastwood. They are located in the middle of the Island, oriented towards Main Street, the primary thoroughfare on the Island; neighborhood retail uses are located at the street level. Together, they contain 2,151 apartments in buildings up to 20 stories in height. They were built as Mitchell-Lama 1 cooperative buildings; however, Eastwood has subsequently left the program, although the rents of existing tenants remain protected. Eastwood was renamed Roosevelt Landings in 2008. Island House and Rivercross are in the process of exiting the Mitchell-Lama program, although the conversions are expected to include some measures to stabilize the rents of existing tenants and allow existing residents to buy their homes at below-market rates. Manhattan Park was built in 1989, and contains 1,107 apartments in five 20-story buildings. Manhattan Park is located west of Main Street and north of the four 1976 residential complexes described above. Four of Manhattan Parks buildings contain market-rate apartments while one 222-unit building is subsidized for seniors and low-income families under the Federal Section 8 program. In 2006, the Octagon apartments were completed, containing approximately 500 residential units. The namesake building of the complex is one of the Islands six landmarks and was built in 1839 as part of the New York Lunatic Asylum. As part of the development, the historic Octagon building was restored and two 14-story wings of apartments were built extending from the historic building, which serves as the main entrance to the complex. The Octagon apartments are located in the northern portion of the Island, immediately south of the Coler Hospital site. The closest residential development to the project site is Southtown, a six-building community located north of the Queensboro Bridge and south of the original residential buildings built by 1976. The first two 16-story Southtown buildings were completed in 2003: one was built for Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan and contains 139 apartments; and the other was built as employee housing for the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, and contains 258 apartments. Four 16-story rental buildings containing a total of approximately 815 residential units and ground floor retail uses were subsequently completed between 2004 and

Enacted in 1955, the Mitchell-Lama Housing Program utilizes tax abatements, low-interest mortgages, and other subsidies for developers to build housing for low- and middle-income tenants.

2-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

2007. Three towers of the nine-building plan have not yet been constructed. Vacant land to the east of the existing towers is designated for this future development. There are a range of local retail uses on the Island, including restaurants, delis, hardware stores, grocery stores, hair salons, and pharmacies. These uses are concentrated along Main Street from the Roosevelt Island subway station to the south, to the Roosevelt Island Bridge to Queens on the north. Many newer businesses, such as a Starbucks, Duane Reade, and a Japanese restaurant, are located on the ground-floor levels of the Southtown development. On the north side of the Roosevelt Island Bridge is a Gristedes grocery store that is below a large 1,500-space multi-level parking garage called Motorgate. Motorgate was built pursuant to the original master plan for Roosevelt Island, which called for consolidation of parking facilities in one location, in order to create a pedestrian-oriented environment on the Island. Due to the physical limits to accessing the Island, its transportation facilities are important land uses. The Roosevelt Island subway station, located on Main Street in the Southtown development, is a major center of activity. The subway station is in close proximity to the Roosevelt Island aerial tramway, which is located adjacent to the north side of the Queensboro Bridge, on Main Street. The tram connects Roosevelt Island to Second Avenue and East 59th Street in Manhattan, and has become a recognizable symbol of the Island. The Queensboro Bridge is also a major feature of the area, although it does not provide access to Roosevelt Island. The only vehicular access is from the Roosevelt Island Bridge to Queens, which also carries the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)s Q102 bus line. Transportation within the Island is provided by RIOCs Red Bus service, which is not integrated with MTA service. Community uses on the Island include the Roosevelt Island Branch of the New York Public Library, located at 524 Main Street; a U.S. Post Office, located at 694 Main Street; PS/IS 217 Roosevelt Island School, at 645 Main Street; the Child School Legacy High School, an independent K-12 school for children with learning disabilities, located at 587 Main Street; Lillies International Christian School, located at 851 Main Street; the Roosevelt Island Day Nursery, located at 4 River Road; Main Street Theatre, located at 548 Main Street; and the Roosevelt Island Visual Arts Associated, located at 547 Main Street. Places of worship on the Island include Church of the Good Shepherd, Dayspring Church, St Frances Cabrini Church, the Roosevelt Island Jewish Congregation, and Kimball Methodist Episcopal Church. In addition to the Goldwater Hospital, the Island also contains the Coler Hospital campus, which is located on the northern portion of the Island, north of the Octagon and south of Lighthouse Park. The Coler Hospital campus contains approximately 1,025 beds. Open space uses on the Island include the waterfront walkway that extends the full length of the Island north of South Point Park on its east and west waterfronts, the recently built Four Freedoms Park at the southernmost point of the Island, and parks that are under the jurisdiction of RIOC. RIOC also operates the Sportspark exercise facility, which features a pool, basketball court, and ping-pong room. These resources are described in greater detail in Chapter 5, Open Space. ZONING All of Roosevelt Island, including the project site, is zoned R7-2, a medium-density residential designation (see Figure 2-3). R7-2 districts are medium-density residential districts that encourage low apartment buildings on smaller lots, or taller buildings with low lot coverage on larger lots. R7-2 districts allow residential uses at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.44, and community facility uses (including dormitories) with a maximum FAR of 6.5. R7-2 zoning 2-6

2.27.13

Project Site Rezoning Area Study Area Boundary

800

2000 FEET

SCALE

Existing Zoning
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 2-3

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

districts also require that a minimum Open Space Ratio (OSR) is provided on a zoning lot. The OSR requirements range from 15.5 to 25.5 percent of the residential floor area on a zoning lot, depending on the height and footprint of the building. Buildings in R7-2 districts must be set within a sky exposure plane, which begins at a height of 60 feet above the street line and then slopes inward over the zoning lot. Areas on the waterfront in New York City are generally subject to Special Regulations Applying in the Waterfront Area of the New York City Zoning Resolution. The regulations include special bulk and use restrictions and other design standards to ensure visual connections to the waterfront, as well as physical access to the waterfront. The Islands numerous commercial uses are not conforming under the R7-2 zoning designation. However, all of Roosevelt Island, except the Goldwater and Coler Hospital campuses, is under the jurisdiction of New York State through RIOC. Under New York State law, RIOC can override the New York City Zoning Resolution. PUBLIC POLICY APPLIED SCIENCES NYC The City of New York launched its Applied Sciences NYC initiative in 2010 after working with a range of New York Citys business leaders, academics, community groups, and entrepreneurs to identify ambitious, achievable initiatives that the city could undertake to achieve local economic growth. From that process, it was identified that there is an unmet demand within New York City for top-flight engineers and applied scientists. The purpose of Applied Sciences NYC is to provide one or more opportunities for a leading academic institution to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. The overarching goal is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth and create jobs for New Yorkers. To this end, the city requested expressions of interest from academic institutions to build a new applied sciences campus and offered to provide city-owned land on one of four sites (Roosevelt Island, Governors Island, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the Staten Island Farm Colony), and an investment of city capital. After a competitive bidding process, Cornell University, in conjunction with its academic partner Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, was selected to develop the Applied Sciences NYC project on the Roosevelt Island sitethe Cornell NYC Tech project. ROOSEVELT ISLAND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The 1969 lease agreement between the City of New York and NYSUDC identifies the General Development Plan (GDP) as the master plan for Roosevelt Island. The GDP, which has been amended since 1969, provides for the development of housing, retail uses, and community facilities in order to create a mixed income, pedestrian-oriented, and handicap-accessible residential community. Specifically, the basic program of the GDP includes: 5,000 units of housing (including a program of hospital-related housing developed in consultation with the city); approximately 20,000-gsf of office space; approximately 100,000-gsf of commercial space; a range of community facilities, including a public school, library, and recreational facilities; a series of open space resources; a street and pedestrian/bicycle circulation system, including a waterfront promenade; a mini-transit system including an aerial tramway to Manhattan; a public garage; and water, sewer, and solid waste infrastructure systems. The GDP includes affordability criteria and design criteria for residential development on the Island, and delineates certain areas for open space uses. 2-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The 1969 lease also requires New York City and RIOC to cooperate on the development of a new plan for the Goldwater Hospital site in the event it is no longer needed for hospital purposes. PLANYC In April 2007, the Mayors Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability released PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. An update to PlaNYC in April 2011 built upon the goals set forth in 2007. PlaNYC represents a comprehensive and integrated approach to planning for New York Citys future. It includes policies to address three key challenges that the city faces over the next 20 years: (1) population growth; (2) aging infrastructure; and (3) global climate change. In the 2011 update, elements of the plan are organized into 10 categorieshousing and neighborhoods, parks and public space, brownfields, waterways, water supply, transportation, energy, air quality, solid waste, and climate changewith corresponding goals and initiatives for each category. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, large, publicly-sponsored projects should be assessed to determine their consistency with PlaNYC. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM The New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) is the citys principal coastal zone management tool. As originally adopted in 1982 and revised in 1999, it establishes the citys policies for development and use of the waterfront. All proposed projects subject to CEQR, Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), or other local, state, or federal agency discretionary actions that are situated within New York Citys designated Coastal Zone Boundary must be reviewed and assessed for their consistency with the WRP. The project site is within the Coastal Zone Boundary, as shown on Figure 2-4. Therefore, a WRP consistency assessment is warranted.

E. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

This section considers land use, zoning, and public policy conditions for 2018 and 2038, the future analysis years, without the proposed project. The conditions described below form the No-Action condition, which is the baseline condition in the study area against which the proposed projects incremental changes will be measured. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR LAND USE Project Site In the future No-Action condition, the hospital campus on the project site is expected to be vacant. As noted above, as part of a major modernization planning effort, NYCHHC will continue to vacate the project site and relocate patients and services elsewhere. Absent the proposed project, the hospital structures are assumed to remain as a vacant complex. No changes are expected to the portion of the project site that is currently vacant land. Rezoning Area Outside of the project site, no changes to the rezoning area are anticipated in the No-Action condition. The rezoning area will continue to include a one-way circulation roadway, promenade, and seawall, under the jurisdiction of RIOC.

2-8

2.27.13

NA V

E8

PA RK AV

MA DIS O

E8 E7 7S E7 T E7 6S 5S T T

E7
T

E7

PA RK AV

8S

9S

0S T

E7 3S

E7 4S

EA ST EN DA V

E8

1S

2S T

E8

3S

UN N

AM E

ST

AV

LE XI N GT ON

3A V

2A V

RO O

SE

9S

VE

E6

2S

LT I

E7

SH

YO R

RI

IN

0S T

VE R

ST

ES

E6 E6 0S T
E6

2S

VE

RN

1S

36

AV

DR

E5

7S

E5
E5
E5

4S

BO R

BR

40

AV

13

EE

NS

ST

E5

FD

DR

E5

6S

14

8S

FD

E5

9S

12

37

AV

5S

QU

3S T
T

RD

EA

24

RA

12

ST

9S

13

ST

11 ST

10

42

22

5 ST

44 R

45 AV

44 D

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

PL Z

Project Site Boundary Rezoning Area Coastal Zone Boundary

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Coastal Zone
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 2-4

41 AV

ST

QN

29

ST

43

AV

27

28

ST

43

RD

ST

CR

ES

CE

NT

E5

0S

ST

23

ST

ST

E5 1S

ST

41 R

22

AV

ST

2S

41

21

ST

39

ST

E5

ST

11 S

TR

3S

ON

9S

10

E6

ST

BL VD

E6

1A V

E6

MA

5S

34
35

AV

4S

E6 6S

AV

38 AV

AV

12

ST

E7

EA ST R

CH

E6

7S

1S

NL

KA V

E6 8S

E7

PH L

33

RD

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Study Area One substantial project is expected to be built on Roosevelt Island by the 2018 analysis year. The Southtown development is expected to expand to include three new towers that will contain approximately 540 new residential units; the towers are expected to be 21, 25, and 29 stories in height. This development will occur on vacant land to the east of the existing Southtown towers. Figure 2-5 shows the location of this project. ZONING No changes to zoning are currently anticipated by the 2018 analysis year. Existing zoning regulations are expected to remain in force, as described under Existing Conditions. PUBLIC POLICY DCP has proposed revisions to the WRP in order to advance the long-term goals laid out in Vision 2020: The New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, released in 2011. The proposed changes are intended to enhance sustainability and climate resilience planning through the incorporation of climate change considerations. The proposed revisions to the WRP are also intended to promote various ecological objectives, facilitate interagency review of permitting to preserve and enhance maritime infrastructure, and support a thriving, sustainable working waterfront. Following referral by the City Planning Commission in March 2012, the revisions to the WRP are undergoing public review following the New York City Charter Section 197-a process for community input and adoption. Following all local approvals, the New York State Department of State and the United States Department of Commerce must also approve the proposed revisions. Completion of the approvals process is anticipated in mid-2013. No other changes to applicable public policies are currently anticipated by the 2018 analysis year. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR LAND USE Project Site For purposes of this analysis, the project site is not expected to change in the No-Action condition between 2018 and 2038. As stated under the Analysis Framework section of Chapter 1, Project Description, the project site is assumed to continue to contain a vacant hospital complex and vacant land in the No-Action condition. Study Area No land use changes in the study area are currently anticipated between 2018 and 2038. With the completion of the full build out of Southtown by 2018, there are currently no further plans for substantial new development on Roosevelt Island. ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY No changes to zoning or applicable public policies are currently anticipated between 2018 and 2038. Existing zoning and public policies are expected to remain in force, with the exception of the expected modification of the WRP, in mid-2013.

2-9

2.27.13

NA V

E8

AV

MA DIS O

PA RK

PA RK AV

E7 E7 T E7 6S 5S T T

7S

E7
T

8S

E7 9S T

E8 0S

E7

E7 4S

3S

EA ST EN DA V

E8

1S

2S T

E8

3S

UN NA

ME

ST

AV

TO N

ING

3A V

2A V

LE X

RO

OS EV

E6 9S E6

EL TI

E7 2S

SH L

EA ST

RI V

MA IN

9S T

ES

E6

E6 2S 0S T
E6 1S

VE

RN

36 AV

DR

E5

A
7S T

E5
E5
E5

4S

SB

OR O

BR

40 AV

13

EE N

ST

E5

FD

DR

E5

6S

14

8S

FD

E5

12 S

9S

37

AV

5S

QU

3S T

RD

24

RA

12

ST

9S T

13

ST

11 ST

10

42

22

5 ST

44 R D

45 AV

44 D R

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

PL Z

Project Site Boundary Rezoning Area

A

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Southtown Expansion

Future Development Projects

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 2-5

41 AV

ST

QN

29

ST

43

AV

27

28

ST

43

RD

ST

CR ES

CE

NT

E5

0S

ST

23

RD

ST

ST

E5 1S

EA

ST

41

22

AV

ST

2S

41

21

ST

39 AV

ST

E5

11 S

TR

3S

ON

10

E6

ST

BL VD

E6 4S

1A V

E6

5S

34
35

AV

E6

6S

AV

38 AV

12

ST

E7 0S

ER

ST

RD

7S

CH N

YO

E6

E7 1S

LP

8S

RK AV

HL

33

RD

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

F. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

This section describes the land use, zoning, and public policy conditions that would result from the completion of the proposed project by 2018 and 2038, and evaluates the potential for the proposed project to result in significant adverse impacts. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the following proposed actions would be undertaken to facilitate the proposed development: Disposition of city-owned property (by lease with a purchase option) from the City of New York to the New York City Land Development Corporation (NYCLDC), which will assign the lease to Cornell. Approval of the lease and sale terms of the disposition parcels pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter; RIOCs actions may include amendment of the 1969 Master Lease originally between New York City and the New York State Urban Development Corporation (RIOCs predecessor in interest) and related actions; Amendment of the NYCHHC operating agreement with the city by the Corporation Board in order to surrender a portion of the project site; Zoning Map amendment to change the project site zoning from R7-2 to C4-5/Special Southern Roosevelt Island District; Zoning Text amendment to create the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District and to establish special bulk, use, and public access controls for the rezoning area; and City Map Amendment to map the one-way loop road surrounding the project site and its connection to Main Street as a city street. It is also possible that an approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) would be required for the construction and operation of a geothermal well system that may be part of the project. As noted above, there are two build years for the proposed development: an interim build year for Phase 1 of 2018, and a full build-out year of 2038. The evaluation of the potential for significant adverse impacts is based on a comparison of the scenarios in the No-Action condition, described above, with the incremental changes to land use, zoning, and public policy that would result from the completion of the proposed project in the With-Action condition, as discussed below. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) The Cornell NYC Tech campus is expected to begin operations in Summer 2017, and 2018 will be the first full year of operation for Phase 1. Phase 1 of the proposed project would establish a mixed-use academic-oriented campus on the project site, and result in zoning changes in the project site and rezoning area, as analyzed below. LAND USE Project Site As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, under the Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario (RWCDS), Phase 1 would consist of approximately 790,000 gross square feet (gsf) of development, consisting of the uses outlined in Table 2-2. In addition, Phase 1 would include a minimum of 1.3-acres of new publicly accessible open space. 2-10

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Table 2-2 2018 RWCDS Program

Use Academic Residential Units (Total) Faculty Housing Student Housing Corporate Co-location Executive Education Center (Total) Conference Facility * Campus-oriented retail Utility Plant Parking Note: Size 200,000-gsf 442 units (Total) 104 units 338 units 100,000-gsf 170,000-gsf (Total) 25,000-gsf 10,000-gsf 20,000-gsf 250 spaces

Source:

Campus oriented retail would be accommodated in one of the other buildings, i.e., within either the academic or corporate co-location buildings or within the Executive Education Center. Cornell University

The Phase 1 development would be concentrated in the northern portion of the site. In addition to this permanent development program, interim uses may also be added to the southern portion of the project site, potentially including a nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a planted meadow). While Phase 1 of the proposed project would substantially alter the land use composition of the project site, the changes would not be considered adverse pursuant to the CEQR Technical Manual. The proposed project would add new academic, residential, commercial, utility, parking, and open spaces uses on the project site, which would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. While the density of development on the project site would increase as a result of the proposed project, the proposed density of development would not be in excess of what zoning current allows. In addition, the proposed project would improve land use conditions by creating a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development on a site that would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. The mix of uses within the proposed Cornell NYC Tech campus would be complementary to each other and would be supportive of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. As noted in Chapter 1, a key goal of the proposed project is to promote partnerships between academic and business and entrepreneurship, which would be supported by the inclusion of corporate colocation uses on the project site. Both the corporate co-location uses and the Universitys academic uses would benefit from being in close proximity to each other, and would maximize the economic benefits to the city from the proposed project. The proposed Executive Education Center would accommodate meetings, events, and conferences arising from the Cornell NYC Tech projects academic programs and commercial activities and would therefore complement the proposed corporate co-location uses. The proposed residential uses would provide convenient and affordable housing for a portion of Cornell NYC Techs leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. Cornell NYC Techs leadership, faculty, and students would benefit from living on-

2-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

campus, and the proposed residential uses would bring activity and help to create a sense of community on the project site, resulting in a lively and vibrant mixed-use campus. The proposed retail program would include such uses as cafes, a restaurant, a newsstands, or a University bookstore. The purpose of these local retail uses would be to serve campus residents and workers; destination retail would not be included as part of the proposed project. The proposed utility uses, including a 20,000-gsf central utility plant, geothermal wells, and photovoltaic panels, would further the sustainability goals of the proposed project. The proposed parking uses would facilitate access to the site for a portion of project site workers and visitors. However, it is expected that the majority of users of the site would utilize public transportation (see Chapter 14, Transportation). The proposed publicly accessible open space uses would provide an important amenity to residents and users of the Cornell NYC Tech campus, as well as the larger Roosevelt Island population, and would be compatible with the proposed mix of uses. Overall, the siting of the proposed mix of uses in the project site would contribute to creating a cohesive, mixed-use campus that advances New York Citys and Cornell NYC Techs goals and objectives, as set forth in Chapter 1, Project Description. Therefore, the proposed uses envisioned for the project site would be compatible, and would not result in significant adverse land use impacts. As described in Chapter 8, Urban Design and Visual Resources, the changes to height and bulk on the project site under the proposed project would be substantial. By 2018, buildings on the project site would include: an academic building; a residential building; an Executive Education Center; a corporate co-location building, and a central utility plant. These buildings would vary in height, with the residential building expected to be the tallest (assumed to be approximately 320 feet. i.e., the maximum height allowed by zoning). While these new buildings could be taller than the vacant hospital complex of up to 100 feet in height, the increased height and bulk that would result from the proposed project would not be considered a significant adverse land use impact. Development at a greater density than currently exists is appropriate for the project site, due to its close proximity to existing public transportation infrastructure, including the F line of the New York City Subway, the Roosevelt Island Tram, and bus services. Moreover, appropriate utility, open space, and supporting retail uses would be provided on the site to create a self-supporting mixed-use campus with a full range of uses. Overall, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use on the project site. Rezoning Area The proposed project would improve land use conditions in the rezoning area by widening and reconstructing the existing roadway to FDNY standards, with a new bicycle path and sidewalk. These improvements would include new plantings and improve access and circulation to the project site. No changes to the promenade and seawall would result from the proposed project. Study Area The development associated with the proposed project would not result in substantial changes to off-site study area land uses or development patterns. As described above, the Roosevelt Island neighborhoods north of the project site are largely built out pursuant to the original GDP for the Island. An additional 540 housing units are planned for the only remaining vacant parcel on the Island, and there are no plans for the Island to absorb any additional development.

2-12

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

While the proposed project would substantially change the land use conditions on the project site, the proposed development would be compatible with land uses in the broader study area. The proposed uses would be complementary to surrounding open space, transportation, retail, and residential uses. The existing open space and recreation uses adjacent to the project site to the south and north (South Point Park, and Sportspark, respectively) would be compatible with the proposed mixed-use development, including the proposed publicly accessible open space; this proposed open space would be an important amenity for residents of Roosevelt Island and the general public. The closest residential development, in Southtown, would be buffered from the project site by the Queensboro Bridge and the intervening distance. Moreover, Southtown is already a mixed-use community that contains retail uses and housing for institutional uses, as would the proposed development. While the proposed corporate co-location uses and Executive Education Center uses would be new to the study area, they would not be expected to result in any land use conflicts. The mixed-use character of the proposed development would be compatible with the mix of uses found on Roosevelt Island. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant adverse land use impacts in the study area by 2018. ZONING The proposed project would result in two zoning changes: the project site would be rezoned from an R7-2 designation to a C4-5 designation; and the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be created and mapped over the rezoning area. Project Site Under the proposed project, the underlying zoning of the project site would be changed from R7-2 to C4-5, as shown on Figure 2-6 and included in the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District. C4-5 districts are typically mapped in regional commercial centers, and allow a wide range of commercial uses up to a maximum FAR of 3.4. Residential uses in C4-5 districts are permitted to a maximum FAR of between 0.87 and 3.44, and community facility uses are allowed to a maximum FAR of 6.5. Therefore, the proposed zoning would allow for the same bulk of development as the existing R7-2 zoning, which allows a maximum FAR of 3.44 for residential uses and 6.5 for community facility uses. The zoning change is necessary to facilitate the development of a mixed-use campus with academic, residential, corporate co-location, Executive Education Center (e.g., hotel and conference), and local retail uses. As described above, the proposed mix of uses that would result from the proposed project would be compatible with each other and with uses in the surrounding study area; therefore, the proposed C4-5 designation would not result in a significant adverse zoning impact. The regulations of the proposed C4-5 zoning would also be modified somewhat by the proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island District that would also be mapped over the project site, as described below. Rezoning Area Special Southern Roosevelt Island District The Special Southern Roosevelt Island District (SRI) would be mapped over the rezoning area (see Figure 2-6, and see Appendix 1 for the text of the proposed zoning text amendment). The SRI provisions would modify the parking controls and would set forth special use, bulk, and public access areas controls for the rezoning area as follows: Use: The uses allowed as-of-right would include research, experimental or testing laboratories (Use Group 17B), in addition to the residential, commercial, and community facility uses that are allowed in C4-5 zoning districts. In addition, restrictions on the location 2-13

2.27.13

RO SP OS EC EV IAL EL T I SOU SL AN THE D D RN IST RIC T

C4

-5

Project Site Rezoning Area (C4-5 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary

800

2000 FEET

SCALE

Proposed Zoning
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 2-6

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

of floors occupied by commercial uses within the proposed buildings would not apply. The waterfront area between the shoreline and West and East Loop Roads would be used exclusively for open recreational uses. Bulk: - Floor Area Ratio: The maximum FAR that could be developed for residential, commercial, or Use Group 17B uses would be 3.44. Residential uses could be developed to 3.44 FAR without regard to height factor. Community facility uses could be developed to a maximum FAR of 6.5. - Lot Coverage: In lieu of the open space ratio requirements of Zoning Resolution (ZR) Section 23-14 and the lot coverage requirements of ZR Sections 23-14 and 24-11, the SRI text would set forth aggregate lot coverage restrictions for all buildings. From the base plane to a height of 20 feet above the base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 70 percent. Between 20 feet and 60 feet above the base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 60 percent. Between 60 feet and 180 feet above base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 45 percent. Above 180 feet above base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 25 percent. - Modification of Height and Setback Controls: The proposed zoning text would set forth height and setback regulations for the project site that would be set in relation to the surrounding loop road. Buildings would be allowed to exceed underlying height and setback regulations for a percentage of the length of each street line of the loop road, ranging from 65 percent along north and south loop road, to 35 percent along east and west loop road. In addition, these street line length percentage limitations may be exceed by one percentage point for every two percentage points that the lot coverage within 50 feet of a street line is less than a certain percentage, ranging from 50 percent along north and south loop road, to 30 percent along east and west loop road. - Height Regulations: For the portion of any building exceeding the height and setback controls described in the preceding paragraph, the maximum height of such portion that is located within 500 feet of the loop road would be capped at 320 feet in height, and the maximum height for any such portion on the remainder of the project site could reach 280 feet in height. In addition, the distance between buildings would be a minimum of 8 feet at a height of up to 180 feet, and a minimum distance of 60 feet apart above 180 feet. Any story located entirely above a height of 180 feet would not be permitted to exceed 15,000 gsf. - Permitted Obstructions: Photovoltaic cells, other energy generating systems, and any structure (except a building) supporting such energy systems, would be permitted obstructions. Public Access: The proposed zoning text would require that a minimum of 20 percent of the lot area of the project site, or 2.5 acres, would be publicly accessible. In addition, as lot coverage would be limited to a maximum of 70 percent at grade level, an additional 10 percent of lot area, or 1.25 acres, would be open to the sky, but need not be publicly accessible. A minimum of 80 percent of the publicly accessible area would be located at grade or within five feet of grade, and would be open to the sky; the remaining 20 percent may be enclosed, covered by a structure, or located above grade, but must be accessible from publicly accessible areas at grade (or within five feet of grade) and have a minimum clear height of 15 feet. The zoning text would include requirements on the phasing of the open space, so that the size of open space on the project site would increase with

2-14

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

development. The proposed zoning text would include provisions regarding design, seating, access, planting, and hours of the public open space. - Design: The public access areas would be subject to design requirements, including clear paths that would be accessible to persons with disabilities. The proposed zoning text would include specific design requirements for three public open space areas: i. A waterfront connection corridor, which would provide access between loop road east and loop road west, across the project site; ii. A central open area of at least 30,000 square feet that would front on loop road west; and iii. A north-south connection, which would provide a continuous publicly accessible area from loop road north (or from loop road east or west, within 200 feet of loop road north) to loop road south (or to loop road east or west, within 200 feet of loop road south). - Seating: The public access areas would also be required to provide one linear foot of seating for each 200 feet of required public access. In the central open areas, this requirement would be one linear foot of seating for each 100 feet, and in the north-south connection, it would be one linear foot of seating for each 150 feet. - Maximum of 500 accessory parking spaces, which may be made available for public use. Bicycle parking shall be provided as per Section 36-70. - All required public access areas would be required to be open daily from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM between April 15th and October 31st and from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM for the remainder of the year. The purpose of these provisions is to facilitate the development of a mixed-use, academicoriented campus in a manner that benefits the surrounding community. To this end, the SRI text would allow for a mix of residential and retail uses that would support the proposed academic and corporate co-location uses, and complement the existing urban fabric of Roosevelt Island. The zoning text would provide for a network of publicly accessible open spaces that would take advantage of the unique location of Roosevelt Island, and integrate the academic campus into the new open spaces, thus providing a community amenity for both Cornell NYC Tech residents and the Roosevelt Island community. The SRI text has been designed to strengthen the visual and physical connections between the eastern and western shores of Roosevelt Island, through the establishment of publicly accessible connections through the project site, and above grade view corridors. The proposed zoning would encourage alternative forms of transportation by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking, which would be in keeping with the existing pedestrian orientation of Roosevelt Island. The SRI text is intended to provide flexibility of architectural design for the Cornell NYC Tech campus, within limits established to ensure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms. The proposed zoning would also promote the most desirable use of land in the rezoning area and thus conserve the value of land and buildings, and thereby protect the citys tax revenues. Overall, the proposed zoning would allow for the development of a vibrant and attractive mixed use, academic-oriented campus, and would not result in any significant adverse zoning impacts in the rezoning area.

2-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Study Area As noted above, the proposed SRI text has been designed to complement the existing uses and urban fabric of Roosevelt Island. The proposed zoning text would ensure the provision of a network of publicly accessible open spaces, which would benefit the residents of the study area outside of the Cornell NYC Tech campus. The provisions in the proposed zoning text to encourage alternative modes of transportation, by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking, would be in keeping with pedestrian-oriented feel and design of the existing Roosevelt Island community. The proposed zoning would result in land uses that would complement existing land uses in the study area and would provide development that would knit together the project site and rezoning area with the existing community in the study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to zoning in the study area. The proposed project would not affect the zoning of the study area. As with the No-Action condition, the study area would remain within an R7-2 zoning district, under the jurisdiction of RIOC. PUBLIC POLICY Applied Sciences NYC Phase 1 of the proposed project would be supportive of the citys Applied Sciences NYC initiative. The proposed project would create a mixed-use academic-oriented development, including academic and corporate co-location uses that would create jobs, promote the citys technology sector, and diversify the citys economy. The proposed project would result in a new, world-class applied sciences campus that would be supportive of the citys economic development goals for the project. Roosevelt Island General Development Plan Phase 1 of the proposed project would be consistent with the GDP, including its goals for housing, community facilities, retail uses, transportation, and open spaces. As the GDPs goals do not rely upon the project site for their realization, the proposed project would not conflict with the GDP. The GDP provides for 5,000 units of housing on Roosevelt Island, which has already been met, and does not require use of the project site. RIOC would continue to provide access to the project site via Main Street and West Street (and the renamed West Main Street and East Main Street), and the public would continue to be able to access South Point Park and Four Freedoms Park via roads and sidewalks adjacent to the project site, the promenades on both sides of the project site, and through the publicly accessible open space that would be provided on the project site. As noted under Existing Conditions, the 1969 lease requires the city and RIOC to cooperate on the development of a new plan for the Goldwater Hospital site in the event that it is no longer needed for hospital purposes. RIOC and the city have carried out this cooperation through the development of the Cornell NYC Tech project. The Goldwater Hospital site was never included in premises leased to RIOC, and the GDP anticipated that the Goldwater Hospital site would remain under city control. Overall, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts with regard to the GDP. PlaNYC PlaNYCs initiatives relate to several technical areas that are included in a CEQR assessment, including Open Space, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, Energy, Construction, Transportation, 2-16

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Air Quality. Below is an assessment of the consistency of the proposed project with PlaNYCs sustainability goals. Air Quality PlaNYCs air quality goal is to attain compliance with federal standards for PM2.5 and ozone, and also to achieve the cleanest air quality of any city in the country. To fulfill this goal, PlaNYC establishes policy initiatives that aim to reduce road vehicle and other transportation emissions, reduce emissions from buildings, and to pursue natural solutions to improve air quality. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project undergoing a CEQR review would generally be consistent with PlaNYCs air quality initiatives if it maximizes its use of one or more of the following elements: the promotion of mass transit; the use of alternative fuel vehicles; the installation of anti-idling technology; the use of retrofitted diesel trucks; the use of biodiesel in vehicles and in heating oil; the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel and retrofitted construction vehicles; the use of low sulfur heating fuels; and the planting of street trees and other vegetation. The proposed project would support PlaNYCs air quality goals by providing transit-oriented development. The project site is located in an area served by existing transit services, including the F subway line, the Roosevelt Island Tram, the Q102 bus line, and RIOC bus services. The proposed project would also result in the planting of new street trees and other vegetation on the project site, and the establishment of a minimum of 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space by 2018. Construction would include a diesel emissions reduction program including diesel particulate filters for large construction engines and other measures (see Chapter 20, Construction and Chapter 16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The energy use of the proposed campus would also support PlaNYC air quality goals. Heating for the proposed project would be from a combination of heat pumps (using electricity) and gasfired boilers; the emissions from these sources would be less than the low-sulfur heating oils described in PlanNYC. The proposed project would generate renewable electricity through the use of: approximately 140 geothermal wells, photovoltaic panels, and utility plants would provide space for in-coming utility services and may also include equipment to supply power, chilled water, and heat to portions of the campus, all of which would further reduce site air emissions (see Chapter 16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Energy PlaNYCs primary energy goal is to provide cleaner and more reliable power for the city. PlaNYC outlines energy policy initiatives that intend to improve energy planning, reduce the citys energy consumption, expand the citys clean power supply, and modernize the electricity delivery infrastructure. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project undergoing a CEQR review would generally be consistent with PlaNYCs energy initiatives if it maximizes its use of one or more of the following elements: exceeding the energy code; using energy efficient appliances, fixtures, and building systems; participating in peak load management systems, including smart metering; repowering and constructing power plants and dedicated transmission lines; building distributed generation power units; expanding the natural gas infrastructure; using renewable energy; using natural gas; installing solar panels; using digester gas from sewage treatment plants; using energy from solid waste; and reinforcing the energy grid.

2-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The proposed project is committed to incorporating a number of sustainable design measures that would reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. This goal means that the campus collectively would generate the electricity, heat, and chilled water that would offset the energy use of the Phase 1 academic building on an annual basis. In addition to meeting all applicable local laws regarding energy, Cornell has agreed to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification for all project buildings. As part of the sustainable design energy measures, to the extent feasible, the proposed project may include the following: On-site utility plant that would total up to 20,000 gsf by 2018. The utility plant would house central utilities and provide space for energy systems that might be included in the campus development, such as fuel cells or gas-fired micro-turbines with heat recovery. Photovoltaic (PV) panels. An array of PV panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building; it may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building. PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures as needed to achieve the renewable electricity goals of the campus. A system of geothermal wells. Water Quality PlaNYCs water initiatives focus on the citys water network and water quality, with an objective of opening 90 percent of the citys waterways to recreation by preserving natural areas and reducing pollution. PlaNYCs water quality initiatives aim to continue implementation of infrastructure upgrades; prevent stormwater from entering the system; and expand, track, and analyze new Best Management Practices (BMPs) on a broad scale. The nine water network initiatives are intended to ensure the quality of the citys drinking water, create redundancy for aqueducts, and modernize water distribution. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project would generally be consistent with PlaNYCs water quality initiatives if it includes one or more of the following elements: expanding and improving wastewater treatment plants; building high level storm sewers; expanding the amount of green, permeable surfaces across the city; expanding the Bluebelt system; incorporating green infrastructure, low impact development, or best management practices concepts and initiatives; being consistent with the Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan; building systems for on-site management of stormwater runoff; incorporating planting and stormwater management within parking lots; building green roofs; protecting wetlands; using water-efficient fixtures; or adopting a water conservation project. As part of Cornells commitment to LEED Silver certification, measures would be implemented as part of the proposed project to conserve potable water and improve water quality. All buildings would use water-efficient plumbing fixtures to conserve water. Landscape measures to improve water quality would include bioswales and rain gardens to retain and filter stormwater, and could also include stormwater storage for irrigation. Some proposed buildings may use green roofs on lower-level roof surfaces to further detain and reduce the amount of stormwater that would be discharged into the East River. In accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requirements, all stormwater would pass through a pretreatment system (such as vegetative filters, a hydrodynamic separator, or other engineered pretreatment system) prior to discharge to the water body. Post-construction stormwater management measures that would be integrated into the proposed project could include bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection systems, and reuse of stormwater to the 2-18

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

extent possible. Temporary erosion and sediment controls during construction may include settling ponds and approved filtration systems, some of which could become integrated into permanent site features (see Chapter 11, Water and Sewer Infrastructure). Land Use Regarding land use, PlaNYC sets forth the goals of creating homes for approximately one million residents, while making housing more sustainable and affordable. These goals are to be achieved by PlaNYC initiatives that encourage publicly-initiated rezonings, creation of new housing on public land, expanding targeted affordability programs, and exploration of additional areas of opportunity. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project would generally be consistent with PlaNYCs land use initiatives if it includes one or more of the following elements: pursuing transit-oriented development; reclamation of underutilized waterfronts; adaptation of outdated buildings to new uses; development of underutilized areas to knit neighborhoods together; decking over rail yards, rail lines, and highways; extension of the Inclusionary Housing program in a manner consistent with such policy; preservation of existing affordable housing; or redevelopment of brownfields. The proposed project would support PlaNYCs land use goals by fostering transit-oriented development and developing an underutilized area. The proposed project would result in a vibrant academic-oriented mixed-use development that would provide substantial economic benefits to the city. Open Space As outlined in PlaNYC, the city has a goal of ensuring that all New Yorkers live within a 10minute walk of a park. PlaNYCs seven open space goals approach this aim by making existing resources available to more New Yorkers, expanding hours at existing resources, and reimagining the public realm to create or enhance public spaces in the cityscape. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project is generally consistent with PlaNYCs open space initiatives if it includes one or more of the following elements: completion of underdeveloped destination parks; provision of multi-purpose fields; installation of new lighting at fields; creation or enhancement of public plazas; or planting of trees and other vegetation. The proposed project would support PlaNYCs open space goals by providing a minimum of 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space by 2018, including both active and passive features. The proposed project would also include the planting of new trees and other vegetation throughout the project site. The campus would include new public plazas that would improve the pedestrian realm on the site. Natural Resources Effective conservation of the citys natural resources is a key objective of PlaNYC. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project is generally consistent with PlaNYCs natural resources initiatives if it includes one or more of the following elements: planting street trees and other vegetation; protection of new wetlands; creation of open space; minimizing or capturing stormwater runoff; or redevelopment of brownfields. The proposed project would support PlaNYCs natural resources goals by providing a minimum of 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space by 2018, as well as providing trees and other vegetation throughout the site. As described above under Water Quality, the proposed project would include numerous measures to minimize and capture stormwater runoff, including:

2-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

bioswales, rain gardens, pretreatment of stormwater before discharge to the East River, possible stormwater storage for irrigation, and possible green roofs. As discussed in Chapter 9, Natural Resources, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota, tidal wetlands, essential fish habitat or threatened or endangered aquatic species. Transportation PlaNYCs two transportation goals are to add transit capacity for 1 million more residents, visitors, and workers, and to reach a full state of good repair on the citys roads, subways, and rails. PlaNYC identifies 16 transportation initiatives, which are intended to build and expand transit infrastructure, improve transit service on existing infrastructure, promote other sustainable transportation modes, reduce congestion, achieve the state of good repair, and develop new funding sources for regional transit financing. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a project is generally consistent with PlaNYCs transportation initiatives if it includes one or more of the following elements: transit-oriented development; promoting cycling and other sustainable modes of transportation; managing roads more efficiently; facilitating freight movements; increasing the capacity of mass transit; providing new commuter rail access to Manhattan; improving and expanding bus service; improving local commuter rail service; improving access to existing transit; or expanding waterbased transportation services. The proposed project would support PlaNYCs transportation goals by fostering transit-oriented development. As noted above, the proposed SRI zoning text would encourage alternative forms of transportation by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking. As described in Chapter 16, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would also consider: developing multi-use paths; developing a parking management program to minimize parking requirements, such as parking cash-out, parking charges, preferential carpool or vanpool parking, and limiting parking available to employees; developing and implementing a marketing/information program that includes posting and distribution of ride sharing transit information; reducing employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex-time; providing bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms; implementing roadway improvements to improve traffic flow; and implementing traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Conclusion Phase 1 of the proposed project would be supportive of PlaNYCs policies and goals, as it would result in economic development, a minimum of 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space, new trees and other vegetation, a new bike lane, would be situated on a site that is served by existing mass transit, and would incorporate sustainable design measures, including a commitment to LEED Silver certification. This commitment, and the development of on-site green energy projects, would ensure that the proposed development complies with PlaNYC. Overall, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts. Waterfront Revitalization Program A preliminary evaluation of the consistency of the proposed project with the 10 policies contained in the citys WRP is provided below for the 2038 analysis year. Phase 1 of the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant policies of the citys WRP. Phase 1 would result in a vibrant mixed-use development adjacent to the waterfront that would include a minimum of 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space. The proposed project would also

2-20

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

contain numerous sustainability-enhancing features, including: buildings built to LEED Silver certification; on-site cogeneration, photovoltaic, and thermal well energy production; and water quality improvement measures, including bioswales, rain gardens, and possible other measures. The proposed project would not adversely affect maritime uses, or access to the waterfront. Therefore, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD OUT) The full build out of the proposed project would be completed by 2038, adding residential units, academic space, corporate co-location uses, an energy plant, ancillary retail uses, and additional publicly accessible open space to the development completed by 2018. As a result, the project site would be fully transformed into an active mixed-use campus. LAND USE Project Site As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, under the RWCDS between 2018 and 2038, the full build out of the proposed project would add a maximum of 1.34 million gsf of development to the project site, for a total of 2.13 million gsf of development, as shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 2038 RWCDS Program (Full Build Out)

Use Academic Residential Units (Total) Faculty Housing Student Housing Corporate Co-location Executive Education Center (Total) Academic Conference Facility Campus-oriented retail Utility Plant Parking Note: Size 620,000-gsf 1,094 units (Total) 246 units 848 units 500,000-gsf 170,000-gsf (Total) 25,000-gsf 25,000-gsf 40,000-gsf 500 spaces

Source:

Campus oriented retail would be accommodated in one of the buildings, i.e., within either the academic or corporate co-location buildings or within the Executive Education Center. Cornell University

The full build out of the proposed project by 2038 would add the same mix of uses to the project site as Phase 1, including new residential, academic, corporate co-location, Executive Education Center, utility, local retail, and open space uses. As analyzed for Phase 1, the proposed mix of uses would be complementary to each other, and would create a vibrant mixed-use campus that would support Cornell NYC Techs and the citys goals and objectives for the project. By 2038, the project site would be developed at a higher density. As with Phase 1, buildings added to the site by 2038 would include some buildings that would be substantially taller than the vacant hospital complex that would occupy the site in the No-Action condition, and other buildings of about the same height, creating a distinctive and recognizable campus. As analyzed for Phase 1, the 2-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

project site is appropriate for dense development, which would improve land use conditions on the project site by creating a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development. The proposed project would also create lively and attractive streets and pedestrian areas, improve the pedestrian experience on the project site, and maintain pedestrian access to the waterfront. By 2038, the full build out of the proposed projects design plan would be complete, creating a pedestrian-oriented campus centered on a new outdoor north-south connection that would extend at-grade through the project site. The proposed publicly accessible open spaces totaling at least 2.5 acres would extend from the edge of the site inward to this spine. The proposed buildings would be organized around both the spine and the network of open spaces with the main entries to the buildings located along the north-south spine. Overall, the full build out of the proposed project would create a cohesive campus with a mix of complementary uses. Therefore, as with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project by 2038 would not result in any significant land use impacts on the project site. Rezoning Area As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would improve land use conditions in the rezoning area by reconstructing the existing roadway with a new bicycle path and sidewalk, including new plantings. No substantial land use changes are expected in the rezoning area outside of the project site between 2018 and 2038. Study Area The full build out of the proposed project by 2038 would not be expected to result in substantial changes to study area land uses or development patterns. As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would be compatible with land use conditions in the study area. The proposed project would be compatible with surrounding uses, such as South Point Park and Sportspark, as it would result in a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development with a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space. The mixed-use character of the proposed development by 2038 would be compatible with the mixture of uses found on Roosevelt Island. As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant adverse land use impacts in the study area. ZONING Project Site No additional changes to zoning on the project site would result from the proposed project between 2018 and 2038. The project site would be within a C4-5 zoning district and the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District. The proposed zoning changes to the project site are analyzed under Phase 1. Rezoning Area No additional changes to zoning in the rezoning area would result from the proposed project between 2018 and 2038. The proposed zoning changes to the rezoning area are analyzed under Phase 1. Study Area No changes in zoning within the study area are currently anticipated between 2018 and 2038. As under existing conditions, the study area would be within an R7-2 zoning district, under the jurisdiction of RIOC.

2-22

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

PUBLIC POLICY Overall, the full build out of the proposed project would be not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts, as analyzed below. Roosevelt Island General Development Plan As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would be consistent with the GDP, including its goals for housing, community facilities, retail uses, transportation, and open spaces. As the GDPs goals do not rely upon the project site for their realization, the proposed project would not conflict with the GDP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts with regard to the GDP. Applied Sciences NYC By 2038, the proposed project would be complete, fulfilling the objectives of the citys Applied Sciences NYC initiative. As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would result in a new, world-class applied sciences campus that would be supportive of the citys economic development goals for the project. PlaNYC By 2038, the full build out of the proposed project would be compatible with, and supportive of, PlaNYCs policies and goals. Between 2018 and 2038, in addition to the development that would occur by 2018, the proposed project would result in: 1.2 acres of additional publicly accessible open space; additional plantings; an additional 20,000-gsf central utility plant; additional academic, residential, corporate co-location, and local retail uses; on-going green energy initiatives including photovoltaic panels and geothermal wells; and additional water quality improvement measures, including bioswales, rain gardens, and possible other measures. As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would be built with a commitment to LEED Silver certification. Overall, by 2038, the proposed project would support PlaNYC as it would result in economic development, a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, new trees and other vegetation, a new bike lane, would be situated on a site that is served by existing mass transit, and would incorporate sustainable design measures, including a commitment to LEED Silver certification. As with Phase 1, this commitment, and the development of on-site green energy projects and water quality enhancement measures, would ensure that the full build out of the proposed development is consistent with PlaNYC. Waterfront Revitalization Program In accordance with the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, a preliminary evaluation of the proposed projects consistency with WRP policies was undertaken (see Appendix 2 for the WRP Consistency Assessment Form [CAF]). New York Citys WRP includes 10 principal policies designed to maximize the benefits derived from economic development, environmental preservation, and public use of the waterfront, while minimizing the conflicts among those objectives. The following analysis includes a discussion of each policys applicability to the proposed project and the proposed projects consistency with the respective policy.

2-23

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Policy 1: Support and facilitate commercial and residential development in areas well-suited to such development. Policy 1.1: Encourage commercial and residential redevelopment in appropriate coastal zone areas. The proposed project would result in the development of Cornell NYC Tech, an applied science and engineering campus within a 12.5-acre project site on Roosevelt Island currently occupied by a health care facility. The Cornell NYC Tech project would be consistent with the Applied Sciences NYC initiative launched by the city in 2010. The purpose of the Applied Sciences NYC is to provide an opportunity for a leading academic institution to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. As currently envisioned, the Cornell NYC Tech project would comprise the development of new buildings for academic purposes, residential buildings to house Cornell leadership and faculty, researchers and postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students, new buildings for corporate co-location, an Executive Education Center, a modest amount of campus-oriented retail uses, a minimum of 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space, and two central utility plants to serve the campus. The proposed redevelopment that would occur as a result of the proposed project in Phase 1 and at full build would include residential and commercial development consistent with other development on Roosevelt Island and appropriate for the infrastructure available within this portion of the coastal zone. The project site is not within a Special Natural Waterfront Area or Significant Maritime and Industrial Area nor does it contain any unique or significant natural features. The proposed project would result in the development of a vibrant mixed use campus on what would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. The proposed residential and commercial redevelopment would be compatible with the mixture of uses found on Roosevelt Island. By 2038, the proposed project would introduce approximately 2,228 workers to the project site. No jobs would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the commercial and residential development that would occur as a result of the proposed project would be appropriate for the project site and the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 1.2: Encourage non-industrial development that enlivens the waterfront and attracts the public. The proposed project would result in a mixed-use academic-oriented development with new publicly accessible open space that would bring new users and activity to Roosevelt Island and the waterfront located adjacent to the project site. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 1.3: Encourage redevelopment in the coastal area where public facilities and infrastructure are adequate or will be developed. The project site is served by existing public facilities and infrastructure adequate for the proposed project. Infrastructure improvements that would be included as part of the proposed project would include roadway improvements and on-site green energy production. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

2-24

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Policy 2: Support water-dependent and industrial uses in New York City coastal areas that are well-suited to their continued operation. Policy 2.1: Promote water-dependent and industrial uses in Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas. The project site is not located in a Significant Maritime and Industrial Area. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 2.2: Encourage working waterfront uses at appropriate sites outside the Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas. The project site is separated from the East River waterfront on Roosevelt Island by a roadway and the public promenade along the seawall. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 2.3: Provide infrastructure improvements necessary to support working waterfront uses. For reasons discussed in response to Policy 2.2, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 3: Promote use of New York Citys waterways for commercial and recreational boating and water-dependent transportation centers. Policy 3.1: Support and encourage recreational and commercial boating in New York Citys maritime centers. The proposed project would result in a mixed-use academic-oriented development on a site that is separated from the waterfront by an existing roadway and promenade. Therefore, no opportunities for supporting or encouraging recreational or commercial boating could be provided with the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.2: Minimize conflicts between recreational, commercial, and ocean-going freight vessels. The proposed project is a mixed-use academic oriented development that would not be located along the waterfront and would not include any facilities for recreational or commercial boating activity. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 3.3: Minimize impact of commercial and recreational boating activities on the aquatic environment and surrounding land and water uses. The proposed project is a mixed-use academic oriented development that would not be located along the waterfront and would not include any facilities for recreational or commercial boating activity. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project.

2-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Policy 4: Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems within the New York City coastal area. Policy 4.1: Protect and restore the ecological quality and component habitats and resources within the Special Natural Waterfront Areas, Recognized Ecological Complexes, and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The project site is not located within a Special Natural Waterfront Area, Recognized Ecological Complex, or Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Therefore, this policy does not apply to the proposed project. Policy 4.2: Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. The East River shorelines adjacent to the project site consist of concrete and concrete and stone seawall on the west and east sides of the Island, respectively, which eliminates the potential for vegetated tidal wetlands. The East River has been mapped as New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) littoral zone tidal wetlands. Construction of the proposed project would not result in in-water construction activities. Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures during construction of both phases of the proposed project would minimize the potential for runoff from the project site to adversely affect NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands within the East River near the project site. Additionally, stormwater management measures implemented in accordance with both phases of the project, in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River from the project site, minimizing the potential for adverse impacts to NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 4.3: Protect vulnerable plant, fish and wildlife species, and rare ecological communities. Design and develop land and water uses to maximize their integration or compatibility with the identified ecological community. There are no terrestrial threatened or endangered species or rare ecological communities present within the project site. Because the proposed project would not result in in-water construction activities or discharges that would have the potential to adversely affect water quality of the East River, the construction and operation of Phase I and full build phase would not have the potential to adversely affect the endangered shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 4.4: Maintain and protect living aquatic resources. The proposed project would not result in any in-water construction activities. Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures would minimize the potential for stormwater discharged from the project site during construction of both phases to adversely impact water quality and aquatic resources of the East River. Implementation of stormwater management measures in accordance with the SWPPP prepared for both phases of the project would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River from the project site, minimizing the potential for operation of the project to adversely affect aquatic resources. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

2-26

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality in the New York City coastal area. Policy 5.1: Manage direct or indirect discharges to waterbodies. Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures would minimize the potential for construction of the two project phases to adversely affect the water quality of the East River. During operation of the two phases, implementation of stormwater management measures in accordance with the SWPPP would improve the quality of the stormwater runoff discharged to the East River from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 5.2: Protect the quality of New York Citys waters by managing activities that generate nonpoint source pollution. The proposed project would not result in the introduction of nonpoint source pollution to the East River. Both phases of the proposed project would integrate green infrastructure practices, such as bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection and reuse of stormwater to the extent practical as part of the SWPPP, improving the quality of stormwater discharged to the East River from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 5.3: Protect water quality when excavating or placing fill in navigable waters and in or near marshes, estuaries, tidal marshes, and wetlands. The proposed project would not result in the excavating or placing fill within the East River. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 5.4: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater, streams, and the sources of water for wetlands. Groundwater within the project site would be expected to flow toward the East River. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected within the project site indicated compliance with NYSDEC Class GA Ambient Water Quality Standard (drinking water standards) with the exception of levels of certain metals (some of these were likely related to urban fill materials whereas other are likely natural). With the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP), construction of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to groundwater quality within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 6: Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources caused by flooding and erosion. Policy 6.1: Minimize losses from flooding and erosion by employing non-structural and structural management measures appropriate to the condition and use of the property to be protected and the surrounding area. The proposed project would not affect the existing seawall structure on Roosevelt Island. The project site is above the 100 year flood elevation (10 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 1929]), and only a small area of the project site along the eastern boundary is within the 500 year floodplain. Structures constructed as part of both phases of the proposed project would incorporate the most recent building code requirements available at the time of construction pertaining to sea level rise projections and construction within areas at risk from coastal flooding in the future special flood hazard areas, and consider any prudent guidance and information available, minimizing the potential for losses from flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 2-27

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Policy 6.2: Direct public funding for flood prevention or erosion control measures to those locations where the investment will yield significant public benefit. The proposed project would not result in modification to the Roosevelt Island seawall. Therefore this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 6.3: Protect and preserve non-renewable sources of sand for beach nourishment. The proposed project would not result in any in-water construction activities. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 7: Minimize environmental degradation from solid waste and hazardous substances. Policy 7.1: Manage solid waste materials, hazardous wastes, toxic pollutants, and substances hazardous to the environment to protect public health, control pollution, and prevent degradation of coastal ecosystems. As described in Chapter 10, Hazardous Materials, with the implementation of a RAP and CHASP during construction of the proposed project, removal of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in accordance with applicable regulatory requirement, conducting demolition activities with the potential to disturb lead-based paint in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation, and removal and disposal of PCB-containing materials in accordance with applicable regulatory requirement, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to solid or hazardous materials. In addition, a hazardous materials assessment has been completed for the project and the project would follow guidance received for proper management of existing urban fill materials. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 7.2: Prevent and remediate discharge of petroleum products. As presented in Chapter 10, Hazardous Materials, soils that would be disturbed on the project site include urban fill materials with elevated concentrations of certain metals and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). With the implementation of a RAP and CHASP, construction of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts due to the potential discharge of petroleum products. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 7.3: Transport solid wastes and hazardous substances and site solid and hazardous waste facilities in a manner that minimizes degradation of coastal resources. Any handling and transportation of hazardous materials and waste associated with the construction of both phases of the proposed project would be done in conformance with applicable regulations and guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 8: Provide public access to and along New York Citys coastal waters. Policy 8.1: Preserve, protect and maintain existing physical, visual and recreational access to the waterfront. The proposed project would result in a mixed-use academic-oriented development that would not affect existing physical, visual, or recreational access to the waterfront in both phases. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

2-28

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

Policy 8.2: Incorporate public access into new public and private development where compatible with proposed land use and coastal location. The project site is separated from the waterfront by roadways and the public promenade and would not afford the opportunity to provide additional public access to the waterfront. As discussed in response to Policy 8.1, Phase 1 and the full build phase of the proposed project would not affect existing access to the waterfront but would result in the development of approximately 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space within the coastal zone. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 8.3: Provide visual access to coastal lands, waters and open space where physically practical. As currently envisioned, both phases of the proposed project would be designed to maintain visual access to the waterfront, existing open space and new open space areas that would be developed as a result of the proposed project. The proposed development would also include a visual corridor of at least 50 feet through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 8.4: Preserve and develop waterfront open space and recreation on publicly owned land at suitable locations. The proposed project is separated from the public promenade and East River by two roadways and would not affect current public access along the waterfront. The proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing promenade or negatively affect access to South Point Park. As described in Chapter 5, Open Space, the proposed project would result in additional publicly accessible open space within the coastal zone. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 8.5: Preserve the public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the state and city. Because the proposed project would not result in any in-water construction activities it would not affect public interest in and use of lands and waters within the East River held in public trust by the state and city. The proposed project would not affect adjacent open space uses and there is no existing open space on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 9: Protect scenic resources that contribute to the visual quality of the New York City coastal area. Policy 9.1: Protect and improve visual quality associated with New York Citys urban context and the historic and working waterfront. The project site is not located within a working waterfront area. The proposed project would result in a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development with new publicly accessible landscaped open space areas that would improve the visual quality of this portion of the coastal zone. The proposed development would also include a visual corridor of at least 50 feet through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.

2-29

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Policy 9.2: Protect scenic values associated with natural resources While the project site is not located within SNWAs or Recognized Ecological Complexes, the new landscaped public open space that would result from the both phases of the proposed project would enhance the scenic values associated with the East River waterfront. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy 10: Protect, preserve, and enhance resources significant to the historical, archaeological, and cultural legacy of the New York City coastal area. Policy 10.1: Retain and preserve designated historic resources and enhance resources significant to the coastal culture of New York City. The project site contains the Goldwater Hospital complex (State/National Register [S/NR]eligible) which would be demolished with the proposed project, resulting in a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. Cornell has consulted with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) regarding appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact. These measures would be implemented by Cornell, in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. While the demolition of Goldwater Hospital is a significant adverse impact on historic resources, the hospital is not significant to the historical or cultural legacy of New York Citys coastal area. The achievement of this policy is not hindered by the project and accordingly the project is consistent with Policy 10. Three architectural resources are located within the 400-foot architectural resources study area including: the Queensboro Bridge (S/NR, NYCL), the Strecker Memorial Laboratory (S/NR, NYCL), and the Steam Plant (S/NR-eligible). While the proposed project would alter the setting of the Queensboro Bridge, the bridge would not be directly affected by the proposed project and the bridges most prominent components would continue to be visible from many locations in the surrounding area. Though the proposed project would alter the context of the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the Steam Plant, these architectural resources would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Policy 10.2: Protect and preserve archaeological resources and artifacts. The Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study (March 2012) prepared for the project site determined that the project site has no sensitivity for precontact archaeological resources and low sensitivity for historic period archaeological resources. Therefore, additional archaeological analysis of the archaeological study area (i.e., Phase 1B archaeological testing) is not warranted. In a letter dated March 19, 2012, LPC concurred with the findings of the report. OPRHP determined in its June 19, 2012 findings letter that it also has no archaeological concerns for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect archaeological resources and the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

G. CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this analysis concludes that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, or public policy. The proposed project would add new academic, residential, commercial, utility, parking, and publicly accessible open space uses on the project site. While the density of development on the project site would increase as a result of the proposed project, the proposed project would 2-30

Chapter 2: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

improve land use conditions by creating a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development on a site that would otherwise be occupied by a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. The mix of uses within the proposed Cornell NYC Tech campus would be complementary to each other and would be supportive of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. The proposed development would be compatible with land uses in the broader study area, as the proposed uses would be complementary to surrounding open space, transportation, retail, and residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant adverse land use impacts. The proposed project would result in two zoning changes: the project site would be rezoned from an R7-2 designation to a C4-5 designation; and the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District would be created and mapped over the rezoning area. The zoning changes are necessary to facilitate the development of a mixed-use campus, and would include controls on lot area, the bulk and height of the development, and the provision of publicly accessible open space. The proposed project would support and further the objectives of applicable public policies, including the citys applied sciences initiative, PlaNYC 2030, the Waterfront Revitalization Program, and RIOCs General Development Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable public policies, and would therefore not result in any significant adverse public policy impacts.

2-31

Chapter 3: A. INTRODUCTION

Socioeconomic Conditions

This chapter assesses whether the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project would result in significant adverse impacts to the socioeconomic character of the area within and surrounding the rezoning area. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed actions would permit a maximum of approximately 2.13 million square feet (sf) of new development on the project site, consisting of three academic buildings, three corporate co-location buildings, three residential buildings, an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities, and publicly accessible open space. In addition to the 620,000 sf of academic space, the proposed project would introduce up to 1,094 new residential units to the study area and 670,000 sf of commercial space, and as a result, it would exceed the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual thresholds warranting an assessment of socioeconomic impacts. In accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, this socioeconomic analysis considers five specific elements that can result in significant adverse socioeconomic impacts: (1) direct displacement of residential population on a project site; (2) indirect displacement of residential population in a study area; (3) direct displacement of existing businesses on a project site; (4) indirect displacement of businesses in a study area; and (5) adverse impacts on specific industries. This chapter considers changes resulting from the proposed project by an interim analysis year of 2018 (Phase 1) as well as anticipated changes by the full build out analysis year of 2038 (full build).

B. METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND As defined in the CEQR Technical Manual, the socioeconomic character of an area includes its population, housing, and economic activity. An action may result in adverse socioeconomic impacts if it would directly displace a residential population or a substantial number of businesses or employees, eliminate a business or institution that is unusually important to the community, or bring substantial new development that is markedly different from existing uses and activities in the neighborhood, potentially leading to indirect displacement of businesses or residents from the area. Socioeconomic changes do not necessarily result in impacts under CEQR; however, they are disclosed if they would affect land-use patterns, low-income populations, the availability of goods and services, or economic investment in a way that changes the socioeconomic character of the area. In some cases, these changes may be substantial but not adverse. In other cases, these changes may be good for some groups but bad for others. The objective of the CEQR analysis is to disclose whether any changes created by the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact compared with what would happen in the No-Action condition.

3-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

An assessment of socioeconomic impacts distinguishes between impacts on the residents and businesses in an area and separates these impacts into direct and indirect displacement for both of those groups. Direct displacement occurs when residents or businesses are involuntarily displaced from the actual site of the proposed project or sites directly affected by it. For example, direct displacement would occur if a currently occupied site was redeveloped with new uses or buildings or if a proposed easement or right-of-way encroached on a portion of a parcel and rendered it unfit for its current use. In these cases, the occupants of a particular structure to be displaced can usually be identified, and therefore the disclosure of direct displacement focuses on specific businesses and a known number of residents and workers. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, indirect or secondary displacement occurs when residents, business, or employees are involuntarily displaced due to a change in socioeconomic conditions in the area caused by the proposed project. An example of indirect residential displacement would be the lower-income residents forced to move due to rising rents caused by higher-income housing introduced by a proposed project. An example of indirect business displacement would be a similar process resulting in higher-paying commercial tenants replacing industrial uses as the result of the introduction of a new use by a proposed project. Unlike direct displacement, the exact occupants that may be indirectly displaced are not known. Therefore, an assessment of indirect displacement usually identifies the size and type of groups of residents, businesses, or employees potentially affected. Some projects may not directly or indirectly displace businesses but may affect the operation of a major industry or commercial operation in the city. In these cases, the CEQR analysis may involve an assessment of the economic impacts of the project on that specific industry. DETERMINING WHETHER A SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT IS APPROPRIATE Under the CEQR Technical Manual, a socioeconomic assessment should be conducted if a project may be reasonably expected to create substantial socioeconomic changes in the area affected by the project that would not be expected to occur in the future without the project. The following circumstances would typically require a socioeconomic assessment: The project would directly displace 500 or more residents or 100 or more employees. The project would directly displace a business whose products or services are dependent on its location, is the subject of policies or plans aimed at its preservation, or serves a population dependent on its services in its present location. The project would result in new development of 200 residential units or more, or 200,000 sf or more of commercial use that is markedly different from existing uses, development, and activities in the neighborhood. This type of development may lead to indirect displacement. The project would result in a total of 200,000 sf or more of retail on a single development site or 200,000 sf or more of region-serving retail across multiple sites. This type of development may have the potential to draw a substantial amount of sales from existing businesses within the study area, resulting in indirect business displacement due to market saturation. The project is expected to affect conditions within a specific industry, which could impact socioeconomic conditions if a substantial number of workers or residents depend on the goods or services provided by the affected businesses, or if it would result in the loss or substantial diminishment of a particularly important product or service within the city.

3-2

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions

If a project would exceed any of these initial thresholds, an assessment of socioeconomic conditions is generally warranted. The proposed project would not result in the direct displacement of any residents or businesses, and therefore an assessment of potential socioeconomic effects due to direct displacement is not warranted. However, the proposed project would introduce up to 1,094 residential units by the 2038 build year and up to 670,000 sf of commercial use. Therefore an assessment of the potential for indirect displacement is warranted. STUDY AREA DEFINITION According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the study area for the socioeconomic analysis reflects the study area for the analysis of land use, zoning, and public policy and defines where the project would be expected to have the greatest effect on socioeconomic conditions. For the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project, the study area is defined as Roosevelt Island in its entirety. Beyond the Island, with and without the proposed project, nearby portions of Manhattan and Queens are likely to be shaped more by overall development trends and market forces other than the proposed project. The socioeconomic study area is therefore composed of Census Tracts 238.01 and 238.02, which include all of Roosevelt Island (See Figure 3-1). 1 DATA SOURCES Information used in this analysis includes population, housing, and income data from the U.S. Census Bureaus 2010 Census, 2000 Census, and the 2006-2010 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates. Information about existing retail and housing was obtained from the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). Wage estimates for Cornell NYC Tech employees were provided by Cornell University; incomes for visitor/adjunct instructors were estimated based on average part-time/adjunct pay reported in Reversing Course in Pennsylvania Higher Education: The Two Tiers in Faculty Pay and Benefits and a Way Forward (2010); incomes for graduate students were estimated using housing costs for graduate students collected from New York University, Weill Cornell Medical College, and the New School, and conservatively assuming that households spend 30 percent of their annual income on rent. 2 Average residential rents were based on listings on manhattanpark.com and octagonnyc.com, and searches for apartment listings on Streeteasy.com conducted on May 15, 2012. Field visits were conducted by AKRF, Inc. in May 2012.

Some census tract boundaries for 2000 were altered for the 2010 Census. For Census 2000 data and ESRI Business Analysis data, Census Tract 238 was used as the study area. Assumption based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of affordable housing. According to HUD, families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are cost burdened. It should be noted that this assumption is conservative, as it is likely that graduate students spend more than 30 percent of their household income on housing and therefore would have lower household incomes than used in this analysis. According to a March 2003 survey of graduate students at the University of Maryland, College Park, approximately 78.7 percent of graduate students spent 30 percent or more of their household income on rent.

3-3

10.9.12

NA V

E8

PA RK AV

MA DIS O

E7 E7 5S T E7 6S T

7S

E7
T

E7

8S

9S

E8 0S T T

AV

LE XI N GT ON

E7 3S

E7 4S

EA ST EN DA V

E8

1S

2S T

E8 3S

UN

NA M

ED

ST

3A V

238.02
OS RO EV E
2S T

2A V

E6

9S

LT I

E7

SH L

YO

ST

IN

RI VE

ES

E6 E6 0S
E6

2S

VE

RN

1S

36

AV

DR

E5

7S

E5
E5

4S
T

BO

RO

BR

40 AV

13

EE

NS

ST

E5

FD

DR

E5

238.01
QU

6S

14

8S

FD

E5

12 S

9S T

37

AV

5S

RD

EA

24

RA

12

ST

9S

13

11 ST

10

42

22

5 ST

44 R D

45 AV

44 D

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

LZ

Project Site Boundary Rezoning Area Census Tract Socioeconomic Study Area Boundary

500

41 AV

ST

QN P

29

ST

43

AV

27

28 S

ST

43

RD

ST

CR

ES

CE

NT

E5

0S

ST

23

ST

ST

E5

1S

ST

41 R

22

AV

ST

E5 2S

41

21

ST

3S

39

ST

E5

11 S

TR

3S

ON

9S

10

E6

ST

BL VD

E6

1A V

E6

MA

5S

34
35

AV

4S

E6 6S

AV

38 AV

AV

12

SCALE

Socioeconomic Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 3-1

ST

E7

0S

EA ST R

CH

E6

7S

E7

1S

NL P

8S

RK AV

E6

HL

33

RD

1000 FEET

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

C. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT The proposed project would not directly displace any residents from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts due to direct residential displacement, and an assessment of this area of concern is not warranted. DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT The proposed project would not directly displace any businesses from the project site. Goldwater Hospitallocated on the project sitewill vacate the site in the future with or without the proposed actions.3 Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts due to direct business and institutional displacement, and an assessment of this area of concern is not warranted. INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT Indirect residential displacement is usually the result of substantial new development in an area that is markedly different from existing uses. Such new development can lead to increased property values in an area, which can result in increased rents, making it difficult for some existing residents to remain in their homes. The assessment of indirect residential displacement aims to determine whether the proposed project would either introduce a trend or accelerate an existing trend that may have the potential to displace a residential population and substantially change the socioeconomic character of the neighborhood. This preliminary assessment follows the step-by-step preliminary assessment guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual. Step 1: Determine if the proposed project would add new population with higher average incomes compared to the average incomes of the existing populations and any new population expected to reside in the study area without the project. According to data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey, average household income in the study area for 2006-2010 was $90,423 (see Table 3-1). This was lower than that in Manhattan ($127,416) and higher than that in New York City as a whole ($80,944). Since 1999, this represents a decrease in average household income in the study area by 11.1 percent. Over the same time period, average household income increased by 2.2 percent in Manhattan and decreased by 2.2 percent in New York City. In the future without the proposed project, the Southtown residential development will expand to include 540 new residential units in three towers. Assuming the average household size for Census Tract 238 Block Group 1 (2.19), these new residential units will generate an estimated 1,180 new residents. The Southtown development must maintain 40 percent of total units as affordable to low-, moderate-, or middle-income households under the Federal Section 8, New York State Mitchell-Lama, New York City Inclusionary Housing Programs, or as units qualifying and sold or rented as Middle Income Affordable Housing. 4 The remainder will be market rate and available for households at any income level.

Goldwater Hospital will relocate its facilities and services. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the closure, relocation, and right-sizing of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). The Negative Declaration was based on an Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) prepared for the Goldwater North project. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) Public Authority Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010-11.

3-4

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions

Table 3-1 Average Household Income (1999, 2006-2010)

1999 Study Area Manhattan New York City Notes: $101,694.90 $124,658.90 $82,728.38 2006-2010 $90,4231 $127,416 $80,944 Percent Change -11.1% 2.2% -2.2%

Sources:

1. Average household income for the study area for 2006-2010 was estimated based on a weighted average of average household incomes for Census Tracts 238.01 and 238.02. 2. The ACS collects data throughout the period on an on-going, monthly basis and asks for respondents income over the past 12 months. The 2006-2010 ACS data therefore reflects incomes over 2006 and 2010, while Census 2000 data reflects income over the prior calendar year (1999). The average household income for both time periods is presented in 2012 dollars using an average of the U.S. Department of Labors February 2012 Consumer Price Indices for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Area. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File 3; 2006-2010 American Community Survey; U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics; AKRF, Inc.

Recent real estate trends in the area indicate that many of these market rate units could be occupied by households with incomes higher than the study area average. A search of listings for Roosevelt Island rental apartments on Streeteasy.com in May 2012 indicated that the median monthly rental rate is approximately $2,797 for a one-bedroom unit (from a sample of four units) and $3,500 for a two-bedroom unit (from a sample of eight units). A search of listings in the Manhattan Park and Octagon residential developments resulted in similar rental rates. Based on these data, and assuming that households spend 30 percent of their annual income on rent, renters of a one-bedroom apartment on Roosevelt Island would be projected to earn between $93,800 and $111,880, and renters of a two-bedroom apartment would be projected to earn between $121,533 and $150,000. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, and shown in Table 1-1, by the 2018 analysis year Phase 1 of the proposed project would add up to 442 residential units to the study area (104 units of faculty housing and 338 units of student housing). As shown in Table 1-3, these residential units would yield a total population of 842, including University leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students, as well as their residential partners and children. Another 652 residential units would be added by the Full Build in 2038, consisting of 142 units of faculty housing and 510 units of student housing (see Table 1-1). These additional units would add 1,484 new residents (see Table 1-3). Therefore, as shown in Table 11 and Table 1-3, by 2038, the proposed project would add a total of 1,094 new residential units and 2,326 new residents. These residents would be accommodated in on-campus housing, which would be available only to the Cornell NYC Tech population and would therefore not affect the residential real estate market in the study area. The remaining 1,552 students, faculty, and Cornell NYC Tech staff would seek housing opportunities in the private marketplace, possibly on Roosevelt Island or within a reasonable commuting distance from the campus, or are already living in New York City. The total 2,326 new residents introduced by the proposed project by 2038 would include an estimated 942 masters students, 450 Ph.D. candidates, 76 postdoctoral fellows, eight visitors/adjunct instructors, 172 faculty members, including tenure track and research faculty, and three leadership staff. The residential population added by the proposed project would also include 586 residential partners of various academic residents. Based on a weighted average of estimated incomes for all of the different residential populations, the households added by the

3-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

proposed project would earn an estimated average annual income of $56,590. 5 It is noted that there is an existing population of academic faculty in the study area. Manhattan Park, located on River Road, contains faculty housing for Rockefeller University. In addition, one of the six buildings in the Southtown residential development, located at 465 Main Street, includes 139 units of housing for Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC). WCMC also owns 88 units in the Riverwalk building located at 455 Main Street. All of these units are available to WCMC faculty and postdoctoral fellows and their families. The units available for WCMC faculty and postdoctoral fellows range in monthly rent from $1,590 to $2,264 for a one-bedroom unit and from $2,588 to $3,037 for a two-bedroom unit. 6 Based on these monthly rents, and assuming that households spend 30 percent of their annual income on rent, WCMC faculty and postdoctoral fellows and their families renting one-bedroom apartments would be projected to have annual incomes between $63,600 and $90,560, and renters of two-bedroom apartments would be projected to earn between $103,520 and $121,480 per year. The population introduced by the proposed project would include postdoctoral fellows and faculty with incomes expected to be similar to these existing populations. However, the graduate students would be expected to have lower incomes than the postdoctoral fellows and faculty, lowering the expected average income of the population added by the proposed project. It is also possible that the new employment base at the Cornell NYC Tech campus associated with the corporate co-location space, the Executive Education Center, and the retail and residential buildings (estimated at about 2,228 employees in the 2038 analysis year), combined with an off-campus academic population could seek new housing opportunities in the study area to be close to the campus. These households, whether new to the market or representing households already in New York City, would be participating in the private residential marketplace. As housing is limited on Roosevelt Island, and the residential vacancy rate was around 8.4 percent according to 2010 Census data, it is reasonable to assume that this potential new population would be dispersed over a larger area than the local study area. While there is no income profile available for the private employment to be located on the campus, the nonacademic commercial employment base generated by the proposed project is expected to reflect that of a typical commercial office building, including a range of occupations from building services to support and entry level staff to senior management positions. It is therefore reasonable to assume that these workers would have a combined average household income similar to the average household income for the City, currently estimated at $80,944. Thus, compared to the average income in the study area ($90,423), and the incomes necessary to support market rate trends for new rentals, the average income of the on-campus residents added by the proposed project would likely be lower. Since the income profile of the academic and worker population living off campus is not expected to exceed that of the average household
5

The total weighted average assumes estimated average annual income for Ph.D. candidates, postdoctoral fellows, research and tenure-track faculty, and leadership provided by Cornell. Income for adjunct/visitor faculty was estimated based on a national average reported in Reversing Course in Pennsylvania Higher Education: The Two Tiers in Faculty Pay and Benefits and a Way Forward. Masters students average annual incomes were estimated based on a survey of housing costs of graduate students collected from NYU, Weill Cornell Medical College, and the New School. The estimate of masters students average incomes conservatively assumes that housing costs represented 30 percent of income. Income of residential partners was estimated based on per capita income for New York City. med.cornell.edu; Accessed April 26, 2012.

3-6

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions

income of the study area, it is not expected that the potential new demand would change the market profile such that it would result in indirect residential displacement. INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT The objective of the indirect business displacement analysis is to determine whether the proposed project could potentially result in indirect business displacement that would have a significant adverse impact on the socioeconomic character of the area. As described in Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, the study area includes a mix of residential, institutional, and commercial uses. When the Island was leased to the State in 1969, a General Development Plan was created to facilitate the development of the Island into a mixed income residential community. The Island now contains 4,913 residential units. Commercial uses are concentrated in ground floor spaces of residential developments along the original Main Street corridor, including the Island House, Roosevelt Landings, Rivercross, and Westview developments. A second retail concentration is located on the ground floors of the Southtown development, just south of the Main Street corridor. Institutional uses are also common in the study area, including schools and churches, and the Coler Memorial Hospital campus, located on the northern portion of the Island. The questions below address the potential of the proposed project to introduce a trend that would adversely change economic patterns in the study area. 1. Would the proposed project introduce enough of a new economic activity or add to the concentration of a particular sector of the local economy enough to introduce trends that would alter existing economic patterns? By the 2038 build year, the proposed project would result in 2.13 million sf of development on the project site, including academic, residential, corporate co-location, hotel, and retail space. While residential and institutional uses have long been part of Roosevelt Island, the corporate co-location use and Executive Education Center would be new economic activities on the Island. Overall, the increase in residential and daily academic and worker populations resulting from the proposed project would be expected to substantially increase the level and variety of economic activity in the study area. Existing retail is concentrated along Main Street between the Roosevelt Island subway station in the south and the Roosevelt Island Bridge in the north. The majority of retail is located on the ground-floor levels of residential buildings, along the Main Street corridor and in the Southtown development. According to the RIOC Annual Report for fiscal year 2011, the Main Street corridor had 99,134 sf of above grade rentable commercial retail space. This space comprised 35 separate storefronts, including restaurants, delis, hardware stores, grocery stores, hair salons, and pharmacies. The retail space located on the ground-floor levels of the Southtown development includes national and regional chains like Starbucks and Duane Reade, as well as two fullservice restaurants and a limited service restaurant. On the north side of the Roosevelt Island Bridge is a Gristedes grocery store that is below a large parking garage. The additional expenditure potential generated by the proposed projects estimated 2,326 residents and a project-generated daily academic and worker population of approximately 3,780 could provide new sales to the existing retail base on the Island. 7 Roosevelt Island has
7

The 3,781 academic and worker population includes the 2,228 total worker population shown in Table 12 and the 1,553 off-campus academic population shown in Table 1-3.

3-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

historically struggled to create a vibrant retail sector given a trade area that is basically limited to existing residents and workers. In order to address the high retail vacancy rate and revitalize the Main Street corridor, in August 2011 RIOC entered into a Master Sublease Agreement to transfer the marketing, leasing, and operation of Main Street retail to a developer. 8 In April 2012, the developer announced that five new leases were signed for vacant spaces on Main Street. 9 In this sense, the retail added by the proposed project would represent the continuation of a trend of increased retail activity that would be expected to occur in the future with or without the proposed project. At the same time, the proposed project would add approximately 25,000 sf of retail primarily oriented to the student and worker population, such as cafs and a University bookstore. This added retail would not be expected to change the overall supply and demand for retail in the core Main Street and Southtown areas. Overall, the proposed project would not be expected to result in indirect business displacement within the study area. The proposed project would also result in the development of up to 170,000 sf for an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities. The proposed hotel would be primarily oriented towards academic needs, including providing convenient accommodations for visiting scholars participating in Cornell NYC Tech conferences, lectures, research, and teaching. The Executive Education Center would also include conference space to support Cornell NYC Techs academic conferencing and programming, as well as partner programming, that would take place throughout the year. Although this would represent a new use in the study area, it would be supported by the academic programming that would be included in the proposed project. It would not be expected to draw a substantial amount of tourists not associated with the Cornell NYC Tech program. Therefore, the proposed Executive Education Center uses would complement the proposed academic and corporate co-location uses, and would not introduce an economic trend in the study area that could generate indirect business displacement. 2. Would the proposed project directly displace uses of any type that directly support businesses in the area or bring people to the area that form a customer base for local businesses? The proposed project would not result in the direct displacement of any residents or businesses. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, Goldwater Hospital will vacate its current site independent of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any uses that directly support businesses or attract a customer base for local businesses. Instead, the proposed project would introduce an estimated 2,326 residents as well as a daily academic and worker population of 3,780 to the study area. This added population would increase the customer base for existing businesses and increase the demand for new, complementary retail. 3. Would the proposed project directly or indirectly displace residents, workers, or visitors who form the customer base of existing businesses in the study area? As described above, the proposed project would not directly displace any residents or workers, and is not expected to result in indirect displacement of residents or workers. Because the project would introduce new workers and residents to the study area without directly or indirectly displacing existing residents, workers, or visitors, the incremental increase due to the proposed

8 9

Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) Public Authority Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010-11. New Shops Coming to Roosevelt Islands Sleepy Main Street. DNAInfo.com, April 20, 2012. Accessed May 1, 2012.

3-8

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions

project could add to the potential customer and visitor base of some existing businesses in the study area. ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant adverse impact may occur if an action would measurably diminish the viability of a specific industry that has substantial economic value to the citys economy. An example as cited in the CEQR Technical Manual would be new regulations that prohibit or restrict the use of certain processes that are critical to certain industries. Following CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the analysis of effects on specific industries considers the following issues (numbered in italics below) to determine the potential for significant adverse impacts. 1. Would the proposed project significantly affect business conditions in any industry or any category of business within or outside the study area? The proposed project would not directly displace any businesses, nor is it expected to result in any indirect business displacement. As commercial activity is already limited on the Island, any potential indirect business displacement would not affect a specific industry or category of business in the study area. 2. Would the proposed project indirectly substantially reduce employment or impair the economic viability in the industry or category of businesses? The proposed project is not expected to result in any indirect business displacement, and therefore it would not be expected to jeopardize the viability of any industry or category of businesses. As described above, retail within the study area is limited, and no specific categories of business would be adversely affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would introduce residents that would be expected to support local retail as well as the retail added by the proposed project.

D. CONCLUSIONS
DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT The proposed project would not directly displace any residents from the project site. Therefore a preliminary screening assessment is sufficient to conclude that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts due to direct residential displacement. DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT Goldwater Hospitallocated on the project sitewill vacate its current site in the future with or without the proposed project. As the proposed project would develop a vacant site, it would not directly displace any businesses or institutions. Therefore a preliminary screening assessment is sufficient to conclude that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts due to direct business displacement. INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT The preliminary assessment concludes that the residential population introduced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in adverse indirect residential displacement impacts in the study area. The proposed projects 1,094 residential units would introduce 2,326 residents to the study area, consisting of University leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters 3-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

students, as well as their residential partners and children. These residential units would be oncampus and only available to this academic population and would therefore have no potential to generate indirect effects in the study area. It is possible that the remaining off-campus academic population of 1,552 students, faculty, and staff, as well as the estimated 2,228 non-academic employees could seek new housing opportunities in the study area or within a reasonable commuting distance of the campus. These households, whether new to the market or representing households already in New York City, would participate in the private residential marketplace and would be dispersed over a larger area than just the local study area. Moreover, since the income profile of the academic and worker population is not expected to exceed that of the average household income of the study area, it is not expected that potential new demand would change the market profile such that it would result in indirect residential displacement. For these reasons, the population introduced by the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant adverse indirect residential displacement impacts. INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT The preliminary assessment concludes that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts due to indirect business displacement. While the proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of new economic activity to the study area, it is expected that the Cornell NYC Tech campus would add economic variety and vitality to complement the growing residential population on the Island. The additional expenditure potential generated by the estimated new residential population of 2,326 and a daily academic and total worker population of approximately 3,781 could provide new sales to the existing retail base on the Island. Roosevelt Island has historically struggled to create a vibrant retail sector given a trade area that is basically limited to existing residents and workers. At the same time, the new retail component associated with the campus is expected to add about 25,000 sf of retail primarily oriented to the student and worker population which would not be expected to change the overall supply and demand for retail in the core Main Street and Southtown areas. As a result, the proposed project would not be expected to result in indirect business displacement within the study area. ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES The preliminary assessment finds that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on specific industries. The proposed project would not directly displace any businesses, nor would it have substantial adverse effects on business conditions in any industry or any category of business within or outside the study area.

3-10

Chapter 4: A. INTRODUCTION

Community Facilities and Services

This chapter examines the potential effects of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project on community facilities in the study area surrounding the project site on Roosevelt Island. The June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual defines community facilities as public or publicly funded facilities, including schools, health care, child care, libraries, and fire and police protection services. CEQR Technical Manual methodology focuses on direct impacts on community facilities and services and on indirect impacts to community facilities and services caused by increased demand for such services that would be generated by new users, such as the new population that would result from the proposed project. This analysis of community facilities has been conducted in accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines and the latest data and guidance from agencies such as the New York City Department of Education (DOE), New York City Department of City Planning (DCP), New York City Fire Department (FDNY), New York City Police Department (NYPD), and Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). As detailed in this chapter, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on community facilities.

B. PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The purpose of the preliminary screening is to determine whether a community facilities assessment is required. As recommended by the CEQR Technical Manual, a community facilities assessment is warranted if an action has the potential to result in either direct or indirect effects on community facilities. If a proposed action would physically alter a community facility, whether by displacement of the facility or other physical change, this direct effect triggers the need to assess the service delivery of the facility and the potential effect that the physical change may have on that service delivery. New population added to an area as a result of an action would use existing services, which may result in potential indirect effects on service delivery. Depending on the size, income characteristics, and age distribution of the new population, there may be effects on public schools, libraries, or child care centers. DIRECT EFFECTS Although there is currently a hospital on the project site, it will be relocated regardless of the proposed project, and the Goldwater Hospital site will be delivered unused and vacant. As discussed in Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) will vacate the Goldwater Hospital campus and relocate its facilities and patients elsewhere, independently of, and prior to, the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct effects on any community facilities.

4-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

INDIRECT EFFECTS The CEQR Technical Manual provides thresholds that provide guidance in making an initial determination of whether a detailed analysis is necessary to determine potential impacts. Table 4-1 lists those CEQR Technical Manual thresholds for each community facility analysis. If a proposal exceeds the threshold for a specific facility, a more detailed analysis is warranted. A preliminary screening analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed project would exceed established CEQR Technical Manual thresholds warranting further analysis. Based on that screening, a detailed analysis is provided below for: public elementary and intermediate schools; and libraries.

Table 4-1 Preliminary Screening Analysis Criteria

Threshold For Detailed Analysis More than 50 elementary/intermediate school or 150 high school Public schools students Greater than 5 percent increase in ratio of residential units to libraries in Libraries borough * Health care facilities (outpatient) Introduction of sizeable new neighborhood where none existed before More than 20 eligible children based on number of low- and Child care centers (publicly funded) low/moderate-income units by borough * Fire protection Introduction of sizeable new neighborhood where none existed before * Police protection Introduction of sizeable new neighborhood where none existed before * Notes: The CEQR Technical Manual cites the Hunters Point South project as an example of a project that would introduce a sizeable new neighborhood where none existed before. The Hunters Point South project would introduce approximately 6,650 new residential units to the Hunters Point South waterfront in Long Island City, Queens. Source: CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012 edition). Community Facility

Roosevelt Island also contains Sportspark, an important community facility that contains an Olympic-size swimming pool, a gymnasium, basketball courts, a ping pong room, and a large tennis complex. The potential indirect effects of the proposed project on Sportspark are accounted for in Chapter 5, Open Space. PUBLIC SCHOOLS The CEQR Technical Manual recommends conducting a detailed analysis of public schools if a proposed action would generate more than 50 elementary/intermediate school students and/or more than 150 high school students. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, Cornell University has provided estimates of the number of children that would be generated by the proposed project. These estimates account for the specific population of faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students that would be introduced by the proposed project, and are based on the Universitys operations and experience. Phase 1 of the proposed project is forecast to introduce approximately 41 school age children, comprised of 22 elementary school students, eight intermediate school students, and 11 high school students.1 As

The estimated number of elementary, intermediate, and high school students that would be introduced by the proposed project was calculated by dividing Cornell Universitys total estimate of students by the proportionate rates in Table 6-1a of the CEQR Technical Manual. These rates are 0.12 elementary school students, 0.04 intermediate school students, and 0.06 high school students per dwelling unit, for a total of 0.22 school-aged children per dwelling unit. Therefore, out of the total number of school-aged

4-2

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

the number of students introduced by the proposed project by 2018 would not exceed the relevant student thresholds noted above, detailed analyses are not warranted for the 2018 analysis year. The full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus would introduce approximately 89 school age children, comprised of 49 elementary school students, 16 intermediate school students, and 24 high school students. This number of students warrants a detailed analysis of the proposed projects effects on elementary and intermediate schools for the 2038 analysis year. Because the proposed project would not introduce more than 150 high school students, a detailed analysis of public high schools is not necessary. LIBRARIES An analysis of libraries is undertaken if a proposed project would result in more than a 5 percent increase in the ratio of residential units to library branches in the borough in which it is located. In Manhattan, the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for this increase is 901 residential units. Phase 1 of the proposed project would introduce approximately 442 residential units for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. As the number of residential units introduced by the proposed project by 2018 would not exceed 901 units, a detailed library assessment is not warranted for the 2018 analysis year. The full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus would introduce approximately 1,094 residential units for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. Therefore, a detailed assessment of the potential impacts on public libraries will be conducted for the 2038 analysis year. CHILD CARE CENTERS According to the CEQR Technical Manual, if a proposed project would add more than 20 children eligible for public child care to the study areas child care facilities, a detailed analysis of its impact on publicly funded child care facilities is warranted. This threshold is based on the number of low-income and low/moderate-income units within a proposed project site.2 In Manhattan, projects introducing 170 or more low- to moderate-income units would introduce 20 or more children eligible for child care services. The proposed project would not result in any housing units for low-income or low- to moderate-income households. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts on publicly funded day care facilities, and a detailed analysis is not warranted. POLICE, FIRE, AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES The CEQR Technical Manual recommends detailed analyses of indirect impacts on police, fire, and health care services in cases where a proposed project would create a sizeable new

children introduced by a project, 54.55 percent are elementary school students, 18.18 percent are intermediate school students, and 27.27 percent are high school students. These percentages have been applied to Cornell Universitys total estimates in order to disaggregate the overall number of children into elementary, intermediate, and high school students.
2

Low-income and low/moderate-income are the affordability levels used in the CEQR Technical Manual. They are intended to approximate the financial eligibility criteria established by the Administration for Childrens Services, which generally corresponds to 200 percent Federal Poverty Level or 80 percent of area median income.

4-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

neighborhood where none existed before. The project site is a previously developed site on Roosevelt Island, an existing and well-established community that is served by existing police, fire, and health care services. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new neighborhood where none existed before, and a detailed analysis of indirect effects on these community facilities is not warranted. For informational purposes, a description of existing police, fire, and health care facilities serving the project site is provided below. Roosevelt Island is included in the NYPDs 114th Precinct, which also includes the Astoria neighborhood of Queens. The Island is included in FDNYs Division 12, and the closest FDNY station to Roosevelt Island is Engine 26, located at 11-15 37 Avenue in Queens, in close proximity to the Roosevelt Island Bridge. As stated in the CEQR Technical Manual, NYPD independently reviews staffing levels against a precincts population, area coverage, crime levels, and other local factors, and makes service and resource adjustments as necessary. Likewise, FDNY continually evaluates the need for changes in personnel, equipment, or locations of fire stations and makes any necessary adjustments. Under CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, health care facilities include public, proprietary, and nonprofit facilities that accept government funds (usually in the form of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements) and that are available to any member of the community. Examples of these types of facilities include hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, and other facilities providing outpatient health services. The Bird S. Coler Memorial Hospital, at the northern end of Roosevelt Island, would not be affected by the proposed project and will continue to provide health care services; however, Coler Hospital is a specialized facility that does not provide general health care services to residents. Hospitals in Manhattan and Queens that are located within 1 mile of the project site include Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital, the Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases, the Rockefeller University Hospital, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, and the Mount Sinai Hospital of Queens. The Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department (RIPSD), under the jurisdiction of RIOC, provides supplemental public safety services on the Island. RIPSD patrolmen and women are designated by the Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and are authorized by Section 2.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law, to act as peace officers. RIPSD assists in enforcing all state and city laws, including traffic regulations and those sections of the Penal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, and Vehicle and Traffic Laws, as they pertain to Roosevelt Island. RIPSD conducts patrols of the Island 24 hours per day, and are headquartered in the Roosevelt Landings residential complex, located at 550 Main Street. RIPSD coordinates with FDNY and NYPD to ensure that procedures are in place to continually provide police, fire, and emergency medical services on Roosevelt Island. In the event of a scheduled interruption in service for the Roosevelt Island Bridge (i.e., for repairs or when it is raised for river traffic) a fire truck, a police vehicle and an ambulance are dispatched to Roosevelt Island where they are on call in case of any emergency. RIPSD also has a procedure in place to bring firefighters and police officers to Roosevelt Island via tram, subway and RIOC vehicles to ensure rapid response to emergency situations. RIPSD regularly schedules drills with FDNY and NYPD on emergency procedures for the Roosevelt Island Tram.

4-4

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

C. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS

METHODOLOGY This analysis assesses the potential effects of the proposed project (specifically its residential component, which is conservatively assumed to result in 49 elementary school students and 16 intermediate school students by 2038) on public elementary and intermediate schools serving the project site. There is one public school on Roosevelt Island, PS/IS 217, which children introduced by the proposed project would be most likely to attend. However, following the methodologies in the CEQR Technical Manual, the study area for the analysis of elementary and intermediate schools is the community school districts sub-district (region or school planning zone) in which the project is located. The project site is located in Sub-district 5 of Community School District (CSD) 2, which includes Roosevelt Island and a portion of the Upper East Side of Manhattan (see Figure 4-1). As discussed above in Section B, an assessment of high schools is not required due to the limited number of public high school students that would be generated by the proposed project. This schools analysis presents the most recent capacity, enrollment, and utilization rates for elementary and intermediate schools in the sub-district study area. Future conditions are then predicted based on enrollment projections and proposed development projectsthe future utilization rate for school facilities is calculated by adding the estimated enrollment from proposed residential developments in the schools study area to DOEs projected enrollment, and then comparing that number with projected school capacity. DOE does not include charter school enrollment in its enrollment projections. DOEs enrollment projections through 2018, the most recent data currently available, are posted on the School Construction Authority (SCA) website. 3 These enrollment projections are based on broad demographic trends and do not explicitly account for discrete new residential developments planned for the study area. Therefore, the additional populations from the other new development projects expected to be completed within the study area have been obtained from the SCAs Capital Planning Division and are added to the projected enrollment to ensure a more conservative prediction of future enrollment and utilization. In addition, any new school projects identified in the DOE Five-Year Capital Plan are included if construction has begun. The effect of the new students introduced by the proposed project on the capacity of schools within the study area is then evaluated. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant adverse impact may occur if the proposed project would result in both of the following conditions: 1. A utilization rate of the elementary and/or intermediate schools in the sub-district study area that is equal to or greater than 100 percent in the future with the proposed project condition (With Action); and

2. An increase of five percentage points or more in the collective utilization rate between the
No-Action and With Action conditions.

Enrollment projections by the Grier Partnership were used: https://www.nycsca.org

4-5

10.9.12

LP AR KW

RS E

ST DR

W 86 ST W 85 ST W 84 ST W 83 ST

W W

88 ST 87 ST
TR A
RESERVOIR

E9 8 E 9 ST 7S T
NS VE

E1
E9 9S

01

ST

CE NT RA

EA

RD

3 E 96 ST 95
E9 E9 4S T 3S T ST

12

FD

DR

77

ST

PA RK LE AV XIN GT ON AV

MA

RK

RD

NY-

DIS

AV

QN

SH

CN

YO

1A V

2A V

VE R

RO

CENTE R DR
TRANSVER SE RD 1

KA V

6
DR

MA EA I ST N S RD T

58

9S

7 E 5 ST 6S E5 T 5S E5 T 4 E 5 ST 3 E 5 ST 2S E5 T E 5 1 ST 0S E4 T 9 E 4 ST 8S E4 T 7S T

14 S T

RD

TT ON

ST

ES

SU

EA

Project Site
1

1000

2000 FEET

Public Schools (See Table 4-2) Public School Analysis Study Boundary (Sub-District 5/CSD 2) Sub-District Boundaries

SCALE

Cornell NYC Tech

Public Schools Serving the Study Area

Figure 4-1

32

31

ST

QU E

EN 41 R SP D LZ S

41 AV

AV

ST

ST

40

RD

24

BR

23

AV

39

30

OR O

ST

22

38 AV

29

ST

EE N

12 13 ST ST

PL

SB

ST

ST

QU

CR

37

AV

ES

CE

60

NT

ST

EA ST R

E5

ST

IVE

21

E5

8S

I EL

RT PO

ST

24

35

AV

ST

VE

ST

E6 2S E6 T 1 E 6 ST 0S T

E6

8
T

RN ON 9S BLV T D 10 ST 11 ST 12 ST

FD

13 ST 14 ST

7S E6 T 6 E 6 ST 5S E6 T 4S T

E6

E6

E6

8S

9S T

T E7 5 E 7 ST 4S T E7 3S E7 T 2S T E7 1S E7 T 0S T

3A V

2
RI

SE

CH

7S

NL

VE

LT

10

E7

6S

E7

E7

PH

TY B

8S
ND

TE

T
EAST CHANNEL

TER D

EA ST EN D

ON AV

E8 9S E8 T 8 E 8 ST 7S T E8 6S T E8 5S E8 T 4S E8 T 3S E8 T 2S T E8 1S 5 E8 T 0S T E7 9S T

7 11 E 92

ST E9 1 E 9 ST 0S T
IVE R EA ST R

5A V

AV

1S T 2S T 3S T 4S T
27 AV

CSD 2 Sub-District 5

8S

31 D

14
31 RD

AV

33

33
RD

AV

BR

OA D

W AY 33 AV

PA R

3S

34

AV

ST

31

Y 30 R D 30 DR

30 AV

IS

9S T

WEST DR

26

AV

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

EXISTING CONDITIONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS As shown in Figure 4-1, there are nine elementary schools and two K-8 schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2, including one K-8 school on Roosevelt Island (PS/IS 217). According to DOEs 2011-2012 school year enrollment figures, which are the most recent data currently available, Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 has a total enrollment of 4,946 elementary school students, or 99.9 percent of capacity, with a surplus of 3 seats (see Table 4-2). PS/IS 217 Roosevelt Island School has a total enrollment of 333 elementary school students, with a surplus of 234 elementary school seats.

Table 4-2 Public Schools Serving the Project Sites, Enrollment and Capacity Data, 2011-2012 School Year
Map No. Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PS/IS 217 Roosevelt Island School (K-8) PS component PS 158 Baylard Taylor School PS 267 PS 77 Lower Lab School PS 198 Isador E. Ida Straus School PS 51 PS 290 Manhattan New School PS 225 Ella Baker School (K-8) PS component PS 151 Yorkville Community School PS 183 Robert L. Stevenson School PS 6 Lillie D. Blake School Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 Total Intermediate Schools Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 1 6 10 11 12 Notes: Sources: PS/IS 217 Roosevelt Island School (K-8) IS component PS 225 Ella Baker School (K-8) IS component IS 167 Robert F. Wagner School IS 114 East Side Middle School Life Science Secondary School 645 Main Street 317 East 67th Street 220 East 76th Street 331 East 91st Street 320 East 96th Street 83 68 1,243 448 125 1,967 141 71 1,444 460 121 2,237 58 3 201 12 -4 270 59% 96% 86% 97% 103% 88% 645 Main Street 1458 York Avenue 213 East 63rd Street 1700 Third Avenue 1700 Third Avenue 323 East 91st Street 311 East 82nd Street 317 East 67th Street 421 East 88th Street 419 East 66th Street 45 East 81st Street 333 759 98 351 551 288 635 253 280 609 789 4,946 567 865 92 265 454 225 519 264 616 458 624 4,949 234 106 -6 -8 -97 -63 -116 11 336 -151 -165 3 59% 88% 107% 132% 121% 128% 122% 96% 45% 133% 126% 99.9% Name Address Elementary Schools Enrollment Capacity Available Seats Utilization

Sub-district 1 of CSD 2 Total See Figure 4-1. DOE Utilization Profiles: Enrollment/Capacity/Utilization, 2011-2012.

INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS As shown in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2, there are three intermediate schools and two K-8 schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2, including the school on Roosevelt Island (PS/IS 217). Total intermediate enrollment in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 is 1,967 students, or 88 percent of capacity, with a surplus of 270 seats. PS/IS 217 Roosevelt Island School has a total enrollment of 83 intermediate school students, with a surplus of 58 intermediate school seats.

4-6

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT (2038 ANALYSIS YEAR) ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Under CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the assessment of No-Action conditions uses SCA enrollment projections as a basis for establishing the No-Action condition. SCA provides future enrollment projections by district for up to 10 years. The latest available enrollment projections to 2018 have been used in this analysis to project student enrollment to 2038. These enrollment projections focus on the natural growth of the citys student population (through births and grade retention) and do not account for new residential developments planned for the sub-district study areas (No-Action projects). Therefore, the future utilization rate for school facilities is calculated by adding the estimated enrollment from proposed residential developments in the school study areas (as provided by SCAs Capital Planning Division) to SCAs projected enrollment, and then comparing that number with projected school capacity. As a conservative measure, the number of students that would be generated by the full build out of the Southtown development has also been added. Table 4-3 outlines the estimated number of new public school students generated as a result of development in the future under the No-Action condition, which is based on student generation rates listed in Table 6-1a of the CEQR Technical Manual (0.12 elementary students and 0.04 intermediate school students per residential unit in Manhattan).

Table 4-3 Estimated Number of Students Introduced by Development in the 2038 No-Action Condition
Students Study Area Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 Notes:
1

Elementary 1681

Intermediate 582

SCA projects 103 elementary students would be added by No-Action development; 65

students have been added to account for future Southtown development.

SCA projects 36 intermediate students would be added by No-Action development; 22

students have been added to account for future Southtown development. Sources: SCA Capital Planning Division; RIOC; CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012).

PROJECTED SCHOOL CAPACITY According to the DOEs 2010-2014 Five-Year Capital PlanProposed February 2013 Amendment and the Panel for Educational Policy, PS 51, which is currently temporarily housed at 323 East 91st Street, will relocate outside of Sub-District 5 of CSD 2 by September 2013. Concurrently, a new elementary school will be established at that same location, which is expected to have a capacity of at least 390 seats by 2018. The net effect of these changes will be to increase elementary school capacity in Sub-District 5 of CSD by approximately 165 seats. Any additional school projects in the study area are not yet identified and therefore are not included in this analysis.

4-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

ANALYSIS Elementary Schools As shown in Table 4-4, elementary schools in the sub-district are forecast to be over capacity in the 2038 No-Action condition. Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 will operate at 128 percent utilization, with a deficit of 1,455 seats.

Table 4-4 Estimated Public Elementary and Intermediate School Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization: 2038 No-Action Condition
Study Area Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 Projected Enrollment in 2038 6,401 2,072 Students Introduced by Residential Development in Total No-Action No-Action Enrollment Elementary Schools 168 6,569 Intermediate Schools 58 2,130 Capacity 5,114 2,237 Available Seats -1,455 107 Utilization 128% 95%

Notes: 1 Elementary and intermediate school enrollment in each sub-district study area in 2038 was calculated per the June 2012 CEQR Technical Manual methodology. Sources: DOE Enrollment Projections 2009-2018 by the Grier Partnership; DOE, Utilization Profiles: Enrollment/Capacity/Utilization, 2011-2012, DOE 20102014 Five-Year Capital Plan, Proposed Amendment, February 2013; School Construction Authority.

Intermediate Schools As shown in Table 4-4, intermediate schools in the sub-district are forecast to operate with a surplus of seats. Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 will operate at 95 percent utilization, with a surplus of 107 seats. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT (2038FULL BUILD) 4 The proposed project would result in the introduction of 49 elementary school students and 16 intermediate school students in the study area by 2038 (see Table 4-5).

Table 4-5 Estimated Number of Students Introduced in the Study Area: 2038 With Action Condition
Study Area Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 Source: Cornell University Elementary Students 49 Intermediate Students 16

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS The total elementary school enrollment of Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would increase by 49 students to 6,618 (129 percent utilization), and the deficit of seats would increase to 1,504 seats (see Table 4-6).

As noted above under Preliminary Screening, the number of students introduced by the proposed project by 2018 would not exceed the CEQR Technical Manuals relevant student thresholds, and therefore, detailed analyses are not warranted for the 2018 analysis year.

4-8

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

Table 4-6 Estimated Public Elementary and Intermediate School Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization: 2038 With Action Condition
Total Increase in With Action Available Utilization over Study Area Enrollment Capacity Seats Utilization No-Action Elementary Schools Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 6,569 49 6,618 5,114 -1,504 129% 1% Intermediate Schools Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 2,130 16 2,146 2,237 91 96% 1% Sources: DOE Enrollment Projections 2009-2018 by the Grier Partnership; DOE, Utilization Profiles: Enrollment/Capacity/Utilization, 2011-2012, DOE 2010-2014 Five-Year Capital Plan, Proposed Amendment, February 2013; School Construction Authority. Future No-Action Enrollment Students Introduced by Proposed Project

As noted above, a significant adverse impact may occur if the proposed project would result in both of the following conditions: (1) a utilization rate of the elementary schools in the subdistrict study area that is equal to or greater than 100 percent in the future No-Action condition; and (2) an increase of five percentage points or more in the collective utilization rate between the future No-Action and With Action conditions. Although elementary schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a shortage of seats in 2038, the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. As a result, they would not substantially increase the elementary school utilization rate. The proposed project would increase the elementary school utilization rate by approximately 1 percent, which is below the CEQR Technical Manual threshold of 5 percent or more for a significant adverse impact. Because the proposed project would increase the elementary school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools. INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS The total intermediate school enrollment of Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would increase by 16 to 2,146 (96 percent utilization), resulting in a surplus of 91 seats (see Table 4-6). As noted above, a significant adverse impact may occur if the proposed project would result in both of the following conditions: (1) a utilization rate of the intermediate schools in the subdistrict study area that is equal to or greater than 100 percent in the future No-Action condition; and (2) an increase of five percentage points or more in the collective utilization rate between the future No-Action and With Action conditions. Intermediate schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 are forecast to operate with a surplus of seats in 2038, and the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. The sub-district would operate with a surplus of 91 seats, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by approximately 1 percent. Because intermediate schools in the study area would not operate at 100 percent utilization or greater, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools.

4-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS ANALYSIS As discussed above under Methodology, the preceding schools analysis has been conducted using Cornell Universitys estimates of the number of children that would be generated by the proposed project. A more conservative alternative approach to the analysis would be to estimate the number of students generated by the proposed project by applying the student generation rates found in Table 6-1a of the CEQR Technical Manual to the number of residential units that would be provided for faculty, Cornell leadership, visitors/adjuncts, postdoctoral fellows, and Ph.D. candidates. Of the 1,094 residential units that would be built by 2038, 621 would be provided for these populations. Using this alternative methodology, the full build out of the proposed project would generate 75 elementary school students, 25 intermediate school students, and 37 high school students, based on the introduction of 621 housing units for populations that would be expected to include children, by 2038. This number of students is higher than Cornell Universitys estimate. Although Cornell does not anticipate that this many children would be introduced by the proposed project, this alternative schools analysis has been prepared using these higher numbers of children in order to conservatively account for the possibility that a greater number of students could be generated than is expected. As summarized in Table 4-7, with these additional 75 elementary school students, elementary school utilization would increase to 129 percent Sub-district 5 of CSD 2; with the additional 25 intermediate school students, intermediate school utilization would increase to 96 percent in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. The increase in utilization for elementary schools in the sub-district would be one percent, which is below the five percent threshold for a significant adverse impact. The increase in utilization for intermediate schools in the sub-district would be one percent, and intermediate schools would operate with surplus capacity. Therefore, although the alternative methodology would introduce a greater number of students to the study area, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse schools impacts under the alternative schools analysis.

Table 4-7 Estimated Public Elementary and Intermediate School Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization: 2038 With Action Condition, using the Alternative Methodology
Total Increase in With Action Available Utilization over Study Area Enrollment Capacity Seats Utilization No-Action Elementary Schools 1% Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 6,569 75 6,644 5,114 -1,530 129% Intermediate Schools Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 2,130 25 2,155 2,237 82 96% 1% Sources: DOE Enrollment Projections 2009-2018 by the Grier Partnership; DOE, Utilization Profiles: Enrollment/Capacity/Utilization, 2011-2012, DOE 2010-2014 Five-Year Capital Plan, Proposed Amendment, February 2012; School Construction Authority. Future No-Action Enrollment Students Introduced by Proposed Project

D. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC LIBRARIES

METHODOLOGY According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the focus of a libraries analysis is on neighborhood branch libraries and not on the major research libraries that may fall within a study area. Service areas for neighborhood branch libraries are based on the distance that residents would travel to use library services, typically not more than mile (this is referred to as the librarys 4-10

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

catchment area). This libraries analysis compares the population generated by the proposed project with the catchment area population of libraries available within an approximately mile area around the project site. The closest library to the project site is the Roosevelt Island branch. The catchment area for the library is limited to Roosevelt Island itself for the purposes of this analysis, as the East River acts as a physical barrier that would discourage residents from accessing library resources in Manhattan or Queens. To determine the existing population of each librarys catchment area, 2010 U.S. Census data were assembled for the two census tracts that fall primarily within mile of the Roosevelt Island branch. The study area is therefore comprised of the two census tracts on Roosevelt Island (New York County Census Tracts 238.01 and 238.02). The catchment area population in the NoAction condition was estimated by multiplying the number of new residential units in No-Action projects located within the -mile catchment area by an average household size of 2.19 persons. 5 The catchment area population in the With Action condition was estimated by adding the anticipated population that would result from the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus. New population in the No-Action and With Action conditions was added to the existing catchment area population. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, if a proposed action would increase a librarys catchment area population by 5 percent or more, and this increase would impair the delivery of library services in the study area, a significant impact could occur. For the existing, No-Action, and With Action conditions, the ratio of library holdings per resident is estimated, to provide a quantitative gauge of available resources in the applicable branch libraries. The holdings per resident ratio is calculated to help determine impact significance, but changes in this ratio do not constitute an impact threshold. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is served by the New York Public Library (NYPL) system, which includes 85 neighborhood branches and four research libraries located in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, and houses approximately 53 million volumes (Queens and Brooklyn have separate library systems). In Manhattan, NYPL branch libraries contain approximately 1.9 million holdings. As the population of Manhattan is approximately 1,585,873, the overall ratio of holdings-to-resident in the borough is 1.20. 6 The closest NYPL neighborhood library to the project site is the Roosevelt Island branch, located at 524 Main Street (see Figure 4-2). Table 4-8 provides the catchment area population for the library. The Roosevelt Island branch has approximately 24,418 holdings. With a catchment area population of 11,661, the combined catchment area has a holdings-to-resident ratio of 2.09.

5 6

Average household size for New York County Census Tract 238/Block Group 1 (US Census, 2010) Total population of New York County (US Census, 2010).

4-11

10.9.12

NA V

E8

PA RK AV

MA DIS O

E7 E7 5S T E7 6S T

7S

E7
T

E7

8S

9S

E8 0S T T

AV

LE XI N GT ON

E7 3S

E7 4S

EA ST EN DA V

E8

1S

2S T

E8 3S

UN

NA M

ED

ST

3A V

238.02
OS RO EV E
2S T

2A V

E6

9S

LT I

E7

SH L

YO

ST

IN

RI VE

ES

E6 E6 0S
E6

2S

VE

RN

1S

36

AV

DR

E5

7S

E5
E5

4S
T

BO

RO

BR

40 AV

13

EE

NS

ST

E5

FD

DR

E5

238.01
QU

6S

14

8S

FD

E5

12 S

9S T

37

AV

5S

RD

EA

24

RA

12

ST

9S

13

11 ST

10

42

22

5 ST

44 R D

45 AV

44 D

Project Site Boundary Rezoning Area Census Tract Public Library Study Area Boundary Roosevelt Island Library Roosevelt Island Library Catchment Area (3/4-Mile Perimeter) Cornell NYC Tech

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

LZ

500

41 AV

ST

QN P

29

ST

43

AV

27

28 S

ST

43

RD

ST

CR

ES

CE

NT

E5

0S

ST

23

ST

ST

E5

1S

ST

41 R

22

AV

ST

E5 2S

41

21

ST

3S

39

ST

E5

11 S

TR

3S

ON

9S

10

E6

ST

BL VD

E6

1A V

E6

MA

5S

34
35

AV

4S

E6 6S

AV

38 AV

AV

12

SCALE

Public Libraries Study Area

Figure 4-2

ST

E7

0S

EA ST R

CH

E6

7S

E7

1S

NL P

8S

RK AV

E6

HL

33

RD

1000 FEET

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 4-8 Public Library Serving the Project Site

Map No.* 1 Notes: Sources: Catchment Area Holdings per Library Name Address Holdings Population Resident Roosevelt Island 524 Main Street 11,661 24,418 2.09 * See Figure 4-2. NYPL; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, NYC Department of City Planning Selected Facilities and Program Sites

The Roosevelt Island branch originated in 1976 as a one-room community library that was run solely by volunteers. In 1997, the Roosevelt Island branch became the 85th branch of the NYPL system. The library offers a wide selection of reading materials for people of all ages as well as computers with free internet access. They also offer special programs, such as reading hours, book groups, a knitting and crochet group, films, and lectures. In addition, it should be noted that residents can go to any NYPL branch and order books from any of the other library branches. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT (2038 ANALYSIS YEAR) In the future No-Action condition, the existing Roosevelt Island branch is expected to move to a new space near the existing library, at 504 Main Street. Although the new Roosevelt Island library will have twice as much space as the existing branch, it is conservatively assumed for the purpose of this analysis that it will have 50 percent more holdings. The catchment area population of the library will increase as a result of development projects completed in the No-Action condition. In the No-Action condition, the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) will oversee the development of three additional residential towers on the Island, which will add 540 new residential units by 2038. Assuming an average household size of 2.19, these new units are expected to introduce 1,183 new residents to the catchment area.7 As shown in Table 4-9, these new residents will increase the population of the catchment area to 12,844. Due to the expansion of the Roosevelt Island branch, the holdings-per-resident ratio will increase from 2.09 to 2.85. The holdings-to-resident ratio for the Roosevelt Island branch is expected to be substantially higher than the overall ratio for Manhattan (1.20).

Table 4-9 Catchment Area Population in the 2038 No-Action Condition

Existing Catchment Area Population 11,661 New Residents in the No-Action Condition 1,183 New Catchment Area Population 12,844 New Holdings per Resident in the No-Action Condition 2.85

Library Name Roosevelt Island Sources:

New Holdings 36,627

NYPL; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, AKRF, Inc.

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT (2038 FULL BUILD) According to the CEQR Technical Manual, if a proposed project increases the study area population by 5 percent or more as compared with the No-Action condition, this increase may impair the delivery of library services in the study area, and a significant adverse impact could occur.

Average household size in New York County Census Tract 238/Block Group 1 (US Census, 2010).

4-12

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

The proposed project would result in the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus by 2038, which would include approximately 1,094 residential units for graduate students, faculty, and staff. Cornell University estimates that these units would accommodate approximately 2,326 new residents on the project site. Table 4-10 provides the population increase and the change in the holding-per-resident ratio for Roosevelt Island librarys catchment area.

Table 4-10 Catchment Area Population in the 2038 With Action Condition
Library Name Roosevelt Island Sources: Catchment Area Population NoAction Condition 12,844 Population Increase due to the Proposed Action* 2,326 Catchment Area Population With Action Condition 15,170 Percentage Population Increase 18.1% Holdings per Resident With Action Condition 2.41

NYPL; Cornell University, AKRF, Inc.

With this additional population, the Roosevelt Island branch would serve 15,170 residents, and the holdings per resident ratio would decrease from 2.85 in the No-Action condition to 2.41 in the With Action condition. With the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch catchment area population would increase approximately 18.1 percent. However, the holdings per resident ratio of the study area in the With Action condition (2.41) would continue to be higher than the overall ratio in Manhattan (1.20), indicating that the study area would continue to be well-served by the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents of the study area would have access to the entire NYPL system through the inter-library loan system and could have volumes delivered directly to the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents who work off-Island (such as the partners of Cornell NYC Tech faculty, staff, and students) would also have access to libraries near their places of work. Moreover, the Cornell NYC Tech community would have access to the resources of the Cornell University Libraries (CUL) system, one of the worlds largest research libraries, with approximately 7.8 million print volumes and over 80,000 electronic serial titles. CUL users may request copies of books, journal articles, and other materials located in the print collection of the Ithaca/Geneva Cornell Libraries, and requested documents would be made available electronically. While not the principal part of the collection, CUL libraries (including the proposed library services at Cornell NYC Tech) include collections of literature, childrens books, youth books, and other non-academic materials. Access to the CUL system would be expected to reduce the proposed projects incremental demand on the NYPL system to some extent. Due to these factors, while the percentage increase in catchment area population exceeds the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of five percent, the population introduced by the proposed project would not impair the delivery of library services in the study area, and the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public libraries.

E. CONCLUSIONS
Based on a preliminary screening, detailed analyses are warranted of the proposed project potential impacts on: public elementary and intermediate schools for the 2038 analysis year; and public libraries for the 2038 analysis year. The detailed analyses find that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on community facilities.

4-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

INDIRECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS The analysis of indirect effects on public schools concludes that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public elementary or intermediate schools. The project site is located within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Based on information provided by Cornell University, the proposed project would generate approximately 49 elementary school students and 16 intermediate school students, by 2038. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Although elementary schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a shortage of seats in 2038, the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. As a result, they would not substantially increase the elementary school utilization rate. The proposed project would increase the elementary school utilization rate by approximately 1 percent, which is below the CEQR Technical Manual threshold of 5 percent or more for a significant adverse impact. Because the proposed project would increase the elementary school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on elementary schools. INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS Intermediate schools within Sub-district 5 of CSD 2 would operate with a surplus of seats in 2038, and the proposed project would introduce a small number of students relative to the overall enrollment of the study area. The sub-district would operate with a surplus of 91 seats, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by approximately 1 percent. Because intermediate schools in the study area would not operate at 100 percent utilization or greater, and the proposed project would increase the intermediate school utilization rate by less than five percentage points, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on intermediate schools. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS ANALYSIS Using a more conservative alternative methodology, the full build out of the proposed project would generate 75 elementary school students, 25 intermediate school students, and 36 high school students (although Cornell University does not anticipate that this many children would be introduced by the proposed project). With these additional 75 elementary school students, elementary school utilization would increase to 129 percent Sub-district 5 of CSD 2; with the additional 25 intermediate school students, intermediate school utilization would increase to 96 percent in Sub-district 5 of CSD 2. The increase in utilization for elementary schools in the sub-district would be one percent, which is below the five percent threshold for a significant adverse impact. The increase in utilization for intermediate schools in the sub-district would be one percent, and intermediate schools would operate with surplus capacity. Therefore, although the alternative methodology would introduce a greater number of students to the study area, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse schools impacts under the alternative schools analysis. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON LIBRARIES The proposed project would introduce approximately 2,326 residents to the project site by 2038. With this additional population, the Roosevelt Island branch would serve 15,170 residents, an 4-14

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services

increase of approximately 18.1 percent. Independent of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch will relocate to 504 Main Street before the analysis year, doubling its space. The holdings per resident ratio is anticipated to be 2.41. With the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island branch catchment area population would increase approximately 18.1percent. However, the holdings per resident ratio of the study area in the With Action condition (2.41) would continue to be higher than the overall ratio in Manhattan (1.20), indicating that the study area would continue to be well-served by the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents of the study area would have access to the entire NYPL system through the inter-library loan system and could have volumes delivered directly to the Roosevelt Island branch. Residents who work off-Island (such as the partners of Cornell NYC Tech faculty, staff, and students) would also have access to libraries near their places of work. Moreover, the Cornell NYC Tech community would have access to the resources of the Cornell University Libraries (CUL) system, one of the worlds largest research libraries, with approximately 7.8 million print volumes and over 80,000 electronic serial titles, which would be expected to reduce the incremental demand on the NYPL system to some extent. Therefore, while the percentage increase in catchment area population exceeds the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of five percent, the population introduced by the proposed project would not impair the delivery of library services in the study area, and the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public libraries.

4-15

Chapter 5: A. INTRODUCTION

Open Space

This chapter assesses the potential impacts of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project on open space resources. Open space is defined by the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual as publicly accessible, publicly or privately owned land that operates or is available for leisure, play, or sport, or serves to protect or enhance the natural environment. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an open space assessment should be conducted if a project would have a direct effect on open space, such as eliminating or altering a public open space, or an indirect effect, such as when a substantial new population could utilize available open space. The proposed project would result in approximately 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space on the project site and would not directly displace any existing public open space.1 However, the proposed Cornell NYC Tech campus would also introduce new resident, student, and worker populations to the study area that would create new demands for open space. Therefore, an open space assessment was conducted to determine whether the proposed project would result in any significant adverse impacts to open space resources. As detailed in the analysis, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse open space impacts in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years.

B. METHODOLOGY
STUDY AREAS This analysis of potential open space impacts was conducted based on methodologies contained in the CEQR Technical Manual. According to CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the first step in assessing potential open space impacts from a proposed project is to establish study areas, which are defined to allow analysis of both the nearby open spaces and the population using those open spaces. Study areas are based on the distance a person is assumed to walk to reach a neighborhood open space. Under CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, workers and other daytime users typically use passive open spaces, and are assumed to walk up to a -mile distance from their places of work. Residents are more likely to travel farther to reach parks and recreational facilities and are assumed to walk up to a -mile distance to reach both passive and active neighborhood open spaces. In addition to the commercial (-mile) study area and the residential (-mile) study area, this analysis also qualitatively considers open spaces located on the remainder of Roosevelt Island. As shown on Figure 5-1, the study areas are limited to Roosevelt Island itself, as the East River acts as a physical barrier that would inhibit residents and workers from accessing open space resources in Manhattan or Queens.

As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, under the proposed zoning text at least 20 percent of the project siteor 2.5 acresmust be publicly accessible open space. While it is Cornells intention to create more than this minimum requirement, for the purposes of a conservative analysis, the EIS assumes the minimum amount of publicly accessible open space.

5-1

2.27.13

NA V

E8

PA RK AV

MA DIS O

PA RK AV

E7 E7 T E7 6S 5S T T

7S

E7
T

8S

E7 9S T

E8 0S

EA ST EN DA V

E8
T

1S

2S T

E8

3S

N
10

E7

E7 4S

3S

UN NA

9
AV TO N ING 3A V

ME

ST

2A V

LE X

RO

OS

EV

E6 9S E6

EL TI

E7 2S

SH

YO

RI VE R

IN

ES

E6

E6 2S 0S T
E6 1S

VE

RN

36 AV

DR

5
ST 12

E5

7S

E5
E5
E5

4S

SB

OR O

BR

40 AV

13

EE N

ST

E5

FD

DR

E5

6S

3
QU

14

8S

FD

E5

9S

37

AV

5S

3S T

ST

24

1
9S
43

RA

12

ST

ST

11 ST

10

11
5 ST

42

22

44 R D

45 AV

44 D R

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

PL Z

Project Site Boundary 1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary 1/2-Mile Study Area Boundary Census Tract 238/Block Group 1 Study Area Boundary
1

500

1000 FEET

SCALE

Open Space Resources (See Table 5-2)

Open Space Resources

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 5-1

41 AV

ST

QN

29

ST

43

AV

27

28

RD

ST

CR

ES

CE

NT

E5

0S

13

ST

ST

23

RD

ST

ST

E5 1S

EA

41

22

AV

ST

2S

RD

41

21

ST

39 AV

ST

E5

11 S

TR

3S

ON

9S

E6

10 ST

BL VD

E6 4S

1A V

E6

MA

5S

34
35

AV

E6

6S

AV

38 AV

12

ST

E7 0S

EA ST R

7
ST

E6

7S

CH NL

8S

RK AV

E7 1S

PH

33

RD

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

OPEN SPACE USER POPULATIONS Open space users consist of residents and workers. The source for the population of the residential (-mile) study area is 2010 US Census data for New York County Census Tract 238/Block Group 1. The source for the worker population of the non-residential (1/2-mile) study area is the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 3rd quarter 2010, compiled by the New York State Department of Labor and provided by the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). INVENTORY OF OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Publicly accessible open spaces and recreational facilities on the Island were inventoried to determine their size, character, and condition. Public spaces that do not offer useable recreational areas were excluded from the inventory, as were open spaces that are not accessible to the general public. The information used for this analysis was gathered from GIS data, the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC), and through field studies conducted in October 2011. At each open space, active and passive recreational spaces were noted. Active open space facilities are characterized by such activities as jogging, field sports, and childrens active play. Such open space features might include basketball courts, baseball fields, or play equipment. Passive open space facilities are characterized by such activities as strolling, reading, sunbathing, and people-watching. Some spaces, such as lawns and public esplanades, can be both active and passive recreation areas. ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACE RESOURCES The adequacy of open space in the study area is assessed quantitatively using a ratio of usable open space acreage to the study area populationthe open space ratio. The open space ratio provides a measure of open space available per 1,000 residents or workers in the study area. Local open space ratios vary widely throughout New York City and, therefore, the CEQR Technical Manual recommends comparing the study area open space ratios to citywide local norms and open space planning goals to provide benchmarks for analysis. The first comparison is the median ratio at the citywide Community District level, which is 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The second comparison is the citys open space planning goals, which define an area well-served by open space as one with 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents, consisting of 2.0 acres of active space and 0.5 acres of passive space, and 0.15 acres of passive open space per 1,000 workers. As stated in the CEQR Technical Manual, these ratios do not constitute an impact threshold; rather, they are benchmarks that represent how well an area is served by open space. A proposed project could result in a significant adverse open space impact if it would reduce the open space ratio by more than 5 percent in areas that are currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas that are extremely lacking in open space, a reduction as small as 1 percent may be considered significant, depending on the area of the city. The analysis should consider the type of recreation facilities (passive versus active), the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents, and the citys optimal planning goal of 2.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents to aid in the determination of a significant quantitative impact on existing open space. Projects that may result in significant quantitative impacts on open space resources are typically further assessed in the qualitative assessment approach, which considers factors such as the type of open space (active or passive), its capacity and conditions, and any additional open space provided by the project.

5-2

Chapter 5: Open Space

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This existing conditions assessment of open space consists of calculating total population, tallying the open space acreage within the area, and calculating the existing open space ratios. OPEN SPACE USER POPULATION COMMERCIAL (-MILE) STUDY AREA According to information from the QCEW provided by DCP, the commercial study area has a population of approximately 233 workers. RESIDENTIAL (-MILE) STUDY AREA According to US Census data for New York County Census Tract 238/Block Group 1, the population of the residential study area is 9,723. OPEN SPACE INVENTORY Open space resources on Roosevelt Island are listed in Table 5-1 and shown on Figure 5-1. Upkeep of these resources, with the exception of Four Freedoms Park, is the responsibility of RIOC. The most prominent open space resource is the waterfront promenade, which extends along the east and west sides of the Island north of South Point Park, providing a walkway for pedestrians with sweeping views of the East River, the Queens waterfront, and the Manhattan skyline. The promenade totals approximately 10.35 acres of open space, with 4.72 acres in the commercial study area, an additional 2.07 acres in the residential study area, and an additional 3.56 acres on the remainder of the Island. It provides passive uses such as waterfront seating areas, as well as opportunities for active uses including walking, running, bicycling, and rollerblading. There are five parks within the commercial study area. The newest of these is the approximately 4-acre Four Freedoms Park, which opened in 2012. The park is located on the southernmost point of the Island, and contains plaza areas with seating, a seawall, a large lawn, and a memorial to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Adjacent to Four Freedoms Park to the north is the 6.68-acre South Point Park, which opened in 2011. South Point Park is located immediately south of the Goldwater Hospital site. South Point Park is a passive open space resource that contains natural areas, pathways, benches, and a restroom facility. Within the park is the ruin of the former Smallpox Hospital, which was built in 1856. This historic resource is currently undergoing renovation and is closed to the public. Immediately north of the Goldwater Hospital site is Sportspark, the Islands primary recreational facility. Sportspark, an approximately 150,000-sf resource, contains numerous active recreational uses, including an Olympic-size swimming pool, gymnasium, basketball courts, ping pong room, and tennis courts. Firefighter Field is an active open space resource located on East Road, along the eastern waterfront of the Island. This park is a convertible playing field with both a baseball diamond and goalposts for soccer. The Commons is an open space resource bounded to the north and south by residential buildings, to the east by East Road, and to the west by Main Street and the Roosevelt Island subway station. The Commons includes a large lawn, a pathway with benches, and landscaped areas. The residential study area includes two additional parks: Blackwell Park and Capobianco Field. Blackwell Park is located along the eastern waterfront of the Island, immediately south of the Eastwood residential complex. The park contains a variety of active uses, including a playground and basketball courts. There are also passive uses, including a plaza area with

5-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

seating located adjacent to Main Street, vegetated areas, and lawns. The park also contains Blackwell House, which was built in 1796 and is the oldest structure on the Island.

Table 5-1 Roosevelt Island Open Space Inventory

Map No. Name Features Passive Active Space Space Total Space Condition/ Utilization Excellent/ Medium Excellent/ High Excellent/ High Excellent/ Medium Excellent/ Medium Moderate/ High Commercial (1/4-Mile) Study Area 1 2 3 4 Natural areas, historic Smallpox Hospital, South Point Park walkways, benches, restrooms Swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis, ping Sportspark pong Firefighter Field Baseball and soccer field Field, walkway, benches, vegetated areas Monument, walkway, seating areas, lawns 0.74 2.67 1.33 2.36 9.5 6.68 3.44 2.37 6.68 3.44 2.37 0.74 4 4.72 21.95

The Commons Four Freedoms 11 Park Promenade

5 6

Waterfront walkway, benches 2.36 Commercial Study Area Total: 12.45 Residential (1/2-Mile) Study Area Playground, playing courts, benches, lawns, Blackwell Park plaza, fountain 2.34 Ballfields, playground, playing courts, Capobianco Field benches Promenade Waterfront walkway, benches 1.04 Subtotal: 3.38 Residential Study Area Total: 15.83 Remainder of Roosevelt Island 1.16 3.07 0.10 2.05

0.71 2.52 1.04 4.27 13.77

3.05 2.52 2.07 7.64 29.60

Excellent/ Medium Excellent/ High Moderate/ High

7 8 9

Northtown Plaza Ecological Park Octagon Park

Lawn, trees, path, gardens, benches Playing fields, tennis courts, paths, landscaped areas, community gardens, restrooms Barbeques, benches, playground Barbeques, benches, historic lighthouse, promenade, fields

1.16 3.91 0.87 0.87 1.78 7.43 21.20 6.98 0.97 2.92 3.56 15.59 45.19

Excellent/ Low Excellent/ Medium Excellent/ High Excellent/ Medium Moderate/ High

10 Lighthouse Park Promenade

Waterfront walkway, piers, benches 1.78 Subtotal: 8.16 Roosevelt Island Total: 23.99

Notes: Sources:

1. See Figure 5-1 for open space locations. AKRF Field Surveys (October 2011); AKRF GIS data; Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation.

Capobianco Field is located on the east side of Main Street, across from PS/IS 217, south of the Roosevelt Island Bridge and north of the Roosevelt Landings residential complex. This park includes active open space uses, such as sports fields, playing courts, and a playground. The remainder of Roosevelt Island contains four additional parks that could be enjoyed by residents and non-residents of the study areas. Northtown Plaza is a passive open space in the 5-4

Chapter 5: Open Space

Manhattan Park residential development, across Main Street from the Motorgate parking garage. Ecological Park, located north of Manhattan Park and south of the Octagon, contains playing fields, tennis courts, landscaped areas, pathways, benches, a restroom facility, and a community garden. Octagon Park is located on the west side of the Octagon residential development, and contains barbeque areas and a playground. Lighthouse Park, located on the northernmost point of the Island, contains a boardwalk that is used for fishing, a lawn, benches, and barbeques. ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACES COMMERCIAL (-MILE) STUDY AREA As described above, the analysis of the commercial study area focuses on passive open spaces that may be used by workers in the area. Table 5-2 compares the ratio of existing passive open space per 1,000 workers in the study area to the DCP planning goals. The study area has a passive open space ratio of 53.43 acres per 1,000 workers, which greatly exceeds the citys planning goal of 0.15 acres of passive open space per 1,000 workers.

Table 5-2 Adequacy of Existing Open Space Resources

Total Population Commercial (-Mile) Study Area Non-residents 233 Residential (-Mile) Study Area Residents 9,723 Note: Ratios in acres per 1,000 people. Open Space Acreage Total Active Passive 21.95 29.60 9.5 13.77 12.45 15.83 Open Space Ratios DCP Open Space per 1,000 People Planning Goal Total Active Passive Total Active Passive N/A 3.04 N/A 1.42 53.43 1.63 N/A 2.5 N/A 2.0 0.15 0.50

RESIDENTIAL (-MILE) STUDY AREA With a total of 29.60 acres of open space (13.77 for active use and 15.83 for passive use) and a total residential population of 9,723, the residential study area has an overall open space ratio of 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents (see Table 5-2). This ratio exceeds the citys planning goal of 2.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, and is well above the citywide community district median ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The study areas current residential passive open space ratio is 1.63 acres of passive open space per 1,000 residents, which is more than triple the citys planning goal of 0.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The areas residential active open space ratio is 1.42 acres per 1,000 residents, which is below the citys planning goal of 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents. QUALITITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS Open space resources on the remainder of Roosevelt Island provide an additional 8.16 acres of passive open space and 7.43 acres of active open space that could be used by study area residents and workers. For example, users of the waterfront promenade (such as runners and bicyclers) are likely to make use of a larger area of this open space resource than just the portion that falls within the study area. Additionally, many of the residential and hospital developments on the Island contain private open space that is utilized by residents and patients but not open to the general public. The Rivercross and Westview developments have indoor pools, while Manhattan Park has an outdoor pool and auditorium, and the Octagon development has an outdoor pool and terrace

5-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

area. Both the Bird S. Coler Memorial and Goldwater Hospital campuses also contain enclosed playgrounds and passive open spaces. Northtown and Southtown also include additional lawns and landscaped areas that were not included in the open space analysis, as they do not contain seating or other programmed features.

D. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

In the future No-Action condition, the Goldwater Hospital campus on the project site will be vacant and 540 new housing units will be built on Roosevelt Island. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR OPEN SPACE USER POPULATION Commercial (-Mile) Study Area The project site will be vacant in the No-Action condition, as the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) will vacate Goldwater Hospital and relocate patients and services elsewhere. The relocation of this facility will decrease the number of workers in the commercial study area by approximately 116. Additionally, three new residential buildings are expected to be to be constructed in Southtown, providing an additional 540 housing units. These new units are estimated to add approximately 25 new workers in the commercial study area, such as concierge and maintenance staff.2 Overall, these changes will decrease the nonresidential population of the commercial study area from 233 under existing conditions to approximately 142 workers in the No-Action condition. Residential (-Mile) Study Area As noted above, 540 new housing units will be added to the residential study area in the future. These new units will add approximately 1,183 new residents, increasing the total population of the residential study area to approximately 10,906. 3 OPEN SPACE INVENTORY No changes to publicly accessible open space in the study areas are anticipated to occur in the future No-Action condition. ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACES Commercial (-Mile) Study Area The overall decrease in workers in the commercial study area, will increase the passive open space ratio to 87.68 acres per 1,000 workers, as shown in Table 5-3.

2 3

Assuming 1 new worker per 22 new residential units. Assuming an average of 2.19 persons per unit, the average household size in Census Tract 238/Block Group 1 (US Census, 2010).

5-6

Chapter 5: Open Space

Table 5-3 2018 No-Action Condition: Adequacy of Open Space Resources

Total Population Commercial (-Mile) Study Area Non-residents 142 Residential (-Mile) Study Area Residents 10,906 Note: Ratios in acres per 1,000 people. Open Space Acreage Total Active Passive 21.95 29.60 9.50 13.77 12.45 15.83 Open Space Ratios DCP Open Space per 1,000 People Planning Goals Total Active Passive Total Active Passive N/A 2.71 N/A 1.26 87.68 1.45 N/A 2.5 N/A 2.0 0.15 0.50

Residential (-Mile) Study Area Due to the additional residents that will be added to the residential study area by development in Southtown, the overall open space ratios in the residential study area will decrease in the future With Action condition. As shown in Table 5-3, the ratio of overall open space will decrease to 2.71 acres per 1,000 residents. The ratio of active open space will decrease to 1.26 acres per 1,000 residents, and the ratio of passive open space will decrease to 1.45 acres per 1,000 residents. The overall ratio will continue to exceed the citywide community district median ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents and DCPs planning goal of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents and. The passive open space ratio will also continue to exceed the citys planning goal and the active open space ratio will continue to be below the citys planning goal. Qualitative Considerations As in the existing conditions, study area residents and workers will continue to have access to private open space and open spaces just outside the study area, most notably the portions of the waterfront promenades that extend north of the study area. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR Absent the proposed project, no changes in population or open space inventory are currently anticipated between 2018 and 2038. By 2018, 540 new residential units in Southtown would be built. Open space conditions are assumed to remain the same as the 2018 No-Action condition, as summarized in Table 5-3.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

This section describes the open space conditions that would result from the completion of the proposed project by 2018 and 2038, and evaluates the potential for the proposed project to result in significant adverse impacts. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) Phase 1 of the proposed project would add new residents, non-residents (i.e., workers and nonresident students), and open space resources to the study areas. OPEN SPACE USER POPULATION Commercial (-Mile) Study Area The proposed project would result in new workers and students on the project site, some of whom would reside off-site. Cornell University estimates that by 2018, the non-residential population of the project site would increase by 805, consisting of: staff, visiting and adjunct faculty, and funded researchers; and the portion of Cornell NYC Tech faculty, Ph.D. candidates, 5-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

and masters students who would live off-site. This additional population would increase the overall non-residential population of the -mile study area from 142 in the No-Action condition to 947 in the With Action condition, by 2018. Residential (-Mile) Study Area The proposed project would result in the development of 442 residential units on the project site by 2018, consisting of units for Cornell NYC Tech leadership, faculty, visitors, postdoctorate fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. The estimated on-campus population residing in these units would be 842, including residential partners and children, increasing the overall residential population of the -mile study area from 10,906 in the No-Action condition to 11,748 in the With Action condition. OPEN SPACE INVENTORY Approximately 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space would be developed on the project site for Phase 1, consisting of 1 acre of passive open space and 0.3 acres of active open space. These new active and passive open space resources would serve both the -mile and mile study areas. A portion of these spaces would contain underlying geothermal well systems as needed to support the Phase 1 academic building heating and cooling needs. These systems, which would be entirely subsurface, would not impact use of surface space and would preclude near-future intensive development of those areas in order to protect the underlying systems. In addition, the proposed residential development would contain fitness center space for the use of campus residents. As this resource would not be publicly accessible, it has not been included in the quantitative analysis. ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACES Commercial (-Mile) Study Area As shown in Table 5-4, the introduction of a new non-residential population to the project site would result in an 83.8 percent decrease in the passive open space ratio to 14.2 by 2018, from 87.68 in the No-Action condition. However, the passive open space ratio would remain well above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents.

Table 5-4 2018 With-Action Condition: Adequacy of Open Space Resources

Total Population Non-residential (1/4-Mile) Study Area Non-Residents 947 23.25 Residential (1/2-Mile Study Area Residents 11,748 30.90 Open Space Ratios Acres per 1,000 Percent Change from Open Space Acreage Population No-Action Condition Total Active Passive Total Active Passive Total Active Passive 9.80 14.07 13.45 16.83 N/A 2.63 N/A 1.20 14.20 1.43 N/A N/A -83.8% -1.3%

-3.1% -5.1%

Residential (-Mile) Study Area By 2018, the proposed project would result in a 3.1 percent decrease in the overall ratio of open space to residents, from 2.71 in the No-Action condition to 2.63 in the With Action condition (see Table 5-4). The passive ratio would decrease by 1.3 percent, from 1.45 to 1.43. The active ratio would decrease by approximately 5.1 percent, from 1.26 to 1.20. The total open space ratio would continue to be well above the citywide community district median ratio of 1.5. The total

5-8

Chapter 5: Open Space

and passive ratios would continue to be above the DCP planning goals of 2.5 and 0.5, respectively, while the active ratio would continue to be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Qualitative Considerations As with the No-Action condition, study area residents and workers would continue to have access to open spaces just outside the study area, most notably the portions of the waterfront promenades that extend north of the study area. Campus residents would also have access to private open space, including amenity fitness center space within the proposed residential development. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE According the CEQR Technical Manual, a project could result in a significant adverse open space impact if it would reduce the open space ratio by more than 5 percent in areas that are currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas that are extremely lacking in open space, a reduction as small as 1 percent may be considered significant, depending on the area of the city. The analysis should consider the type of recreation facilities (passive versus active), the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents, and the citys optimal planning goal of 2.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents to aid in the determination of a significant quantitative impact on existing open space. Projects that may result in significant quantitative impacts on open space resources are typically further assessed in the qualitative assessment approach, which considers factors such as the type of open space (active or passive), its capacity and conditions, and any additional open space provided by the project. Commercial (-Mile) Study Area As shown in Table 5-4, in the With Action condition, the passive open space ratio would decrease by approximately 83.8 percent as compared to the No-Action condition, to 14.20 acres per 1,000 workers. However, the large decrease in the ratio is due to the fact that the No-Action worker population in the commercial study area is very small (142 workers), resulting in a very high No-Action ratio of passive open space to workers. In the With-Action condition, the passive open space ratio of 14.20 would remain well above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents (i.e., the With Action ratio would be more than 90 times greater than the DCP planning goal). Therefore, while the decrease in the passive open space ratio would be greater than the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to open space resources in the commercial study area, as the population would be well-served. Residential (-Mile) Study Area As shown in Table 5-4, the With Action total open space ratio would decrease by approximately 3.1 percent, the passive ratio would decrease by approximately 1.3 percent, and the active open space ratio would decrease by approximately 5.1 percent compared to the No-Action condition. The total open space ratio of 2.63 would continue to exceed both the citywide community district median ratio of 1.5 acres and the DCP planning goal of 2.5 acres. The passive ratio of 1.43 would exceed the DCP planning goal of 0.5 acres, and the active ratio would remain below the DCP planning goal of 2.0 acres. As the small decreases in the total and passive open space ratios would be less than 5 percent, and these ratios would continue to exceed DCP planning goals, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. 5-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The decrease in the active open space ratio would be approximately 5.1 percent, and the study area active open space ratio would continue to be below the DCP planning goal. However, as stated in the CEQR Technical Manual, the DCP planning goals are not appropriate in every situation and do not constitute an impact threshold. The CEQR Technical Manual notes that for areas in which there is a substantial worker, student, or visitor population, there is typically a need for more passive open space resources. The proposed project would result in an academic oriented mixed-use development, with a relatively large worker and student population and a limited number of children. Of the overall Cornell NYC Tech population of 1,647 by 2018 (including the academic population that would reside on-site and off-site, and the worker population), 805 (49 percent) would reside off-site. In addition, the proposed project would introduce approximately 41 school-aged children by 2018, which represents approximately 4.9 percent of the total anticipated Phase 1 population of 842 people that would reside on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would require less active open space than in a typical residential development. The proposed project would include approximately 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space, and the total open space ratio in the With Action condition would exceed citywide community district median ratio and the DCP planning goals. Due to these factors, the decrease in the active open space ratio would not be considered a significant adverse impact. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) In the future 2038 With Action condition, the full build out of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech campus would be complete. This additional development would add new residents, nonresidents, and open space resources to the study areas, in addition to what was introduced by 2018. OPEN SPACE USER POPULATION Commercial (-Mile) Study Area Cornell University estimates that between 2018 and 2038, the non-residential population of the project would increase by 2,975, consisting of staff, visiting and adjunct faculty, funded researchers, as well as some faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students who live off-site. The full build out of the proposed project would increase the overall non-residential population of the -mile study area by 3,780 workers and non-resident students, to 3,922, over the No-Action condition. Residential (-Mile) Study Area The proposed project would result in the development of an additional 652 residential units on the project site between 2018 and 2038, consisting of units for Cornell NYC Tech leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. The total on-campus population that would reside in these additional units would be 1,484, including residential partners and children. The full build out of the proposed project would increase the overall residential population of the -mile study area by 2,326 residents, to 13,232, over the No-Action condition. OPEN SPACE INVENTORY Between 2018 and 2038, 1.2 acres of new publicly accessible open space would be developed on the project site (in addition to the 1.3 acres of publicly accessible open space that would be added by 2018), consisting of approximately 0.91 acres of passive open space and 0.29 acres of active open space. In total, the full build out of the proposed project would introduce

5-10

Chapter 5: Open Space

approximately 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, which would be comprised of 1.91 acres of passive open space and 0.59 acres of active open space. As with Phase 1, the proposed residential development would contain fitness center space for the use of campus residents. ADEQUACY OF OPEN SPACES Commercial (-Mile) Study Area As shown in Table 5-5, the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus by 2038 would result in a 95.8 percent decrease in the ratio of passive open space to workers, from 87.68 in the No-Action condition to 3.66 in the With Action condition. However, the passive open space ratio would remain well above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents.

Table 5-5 2038 With-Action Condition: Adequacy of Open Space Resources

Open Space Acreage Total Population Total Active Passive Non-residential (1/4-Mile) Study Area NonResidents 3,922 24.45 10.09 14.36 Residential (1/2-Mile Study Area Residents 13,232 32.10 14.36 17.74 Open Space Ratios Acres Percent Change from Noper 1,000 Population Action Condition Total Active Passive Total Active Passive

N/A

N/A

3.66

N/A

N/A

-95.8%

2.43

1.09

1.34

10.6% -14.0%

-7.6%

Residential (-Mile) Study Area The proposed project would result in a 10.6 percent decrease in the overall ratio of open space to residents, from 2.71 in the No-Action condition to 2.43 in the With-Action condition (see Table 5-5). The passive ratio would decrease by 7.6 percent, from 1.45 to 1.34. The active ratio would decrease by 14.0 percent, from 1.26 to 1.09 acres of active open space per 1,000 residents. Qualitative Considerations As with the No-Action condition, study area residents and workers would continue to have access to open spaces just outside the study area, most notably the portions of the waterfront promenades that extend north of the study area. Campus residents would also have access to private open space, including amenity fitness center space within the proposed residential buildings. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE According the CEQR Technical Manual, a project could result in a significant adverse open space impact if it would reduce the open space ratio by more than 5 percent in areas that are currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas that are extremely lacking in open space, a reduction as small as 1 percent may be considered significant, depending on the area of the city. The analysis should consider the type of recreation facilities (passive versus active), the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents, and the citys optimal planning goal of 2.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents to aid in the determination of a significant quantitative impact on existing open space. Projects that may result in significant quantitative impacts on open space resources are typically further assessed in the qualitative assessment approach, which

5-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

considers factors such as the type of open space (active or passive), its capacity and conditions, and any additional open space provided by the project. Commercial (-Mile) Study Area As shown in Table 5-5, in the With Action condition, the passive open space ratio would decrease by approximately 95.8 percent as compared to the No-Action condition, to 3.66 acres per 1,000 workers. However, the large decrease in the ratio is due to the fact that the No-Action worker population in the commercial study area is very small (142 workers), resulting in a very high No-Action ratio of passive open space to workers. In the With Action condition, the passive open space ratio of 3.66 would remain greatly above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents (i.e., the With Action ratio would be more than 20 times greater than the DCP planning goal). Therefore, while the decrease in the passive open space ratio would be greater than the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to open space resources in the commercial study area. Residential (-Mile) Study Area As shown in Table 5-5, the With Action total open space ratio would decrease by approximately 10.6 percent, the passive open space ratio would decrease by approximately 7.6 percent, and the active open space ratio would decrease by approximately 14.0 percent, compared to the NoAction condition. The total open space ratio of 2.43 would continue to exceed the citywide community district median ratio of 1.5 acres, and would be slightly below the DCP planning goal of 2.5 acres. The passive ratio of 1.34 would exceed the DCP planning goal of 0.5 acres, and the active ratio of 1.09 would remain below the DCP planning goal of 2.0 acres. Although these decreases in the residential open space ratios exceed the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the total open space ratio of 2.43 would remain well above the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. As the proposed project would not result in a 5 percent decrease in an open space ratio in an area currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. While the decrease in the passive open space ratio would be 7.6 percent, the passive open space ratio of 1.34 would be well above the DCP planning goal of 0.5. The decrease in the active open space ratio would be approximately 14.0 percent, and the study area active open space ratio would continue to be below the DCP planning goal. However, as with Phase 1, the DCP planning goals are not appropriate in every situation and do not constitute an impact threshold. The CEQR Technical Manual notes that for areas in which there is a substantial worker, student, or visitor population, there is typically a need for more passive open space resources. The proposed project would result in an academic oriented mixed-use development, with a relatively large worker and student population and a limited number of children. Of the overall Cornell NYC Tech population of 6,106 by 2038 (including the academic population that would reside on-site and off-site, and the worker population), 3,780 (62 percent) would reside off-site. In addition, the proposed project would introduce approximately 89 school-aged children, which represents approximately 3.8 percent of the total anticipated full build out population of 2,326 people who would reside on-site. Therefore, as with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would require less active open space than in a typical residential development. By 2038, the proposed project would include approximately 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, and the total open space ratio in the With Action condition would exceed the citywide

5-12

Chapter 5: Open Space

community district median ratio. Due to these factors, the decrease in the active open space ratio would not be considered a significant adverse impact.

F. CONCLUSIONS
This analysis finds that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse open space impacts in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. By 2018, the ratio of passive open space per 1,000 non-residents in the -mile (commercial) study area would be 14.20 acres, which represents a decrease of 83.8 percent from the NoAction condition (see Table 5-6). By 2038 this ratio would be 3.66, which represents a decrease of 95.8 percent from the No-Action condition. However the large decreases in the ratio are due to the fact that the No-Action worker population in the commercial study area is very small (142 workers), resulting in a very high No-Action ratio of passive open space to workers. The WithAction passive open space ratios would remain greatly above the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents. Therefore, while the decrease in the passive open space ratio would be greater than the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to open space resources in the commercial study area by 2018 and 2038, as the commercial study area would remain well-served.

Table 5-6 With-Action Condition: Open Space Ratios Summary

DCP Planning Goal 0.15 2.5 2.0 0.5 Open Space Ratios (acres per 1,000 people) No-Action With-Action Existing Condition (2018 Condition Conditions and 2038) (2018/ 2038) Non-Residential (-Mile) Study Area 53.43 87.68 14.20/ 3.66 Residential (-Mile) Study Area 3.04 2.71 2.63/ 2.43 1.42 1.26 1.20/ 1.09 1.63 1.45 1.43/ 1.34 Percent Change No-Action to With-Action Condition (2018/ 2038) -83.8%/ -95.8% -3.1%/ -10.6% -5.1%/ -14.0% -1.3%/ -7.6%

Ratio Passive/Workers Total/Residents Active/Residents Passive/Residents

By 2018, the ratio of total, active, and passive open space per 1,000 residents in the -mile (residential) study area would be 2.63, 1.20, and 1.43, respectively. The total open space ratio would continue to exceed the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The total and passive ratios would exceed the DCP planning goals of 2.5, and 0.5, respectively, and the active ratio would be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Compared to the No-Action condition, the total ratio would decrease by 3.1 percent, the active ratio would decrease by 5.1 percent, and the passive ratio would decrease by 1.3 percent. As the small decreases in the total and passive open space ratios would be less than five percent, and these ratios would continue to exceed DCP planning goals, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. Although the active ratio would decline, and would continue to be below the DCP planning goal, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall, and the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project, due to the relatively high daytime population and low proportion of school-aged children that would be introduced. Therefore, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant open space impacts in the residential study area. By 2038, the ratio of total, active, and passive open space per 1,000 residents in the residential study area would be 2.43, 1.09, and 1.34, respectively. The total ratio would exceed the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, and would be slightly below the DCP 5-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

planning goal of 2.5. The passive ratio would exceed the DCP planning goal of 0.5, and the active ratio would be below the DCP planning goal of 2.0. Compared to the No-Action condition, the total ratio would decrease by 10.6 percent, the active ratio would decrease by 14.0 percent, and the passive ratio would decrease by 7.6 percent. Although these decreases in the open space ratios exceed the CEQR Technical Manual guideline of 5 percent, the total open space ratio of 2.43 would remain well above the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. As the proposed project would not result in a 5 percent decrease in an open space ratio in an area currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. Although the active ratio would decline, and would continue to be below the DCP planning goal, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall, and the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project, due to the relatively high daytime population and the low proportion of school-aged children that would be introduced. Therefore, the full build out of the proposed project would not result in any significant open space impacts in the residential study area.

5-14

Chapter 6:

Shadows

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines whether the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project would cast new shadows on any sunlight-sensitive publicly accessible resources or other resources of concern, and assesses the potential effects of any such new shadows. Sunlight-sensitive resources of concern potentially include publicly accessible open spaces, important natural features such as water bodies, and sunlight-dependent features of historic and cultural resources. According to the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, a shadows assessment is required if the proposed project would result in structures (or additions to existing structures) of 50 feet or more, or if the project site is located adjacent to, or across the street from, a sunlight-sensitive resource. The proposed campus is located adjacent to Roosevelt Islands waterfront promenade. South Point Park, and the East River, an important natural resource, lie just beyond these open spaces. Therefore, a shadow analysis is warranted. The analysis concluded that with the full build-out of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project, the waterfront promenade to the east and west of the project site would receive incremental shadows in all seasons; the outdoor basketball court associated with Sportspark north of the project site would receive incremental shadows in all seasons; the east channel and west channel of the East River would receive incremental shadows in all seasons; South Point Park would receive incremental shadows in the late spring and summer, and Firefighter Field and one section of Sutton Place Park in Manhattan would receive brief incremental shadows on the winter analysis day only. The analysis further concluded that the incremental shadows would not result in significant adverse shadow impacts on any of these resources.

B. DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY

This analysis has been prepared in accordance with CEQR procedures and follows the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual. DEFINITIONS Incremental shadow is the additional, or new, shadow that a structure resulting from a proposed project would cast on a sunlight-sensitive resource. Sunlight-sensitive resources are those resources that depend on sunlight or for which direct sunlight is necessary to maintain the resources usability or architectural integrity. Such resources generally include: Public open space (e.g., parks, beaches, playgrounds, plazas, schoolyards, greenways, landscaped medians with seating). Planted areas within unused portions of roadbeds that are part of the Greenstreets program are also considered sunlight-sensitive resources.

6-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Features of architectural resources that depend on sunlight for their enjoyment by the public. Only the sunlight-sensitive features need be considered, as opposed to the entire resource. Such sunlight-sensitive features might include: design elements that depend on the contrast between light and dark (e.g., recessed balconies, arcades, deep window reveals); elaborate, highly carved ornamentation; stained glass windows; historic landscapes and scenic landmarks; and features for which the effect of direct sunlight is described as playing a significant role in the structures importance as a historic landmark. Natural resources where the introduction of shadows could alter the resources condition or microclimate. Such resources could include surface water bodies, wetlands, or designated resources such as coastal fish and wildlife habitats. Non-sunlight-sensitive resources include, as set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual: City streets and sidewalks (except Greenstreets); Private open space (e.g., front and back yards, stoops, vacant lots, and any private, nonpublicly-accessible open space); Project-generated open space cannot experience a significant adverse shadow impact from the project, according to the CEQR Technical Manual, because without the project the open space would not exist. However, a qualitative discussion of shadows on the projectgenerated open space should be included in the analysis. A significant adverse shadow impact occurs when the incremental shadow added by a proposed project falls on a sunlight-sensitive resource and substantially reduces or completely eliminates direct sunlight, thereby significantly altering the publics use of the resource or threatening the viability of vegetation or other resources. Each case must be considered on its own merits based on the extent and duration of new shadow and an analysis of the resources sensitivity to reduced sunlight. METHODOLOGY Following the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, a preliminary screening assessment must first be conducted to ascertain whether a projects shadow could reach any sunlightsensitive resources at any time of year. The preliminary screening assessment consists of three tiers of analysis. The first tier determines a simple radius around the project site representing the longest shadow that could be cast. If there are sunlight-sensitive resources within this radius, the analysis proceeds to the second tier, which reduces the area that could be affected by project shadow by accounting for the fact that shadows can never be cast between a certain range of angles south of the project site due to the path of the sun through the sky at the latitude of New York City. If the second tier of analysis does not eliminate the possibility of new shadows on sunlightsensitive resources, a third tier of screening analysis further refines the area that could be reached by project shadow by looking at specific representative days in each season and determining the maximum extent of shadow over the course of each representative day. If the third tier of analysis does not eliminate the possibility of new shadows on sunlightsensitive resources, a detailed shadow analysis is required to determine the extent and duration of the incremental shadow resulting from the project. The detailed analysis provides the data needed to assess the shadow impacts. The effects of the new shadows on the sunlight-sensitive resources are described, and their degree of significance is considered. The results of the

6-2

Chapter 6: Shadows

analysis and assessment are documented with graphics, a table of incremental shadow durations, and narrative text. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the maximum likely development program, or reasonable worst case development scenario (RWCDS), as currently contemplated, would comprise nine buildings ranging in height from four to 31 stories, as well as publicly accessible open space. The RWCDS would comprise two phases: Phase 1, which would include the northern portion of the site, expected to be completed by 2018, and Phase 2, the remaining southern portion of the site, expected to be completed by 2038. The analysis assumes that absent the proposed project, in both 2018 and in 2038, the No-Action condition would include the vacant but still standing Goldwater Hospital structures. The determination of significance of shadow on a sunlight-sensitive resource is based on (1) the information resulting from the detailed shadow analysis describing the extent and duration of incremental shadows and (2) an analysis of the resources sensitivity to reduced sunlight. The goal of the assessment is to determine whether the effects of incremental shadows on a sunlightsensitive resource are significant under CEQR. DETERMINING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant shadow impact generally occurs when an incremental shadow of 10 minutes or longer falls on a sunlight sensitive resource and results in one of the following: For vegetation: A substantial reduction in sunlight available to a sunlight-sensitive feature of the resource to less than the minimum time necessary for its survival (when there was sufficient sunlight in the future without the project). A reduction in direct sunlight exposure where the sensitive feature of the resource is already subject to substandard sunlight (i.e., less than minimum time necessary for its survival). For open space utilization: A substantial reduction in the usability of open space as a result of increased shadow. For any sunlight-sensitive feature of a resource: Complete elimination of all direct sunlight on the sunlight-sensitive feature of the resource, when the complete elimination results in substantial effects on the survival, enjoyment, or, in the case of open space or natural resources, the use of the resource.

C. PRELIMINARY SCREENING ASSESSMENT

A base map was developed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 1 showing the location of the proposed project and the surrounding street layout (see Figure 6-1). In coordination with the open space, historic and cultural resources, and natural resources assessments presented in other chapters of this EIS, potentially sunlight-sensitive resources were identified and shown on the map.
1

Software: Esri ArcGIS 10; Data: New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) and other city agencies, and AKRF.

6-3

10.9.12

2A V

E5

E6

E6

9S

2S

3S

AI M

ST

YO RK AV

E6

E5

8S

QU EE NS BO RO

FD

RD R

0S

60

ST

L HE

Promenade

Blackwell Park

BR
FD RD R

The Commons

SU TT ON

PL

E5

7S

1A V

Firefighter Field
E5 6S
S

T
SU TT ON

E5

5S

W ES

E5

4S

TR D

Sutton Place Park

QU EE NS BO RO

PL

BR QU EE NS BO RO

EA S

Twenty-Four E6 1S Sycamores Park T

O IP

RT

RP

Andrew Haswell Green Park

Queensbridge Park
BR

E5

3S

E5

E5

1S

EA S

EAST RIVER

TR

2S

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade Promenade

EAST CHANNEL

QU EE NS BO RO

BR QU EE NS BO RO QU BR EE NS PL ZS

ius

BE E

South Point Park

1,3 76 -fo o

DR

VE RN ON

d ra

KM A

BL VD

NP

43 AV
9S T

43

RD

10 S

5 ST

44 R D

45 AV
44 D R 45 AV

Project site Publicly accessible open space Tier 1: Perimeter representing longest shadow study area Tier 2: Area to south that can never be shaded by project

500

1,000

1,500

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Assessment

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 6-1

11 S

44 AV

Feet 2,000

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

TIER 1 SCREENING ASSESSMENT Following CEQR Technical Manual methodology, for the Tier 1 assessment, the longest shadow that the proposed project could cast is calculated, and, using this length as the radius, a perimeter is drawn around the project site. Anything outside this perimeter representing the longest possible shadow could never be affected by project generated shadow, while anything inside the perimeter needs additional assessment. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the longest shadow that a structure can cast at the latitude of New York City occurs on December 21, the winter solstice, at the start of the analysis day at 8:51 AM, and is equal to 4.3 times the height of the structure. The tallest structure in the RWCDS would be a 320-foot-tall (including mechanical space) residential building. However, to ensure the most conservative assessment, the Tier 1 assessment accounted for a maximum building height of 320 feet across the project site, since 320 feet is the maximum allowable height for a portion of the site as set forth in the proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island Special District. Therefore, at a maximum height of 320 feet the proposed project could cast a shadow up to 1,376 feet in length (320 x 4.3). Using this length as the radius, a perimeter was drawn around the entire project site (see Figure 6-1). Since a number of sun-sensitive resources are located within this perimeter or longest shadow study area, the next tier of screening assessment was conducted. TIER 2 SCREENING ASSESSMENT Because of the path that the sun travels across the sky in the northern hemisphere, no shadow can be cast in a triangular area south of any given project site. In New York City this area lies between -108 and +108 degrees from true north. Figure 6-1 illustrates this triangular area south of the project site. The area to the north within the longest shadow study area represents the remaining area that could potentially experience new project generated shadow. A number of sunlight-sensitive resources are located in the remaining longest shadow study area, and the next tier of assessment was therefore conducted. TIER 3 SCREENING ASSESSMENT The direction and length of shadows vary throughout the course of the day and also differ depending on the season. In order to determine whether project-generated shadow could fall on a sunlight-sensitive resource, three-dimensional (3D) computer mapping software 2 is used in the Tier 3 assessment to calculate and display the proposed projects shadows on individual representative days of the year. A 3D computer model was developed containing three-dimensional representations of the elements in the base map used in the preceding assessments, the topographic information of the study area, and a reasonable worst-case three-dimensional representation of the proposed project.

MicroStation V8i (SELECTSeries 2)

6-4

Chapter 6: Shadows

REPRESENTATIVE DAYS FOR ANALYSIS Following the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual, shadows on the summer solstice (June 21), winter solstice (December 21) and spring and fall equinoxes (March 21 and September 21, which are approximately the same in terms of shadow patterns) are modeled, to represent the range of shadows over the course of the year. An additional representative day during the growing season is also modeled, generally the day halfway between the summer solstice and the equinoxes, i.e., May 6 or August 6, which have approximately the same shadow patterns. TIMEFRAME WINDOW OF ANALYSIS The shadow assessment considers shadows occurring between one and a half hours after sunrise and one and a half hours before sunset. At times earlier or later than this timeframe window of analysis, the sun is down near the horizon and the suns rays reach the Earth at very tangential angles, diminishing the amount of solar energy and producing shadows that are very long, move fast, and generally blend with shadows from existing structures until the sun reaches the horizon and sets. Consequently, shadows occurring outside the timeframe window of analysis are not considered significant according to the CEQR Technical Manual, and their assessment is not required. TIER 3 SCREENING ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 6-2 illustrates the range of shadows that would occur, in the absence of intervening buildings, from the RWCDS on the four representative days for analysis. As they move east and clockwise over the landscape, the shadows from the RWCDS building envelopes are shown occurring approximately every two hours from the start of the analysis day (one and a half hours after sunrise) to the end of the analysis day (one and a half hours before sunset). The Tier 3 assessment showed that several sunlight-sensitive resources are located in the sweep of project generated shadow on one or more analysis days. Sections of the Promenade east and west of the project site could be affected by projectgenerated shadow on all four analysis days. (Note: all references to the promenade in the following sections refer to the portions of the promenade south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, east and west of the project site.) Project-generated shadow would fall on areas of the East River, to the east and the west, on all four analysis days. Project-generated shadow would also be long enough to reach the basketball court associated with the Sportspark club on all four analysis days. The area of South Point Park southwest of the project site could be affected by projectgenerated shadow in the mornings of the May 6/August 6 and June 21 analysis days. Finally, on the December 21 analysis day only, project shadow could reach a very small portion of one of the Sutton Place Parks, at the east end of East 55th Street, and Firefighter Field and an adjacent portion of the promenade near the end of the analysis day. In summary, the Tier 3 screening assessment concluded that, in the absence of intervening buildings, shadows from the proposed RWCDS envelopes would reach two open space resources and the East River on all four analysis days, another open space resource on three of

6-5

3.5.13

Firefighter Field

7:36 AM
Sutton Place Parks

9:30

Noon

2:30

4:29 PM 9:00

Noon 3:00

Sports Park basketball court

6:27 AM
Promenade Promenade

5:18 PM

South Point Park

March 21/Sept. 21

May 6/August 6

8:51 AM 10:30 1:30

2:53 PM Noon

Noon 9:00 3:00

5:57 AM

6:01 PM

June 21
Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Daily Sweep of Project-Generated Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

December 21

Tier 3 Assessment
CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-2

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

the four analysis days, and two additional open spaces on the December 21 day only. Therefore, a detailed analysis is warranted for those resources on the relevant analysis periods. RESOURCES OF CONCERN WATERFRONT PROMENADEWEST SIDE The waterfront promenade on the western side provides a walkway for pedestrians with sweeping views of Manhattan. It contains benches overlooking the river and Manhattan fairly continuously from the northern end of the project site to the southern, as well as opportunities for active uses like running and bicycling (see Figure 6-3). Vegetation includes cherry trees and other tree species, and lawn. WATERFRONT PROMENADEEAST SIDE The eastern promenade is narrower for most of its length and contains fewer and smaller trees, and fewer seating areas (see Figure 6-4). It is wider near the northern end of the project site, and this area consists mainly of lawn. There are three benches at wide intervals in the northern part, and three other benches at even wider intervals along the longer southern section of the promenade. SPORTSPARK Figure 6-4 shows this hard-surface, fenced basketball court. Bordering the court on the west is the Sportspark building. This resource has no vegetation and, being an active recreational use, its users are only minimally sensitive to shadows. SOUTH POINT PARK Located south of the project site, South Point Park is a passive open space resource. The north and northwest sections that could potentially be reached by incremental shadow contain natural areas, pathways, benches, and a restroom facility. FIREFIGHTER FIELD Located north of the project site, Firefighter Field is an active open space containing both a baseball diamond and goalposts for soccer. As an active resource, its users are less sensitive to shadows. SUTTON PLACE PARK The Sutton Parks are a series of five vest-pocket parks along the East River waterfront near Sutton Place. The Sutton Place Parks include a sandbox and playground equipment, and views of the East River and the Queensboro Bridge.

D. DETAILED SHADOW ANALYSIS

The purpose of the detailed analysis is to determine the extent and duration of new incremental shadows that fall on sunlight-sensitive resources as a result of the project, and to assess their effects. A baseline or future No Action condition is established, containing existing buildings and sunlight-sensitive resources and any future developments planned in the area, to illustrate the baseline shadows from buildings and other structures in the study area defined in the

6-6

10.9.12

Looking south

Looking north

Photos of Waterfront Promenade - Western Side

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 6-3

10.9.12

Basketball court

Northern section of eastern promenade looking north

Southern section of eastern promenade looking north

Photos of Waterfront Promenade - Eastern Side and Basketball Court

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 6-4

Chapter 6: Shadows

preliminary assessment. The future condition with the proposed project and its shadows can then be compared to the baseline condition with shadows from the No Action condition, to determine the incremental shadows that would result with the proposed project. Three-dimensional representations of the existing buildings in the study area were developed using data obtained from NYC DoITT, Sanborn maps, and photos taken during project site visits, and were added to the three-dimensional model used in the Tier 3 assessment. Other developments in the area expected to be completed by the build years were also added to the model: specifically, the three towers that constitute the planned Southtown expansion north of Firefighter Field. Figure 6-5 shows a view of the computer model used in the analysis. Shadows are in constant movement. The computer simulation software produces an animation showing the movement of shadows over the course of each analysis period. The analysis determines the time when incremental shadow would enter each resource, and the time it would exit. Following the analysis framework described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the shadows assessment was performed for Phase 1, with an analysis year of 2018, comparing the proposed development on the northern portion of the site with the future No Action condition in which the Goldwater Hospital would remain (vacant). Then, for the Full Build or 2038 analysis year, shadows with the full build out of the proposed project were compared to shadows in the same No Action condition (the vacant hospital complex). Shadow analyses were performed for each of the representative days and analysis periods indicated in the Tier 3 assessment. PHASE 1 (2018) Table 6-1 summarizes the entry and exit times and total duration of incremental shadows on each affected sun-sensitive resource for the Phase 1 analysis year. Figures 6-6 to 6-42 document the results of the Phase 1 analysis by providing graphic representations from the computer animation of times when incremental shadow would fall on a sun-sensitive resource. The figures illustrate the extent of additional, incremental shadow at that moment in time, highlighted in red, and also show existing shadow and remaining areas of sunlight. MARCH 21/SEPTEMBER 21 (FIGURES 6-6 TO 6-13) March is considered the beginning of the growing season in New York City, and September 21, which has the same shadow patterns as March 21, is also within the growing season. Shadows on March 21 and September 21 are of moderate length. In the morning, shadows from the Phase 1 development would fall to the west across portions of the promenade and the west channel of the East River. One area of the promenade adjacent to the proposed Phase 1 academic building and photovoltaic (PV) canopy would receive approximately three hours of incremental shadows between the start of the analysis day and 10:40 AM (see Figures 6-6 to 6-8); other small areas west and north of the proposed Phase 1 development would receive between one and three hours of new shadows. The area of the promenade adjacent to the southern half of the project site would be completely in sun throughout the morning, which would represent a reduction in shadow compared to the No Action condition, in which the Goldwater Hospital would continue to cast shadows in that area of the promenade. An area of the west channel adjacent to the shore would receive up to approximately an hour and a half of new shadow; other areas of the channel further west and northwest would receive less new shadow. 6-7

3.5.13

Future No-Action

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario - full build-out

Three-Dimensional Computer Model - View North

Figure 6-5

CornellNYC Tech

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 8:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-6

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 9:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-7

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 10:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-8

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 11:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-9

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 12:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-10

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 2:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-11

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 3:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-12

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 March 21/Sept. 21 - 4:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-13

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 7:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-14

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 8:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-15

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 9:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-16

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 10:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-17

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 11:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-18

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 2:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-19

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 3:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-20

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 4:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-21

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 May 6/August 6 - 5:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-22

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 6:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-23

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 7:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-24

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 8:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-25

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 9:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-26

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 10:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-27

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 11:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-28

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 1:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-29

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 2:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-30

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 3:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-31

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 4:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-32

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 5:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-33

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 June 21 - 6:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-34

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 8:51 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-35

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 9:30 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-36

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 10:30 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-37

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 11:30 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-38

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 12:30 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-39

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 1:30 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-40

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 2:10 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-41

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 1 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 1 December 21 - 2:50 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-42

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 6-1 Incremental Shadow DurationsPhase 1 (2018)

Analysis day and timeframe window March 21 / Sept. 21 7:36 AM-4:29 PM May 6 / August 6 6:27 AM-5:18 PM OPEN SPACES Waterfront promenade west side 7:36 AM10:40 PM Total: 3 hr 4 min Reduced: 7:36 AM9:30 AM Total: 1 hr 54 min Sportspark outdoor basketball court Waterfront promenade east side 2:00 PM4:29 PM Total: 2 hr 29 min 2:50 PM4:29 PM Total: 1 hr 39 min Reduced: 3:20 PM4:29 PM Total: 1 hr 9 min Firefighter Field and adjacent waterfront area 6:27 AM9:10 AM Total: 2 hr 43 min Reduced: 6:27 AM8:10 AM Total: 1 hr 43 min 1:10 PM5:18 PM Total: 4 hr 8 min 2:10 PM5:18 PM Total: 3 hr 8 min Reduced: 3:20 PM5:18 PM Total: 1 hr 58 min 5:57 AM8:40 AM Total: 2 hr 43 min Reduced: 5:57 AM7:30 AM Total: 1 hr 33 min 1:00 PM6:01 PM Total: 5 hr 1 min 2:10 PM6:01 PM Total: 3 hr 51 min Reduced: 3:20 PM6:01 PM Total: 2 hr 41 min 1:40 PM2:53 PM Total: 1 hr 13 min 8:51 AM12:40 PM Total: 3 hr 49 min Reduced: 8:51 AM11:10 AM Total: 2 hr 19 min 2:50 PM2:53 PM Total: 3 min June 21 5:57 AM-6:01 PM December 21 8:51 AM-2:53 PM

NATURAL FEATURES East River west channel 7:36 AM10:00 AM Total: 2 hr 24 min Reduced: 7:36 AM8:20 AM Total: 44 min East River east channel 3:00 PM4:29 PM Total: 1 hr 29 min Reduced: 4:00 PM4:29 PM Total: 29 min 6:27 AM8:30 AM Total: 2 hr 3 min Reduced: 6:27 AM6:40 AM Total: 13 min 2:30 PM5:18 PM Total: 2 hr 48 min Reduced: 4:10 PM5:18 PM Total: 1 hr 8 min 5:57 AM8:00 AM Total: 2 hr 3 min Reduced: 5:57 AM6:05 AM Total: 8 min 2:20 PM6:01 PM Total: 3 hr 41 min Reduced: 4:20 PM6:01 PM Total: 1 hr 41 min 8:51 AM11:40 AM Total: 2 hr 49 min Reduced: 8:51 AM10:10 AM Total: 1 hr 19 min 2:40 PM2:53 PM Total: 13 min

Notes: Table indicates entry and exit times and total duration of incremental shadow for each sunlight-sensitive resource. Daylight saving time is not usedtimes are Eastern Standard Time, per CEQR Technical Manual guidelines. However, as Eastern Daylight Time is in effect for the March/September, May/August and June analysis periods, add one hour to the given times to determine the actual clock time. Reduced durations refer to shadow that the future No-Action buildings would cast, which would not be cast by the proposed project.

Beginning at about 2:00 PM, incremental shadow from the Phase 1 residential building would move onto the western side of the Sportspark basketball court (see Figure 6-11). By 3:00 PM incremental shadow would fall across about half the court, with a quarter in existing shadow and a quarter in sun (see Figure 6-12). From 4:00 PM to 4:29 PM, the end of the analysis day, incremental shadow would remove the remaining area of sunlight on the court (Figure 6-13). Beginning at about 2:50 PM, incremental shadows would move onto the portion of the east side promenade north of the Sportspark where there is no seating or other amenities and, 10 minutes 6-8

Chapter 6: Shadows

later, onto the adjacent east channel of the East River. At 3:10 PM incremental shadow would move onto the portion of the promenade east of the Phase 1 development. Parts of this area of the promenade would be in incremental shadow until 4:29 PM, the end of the analysis day, while other parts would remain in sun (see Figure 6-13). MAY 6/AUGUST 6 (FIGURES 6-14 TO 6-22) May 6 falls halfway between the March 21 equinox and the June 21 summer solstice. August 6 falls halfway between June 21 and the September 21 equinox, and has the same shadow patterns as May 6. The May 6/August 6 analysis day is representative of the growing season in the city. Shadows on this day are shorter than on the equinoxes, and the length of the day is longer. Shadows would fall to the west at the start of the analysis day at 6:27 AM, falling across an approximately 450 foot section of the west side promenade until about 7:30 AM, then on increasingly smaller portions (see Figures 6-14 to 6-16). The incremental shadow would exit completely at 9:10 AM. No one individual tree or planting along the promenade would be in incremental shadow for longer than approximately two and a half hours during the morning, and these areas would be in sun throughout the middle of the day and afternoon due to the lack of structures to the south and west. Areas of the rivers west channel would receive project generated shadow during the morning as well, until about 8:30 AM. Incremental shadow from the Phase 1 residential building would enter the Sportspark basketball court at 1:10 PM. By 2:00 PM the incremental shadow would cover most of the court, leaving a sunlit area in the southeast part (see Figure 6-19). For about a half-hour around 3:00 PM the new shadow would eliminate the remainder of the sunlit area on the court (Figure 6-20). After 3:20 PM small areas of sun would return on the court as the incremental shadow began to move off the court area. From 4:40 PM to the end of the analysis day incremental shadow from the Phase 1 executive education center as well as the Phase 1 residential building would remove the remaining sun on the court (Figure 6-22). Beginning at approximately 2:10 PM incremental shadow would begin to fall on the portion of the east side promenade north of Sportspark, and by 2:30 PM on the adjacent east channel. At about 2:50 PM incremental shadow would move on to the part of the promenade east of the Phase 1 development. These shadows would become fairly large from 5:00 PM to the end of the analysis day at 5:18 PM but other large areas of this section of the promenade, as well as the section to the south, would remain in sun at this time. Incremental shadows would also move across portions of the east channel of the East River from 2:30 PM to 5:18 PM. JUNE 21 (FIGURE 6-23 TO 6-34) June 21 has the longest amount of daylight of the year, with an analysis period of 12 hours. Shadows fall to the southwest early in the morning and to the southeast late in the afternoon, and shadows at mid-day on June 21 are shorter than at any other time of year. June 21 is also in the growing season. At the start of the analysis day at 6:00 AM incremental shadows would fall to the southwest across a large area of the west channel and about 500 linear feet of the west promenade (see Figures 6-23). The shadow would shorten and move clockwise, and by 7:00 AM would fall on much smaller areas of the channel but would continue to shade about 450 linear feet of the promenade (see Figure 6-24). By 8:00 AM the shadows from Phase 1 developmentprimarily

6-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

the academic building and PV canopywould be small in size and would finally exit the promenade completely at 8:40 AM (see Figures 6-25 and 6-26). The Phase 1 residential building would cast shadow on the Sportspark basketball court for much of the afternoon, beginning at 1:00 PM (Figure 6-29). The new shadow would fall across most of the court area from about 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM, leaving only small sunlit areas (Figures 6-30 and 6-31), and would shade smaller portions of the court from 3:30 PM to about 4:20 PM (Figure 632). From 4:30 PM new shadow from the Phase 1 Executive Education Center would move onto the court and from 5:00 PM until the end of the analysis day at 6:01 PM would remove the remaining sunlight, although most of the court would be in existing shadow from the Sportspark during this time (Figures 6-33 and 6-34). Beginning at about 2:10 PM, the Phase 1 residential building would cast a shadow on the portion of the east promenade north of Sportspark, and at 2:50 PM shadow from the corporate co-location building would move onto the portion of the promenade to its east, south of Sportspark. These areas of incremental shadow on the promenade would initially remain small, grow larger around 5:00 PM, but then shrink again near 6:00 PM, because shadows from the existing/No Action buildings would spread across the promenade by then (see Figures 6-32 through 6-34). Incremental shadows would move onto adjacent areas of the channel beginning at 2:20 PM and would gradually spread over the remainder of the analysis period. DECEMBER 21 (FIGURES 6-35 TO 6-42) December 21, representing the winter months, does not fall within New Yorks growing season, according to the CEQR Technical Manual. Shadow falling on vegetation in winter is not generally considered to cause a significant adverse impact. However, winter shadow can adversely impact users of open space who may rely on sunlight for warmth. Phase 1 development would cast long shadows to the northwest and north in the morning hours, shading large areas of the western promenade and west channel. However, the southern part of the promenade would remain completely in sun, representing a reduction in shadows compared with the No Action condition. The section of the promenade northwest of the Phase 1 academic building and PV canopy would remain in incremental shadow until 12:40 PM. From 1:40 PM to 2:53 PM (the end of the analysis day) incremental shadow from the Phase 1 residential building would fall across a portion of Firefighter Field. Half or more of the field is shaded by the Queensboro Bridge and other existing structures during this time, and the new shadow would remove additional sunlit areas, but other areas would remain in sun throughout this period (see Figures 6-41 and 6-42). From 2:40 PM to 2:53 PM the incremental shadow would also reach the waterfront area north of Firefighter Field. PROPOSED PROJECT OPEN SPACE A minimum of approximately 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space would be developed on the project site for Phase 1, consisting of 1 acre of passive open space and 0.3 acres of active open space. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, open space that would be developed as part of a project cannot experience adverse impacts from the project, because without the project the space would not exist. However, a discussion of shadows on the proposed open space is provided for informational purposes. As with many open spaces in an urban setting, situated among fairly tall buildings, the project open spaces would experience a combination of time periods during which they would be 6-10

Chapter 6: Shadows

largely or entirely in shadow, as well as periods during which they would be largely or fully in sun. The open spaces on the eastern side of the site would be generally open to the eastern sky above the river, and would be mostly or completely in sun during the spring, summer and fall mornings. Conversely, they would be partially in shadow in the early afternoon and mostly in shadow in the later afternoons in these seasons. On the western side of the site, the opposite would be true: mostly in shade in the mornings, partially in sun in the early afternoon and mostly in sun in the later afternoon. Any space on the northern boundary of the project site would be mostly in shadow from mid-morning to mid-afternoon in the spring, summer and fall, while space on the southern side would be in sun for most of the day in these seasons. In the winter, the spaces would be mostly in shadow throughout the day, with the exception of open space area on the east side which would be mostly sunny in the morning, and space on the southern side, which would be sunny most of the day. PHASE 2 (2038) In Phase 2, the southern part of the project site would be developed, resulting in additional project-generated shadows. Table 6-2 summarizes the entry and exit times and total duration of incremental shadows on sun-sensitive resources for the full build out of the proposed project, resulting from its comparison to the future 2038 No-Action condition (which is the same as the 2018 No-Action condition). Figures 6-43 to 6-80 depict the incremental shadows that would occur in 2038 with the proposed development. The following section describes any additional or different shadow effects beyond those already described in the Phase 1 section. MARCH 21/SEPTEMBER 21 (FIGURES 6-43 TO 6-49) Incremental shadow from the Phase 2 development would shade much of the southern half of the promenade from the start of the analysis day until around 10:00 (see Figures 6-43 to 6-45). From around 10:00 AM to 12:20 PM smaller areas of the promenade would be in project shadow (see Figures 6-45 to 6-47). In the southern portion of the promenade, one small area would receive about three and three-quarters hours of new shadow, and a couple of other areas would receive up to three and a half hours. Other affected areas of the southern part of the promenade would receive one to three hours incremental shadow. Shadows from the Phase 2 development would also fall across some areas of the East Rivers west channel throughout the morning; some areas adjacent to the shore would receive about three hours of new shadows, while other areas would receive less. Additional areas of the eastern promenade would receive incremental shadows from the Phase 2 development, beginning at 2:30 PM and lasting until the end of the analysis day at 4:29 PM. The extent of these new shadows on the promenade would be large for the final hour of the analysis day, though some areas would remain in sun. New shadows would also extend out across portions of the rivers east channel during this time.

6-11

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel

Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 8:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-43

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 9:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-44

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 10:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-45

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 11:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-46

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 12:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-47

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 3:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-48

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court Promenade

East River - West Channel Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 March 21/Sept. 21 - 4:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-49

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 7:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-50

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 8:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-51

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 9:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-52

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 10:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-53

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 11:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-54

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 12:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-55

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 2:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-56

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 3:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-57

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 4:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-58

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 May 6/August 6 - 5:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-59

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 6:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-60

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 7:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-61

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel

Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 8:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-62

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 9:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-63

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 10:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-64

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 11:00 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-65

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Notes: No incremental shadow on sun-sensitive resources would occur at this time. Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 12:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-66

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 1:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-67

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park

Sports Park basketball court

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 2:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-68

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 3:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-69

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 4:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-70

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 5:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-71

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 June 21 - 6:00 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-72

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 8:51 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-73

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow Reduced Shadow (i.e. cast in Future No-Action but not with Proposed Project)
Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 9:30 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-74

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 10:30 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-75

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 11:30 AM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-76

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 12:30 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-77

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court

Sutton Place Park

East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 1:30 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-78

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 2:10 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-79

3.5.13

Ed
Ea st 58 th St .

Ko ch Qu ee ns bo ro Br i dg e

Su tto nP lac e

Firefighter Field

Sutton Place Park

Sutton Place Park Sports Park basketball court East River - West Channel Promenade Promenade

East River - East Channel

South Point Park

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Building Envelopes - Phase 2 Publicly-Accessible Open Space East River Incremental Shadow

Note: Daylight Saving Time not used.

Phase 2 December 21 - 2:50 PM

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6-80

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 6-2 Incremental Shadow DurationsPhase 2 (2038)

Analysis day and timeframe window March 21 / Sept. 21 7:36 AM-4:29 PM May 6 / August 6 6:27 AM-5:18 PM OPEN SPACES South Point Park Sutton Place Park East 55th St. & East 56th St. Waterfront promenade west side Sportspark outdoor basketball court Waterfront promenade east side 6:27 AM8:00 AM Total: 1 hr 33 min 5:57 AM8:00 AM Total: 2 hr 3 min 8:51 AM8:55 AM Total: 4 min 8:51 AM1:40 PM Total: 4 hr 49 min 2:40 PM2:53 PM Total: 13 min 2:50 PM2:53 PM Total: 3 min June 21 5:57 AM-6:01 PM December 21 8:51 AM-2:53 PM

7:36 AM12:20 PM Total: 4 hr 44 min 2:00 PM4:29 PM Total: 2 hr 29 min 2:30 PM4:29 PM Total: 1 hr 59 min

6:27 AM12:10 PM Total: 5 hr 43 min 1:10 PM5:18 PM Total: 4 hr 8 min 2:00 PM5:18 PM Total: 3 hr 18 min Reduced: 4:00 PM5:18 PM Total: 1 hr 18 min

5:57 AM11:50 AM Total: 5 hr 53 min 1:00 PM6:01 PM Total: 5 hr 1 min 2:00 PM6:01 PM Total: 4 hr 1 min Reduced: 4:00 PM6:01 PM Total: 2 hr 1 min

Firefighter Field and adjacent waterfront area

1:40 PM2:53 PM Total: 1 hr 13 min

NATURAL FEATURES East River west channel 7:36 AM12:20 PM Total: 4 hr 44 min Reduced: 7:36 AM7:40 AM Total: 4 min East River east channel 2:50 PM4:29 PM Total: 1 hr 39 min 2:30 PM5:18 PM Total: 2 hr 48 min Reduced: 5:00 PM5:18 PM Total: 18 min 2:20 PM6:01 PM Total: 3 hr 41 min Reduced: 4:30 PM6:01 PM Total: 1 hr 31 min 6:27 AM11:10 AM Total: 4 hr 43 min 5:57 AM10:50 AM Total: 4 hr 53 min 8:51 AM1:30 PM Total: 4 hr 39 min Reduced: 8:51 AM9:30 AM Total: 39 min 2:40 PM2:53 PM Total: 13 min

Notes: Table indicates entry and exit times and total duration of incremental shadow for each sunlight-sensitive resource. Daylight saving time is not usedtimes are Eastern Standard Time, per CEQR Technical Manual guidelines. However, Eastern Daylight Time is in effect for the March/September, May/August and June analysis periods, add one hour to the given times to determine the actual clock time. Reduced durations refer to shadow that the future No-Action buildings would cast, which would not be cast by the proposed project.

MAY 6/AUGUST 6 (FIGURES 6-50 TO 6-59) An area in the northern section of South Point Park would be shaded by the southernmost buildings of the Phase 2 development for up to the first hour and a half of the May 6/August 6 6-12

Chapter 6: Shadows

analysis day. The extent of new shadow would be large for the first half-hour but after 7:00 AM it would affect only a small area in the northwest portion of the park, and would exit at 8:00 AM (see Figures 6-50 and 6-51). As on the March 21/September 21 analysis day, shadows from the Phase 2 development would fall west across much of the southern half of the promenade and onto the west channel at the start of the analysis period. These shadows would slowly move clockwise during the morning, finally exiting the promenade completely at about noon. However, nearer to the summer solstice, shadows are shorter, and larger areas of sun would reach the promenade between the proposed towers. One or two areas of the southern portion of the promenade would receive up to about three and a half hours of new shadows. In the afternoon, additional areas of the eastern promenade would receive incremental shadows from the Phase 2 development, beginning at 2:00 PM. These shadows would spread to cover large areas of the southern half of the promenade from about 3:00 PM to the end of the analysis day at 5:18 PM. New shadows would also extend out across portions of the rivers east channel during this time, falling on some sections for about two and a half hours, on other sections for less time. JUNE 21 (FIGURES 6-60 TO 6-72) Shadows from the Phase 2 development would fall across an area in the northern part of South Point Park at the start of the analysis day at 6:00 AM (see Figure 6-60). These shadows would move clockwise, so that by 7:00 AM they would be less than half the size, and would exit the northwest edge of the park completely by 8:10 AM. As on the May 6/August 6 analysis day, the three proposed buildings on the western half of the Phase 2 development would cast their shadows westward across the promenade and channel in the morning. These shadows would be large early in the morning but by 8:00 AM the majority of the southern half of the promenade would be in sun, and by 9:00 AM only small areas would continue to receive project generated shadows. Shadows move slowly on June 21 and would not exit the promenade completely until 11:50 AM. One location on the southern portion of the promenade would receive up to three and three quarters hours of incremental shadows, while the rest would receive less. Shadows from the Phase 2 development would also fall across areas of the East Rivers west channel throughout the morning; but no one area of the river surface would receive more than about one hour of new shadow. In the afternoon, similar to the May 6/August 6 analysis day, additional areas of the eastern promenade would receive incremental shadows from the Phase 2 development, beginning at 2:00 PM. These shadows would cover large areas of the southern half of the promenade by late in the afternoon but some sunlit areas would remain until the end of the analysis day at 6:01 PM. New shadows would also extend out across portions of the rivers east channel during this time, falling on some sections for about three hours, on other sections for less time. DECEMBER 21 (FIGURES 6-73 TO 6-80) On December 21, shadow from the southernmost proposed residential building would reach across the rivers west channel and fall on Sutton Place Park at the ends of East 55th Street and East 56th Street for the first few minutes of the analysis day.

6-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

As with the Phase 1 development, Phase 2 development would cast long shadows to the northwest and north in the morning and mid-day hours of December 21, shading large areas of the western promenade and west channel. PROPOSED PROJECT OPEN SPACE Between 2018 and 2038, a minimum of 1.2 acres of new publicly accessible open space would be developed on the project site (in addition to the 1.3 acres of publicly accessible open space that would be added by 2018), consisting of approximately 0.9 acres of passive open space and 0.3 acres of active open space. In total, the full build out of the proposed project would introduce a minimum of approximately 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, which would be comprised of 1.91 acres of passive open space and 0.59 acres of active open space. As discussed above, according to the CEQR Technical Manual, open space that would be developed as part of a project cannot experience adverse impacts from the project, because without the project the space would not exist. However, a discussion of shadows on the proposed open space is often provided for informational purposes. Similar to the discussion of project open space in the Phase 1 analysis, the Phase 2 project open spaces would experience periods during which they would be largely or entirely in shadow, as well as periods during which they would be largely or fully in sun. The open spaces on the eastern side of the site would be mostly in sun during the spring, summer and fall mornings, partially in shadow in the early afternoon, and mostly in shadow in the later afternoons in these seasons. On the western side of the site, the opposite would be true: mostly in shade in the mornings, partially in sun in the early afternoon and mostly in sun in the later afternoon. Any space on the northern boundary of the project site would be mostly in shadow from mid-morning to mid-afternoon in the spring, summer and fall, while space on the southern side would be in sun for most of the day in these seasons. In the winter, the spaces would be mostly in shadow throughout the day, with the exception of open space area on the east side which would be mostly sunny in the morning, and space on the southern side, which would be sunny most of the day.

E. CONCLUSIONS
This section summarizes the potential shadow effects for each resource of concern, and assesses whether the Cornell NYC Tech project would result in any significant adverse shadow impacts on these resources. PROMENADE WEST SIDE FUTURE NO-ACTION Without the proposed project, small areas of the promenade would receive brief shadows from the hospital buildings in the early morning in the spring, summer and fall, and would otherwise be in sun throughout the day. PHASE 1 A portion of the northern section of the promenade would receive approximately three hours of new shadows in the morning and mid-day in the spring, summer and fall, and three and three quarters in the winter. The incremental shadows would move over the course of this period,

6-14

Chapter 6: Shadows

affecting different areas at different times. At least one area would receive about three hours of new shadows; some other areas would receive between one and two and a half hours. With no structures to the west, the promenade would consequently be in full sun from mid-day to the end of the analysis period. All individual trees would remain in direct sun for a minimum of approximately four hours on March 21/September 21, and for six hours or more in May through August. Therefore, the health of the vegetation would not likely be significantly impacted by the proposed projects shadows at any time during the growing season. In terms of the impacts of shadows on users of the promenade, the linear nature of the space and the proximity of other seating areas in direct sun elsewhere along the western or eastern promenade, and in South Point Park, provide many alternatives to users who would seek out a seating or walking area in the sun, in any season. Therefore, users of the promenade would not be significantly impacted by the project generated shadow. PHASE 2 Shadows from the Phase 2 development would affect the southern part of the promenade in a similar way to that of Phase 1 shadows on the northern section, at least in terms of vegetation. Despite long durations of incremental shadows, each tree would continue to receive a minimum five hours of direct sun in March 21/September 21 (most trees would receive more) and seven or more hours from May to August. Therefore, the health of the vegetation would not likely be significantly impacted by the proposed projects shadows at any time during the growing season. In Phase 2, from the perspective of the user, a larger proportion of the western promenade would be in incremental shadow in the mornings throughout the year. However, the linear nature of the space would continue to provide sunlit seating areas in some locations, and there would be larger sunlit seating areas in the adjacent spaces of South Point Park and the eastern promenade. Even in the winter, these adjacent waterfront spaces would be mostly in sun throughout the morning when the western promenade would be mostly in shadow. Users of the promenade would therefore not be significantly impacted by the project generated shadow. PROMENADE EAST SIDE PHASE 1 Incremental shadow durations would range from one hour 40 minutes in March and September to three hours 50 minutes on the summer solstice, occurring in the middle to late afternoon. These new shadows would fall in the northern part of the promenade. The vegetation in this area would receive more than six hours of direct sunlight throughout the morning and early afternoon through the growing season (March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21 analysis days), due to the lack of any nearby structures to the east and southeast, and would not be significantly impacted by the project. As noted for the western side of the promenade above, users would be able to use adjacent sunlit sections of the promenade or South Point Park during the late afternoons when portions of the eastern promenade are in incremental shadow, and therefore significant shadow impacts would not occur to the users of this space with the proposed project. PHASE 2 In 2038 with the proposed project, incremental shadow durations on the eastern promenade would range from two hours in March and September four hours on June 21, occurring in the 6-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

middle to late afternoon. However, as in Phase 1, each individual tree or other plant would continue to receive more than six hours of sunlight throughout the morning and early afternoon through the growing season (March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21 analysis days) to maintain its health, and would not be significantly impacted by the project. For users, even in the late afternoons of the May 6/August 6 and June 21 analysis days when fairly large sections of the eastern promenade are shaded by the proposed development, the linear nature of the space would continue to provide sunlit seating areas in some limited locations, and there would be larger sunlit seating areas in the adjacent spaces of South Point Park and the western promenade. Therefore, no significant shadow impacts would result from the proposed development. SPORTSPARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURT PHASE 1 The Phase 1 development, particularly the residential building, would cast shadows on the court between two and a half hours, in early spring and fall, to five hours on the summer solstice. In March and September, incremental shadow from the Phase 1 residential building would last from 2:00 PM to 4:29 PM but would not eliminate all remaining sunlight until the final 29 minutes of the analysis day. In May through August, the extent and duration of the new shadow would be greater, and would eliminate remaining sunlight for 30 minutes around 3:00 PM. On June 21 incremental shadow would fall on large portions of the court for about an hour and a half in the middle of the afternoon, and would remove remaining sunlight from 4:50 PM to 6:01 PM, though nearly the entire court would be in existing shadow at that time. However, the court is mostly or completely in sun throughout the morning and early afternoon in these seasons, and, particularly in the heat of these late spring and summer months, this limited extent and duration of new shadow on a basketball court would likely not significantly impact the users. In December only three minutes of incremental shadow would occur in Phase 1. PHASE 2 In Phase 2, there would be 10 additional minutes of incremental shadow on the basketball court, occurring on the December 21 analysis day, which would not alter the conclusions from Phase 1. SOUTH POINT PARK No project-generated shadow would reach South Point Park in Phase 1. With Phase 2 development, new shadows would fall on the northern or northwestern portion of this park early in the late spring and summer mornings, ranging from about an hour and a half on May 6/August 6 to two hours on the summer solstice. Given that this area of the park would be in full sun for the remainder of the analysis day in these seasons (i.e. nine to ten hours), no significant shadow impacts would occur. FIREFIGHTER FIELD Incremental shadow would fall on a small portion of this field for about an hour and ten minutes on the December 21 analysis day only. Given the limited size and duration of the incremental shadow, the active-use nature of the resource, and the fact that parts of the field would remain in sun during the affected period, significant shadow impacts would not occur.

6-16

Chapter 6: Shadows

SUTTON PLACE PARK Four minutes of new shadow on the December 21 analysis day only would not result in shadow impacts. EAST RIVER The proposed project would cast new shadows on portions of the west channel of the East River in the mornings and portions of the east channel in the afternoons in all seasons, primarily affecting areas adjacent to the shoreline. While the total duration of new shadow would be generally between four and a half and five hours on the west channel and between a few minutes and up to nearly four hours on the east channel, depending on the season, most affected areas in both channels would receive shorter durations as the shadows move west to east and clockwise over the course of the day. The areas that would receive the longest durations of new shadows would continue to receive more than six hours of sunlight over the course of each analysis day, because there are no other nearby structures casting shadows besides the ones on the proposed project site. The current flows swiftly in the East River and would move phytoplankton and other natural elements quickly through the shaded areas. Therefore, given their limited duration and extent over the course of each analysis day, incremental shadows generated by the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on primary productivity within the East River.

6-17

Chapter 7:

Historic and Cultural Resources

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter assesses the potential of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project to impact historic and cultural resources, which include both archaeological and architectural resources. The project site (Block 1373, Lots 1 [partial] and 20) is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island (the Island), south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge (see Figure 7-1a). The project site contains the Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility (Goldwater Hospital), which has been determined by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to be eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR-eligible). It also contains a sanitary pump station (the South Pump Station) located in a fenced area on the southeast corner of the project site. A rezoning area is also analyzed in this chapter that includes the project site; a one-way circulation roadway encircling the project site (the loop road); and a concrete seawall, which forms the barrier along the East River to the east and west of the project site. The historic and cultural resources analysis has been prepared in accordance with City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and under Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (SHPA). These laws and regulations require that city and state agencies, respectively, consider the impacts of their actions on historic properties. This technical analysis follows the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012 Edition).

B. METHODOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Archaeological resources are the physical remnants, usually buried, of past human activities on a site. They can include archaeological resources associated with Native American populations that used or occupied a site and can include stone tools or refuse from tool-making activities, remnants of habitation or camp sites, etc. These resources are also referred to as precontact, since they were deposited before Native Americans contact with European settlers. Archaeological resources can also include remains from activities that occurred during the historic period, which began with the European colonization of the New York area in the 17th century. Historic period archaeological resources can include objects associated with historic battle sites, landfill deposits, structural foundations, and domestic shaft features such as cisterns, wells, and privies. While many sites may have contained archaeological resources at one time, where later development occurred archaeological resources may have been disturbed or destroyed by grading, excavation, building construction, and infrastructure installation and street improvements. However, some resources do survive in urban environments despite extensive development. Deposits can be protected when covered with pavement (i.e., a parking lot) or with

7-1

10.9.12

SEE INSET

EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL

20

2 1 INTERIOR 8-17

18
J A B

2 7 4 3 19

21

INSET - Area of Detail

EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

A 1 2 3 4

Known Architectural Resource Goldwater Hospital Complex Strecker Memorial Laboratory Queensboro Bridge Steam Plant

Goldwater Hospital Building Name Study Area Boundary (400-Foot Perimeter)

Photograph View Direction and Reference Number

Project Location Map

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-1a

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

a building with a shallow foundation and no basement. In both scenarios, archaeological deposits can be sealed beneath the ground surface, protected from further disturbance. The study area for archaeological resources is the area that would be disturbed by in-ground project construction. For the purposes of the proposed project, the archaeological resources study area includes the project site and the adjacent roadway. In a February 10, 2012 Environmental Review letter, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) determined that the archaeological study area has the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources associated with the precontact and 19th-century occupation of Roosevelt Island. LPC recommended that a Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study of the archaeological study area be completed to clarify LPCs initial findings and to determine if additional analysis (i.e., Phase 1B archaeological testing) is warranted (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). Therefore, a Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study of the archaeological study area was prepared by AKRF in March 2012 to evaluate the archaeological study areas potential to contain archaeological resources. Documentary research was undertaken, including the review of property conveyance records, city directories, land tract reports, tax assessments, historic maps and atlases, and other historical and existing subsurface information. The conclusions and recommendations of the Phase 1A findings are included in the analysis below in Existing Conditions. As summarized below, the Phase 1A study determined that the archaeological study area is not sensitive for archaeological resources dating to either the precontact or historic periods. In a comment letter dated March 26, 2012, LPC concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase 1A study. As indicated in its June 19, 2012 findings letter, OPRHP has no further archaeological concerns for the project site (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). Therefore, no additional archaeological analysis of the archaeological study area is warranted and this analysis focuses on standing structures only. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES Architectural resources are defined as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs); properties or districts listed on or determined eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR); New York City Landmarks (NYCLs) and Historic Districts (NYCHDs), and properties that have been found by LPC to appear eligible for designation, considered for designation (heard) by LPC at a public hearing, or calendared for consideration at such a hearing (these are pending NYCLs). As stated in the CEQR Technical Manual, significant adverse impacts can occur if a project would affect those characteristics that make a property eligible for listing in the S/NR or for New York City Landmark designation. In general, potential impacts on architectural resources can include both direct physical impacts and indirect impacts. Direct impacts include demolition of a resource and alterations to a resource that cause it to become a different visual entity. Direct impacts could also include damage from vibration (e.g., from construction blasting or pile driving), or from falling objects, subsidence, collapse, or construction machinery associated with adjacent construction, which is defined as any construction activity that would occur within 90 feet of an architectural resource, as established in the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB)s Technical Policy and Procedure Notice #10/88 (TPPN #10/88). DOBs TPPN #10/88 defines an architectural resource as a property that is an NYCL, included in an NYCHD, or listed on the S/NR. Indirect impacts are contextual or visual impacts that could result from project construction or operation. As described in the CEQR Technical Manual, indirect impacts could result from 7-2

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

blocking significant public views of a resource; isolating a resource from its setting or relationship to the streetscape; altering the setting of a resource; introducing incompatible visual, audible, or atmospheric elements to a resources setting; or introducing shadows over a historic landscape or an architectural resource with sun-sensitive features that contribute to that resources significance, such as a church with notable stained glass windows. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA To account for potential physical and contextual impacts, the architectural resources study area for the proposed project encompasses the project site and the rezoning area and the area within approximately 400 feet of the rezoning area. The analysis also considers longer contextual views available beyond the 400-foot study area, including views from Manhattan and Queens, as appropriate (see Figures 7-1a and 7-1b). CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS Once the study area was determined, an inventory of officially recognized architectural resources in the study area was compiled (Architectural Resources). Criteria for inclusion on the National Register are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 63. LPC and OPRHP have adopted these criteria for use in identifying architectural resources for CEQR and SEQRA review. Following these criteria, districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects are eligible for the National Register if they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; B. Are associated with significant people; C. Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master, possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. May yield archaeological information important in prehistory or history. Properties that are less than 50 years of age are ordinarily not eligible, unless they have achieved exceptional significance. Determinations of eligibility are made by OPRHP. LPC designates historically significant properties or areas in New York City as NYCLs and/or NYCHDs, following the criteria provided in New York Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 3. Buildings, properties, or objects are eligible for landmark status when they are at least 30 years old. Landmarks have a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation. There are four types of landmarks: individual landmarks, interior landmarks, scenic landmarks, and historic districts. In addition to identifying officially recognized architectural resources in the study area (NHLs, S/NR-listed and S/NR-eligible properties, NYCLs, NYCHDs, and properties determined eligible for or pending landmark designation), a survey was conducted to identify any previously undesignated properties in the study area that were then evaluated for their potential S/NR or NYCL eligibility (potential architectural resources) in compliance with the CEQR Technical Manual and SEQRA guidelines.

7-3

10.9.12

E8
E8
E8

2S T

E8

3S

1S

T
EA ST EN DA V

E7
E7
PA RK AV

0S

8S

E7

9S

7S

GT ON

E7 E7
3A V

AV

6S

LE XIN

5S

E7

4S

2A V

E7
E7 0S 1S T
1A V

3S

E7

E7 E6 E6 8S 9S

W ES TC HA NN EL

2S

YO R

KA V

33

RD

E6 E6 E6 4S 5S

6S

MA IN

EA

ST

E6

FD R

7S

ST

RD

DR

34

AV

RN ON BL VD

ES

VE

ST 10

3S

9S

E6 E6 E6 0S T
E6 1S

TR

35
T

AV

2S

11 S 12 ST

T 12 ST 14

T
36 AV

E5 9S
E5 E5 7S 8S T

East River Waterfront, East 62nd Street

T

37

AV

E5

5S

EA

ST

E5 6S

CH A

Tram

NN E

E5

3S

E5

2S

QU
T

Queensbridge Park
EE NS BO RO BR
41

40

AV

13 S

E5 4S

39 AV

24

CR

ES

CE

50 ST

23

ST

NT ST
28 ST

East River Waterfront, East 53rd Street E

AV

21

ST

ST

13

43

43 AV

27

9S

11 ST

10

42
22

45 AV

44 R
44 D R

RI

VE

ST

5 ST

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

EA

Gantry Plaza State Park

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary Viewpoint Cornell NYC Tech

1000 FEET

SCALE

Project Location Aerial

Figure 7-1b

41 AV

QN

ST

PL Z

29

ST

RD

ST

South Point Park

12

ST

ST

41

RD

22

ST

ST

38

AV

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Once the architectural resources in the study area were identified, the proposed project was assessed for both direct physical impacts and indirect contextual impacts on architectural resources.

C. BACKGROUND HISTORY 1
Precontact archaeological sites in New York City are generally found in close proximity to high ground (but not exceeding 12 to 15 percent slopes), fresh water courses, well-drained soils, and previously identified precontact archaeological sites. The original topographic setting of Roosevelt Island does not indicate that it would have been a preferred place for a permanent or semi-permanent Native American habitation site. No Native American sites have been identified on Roosevelt Island, although Native American settlements have been identified on the shores of Queens and Manhattan opposite the Island. It is therefore likely that the local Native American populations used the Island for the exploitation of resources and it is possible that short-term campsites were once located along the Islands shores. After the settlement of the area by European colonists in the 17th century, Roosevelt Island was used for agricultural purposes. The Island was owned by a number of well-known Dutch and English settlers, including Wouter van Twiler, the Director General of New Netherland who first purchased the Island from the Native Americans, and Captain John Manning, the Englishman responsible for surrendering New York City to the Dutch for a brief period in 1673. Beginning with Mannings daughter and son-in-law, members of the Blackwell family would inhabit the Island for more than a century, giving it the long-lasting name Blackwells Island. The familys residence, the Blackwell House (S/NR, NYCL), is located on the northern half of Roosevelt Island to the north of the project site. The name Blackwells Island was used until circa 1921, when the Island was renamed Welfare Island. The Island was renamed again in 1973, becoming Roosevelt Island. Historic maps dating to the 18th and early 19th centuries do not depict any structures or other developments on the southern end of Roosevelt Island. The City of New York purchased Blackwells Island in 1828 for the purposes of constructing a new penitentiary to relieve the overcrowded city prisons in Manhattan. The Penitentiary opened in 1829 and was the first structure to be depicted at the southern end of Roosevelt Island on early 19th century maps of New York City. The prison complex was expanded throughout the 19th century as more and more space was needed to house the citys convicts. Other structures associated with the Penitentiary, including a washhouse, workhouses, a bathhouse, and the wardens residence, were present within the study area. The prisoners held on Blackwells Island were made to do physical labor as part of their punishment. A large quarry was located within the Penitentiary grounds to the north of the study area. Many of the Islands prisoners served their time quarrying rock which was then used to construct other buildings on the Island and in other parts of the city. Teams of incarcerated laborers were also tasked with the grading the prison grounds. While some of the prison buildings were supplied with running water and connected to sewer lines that emptied into the East River, the Penitentiary lacked modern toilet facilities and cells were supplied with only buckets for the purposes of waste management.
1

This section is summarized from the Phase 1A Documentary Study, CornellNYC Tech Roosevelt Island Campus. AKRF, Inc. March 2012.

7-4

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

As a result of the overcrowding and poor living conditions in the prison, by the early 20th century, the city decided that it was necessary to replace the antiquated and unsanitary Penitentiary with a larger, more modern facility that could accommodate the rising number of prisoners. With the construction of the new prison on Rikers Island in the late 1920s, the Penitentiary on Roosevelt Island was closed and in 1936, crews of Works Progress Administration (WPA) 1 workers demolished the complex. Photographs of the site after the demolition of the prison indicate that the ground surface of the former Penitentiary complex was relatively flat and did not possess the small hills and elevated areas seen on the project site today. The project site therefore appears to have been heavily modified by the construction and subsequent demolition of the prison complex as well as by the extensive grading of the site by teams of convicts during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. After the demolition of the Penitentiary, the existing Goldwater Hospital was constructed on the project site between 1937 and 1939. The hospital was designed in such a manner as to provide patients with access to fresh air and sunlight. Grassy lawns originally separated the buildings making up the hospital complex, although these were converted into paved parking areas in the late 20th century. The southern end of the hospital grounds were largely undeveloped until 1971, when Building J was constructed. More detailed information on Goldwater Hospital is provided below in Existing Conditions. In addition to the Penitentiary, other structures were built on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island in the 19th century. The Smallpox Hospital (S/NR, NYCL) was designed by architect James Renwick, Jr., and constructed in 1856 near the southern end of the Island. The Smallpox Hospital was abandoned in the 1950s; the hospitals ruins are currently being stabilized and will be a feature within South Point Park. By the late 19th century, the southern portion of Roosevelt Island also contained City Hospital, constructed between 1858 and 1870. City Hospital occupied a large site immediately south of the project site, which at that time contained the Penitentiary. The hospital building extended east-west across much of the Islands width. City Hospital was abandoned in circa 1955 and demolished in circa 1994. In 1892 the small Strecker Memorial Laboratory building, described in Architectural Resources below, was constructed southeast of the project site. The building was a gift from the Strecker family to City Hospital. It has recently been restored. By the middle of the 20th century many of the older institutional buildings on Roosevelt Island had been closed and abandoned, including City Hospital, the Smallpox Hospital, and the Strecker Memorial Laboratory on the southern portion of the Island. Many vacant buildings throughout Roosevelt Island were used for training purposes by the New York City Fire Department (FDNY). By the 1960s, Goldwater Hospital, Coler Hospital, and FDNY training activities were the only active uses on the Island. In 1968, the city initiated plans for the redevelopment of Roosevelt Island. The New York State Urban Development Corporation (now doing business as Empire State Development [ESD]) retained architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee to create a master plan for the proposed redevelopment. Under Johnson and Burgees plans, the Islands first residential complex opened in 1975, followed by three additional housing complexes in 1976. Also in 1976, the aerial Tramway connecting Roosevelt Island to the east side of Manhattan opened. The next residential development to be completed was Manhattan Park in 1989, located in the northern part of

The Works Progress Administration was renamed the Works Project Administration in 1939.

7-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Roosevelt Island. The Roosevelt Island subway station opened in 1990. Subsequent development on Roosevelt Island includes Southtown, a residential and commercial building complex located north of the Queensboro Bridge. The southernmost building in the Southtown complex has 16 stories and is located approximately 650 feet north of the project site on the north side of the Queensboro Bridge. Immediately south of the project site is South Point Park, which was completed in 2011. The park contains two structures, the Strecker Memorial Laboratory, described below, and a comfort station.

D. EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study prepared for the project site and rezoning area concluded that precontact and historic period archaeological resources within the study area were likely disturbed during the 19th and 20th centuries. The Phase 1A determined that archaeological resources could not have survived the construction of the Penitentiary and its various associated buildings, the grading and excavation completed by gangs of laboring convicts throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the demolition of the prison, and the subsequent construction of the existing hospital and its associated infrastructure. The locations of the major facilities associated with the Penitentiary that were located on the project site (i.e., the Penitentiary, the wash house, and the workshops) are depicted on historic maps. As shown in the Phase 1A, the daily lives of the prisoners and living and working conditions at the Penitentiary were well-documented during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Existing historic documentation and the extensive disturbance that has occurred on the project site makes it unlikely that the project site contains archaeological resources that could provide new information about the lives of the individuals residing (either voluntarily or as prisoners) on Roosevelt Island during the 19th century. The Phase 1A determined that the project site has no sensitivity for precontact archaeological resources and low sensitivity for archaeological resources dating to the historic period. Therefore, additional archaeological analysis of the archaeological study area (i.e., Phase 1B archaeological testing) is not warranted. In a comment letter dated March 26, 2012, LPC concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase 1A study. As noted above, OPRHP determined in its June 19, 2012 findings letter that it also has no archaeological concerns for the project site (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). Therefore, as stated above, this analysis focuses on standing structures only. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES The project site contains the Goldwater Hospital and the south pump station. The Goldwater Hospital complex is a known architectural resource and is described below. The south pump station is a utilitarian structure enclosed by black fencing and is not architecturally or historically significant. Therefore, it does not meet criteria for S/NR listing or NYCL designation. The portion of the rezoning area that does not include the project site is developed with a one-way circulation roadway encircling the project site (the loop road) and a concrete seawall, which forms the barrier along the East River to the east and west of the project site. No buildings are located in this portion of the rezoning area.

7-6

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

Goldwater Hospital As part of Cornells consultation with LPC and OPRHP for the proposed project, LPC determined in a comment letter dated April 26, 2012 that the Goldwater Hospital complex appears eligible for listing on the State/National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR-eligible). In a May 31, 2012 Resource Evaluation, OPRHP determined that the Goldwater Hospital complex is S/NR-eligible under Criterion A in the areas of health/medicine and science for its contributions to the scientific study and treatment of chronic diseases and for the hospitals research department during World War II that was part of the U.S. governments major research initiative into the treatment for malaria. OPRHP also found the Goldwater Hospital complex significant under Criterion C in the area of art for its mural paintings. OPRHP also determined the hospital complex significant for its architectural design as a progressive example of institutional architecture (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). The Goldwater Hospital complex was originally built as the Welfare Hospital for Chronic Diseases. The original six-building complex was designed in the Art Deco style by architect Isadore Rosenfield in association with Butler & Kohn and York & Sawyer. It was completed in 1939 under the direction of Dr. Sigismund Schulz Goldwater (1873-1942), the Commissioner of Hospitals. The site plan was developed by Rosenfield to maximize exposure to sunlight and river views, taking advantage of Roosevelt Islands narrow width to provide the hospital complex with East River frontages on both its east and west sides. In circa 1971, a one-story modernist addition designed by architect William Lescazethe Activities Building, or Building J was constructed at the southern end of the hospital complex (see Figures 7-1a through 7-8). The hospital contains both active and vacant medical facilities, offices, a small nursing school; a kitchen; and, in the Activities Building, an auditorium, gym, two chapels, a synagogue, and a mosque. The hospital complex has a central six-story Administration Building that has a shallow H plan, four four-story chevron-shaped Patient Ward buildings (two to the north and two to the south of the Administration Building), a narrow rectangular three-story Laboratory and Morgue building that establishes the hospitals north end, and a one-story Activities Building at the hospitals south end (see Figure 7-1a). The hospital complex is organized around a central, north-south corridor that connects the hospitals original six buildings at the basement, first, and second floors; the corridor was extended to the south to connect to the Activities Building at the basement and first floors. The original six buildings are faced in buff-colored brick with limestone parapets; the Activities Building is a boxy modernist structure faced in brown brick and buff-colored limestone. Repairs have been made to the brickwork in many areas of the facades of the hospital complex, particularly near the parapets and around some window and door openings. Many windows throughout the hospital complex have been altered with the addition of window air conditioning units and the installation of plexiglass in the opening surrounding most window units. Some windows have also been infilled with brick. Each Patient Ward (Buildings A, B, C, and D) has two wings that extend at an angle from the corridor in a chevron shape (see Figures 7-1a and 7-3). The south faade of each Patient Ward has concrete balconies and curved concrete slab terraces with metal railings and wood handrails, ensuring that patients had easy access to light and fresh air from the hospital wards. The Patient Wards originally had Rigs ward configurations, not perimeter wards which were typical of hospital floor plans at the time when the Goldwater Hospital was designed. Rigs wards were arranged with open wards divided into alcoves by 7-0 high partitions with the beds 7-7

10.9.12

Administration Building/Building EWest facades primary entrance and access ramp

Administration Building/Building EDetail of the primary entrance

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-2

10.9.12

Patient Ward AEast wing, north and east facades

Patient Ward AEast wing, south facade

Activities Building/Building J with Patient Ward A in the background

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-3

10.9.12

Laboratory and Morgue Building/Building FNorth and east facades

Activities Building/Building JSouth facade

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-4

10.9.12

CorridorView north

CorridorView south

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-5

10.9.12

Patient Ward/Building D 10 Fourth oor

Patient Ward/Building DFourth oor balcony door

11

Patient Ward/Building D 12 Fourth oor balcony

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Figure 7-6

Cornell NYC Tech

10.9.12

Patient Ward/Building DEast wing, fourth oor day room

13

Mural Abstraction by Ilya BolotowskyPatient Ward DFourth oor, east wing day room

14

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-7

10.9.12

Activities Building/Building J Catholic chapel

15

Activities Building/Building J Synagogue

16

Activities Building/Building J Protestant chapel

17

Project Site Goldwater Hospital

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-8

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

perpendicular to the partitions rather than to the exterior wall.1 Only the Patient Ward on the fourth floor of the western wing of Ward D remains in its original layout though it is no longer in use (see Figure 7-6). Most doors leadings from the wards to the balconies and terraces have been infilled and are inaccessible. Some balconies have been modified by glass enclosures and metal framing creating additional interior space. The Patient Wards also include circular day rooms with large windows, also providing access to light, air, and southern views (see Figure 7-7). According to information provided by the New York City Design Commission to LPC as part of the environmental review for the proposed project, eight murals were commissioned for the hospital as part of the Federal Art Project (FAP) of the WPA (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). The FAP employed artists during the Depression to provide artwork for non-federal public buildings. Among the murals at Goldwater were four murals painted by abstract artistsIlya Bolotowsky (1907-1981), Albert Swinden (1901-1961), Joseph Rugolo (1911-1983), and Riccardo Dane Chanase (1894-1975). Of the eight murals, only Bolotowskys Abstraction has been conserved and is currently visible (see Figure 7-7). It is located in the day room in the east wing of Building Ds third floor. The Activities Building contains two chapels, synagogue, and mosque, among other uses. These religious spaces are small rooms with religious iconography and stained glass in the two chapels (see Figure 7-8). The corridor wall between the chapel and synagogue entrances has colorful mosaic tiles. STUDY AREA KNOWN ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES Strecker Memorial Laboratory (S/NR, NYCL) The Strecker Memorial Laboratory is located approximately 215 feet south of the project site and 200 feet south of the rezoning area. It is a free-standing late Romanesque Revival style three-story building faced in gray ashlar stone with orange brick window surrounds and quoins. Designed by Withers & Dickson and built in 1892 as a two-story structure, a third story was added in 1905 that was designed by William Flanagan (see View 18 of Figure 7-9). Under the direction of City Hospital (also known as Charity Hospital and formerly located between the laboratory building and the Goldwater Hospital complex), the Strecker Memorial Laboratory was used for pathological and bacteriological work. The building has been adaptively reused and currently functions as an electrical substation for the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). Queensboro Bridge (S/NR, NYCL) The Queensboro Bridge was designed by engineer Gustav Lindenthal and architect Henry Hornbostel. Constructed in 1901-1908, the bridge spans the East River between East 59th Street in Manhattan and 11th Street and Bridge Plaza North and South in Queens. At the time of construction, it was the largest and heaviest cantilever bridge ever constructed. The Queensboro Bridge was the first bridge to connect Manhattan and Queens, influencing development in Queens. It is 7,000 feet long and is a through-type cantilevered structure with its roadway located between the bridges 350-foot-tall piers and trusses, including the stone towers, metal
1

Isadore Rosenfield and Zachary Rosenfield. Hospital Architecture and Beyond. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969. Page 28.

7-8

10.9.12

Strecker Memorial Laboratory

18

Queensboro BridgeView north

19

Queensboro BridgeView north

20

Study Area Known Architectural Resources

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 7-9

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

framework, and finials (see Views 19 and 20 of Figure 7-9). The bridges Beaux Arts-style stair towers in Manhattan and Queens are rough-faced masonry with steel spans and towers. The bridges piers on Roosevelt Island originally had elevators providing passengers access to the bridge. The designation report for the Queensboro Bridge notes that the bridge has an inspiring and dramatic silhouette against the backdrop of Midtown Manhattan and the lower scale buildings in Queens. 1 Steam Plant (S/NR-eligible 2) The Steam Plant is a buff colored brick-faced building that was built in circa 1939 and is located immediately north of the Queensboro Bridge. This approximately 65-foot-tall building provides heating for the Goldwater Hospital and the Coler Memorial Hospital to the north. The Steam Plant has Art Deco design elements emphasizing verticality despite its rectangular form. The most notable components of the building are its two approximately 225-foot-tall brick chimneys. (see Figure 7-10).

E. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA Architectural resources that are listed on the S/NR or that have been found eligible for listing are given a measure of protection under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act from the effects of projects sponsored, assisted, or approved by federal agencies. Although preservation is not mandated, federal agencies must attempt to avoid adverse effects on such resources through a notice, review, and consultation process. Properties listed on the Registers are similarly protected against effects resulting from projects sponsored, assisted, or approved by State agencies under SHPA. However, private owners of properties eligible for, or even listed on, the Registers using private funds can alter or demolish their properties without such a review process. Privately owned properties that are NYCLs, in New York City Historic Districts, or pending designation as NYCLs are protected under the New York City Landmarks Law, which requires LPC review and approval before any alteration or demolition permits can be issued, regardless of whether the project is publicly or privately funded. Publicly owned resources are also subject to review by LPC before the start of a project. However, LPCs role in projects sponsored by other city or state agencies generally is advisory only. The New York City Building Code provides some measures of protection for all properties against accidental damage from adjacent construction by requiring that all buildings, lots, and service facilities adjacent to foundation and earthwork areas be protected and supported. While these regulations serve to protect all structures adjacent to construction areas, they do not afford special consideration for historic structures. It is expected that by 2018 in the future No-Action condition, the Goldwater Hospital complex will be vacant. As described in Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, New York
1 2

Queensboro Bridge. Landmarks Preservation Commission. April 16, 1974, Number 2. LP-0828. Page 2. In a comment letter dated July 19, 2012, LPC noted that OPRHP indicated that the Steam Plant appears S/NR eligible. See Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources.

7-9

10.9.12

Steam Plant

21

Study Area Known Architectural Resource

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 7-10

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Citys Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) will vacate the hospital complex on the project site in 2013, and relocate patients and services elsewhere. Though the buildings would be vacant, general building and grounds maintenance is expected to be undertaken. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR PROJECT SITE, REZONING AREA, AND STUDY AREA The project site and rezoning area are not expected to change in the No-Action condition between 2018 and 2038. In the No-Action condition, the project site is assumed to continue to contain a vacant hospital complex and vacant land, and the rezoning area is assumed to continue to include a one-way circulation roadway, promenade, and seawall, under the jurisdiction of RIOC. No notable projects are currently anticipated in the study area between 2018 and 2038. Therefore, no changes to architectural resources on the project site, rezoning area, or in the study area are expected to occur between 2018 and 2038.

F. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA Phase 1 would demolish the vacant Goldwater Hospital complex, and the northern portion of the project site would be redeveloped with four new buildings, new publicly accessible open space, and photovoltaic (PV) panels, and below grade parking. Interim facilities may also be constructed on the southern portion of the project site that may include a tree nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a meadow). The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. To evaluate the feasibility of retaining the Goldwater Hospital complex to avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource, a study has been preparedan alternatives analysisin consultation with OPRHP (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). The study considered three alternatives for the Goldwater Hospital campus site to meet Cornells programmatic and academic needs while also fulfilling the citys objectives and directives for the project. Throughout the planning process, the overall objective of the project has been to meet the citys expressed goal of developing an engineering and applied sciences campus in New York City with a minimum of 1.8 million total gsf, including a minimum of 620,000 gsf for academic space. The three redevelopment alternatives that were developed and analyzed are: 1) maintaining the current site configuration and retaining the Goldwater Hospital structures to avoid adverse impacts to this architectural resource; 2) expanding the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings to meet programmatic and square footage requirements; and 3) demolishing the Goldwater Hospital complex in its entirety, which would result in a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. As detailed in the alternatives analysis, the hospital buildings, containing a total of 647,900 gsf, do not contain sufficient square footage to meet the citys development requirements for an applied science and engineering campus of a minimum of 1.8 million gsf of total building space, of which a minimum of 620,000 gsf must be academic use and the campus must have no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students, as stipulated under an agreement between the City of New York and New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). The existing 7-10

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

hospital complex does not meet the requirements for academic and corporate co-location facilities due to the small and irregularly-shaped floor plates of most of the buildings and configurations including incompatible floor-to-floor heights and restrictive column spacing. Further, alternatives that were considered to expand or enlarge the hospital buildings to allow them to meet the spatial needs of the proposed project do not meet the program requirements (which call for large and flexible floor plates with generally wide column spacing) and would substantially alter and destroy elements of the building complex that convey its historic significance and compromise the integrity of the Goldwater Hospital complex, adversely impacting this architectural resource. While the demolition alternative would remove the Goldwater Hospital complex from the project site, it is the only alternative that would meet the purpose and need of the Cornell NYC Tech project. The alternatives analysis concluded that it is not feasible to retain and reuse all or portions of the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the Cornell NYC Tech project. In a letter dated September 19, 2012 commenting on the alternatives analysis, OPRHP concluded that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives at this time to demolition of these historic buildings. LPC concurred with OPRHPs comments in a letter dated September 25, 2012. Therefore, because it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex, Cornell has consulted with OPRHP and LPC regarding appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. These measures would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). These measures are described in Chapter 22, Mitigation. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed special district would provide for flexibility in architectural design within limits established to ensure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms. At this time, design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in this chapter are reflective of the design under consideration during preparation of the FEIS. The buildings as currently envisioned include a 4-story academic building rising to a height of approximately 60 feet, 69 feet including the building canopy (rather than the 8-story potential height described below), a 5-story corporate co-location building rising to a height of approximately 74 feet (rather than the 8-story potential height described below), and a 1-story utility plant (rather than the 40-foot tall structure described below). Therefore, as currently envisioned, the four new buildings to be developed on the northern portion of the project site by 2018 are anticipated to consist of the following: an academic building anticipated to be up to 8 stories in height; a residential building of up to 31 stories in height (approximately 320 feet); an Executive Education Center building of up to 17 stories; and a corporate colocation building of up to 8 stories. The residential and Executive Education Center buildings would be substantially taller than the vacant hospital complexs tallest structure, the Administration Building, which is approximately 100 feet tall. Like the site plan of the existing Goldwater Hospital complex, the proposed site plan has been designed to locate buildings and amenities on the project site at an angle that would maximize access to air, sunlight, and views. Public open space would also be incorporated into the project site, with open spaces located throughout the project site, with 1.3 acres created by 2018. In addition, a one-story central utility plant would be located in the northern portion of the project site. By 2018, as part of Cornells goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building, an array of PV panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building. The 7-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

PV panels may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building (see Figure 1-6). Development on the southern portion of the project site by 2018 may involve the construction of interim facilities that would also contribute to the sustainability goals of the proposed project. These interim facilities may include a tree nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a planted meadow). These interim uses would be low in scale. The proposed project would also involve the widening of the existing roadway in the rezoning area with temporary construction to provide a functional 32-foot-wide travelway around the project site. The portion of the roadway adjacent to the Phase 1 development would be built to final conditions as the Phase 1 buildings are completed. These project elements would not adversely affect any architectural resources. STUDY AREA With the proposed project, no architectural resources in the study area would be destroyed, demolished, damaged, altered, or neglected. The proposed project would not replicate aspects of these architectural resources to create a false historical appearance. Further, because no architectural resources are located within 90 feet of the project site, the proposed project would not be expected to result in inadvertent construction-related impacts to any architectural resources in the study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant direct adverse impacts to any of the three architectural resources in the study area. The proposed projects potential to result in indirect, or contextual, impacts, was also evaluated. As described in Methodology, indirect impacts could result from blocking significant public views of a resource; isolating a resource from its setting or relationship to the streetscape; altering the setting of a resource; introducing incompatible visual, audible, or atmospheric elements to a resources setting; or introducing shadows over a historic landscape or an architectural resource with sun-sensitive features that contribute to that resources significance, such as a church with notable stained glass windows. Strecker Memorial Laboratory Phase 1 of the proposed project would not be expected to adversely impact the Strecker Memorial Laboratory. While the setting of this small structure would change with the removal of the Goldwater Hospital complex and the redevelopment of the northern portion of the project site with four new buildings ranging in height from up to 4 to 31 stories, a central utility plant, and the addition of possible interim facilities on the southern portion of the project site, the setting of the Strecker Memorial Laboratory has already been altered with the removal of the City Hospital in 1994, which was historically located between the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the project site. Further, the current development of South Point Park has also changed the context surrounding this small building. The new buildings to be constructed on the project site by 2018 would be located approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the laboratory building and would add to the variety of already existing taller structures on Roosevelt Island north of the Strecker Memorial Laboratory, including the existing 16-story Southtown residential buildings and the taller 21-, 25-, and 29-story Southtown buildings to be completed. The Strecker Memorial Laboratory would not be isolated by the proposed development and would continue to be located within an open setting. Because of the buildings small scale, publicly accessible views of this resource, which are limited to areas near this building, would remain available from existing vantage points. As described in Chapter 6, 7-12

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

Shadows, the proposed project would not introduce significant new shadows, nor would it significantly lengthen the duration of existing shadows on this architectural resource. Further, this building does not have sun sensitive features. Queensboro Bridge The Queensboro Bridge would continue to be a highly visible architectural resource extending east-west through the study area north of the project site. While the proposed four new buildings that would be developed on the project site by 2018 would alter the bridges setting, the bridges componentsincluding its two approximately 350-foot-tall piers and trusses, the span that extends above the Island, and the spans extending above the East Riverwould continue to be visible from many areas. In addition, the bridges silhouette would continue to be viewed against the Manhattan and Queens skylines, among taller and shorter buildings. Further, the new buildings would not be incompatible with the bridges setting which includes several tall buildings immediately to the north. Since the Queensboro Bridges construction in 1909, the bridges setting has undergone several different building campaigns, including demolition of the Penitentiary on the project site and its redevelopment in 1937-1939 with the Goldwater Hospital complex, the construction of the Tramway and station in 1976, and more recently, the 2004-2007 construction of four 16-story buildings in Southtown, with the southernmost building located approximately 95 feet north of the bridge and 185 feet north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed buildings would not introduce an incompatible visual element to the bridges setting, nor would the bridge be isolated from its setting. Because of the bridges scale, the locations of its two Roosevelt Island piers, and the bridges spans that continue east and west beyond Roosevelt Island, the bridges visual prominence in the study area would not be significantly adversely affected. Characteristics for which the bridge qualifies for its S/NR-listed/Landmarked status would not be altered. While the four new buildings would introduce new shadows to the study area, the Queensboro Bridge does not have sun-sensitive features that contribute to its significance. Therefore, the components of the proposed project to be developed by 2018 would not result in a significant adverse impact on the Queensboro Bridge. Longer views to the bridge are described below in Views from Manhattan and Queens. Steam Plant The Steam Plant is located just within the northern portion of the study area but is separated from the project site by intervening buildings and the Queensboro Bridge. These structures limit any visual relationship between the project site and this resource. As such, development by 2018 would not adversely impact the Steam Plants setting or isolate this resource from its setting. Views to the Steam Plant would continue to be available from vantage points to the north, limited locations on Roosevelt Island from the south close to this resource, and waterfront areas in Queens, including Queensbridge Park and Gantry State Park. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect the Steam Plant. VIEWS FROM MANHATTAN AND QUEENS By 2018 longer publicly accessible views to the three study area architectural resources would change from vantage points in Manhattan and Queens as the existing lower-rise Goldwater Hospital complex would be replaced with four new buildings on the northern portion of the

7-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

project site, including two lower height buildings of up to 5 stories and two taller buildings with up to 13 and 31 stories. Strecker Memorial Laboratory Although the setting of the Strecker Memorial Laboratory would change with the proposed four new buildings, views to this small structure from Manhattan and Queens would continue to be obscured by distance. The four proposed buildings to be completed by 2018 would not obstruct views of the Strecker Memorial Laboratory. Queensboro Bridge The proposed development on the project site by 2018 would change views to the Queensboro Bridge from Manhattan and Queens. Publicly accessible views to this architectural resource from Manhattan north of the bridge would continue to include tall buildings located in close proximity to the bridge, including already existing tall buildings north of the bridge, and the four new buildings that would be constructed south of the bridge with the proposed project, including the two taller buildings of up to approximately 13 and 31 stories (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-36). Longer views of the bridge from Sutton Place and the East River Esplanade in Manhattan would also include the new buildings, with some elements of the bridge being partially screened or obscured by the new taller buildings. However, with the proposed project, views of the bridges western span across the East River, its two piers on Roosevelt Island, and the bridges eastern pier in Queens would continue to be available from Manhattan (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 835). Longer views of the bridge from Queens would also be modified by 2018. Views from Queensbridge Park would include partial views of the two new taller buildings in the background with the bridge continuing to be the prominent structure visible in the foreground. As shown in Figure 8-37, as currently envisioned, the two new shorter buildings would be screened from view by foliage, the intervening new taller buildings, and the bridges eastern Roosevelt Island pier. If the academic building and corporate co-location buildings were to be taller (i.e., up to 8 stories), portions of these buildings would also be screened from view by intervening structures as described above. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect the visual prominence of the Queensboro Bridge from Queensbridge Park (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-37). The bridge would continue to be visible from Gantry State Park in Queens. The new buildings would obscure views to some portions of the Queensboro Bridge as it crosses over Roosevelt Island to Manhattan, however most of the bridges deck and structural system would remain unobscured. Further, the most proximate views of the bridge structure as it crosses the East River from Queens to Roosevelt Island would remain prominently visible (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-38). Therefore, while certain views of the bridge from Gantry State Park would be adversely affected, the loss of these views to portions of the bridge would not constitute a significant adverse impact. Views from South Point Park on Roosevelt Island to the Queensboro Bridge as it crosses over Roosevelt Island would be partially obscured with the four new buildings by 2018. However, these views are already partially screened by the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-34). Therefore, these changes would not be considered adverse.

7-14

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

Overall, the addition of four new buildings on the northern portion of the project site by 2018 would, in some views, obscure some components of the bridge structure. However, in no cases would the entire bridge structure be fully blocked from view, and many prominent views of the bridge would remain. Therefore, the proposed development on the project site in 2018 would not result in any significant adverse impacts to architectural resources in the study area. Steam Plant By 2018, views to the Steam Plant from Manhattan would continue to be obscured by both distance and intervening buildings, including existing buildings north and west of the Steam Plant. Views from Queens to this architectural resource by 2018 would remain available from Queensbridge Park. The visibility of the Steam Plant from Gantry State Park is already extremely limited as views are largely screened by the Queenboro Bridge. The proposed new buildings would not block existing views to the Steam Plant from these vantage points in Queens (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figures 8-37 and 8-38). The Steam Plant would continue to be located within the context of the Queensboro Bridge and tall, newer buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect this architectural resource. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA By 2038 the full build out of the proposed project would be complete. As described above, the demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex for Phase 1 would result in significant adverse impacts on that one architectural resource. By 2038 in the future with the proposed project, the southern portion of the project site would be developed with five new buildings, new landscaping, publicly accessible open space, roadway improvements, and a second central utility plant. At full build, the entire project site would contain nine new buildings with academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center uses. As described above, the specific design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in this chapter are reflective of the design under consideration during preparation of the FEIS. At this time, the specific designs shown in the figures for the full build reflect academic buildings of up to 4 to 7 stories rather than the 12-story potential height; corporate co-location buildings of 5 to 7 stories, rather than the 10-story potential height; and the 13 to 31 story residential buildings. The additional five buildings developed in Phase 2 are anticipated to range in height from approximately 5 to 27 stories (approximately 74 to 280 feet tall). The new buildings to be developed on the project site by 2038 would be substantially taller than the vacant hospital complex that would occupy the site in the No-Action condition. The new buildings would contribute to a unified campus. The proposed project would be a pedestrian-oriented campus centered around a north-south walkway that would extend through the project site. By 2038 the project would include a minimum of 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space that would form a network of open spaces among the proposed 9 buildings. In addition, with the full build out of the proposed project, the reconstruction of the existing roadway with a new bicycle path, sidewalk, and new plantings would be complete in the rezoning area (see Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-40). STUDY AREA Although the full build out of the proposed project would result in a new academic campus with nine buildings, most of which would be substantially taller than the existing Goldwater Hospital 7-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

buildings, the varied heights of the proposed buildings would be similar to the range of building heights of existing nearby buildings on Roosevelt Island north of the project site. As with the Phase 1 development, with the full build out of the proposed project the three architectural resources in the study area would continue to be located in an area characterized by structures of different scales, architectural styles, and from different construction periods on Roosevelt Island. With the full build out of the proposed project, no architectural resources in the study area would be destroyed, demolished, damaged, altered, or neglected. The proposed project would not replicate aspects of these architectural resources to create a false historical appearance. As described in 2018 analysis year, there are no architectural resources within 90 feet of construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any direct impacts to any of the three architectural resources in the study area. The proposed projects potential to result in indirect impacts has also been evaluated and is discussed below. Strecker Memorial Laboratory The setting of the Strecker Memorial Laboratory with the full build out of the proposed project would be further changed, as the additional five buildings on the project site would be located closer to the Strecker Memorial Laboratory but would still be approximately 215 feet from this architectural resource. The redevelopment of the project site would not be expected to adversely affect the Strecker Memorial Laboratory as the context of this architectural resource, particularly in the area between the laboratory building and the southern portion of the project site, has previously been altered with the demolition of City Hospital in 1994 and the construction of South Point Park. Therefore, the full build out of the proposed project would not adversely affect this architectural resource. Queensboro Bridge The full build out of the project site would not directly affect the Queensboro Bridge. Although the setting of the Queensboro Bridge would be further altered with the development of five additional new buildings and landscaping on the project site, the bridge would remain a highly visible architectural resource in the study area. Although some views to the bridge from South Point Park on Roosevelt Island would be obscured with the full build out of the project, these views are already limited and partially obscured by the Goldwater Hospital complex buildings. Views from the park would remain available from the eastern and western edges of the study area south of the project site. The bridges most prominent components would continue to be visible from many locations in the study area and the bridges silhouette would continue to be viewed among taller and shorter buildings in Manhattan and Queens, in addition to the tall buildings located in the study area on Roosevelt Island to the north. Further, the five buildings to be developed on the southern portion of the project site would be located away from the bridge. The proposed buildings, similar to Phase 1, would not introduce an incompatible visual element to the bridges setting, nor would the bridge be isolated from its setting. Due to the scale and breadth of the bridge, including the spans that continue east and west beyond Roosevelt Island, the bridges visual prominence in the study area would not be significantly adversely affected by the full build out of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the Queensboro Bridge.

7-16

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources

Steam Plant The full build out of the project site would not significantly adversely impact the Steam Plant as it is already largely screened from view from the south by the intervening Queensboro Bridge. The project would not isolate the Steam Plant or alter its setting or visual relationship with the streetscape. Nor would it introduce elements that would be incompatible with the Steam Plants setting. The full build out of the project site would not adversely affect the Steam Plant. VIEWS FROM MANHATTAN AND QUEENS With the full build out of the proposed project, certain views to the three architectural resources in the study area would be altered. Strecker Memorial Laboratory Views from Manhattan to the Strecker Memorial Laboratory would continue to be extremely limited due to the buildings small scale and the screening effect of distance. While the Strecker Memorial Laboratorys setting would be somewhat changed with the proposed project in longer views from Queens, as with views from Manhattan, this small building would remain largely screened from view by distance. The full build out of the project site would not obstruct any longer views to this architectural resource. Queensboro Bridge While the proposed project would add nine new structures to the project site, view to the Queensboro Bridge from Manhattan from the north would not be obstructed by the full build out of the proposed project (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-45). Views to the Queensboro Bridge from points in Manhattan south of the bridge would continue to include the western span over the East River and portions of the bridge spanning Roosevelt Island and limited views of the eastern span over the East River (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-46). The central portion of the bridge would be obscured in some views but would remain visible in other views. The bridges setting would change with the full build out, however, this architectural resource would continue to be visible from many areas. Views to the Queensboro Bridge from Queensbridge Park would not be adversely affected with the addition of new, taller buildings in the background since the new buildings would become part of the mix of buildings in Manhattan already visible from this park (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-44). The central span of the bridge and the western expanse over the East River would be screened from view from certain vantage points in Gantry State Park. However, in no cases would views of the bridge be fully obstructed and many prominent views to the bridge would remain (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figure 8-43). The bridges silhouette would continue to be viewed within the context of Midtown Manhattans tall buildings and the lower height buildings in Queens. While certain views from Gantry State Park would be adversely affected, the loss of these views to portions of the bridge would not constitute a significant adverse impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the Queensboro Bridge. Steam Plant Views from Manhattan to the Steam Plant would continue to be extremely limited by the screening effect of distance, the buildings smaller scale, and the buildings proximity to the Queensboro Bridge. The setting of the Steam Plant in views from Queensbridge Park would

7-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

include the project site buildings in the background. Views from Gantry State Park would include the new taller buildings in the foreground, but views would not be obstructed (see Figure 7-1b and Urban Design and Visual Resources Figures 8-43 and 8-44). Therefore, views to the Steam Plant would not be adversely affected.

G. CONCLUSIONS
The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would result in a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Pursuant to Section 14.09 of SHPA, a study has been prepared in consultation with OPRHP to evaluate the feasibility of retaining elements of the Goldwater Hospital complex to avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource (see the Alternatives Analysis provided in Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). As described above, only the alternative that maintains the Goldwater Hospital complex in its entirety would avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. However, this alternative would not fulfill the citys requirement for developing an engineering and applied sciences campus containing 620,000 gsf of academic space, nor would it allow for the overall development of the citys minimum requirement of 1.8 million gsf of space for the campus. In addition, the hospitals existing 647,900 gsf is contained in buildings that, in general, do not meet the requirements for academic and corporate co-location buildings. Similarly, the expansion alternative would meet certain square footage and programming needs, however, the type of space that could be developed would not provide the spatial configuration needed for dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs for academic or corporate co-location uses, which are central to the projects purpose and need. In consideration of Cornells purpose and need for the proposed project, it is not possible to retain and reuse the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the proposed project. Therefore, there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid a significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex. Measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in an LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to architectural resources in the study area. These measures are described in Chapter 22, Mitigation. As described above, the specific design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in this chapter are reflective of the design under consideration during preparation of the FEIS, rather than the maximum envelope allowable under zoning. Overall, the addition of new shorter and taller buildings and landscaping elements on the project site would alter the settings of the three architectural resources in the study area. However, the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the Steam Plant would continue to be located in the context of taller buildings and views to these architectural resources would not be obstructed by the proposed project. While the setting and views to the Queensboro Bridge would change with the full build out of the project site, in no cases would views of the bridge be fully obstructed. Further, many prominent views to the bridge would remain available. These changes to the settings and views of the study areas architectural resources would not adversely affect the characteristics for which the historic properties meet or may meet S/NR and NYCL criteria. While the specific form and height of the academic and corporate co-location buildings could be somewhat different and taller than illustrated, the conclusions of this historic and cultural resources analysis would remain the same. Therefore, the project would not result in significant adverse impacts on study area architectural resources.

7-18

Chapter 8: A. INTRODUCTION

Urban Design and Visual Resources

This chapter considers the impacts of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project on urban design and visual resources. The proposed actions would result in the development of up to approximately 2.13 million square feet of new uses on the 12.5-acre site currently occupied by Goldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Island (the Island). Under the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, urban design is defined as the totality of components that may affect a pedestrians experience of public space. These components include streets, buildings, visual resources, open spaces, natural resources, and wind. An urban design assessment under CEQR must consider whether and how a project may change the experience of a pedestrian in a project area. The CEQR Technical Manual guidelines recommend the preparation of a preliminary assessment of urban design and visual resources, followed by a detailed analysis if warranted based on the conclusions of the preliminary assessment. The analysis provided below addresses urban design characteristics and visual resources for existing conditions, the future without the proposed project, and the probable impacts of the proposed project. As described in greater detail below, while the proposed projects would result in substantial changes to the urban design of the project site and views to visual resources, it would not have any significant adverse impacts related to urban design and visual resources.

B. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
Based on the CEQR Technical Manual, a preliminary assessment of urban design and visual resources is appropriate when there is the potential for a pedestrian to observe, from the street level, a physical alteration beyond that allowed by existing zoning. Examples include projects that permit the modification of yard, height, and setback requirements, and projects that result in an increase in built floor area beyond what would be allowed as-of-right in the future without the proposed actions. To facilitate the redevelopment of the project site, a number of discretionary actions would be required, including zoning map and text amendments, street mapping, and the disposition of city-owned property. The zoning changes would permit the creation of a Special Southern Roosevelt Island District and the establishment of special use, bulk, and public access controls for the rezoning area. Therefore, the proposed actions would be expected to result in physical alterations beyond that allowed by existing zoning, and thus would meet the threshold for a preliminary assessment of urban design and visual resources. The CEQR Technical Manual guidelines state that if the preliminary assessment shows that changes to the pedestrian environment are sufficiently significant to require greater explanation and further study, then a detailed analysis is appropriate. Examples include projects that would potentially obstruct view corridors, compete with icons in the skyline, or make substantial alterations to the streetscape of a neighborhood by noticeably changing the scale of buildings. 8-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Detailed analyses also are generally appropriate for area-wide rezonings that include an increase in permitted floor area or changes in height and setback requirements, large-scale general developments (LSGDs), or projects that would result in substantial changes to the built environment of a historic district or components of a historic building that contribute to the resources historic significance. Conditions that merit consideration for further analysis of visual resources include when the project partially or totally blocks a view corridor or a natural or built visual resource that is rare in the area or considered a defining feature of the neighborhood; or when the project changes urban design features so that the context of a natural or built visual resource is altered (i.e., if the project alters the street grid so that the approach to the resource changes; if the project changes the scale of surrounding buildings so that the context changes; or if the project removes lawns or other open areas that serve as a setting for the resource). The proposed project would involve the demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex, construction of up to 10 new structures on a 12.5-acre site, and could potentially make substantial alterations to the streetscape of the surrounding area by noticeably changing the scale of buildings, compared to the future without the proposed project. The proposed project also would result in changes to the context of and views to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, a visual resource. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the threshold for a detailed assessment of urban design and visual resources. This analysis is provided below.

C. METHODOLOGY
As defined in the CEQR Technical Manual, urban design is the totality of components that may affect a pedestrians experience of public space. This detailed assessment considers the effects of the proposed actions on the experience of a pedestrian in the study area. The assessment focuses on those project elements that have the potential to alter the built environment, or urban design, of the project area, which is collectively formed by the following components: Streetsthe arrangement and orientation of streets define location, flow of activity, street views, and create blocks on which buildings and open spaces are arranged. Other elements including sidewalks, plantings, street lights, curb cuts, and street furniture also contribute to an areas streetscape. Buildingsa buildings size, shape, setbacks, pedestrian and vehicular entrances, lot coverage and orientation to the street are important urban design components that define the appearance of the built environment. Visual Resourcesvisual resources include significant natural or built features, including important views corridors, public parks, landmarks structures or districts, or otherwise distinct buildings. Open Spaceopen space includes public and private areas that do not include structures including parks and other landscaped areas, cemeteries, and parking lots. Natural Featuresnatural features include vegetation and geologic and aquatic features that are natural to the area. The CEQR Technical Manual recommends an analysis of pedestrian wind conditions for projects that would result in the construction of large buildings at locations that experience high wind conditions (such as along the waterfront, or other location where winds from the waterfront are not attenuated by buildings or natural features), which may result in an exacerbation of wind conditions due to channelization or downwash effects that may affect pedestrian safety. The

8-2

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

project site is located on Roosevelt Island within the East River. Therefore, pedestrian wind conditions are also considered. Consistent with the study area used for the analysis of land use, zoning and public policy, the study area for the urban design and visual resources analysis has been defined as the entirety of Roosevelt Island (see Figure 8-1). The study area for visual resources has been extended to consider longer view corridors from Manhattan and Queens (see Figure 8-2).

D. EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA URBAN DESIGN Currently, the 12.5-acre project site contains the Goldwater Hospital complex, which is located on land owned by the City of New York (Block 1373, Lot 20), and vacant land leased by the City of New York to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (portion of Block 1372, Lot 1) (see Figure 8-1). The rezoning area is bounded to the north by RIOCs Sportspark facility, to the south by South Point Park, and to the east and west by the East River. The rezoning area consists of: the project site (described below); a one-way circulation roadway encircling the project site (the loop road); and a concrete seawall, which forms the barrier along the East River to the east and west of the project site. On both sides of the project site, the seawall includes a pedestrian and bicycle promenade, which extends throughout the Island north of South Point Park. The circulation roadway, promenade and seawall are all on property that is owned by the City of New York and controlled by RIOC through a long-term lease. The Goldwater Hospital complex is comprised of: four chevron-shaped Patient Ward buildings (Buildings A-D), two on each side of the central H-shaped Administration Building (Building E); a rectangular-shaped building at the northern end of the complex (Building F); a more recent, square-shaped building at the southern end of the complex (Building J); and a 2-story (21-foottall) corridor structure that connects all of the buildings along a north-south axis (see Figures 8-3 and 8-4 as well as Figure 8-1). The wings of Buildings A-E extend out from this central north-south spine, and in two locations along this axis, the corridor structure widens to create a small rectangular 2-story (21-foot-tall) building. All of the buildings on the project site were constructed in 1939, except for Building J, which was constructed as an extension to the hospital complex in 1971. Buildings A-D are each four stories (48 feet) tall, and each has a small, square, 12-foot-tall mechanical penthouse at the center of its roof (see View 1 of Figure 8-5). These buildings were designed to maximize southern exposure to views and sunlight. They are faced in gray brick that appears faded in most areas, darkened in others, and patched with newer brick in others. Weathered steel balconies are affixed to the southern, eastern, and western facades of the chevron buildings, extending the entire length of these facades. On each wing of the southern facades, these balconies are interrupted by a circular bay extending the full height of the building. The buildings extend out below the first-floor windows to connect the circular bays to the central corridor structure. There are large rectangular windows along the southern facades of the buildings; the windows on the northern facades are smaller. The eastern and western facades are affixed by steel balconies and contain square windows. Some of the buildings have small entrances on the eastern and southern facades. Building E at the center of the complex contains the main entrance to the hospital on its western side (see View 2 of Figure 8-5). The eastern and western wings of this building are three stories (40 feet) tall, while the highest point of the six-story central portion is approximately 100 feet

8-3

10.9.12

SEE INSET

INSET - Area of Detail

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

A

Block 1373 Lot 20

Owned by: City of New York Occupied by: Goldwater Memorial Hospital (NYCHHC) Block 1373 Lot 1 (portion) Owned by: City of New York Leased to: RIOC

Goldwater Hospital Building Name Study Area Boundary

Project Site and Study Area Reference Map

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-1

10.9.12

E8
E8
E8

2S T

E8

3S

1S

T
ND AV EA ST E

E7
E7
PA RK AV

0S

8S

E7

9S

7S

TO N

E7 E7
3A V

AV

6S

XIN G

5S

E7

LE

4S

2A V

E7
E7 0S 1S T
1A V

3S

E7

E7 E6 E6 8S 9S

W ES TC HA NN EL

2S

YO R

KA V

33

RD

E6 E6 E6 4S 5S

6S

MA IN

EA

ST

E6

FD R

7S

ST

RD

DR

34

AV

RN ON BL VD

ES

VE

ST 10

3S

9S

E6 E6 E6 0S T
E6 1S

TR

35
T

AV

2S

11 S 12 ST

T 12 ST 14

T
36 AV

E5 9S
E5 E5 7S 8S T

East River Waterfront, East 62nd Street

T

37

AV

E5

5S

EA

ST

E5 6S

CH A

Tram

NN E

E5

3S

E5

2S

QU
T

Queensbridge Park
EE NS BO RO BR
41

40

AV

13 S

E5 4S

39 AV

24

CR

ES

CE

50 ST

23

ST

NT ST
28 ST

East River Waterfront, East 53rd Street E

AV

21

ST

ST

13

43

43 AV

27

9S

11 ST

10

42
22

45 AV

44 R
44 D R

RI

VE

ST

5 ST

24

ST

44 AV

ST

RD

EA

Gantry Plaza State Park

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary Viewpoint Cornell NYC Tech

1000 FEET

SCALE

Visual Resources Study Area

Figure 8-2

41 AV

QN

ST

PL Z

29

ST

RD

ST

South Point Park

12

ST

ST

41

RD

22

ST

ST

38

AV

10.9.12

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

Cornell NYC Tech

N
EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL
0

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Aerial of Project Site and Rezoning Area

Figure 8-3

10.9.12

5 37 31 6 38 10 14 15 45 46 8 28 27

3 4

18 33

32 26 16 25 30

39

21

19

11 12 13 2 1 9 43 44

22

20

48 47

40
MATCHLINE ABOVE

17 29 34 23

35

36

24 41 42

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Cornell NYC Tech
1

Study Area Boundary Photograph View Direction and Reference Number

400

800 FEET

SCALE

Photograph View Locations

Figure 8-4

MATCHLINE BELOW

10.9.12

Buildings C and D,view looking southwest

Building E, view of east side

Photographs of Project Site

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

tall. Two driveways slope up to the hospitals main entrance, which is marked by a rectangular concrete canopy affixed with the hospitals logo (see View 3 of Figure 8-6). The driveways are flanked by white four-foot-tall railings, cobra-head street lamps, and a sidewalk and vegetation on the east side. The two entrances to the driveway are flanked by ornate historical lamps (see View 4 of Figure 8-6). Building J is one and two stories (approximately 38 feet tall at its highest point) and is faced in light gray concrete and brown-colored brick (see View 5 of Figure 8-7). On the southern faade of the buildingthe Activities Buildingare two long elevator ramps that provide wheelchair access. Some of the windows on the southern faade contain a modernist stained glass pattern. The building is surrounded on its south, east, and west sides by lawns and trees (see View 6 of Figure 8-7). Building F, the Laboratory and Morgue building, fronts onto an unnamed east-west street that connects Main Street and East Road. It has an entrance from the street with the word Laboratory affixed over the entrance and some blue concrete panels on its faade (see View 7 of Figure 8-8). The narrow, rectangular building is three stories (28 feet) tall and is otherwise generally of the same appearance as the central corridor structure. There are hospital signs along Main Street and East Road, at the northern border of the campus property, mounted in vegetated areas (see View 8 of Figure 8-8). Also along the border of the property is a tall white storage tank and a brick fence (see Views 9 and 10 of Figure 8-9). On the southeast corner of the site, there is pump station that is enclosed by an approximately eightfoot-tall black steel fence (see View 11 of Figure 8-9). The remainder of the project site consists of vacant land that is owned by the City of New York and leased to RIOC. On the east side there are paved areas used for parking; on the west side of the hospital facility, the vacant land contains landscaped areas with lawns, benches, bicycle racks, and blue tents for outdoor events, all enclosed by 10-foot-tall black steel fencing. In total, the project sites six buildings comprise 647,900 gross square feet (gsf) of development. The built floor area ratio (FAR) of the project site is 1.5. As described below, there are only a few lots on Roosevelt Island. The project site buildings are not built to the lot lines of Block 1373, Lot 2, and do not create any streetwalls along the loop road, but rather are set within a campus environment. The topography of the project site generally slopes downward from west to east, with a high point of 23 feet at approximately the location of the central connecting corridor structure. The majority of winter winds come from the west and northwest, and summer winds come predominantly from the south. Pedestrian activity on the project site is generally light and directly related to the current hospital use and adjacent open space. VISUAL RESOURCES According to the CEQR Technical Manual, visual resources include significant natural or built features, such as views of the waterfront, public parks, distinctive or landmark structures or districts, or natural resources. Views of the East River and the Queensboro Bridge, as well as to Manhattan and Queens, are available from numerous vantage points within the project site and rezoning area. On the east side of the project site and rezoning area, views are available of the East River and the Queens waterfront, including high-rise towers and the landmarked Pepsi-Cola sign in Hunters Point and the mixture of historic industrial buildings and new towers, the Silvercup Studios building and 8-4

10.9.12

View of ornate lamps anking main entrance

View of main entrance

Photographs of Project Site

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-6

10.9.12

View of western facade of Building J

View of southern facade of Building J

Photographs of Project Site

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-7

10.9.12

View of northern facade of Building F

View of northwest corner of project site

Photographs of Project Site

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-8

10.9.12

View of northeast corner of project site

View of northern perimeter of project site

10

View of southern perimeter of project site

11

Views from the Project Site and Rezoning Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-9

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

sign, and the visually-prominent Citi Bank tower in Long Island City (see Views 12 and 13 of Figures 8-10). From the west side of the project site and rezoning area, views are of the midtown Manhattan skyline (see View 14 of Figure 8-10). In some locations, the expansiveness of views from the project site and rezoning area is limited by the substantial tree coverage that surrounds the hospital campus. While the Goldwater Hospital buildings have been identified as historic resources (see Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources,), they are not considered visual resources. STUDY AREA URBAN DESIGN The island does not have a regular street grid system, and consequently block shapes on the Island are irregular, and tend to be large with extensive street frontages. There are two primary streets on the Island, both of which run north-south: Main Street, which runs along the west side of the project site from its southern perimeter to Lighthouse Park to the north; and East Road, which runs along the east side of the project site from its southern perimeter to a triangle located north of the subway station, where it merges with Main Street. Streets on Roosevelt Island are generally narrow, and are flanked by concrete curbs and sidewalks. The Queensboro Bridge acts as a physical divider between the southern portion of the study area and the rest of the Island. In the portion of the Island south of the Queensboro Bridge, the roadway encircling the project site runs one-way, whereas north of the bridge, roadways carry one lane of traffic in each direction (see Views 15 and 16 of Figure 8-11). There is substantial pedestrian activity concentrated in the portion of Main Street that extends from the Roosevelt Island Bridge (described below) to the Roosevelt Island subway station, where many retail and community facility uses are concentrated. This portion of Main Street has Central Park-style lampposts, and in the original Northtown residential area (described below), the street and sidewalk is made of masonry pavers (see View 17 of Figure 8-12). The remaining roadways have cobra-style lampposts and are made of asphalt. The promenade extends along the east and west sides of the Island, providing a walkway for pedestrians, as well as passive open space (see View 18 of Figure 8-12). Roadways experience light vehicular traffic; there is one Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) bus service, and a red bus service provided by RIOC. Roosevelt Island was developed under a master plan as a traffic-limited residential community. Only a few buildings on the Island were built before the 1969 master plan, and thus the Islands buildings are predominantly modernist in terms of architectural character. The first phase of Roosevelt Island's development was called Northtown. It consists of four housing complexes, situated with Main Street as a central spine: Westview, Island House, Rivercross, and Roosevelt Landings (formerly Eastwood). (Figure 8-13 provides a map indicating the names and locations of the Islands various developments.) Northtown is located immediately south of the Roosevelt Island Bridge, and approximately 800 feet north of the subway station. Roosevelt Landings is situated on the east side of Main Street, while the other three developments are on the west side of Main Street. Roosevelt Landings and Westwood were designed in a similar modernist style, with most of their height and bulk situated on Main Street, which then decreases in a series of setbacks down towards the waterfront (see View 19 of Figure 8-14). Roosevelt Landings consists of four east-west oriented towers with rectangular footprints that are 22 stories (221 feet) along Main Street and five stories (50 feet) by the river. These buildings are interspersed by six five-story (50-foot) north-south buildings, with the buildings enclosing three landscaped courtyard areas. Similarly, Westwood consists of two 18-story (181-foot) east-west oriented towers and one six-story (61-foot) north-south oriented building along Main Street enclosing an 8-5

10.9.12

View southeast

12

View northeast

13

View west

14

Views from the Project Site and Rezoning Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-10

10.9.12

View north along perimeter roadway adjacent to project site

15

View west along Road 5

16

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-11

10.9.12

View north along Main Street of Westview development

17

View south along western promenade of Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge

18

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-12

10.9.12

M A N H AT TA N

EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL

SOUTHTOWN SPORTS PARK RIVER WALK TRAM STATION SUBWAY STATION ISLAND HOUSE RIVERCROSS WESTVIEW P.S. 217

MANHATTAN PARK

OCTAGON

BLACKWELL HOUSE STEAM PLANT QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

ROOSEVELT LANDINGS

MOTORGATE ROOSEVELT BRIDGE

COLER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL

QUEENS

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Hospital Residential Commercial Recreational Historical Educational Infrastructure Church

Major Developments on Roosevelt Island

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-13

10.9.12

View north along Main Street of Roosevelt Landings development and Rivercross development

19

Roosevelt Landings development

20

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-14

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

internal landscaped area on all sides except the westerly waterfront. Both of these complexes are faced in brown and gray masonry with red and white trim enclosing square windows (see View 20 of Figure 8-14). Rivercross consists of one 19 story (191-foot-tall) building with a roughly Jshaped footprint and a long frontage along Main Street. The building has two wings that decrease in height in a series of setbacks down towards the waterfront. The building is faced in tall rectangular panels of gray cement and has small square and rectangular windows and cantilevered balconies (see View 21 of Figure 8-15). Island House is similar in design to Rivercross, with two 20-story (201-foot) bulky towers with roughly T-shaped footprints that are connected along their Main Street frontage, with one wing on each that decrease in height in a series of setbacks towards the waterfront. The Island House buildings are faced in gray concrete and have rectangular windows with gray-yellow panels (see View 22 of Figure 8-15). In all of the Northtown housing complexes, retail uses are generally accommodated at the street level. Immediately north of Northtown is the Northtown Phase II development, which consists of the Manhattan Park development, designed in the postmodern style. Deviating from the Main Street spine design, the development consists of five 21-story (211-foot-tall) buildings with rectangular footprints surrounding a park with gardens and playgrounds (see View 23 of Figure 8-16). The buildings are clad in red brick and beige concrete, with light blue metal balconies. North of Manhattan Park, across Ecological Park, is the recently-constructed Octagon residential complex, which consists of two 13-story (125-foot-tall) wings extending from the 108-foot historic Octagon Tower (see View 24 of Figure 8-16). The Octagon Tower is clad in gray stone and contains a five-story rotunda that is topped by a mansard dome with windows and a flagpole. The modern wings of the complex are clad in gray masonry and have extensive fenestration. Southtown, the third phase of the Islands development, consists of six 16-story (160-foot) residential buildings (see View 25 of Figure 8-17). These buildings with rectangular footprints are arrayed in a north to south row, with two groups of three towers on either side of an open space area called the Commons. The southernmost tower is faced in glass, gray-brick, and beige and gray masonry; the next tower north to the north is faced with glass and white concrete; the third and fourth towers are faced in red brick with rectangular windows; and the fifth and sixth towers are faced in beige concrete. The Commons contains pathways, seating, and some landscaped areas, and includes access to the Roosevelt Island subway station (see View 26 of Figure 8-17). Numerous retail uses are located at the ground floor level of the two towers facing the Commons and the subway station. The Island contains three major community facility uses in addition to the Goldwater Hospital; these are the Coler Hospital, the RIOC-operated Sportspark recreational facility, and P.S./I.S. 217. The Coler Hospital complex consists of a T-shaped central building and two extensions with multiple wings. The central building is three stories (36 feet) tall and faced in red brick with rectangular windows; the extension buildings are generally five stories (60 feet) tall and also are faced in red brick. The west side of the campus contains the hospitals main entrance, as well as lawns, trees, and vegetated areas. The east side of the campus includes paved parking and loading and storage areas. The Sportspark recreational facility is located immediately north of the Goldwater Hospital site. This facility is comprised of three connected structures: a one-story (up to 20-foot-tall) building with a rectangular footprint and faced in red brick that is located on the south side of the Queensboro Bridge; a one-story (up to 15-foot-tall) boxy concrete building that is painted white and located immediate north of the red-brick building; and a white tennis bubble that is located underneath the bridge and to the north of it (see Views 27 and 28 of Figure 8-18). Finally, P.S./I.S. 217 is located on the west side of Main Street, between the Westview and 8-6

10.5.12

Rivercross development

21

Chapel of the Good Shepherd and Island House in the background

22

Photographs of Study Area

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 8-15

10.9.12

Manhattan Park development

23

Octagon development

24

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-16

10.9.12

Southtown development

25

The Commons

26

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-17

10.9.12

Sportspark

27

Sportspark

28

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-18

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

Manhattan Park developments. This three-story (48-foot-tall) building is faced in glass, brick, concrete, and has rectangular windows (see View 29 of Figure 8-19). There are also some boxy, gray masonry-clad, utilitarian service buildings on the Island, including: the Automated Vacuum Collection (AVAC) facility, located north of Motorgate on the east side of Main Street; an FDNY training facility, located immediately north of the AVAC facility; and steam plant, which features two tall smoke stacks, and is located immediately north of the Queensboro Bridge, east of the tram station (see View 30 of Figure 8-19). To the north of Sportspark and the Queensboro Bridge is a block containing the station for the Roosevelt Island tram, a visitors center, and the steam plant (described above). The tram station is housed in a 50-foot-tall utilitarian metal structure, portions of which are painted in red. The opening to the structure faces west and has two pairs of cables sloping downwards into it, for arriving and departing trams (see View 31 of Figure 8-20). A red canopy connects the tram station with the entrance to Sportspark, to the south. West of the station structure, below the pairs of tram cables, is a grass field that contains landscaping and a small one-story visitors center (see View 32 of Figure 8-20). The visitors center is clad in white masonry with ornate cornices and detailing. North of the tramway, the Roosevelt Island subway station is located in the Commons, adjacent to Main Street. The station is a boxy concrete building with a sloping metallic roof and floor to ceiling windows facing Main Street (see View 33 of Figure 8-21). Most of the buildings facing onto Main Street meet the street line; however, as there are also numerous open spaces as well as surface parking lots along the roadway, a strong streetwall only exists in the central core of the Islands development. There are only a few stand-alone commercial buildings on the Island, as most retail uses are accommodated at the street level of the residential complexes. However, Motorgate is a 6-level (60-foot-tall) concrete parking garage that contains a grocery store and post office at the street level (see View 34 of Figure 8-21). The Motorgate complex is located north of the Roosevelt Island Bridge, on the east side of Main Street. The Roosevelt Island Bridge connects the Island to 36th Avenue in Queens. On the Island, the bridge connects to Main Street and the Motorgate garage via a curved concrete access ramp. The bridge itself is a 170-foot tall red steel vertical lift bridge. One of the defining urban design characteristics of the Island is its substantial open space areas. These include parks operated by RIOC; the waterfront promenade that extends along the east and west sides of the Island; and fields and other open space amenities that are accessory to residential buildings and the two hospital campuses (see Figure 8-22). South Point Park, the southernmost park on the Island, contains pathways and natural areas with expansive views of the East River. North of the Queensboro Bridge is Firefighters Field, and to the west of the field, in the Southtown development is the Commons, a large field with pathways, seating, and vegetated areas. North of Southtown and immediately south of Northtown is Blackwell Park, which contains vegetation, play equipment and courts, and a concrete plaza. North of the Northtown development and south of the Roosevelt Island Bridge is Capobianco Field, a park that contains playing fields and equipment. To the north of the bridge, on the west side of Main Street, is a landscaped public open space with paths and benches in the Manhattan Park development called Northtown Plaza. North of the Manhattan Park development is Ecological Park, which contains playing fields, a restroom facility, community gardens, and tennis courts. North of Ecological Park is Octagon Park, which contains play equipment and a barbeque area. North of the Coler Hospital site, on the northernmost point of the Island, is Lighthouse Park,

8-7

10.9.12

P.S./I.S. 217

29

Steam plant

30

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-19

10.9.12

Roosevelt Island Tram Station

31

Visitors Kiosk

32

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-20

10.9.12

Roosevelt Island Subway Station

33

Motorgate complex with Gristedes grocery store

34

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-21

3.8.13

M A N H AT TA N

EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL

ROOSEVELT BRIDGE

EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL

QUEENS

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Public Memorial Public Recreation Field Public Park Private Space, Publicly Accessible Private Waterfront Promenade Pedestrian Pathways

Open Spaces on Roosevelt Island

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-22

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

which contains lawns, promenade areas, and barbeque areas. These resources are described more thoroughly in Chapter 5, Open Space. As described in Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, the entire island is zoned R72, which supports low apartment buildings on smaller lots and taller buildings with low lot coverage on larger lots; however, all of the Island, except the Goldwater Hospital and Coler Hospital campuses, is under the jurisdiction of RIOC, which can override the citys zoning resolution. Generally, buildings constructed on the Island are consistent with the FAR of the R72 zoning district. VISUAL RESOURCES The visual character of Roosevelt Island is defined in large part by the river that encircles it. At its widest point, the approximately two-mile long Island is only 800 feet across, and views of the river are available throughout the Island. Numerous vantage points in the study area offer panoramic views of the East River, Manhattan skyline, Queens waterfront, and Queensboro Bridge, including from Four Freedoms Park, a new open space at the southernmost tip of the Island that includes a memorial to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In addition, the northern tip of the Island contains Lighthouse Park, which offers panoramic views of the East River, including the Upper East Side of Manhattan, Randalls Island, the Robert F. KennedyTriborough Bridge, and the Socrates Sculpture Garden in Queens (see Views 35 and 36 of Figure 8-23). Neither of the primary streets on Roosevelt Island are considered to be view corridors, however, due to their extensive tree coverage and tall streetwalls that obscure long views. There are six historic buildings on the Island that, due to their deviation from the characteristic modernist architecture, are considered distinctive visual resources. The most southerly visual resource is the ruin of the Smallpox Hospital. Portions of the stone walls of the Gothic structure are still standing and covered in vegetative overgrowth, while others have deteriorated. Views of the ruin are available from within South Point Park (see View 37 of Figure 8-24). Strecker Memorial Laboratory is located to the north of the Smallpox Hospital, also within South Point Park (see View 38 of Figure 8-24). The boxy three-story structure is faced in stone with bronze trim, rectangular windows, and a blue rounded double-door entrance. Used as a pathology laboratory when built in 1892, today the restored structure houses subway electrical infrastructure. Views of the structure are available from within South Point Park. Blackwell House, located amidst a concrete plaza and park south of Roosevelt Landings and north of Southtown, is the oldest structure on the Island. Blackwell House is visible at certain vantage points from Main Street, the easterly waterfront promenade, and the surrounding open space (see View 39 of Figure 8-25). The Chapel of the Good Shepherd is located on a concrete plaza, between the Rivercross and Island House developments. Views of the stone and red brick-clad, Victorian Gothic church are limited to its immediate surroundings on Main Street, as the church is closely hemmed in by the residential development (see View 22 of Figure 8-15). The lighthouse, located on the northernmost tip of the Island, is a 50-foot tall Gothic style stone structure. The lighthouse is visible from certain vantage points along the waterfront promenade, and from within Lighthouse Park (see View 40 of Figure 8-25). The sixth visual resource, the Octagon Tower, is described above. It is visible from various vantage points on Main Street and the waterfront promenades. The remaining visual resources on the Island are the Queensboro Bridge and the aerial tram. Two of the bridges 350-foot-high towers are located at the western and eastern edges of the Island. Views of the bridge are available from points throughout the Island, including certain 8-8

10.9.12

View northwest from Lighthouse Park

35

View northeast from Lighthouse Park

36

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-23

10.9.12

Smallpox Hospital

37

Strecker Laboratory

38

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-24

10.9.12

Blackwell House

39

The Lighthouse

40

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-25

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

vantage points on Main Street and the waterfront promenade (see Views 15, 18, 25, 26, and 28 of Figures 8-11, 8-12, 8-17 and 8-18). The aerial tram extends 250 feet above the East River at its tallest point; its cables are supported by a tall metallic tower on the waterfront (see Views 16 and 31 of Figures 8-11 and 8-20). The cars of the tram can be seen from vantage points along the promenade on the west side of the Island, and from portions of Firefighters Field. From the east side waterfront promenade in the northern portion of the Island, one can see the Queens waterfront, the Roosevelt Island Bridge, the Queensboro Bridge, and the towers of Hunters Point farther in the distance while facing south, and Hallets Point in Queens and the Robert F. Kennedy-Triborough Bridge farther in the distance while facing north (see Views 41 and 42 of Figure 8-26). From the east side waterfront promenade in the southern portion of the Island, one can see the towers of Hunters Point, Queens and the lower Manhattan skyline and Williamsburg Bridge farther in the distance while facing south, and the Queensboro Bridge and Queens waterfront while facing north (see Views 43 and 44 of Figure 8-27). On the west side waterfront promenade in the southern portion of the Island, one can see the midtown Manhattan skyline, including the United Nations building, while facing south, and the Upper East Side of Manhattan, Randalls Island, and the Queensboro Bridge while facing north (see Views 45 and 46 of Figure 8-28). On the west side waterfront promenade in the northern portion of the Island, one can see midtown Manhattan, the Westview residential development, and the Queensboro Bridge while facing south; and the Wards Island Bridge, Randalls Island, and the Robert F. Kennedy-Triborough Bridge while facing north (see Views 47 and 48 of Figure 8-29). Along Road 5, the short east-west roadway adjacent to the tram station facing west, one can see the Queensboro Bridge, the tram, and the midtown Manhattan skyline. Off-Island Study Areas Views of the project site from the East River waterfront in Manhattan are limited by the dense development on the east side, the United Nations complex, and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Drive. However, the project site is visible from Sutton Place Park, the waterfront promenade between East 51st and 54th Streets, and from East 59th Street, just east of Sutton Place (see View 49 of Figure 8-30). The project site also is visible from points along the East River waterfront north of the Queensboro Bridge; however, the project site is more distant in such views, which also include the bridge in the foreground (see View 50 of Figure 8-30). In the views from the Manhattan vantage points south of the Queensboro Bridge, the project site is generally visible and appears institutional and campus-like in its arrangement and type of buildings. Building E is notable as the tallest building on the project site. The twin flagpoles in front of the central buildings are also prominent in these views. Buildings A-D are discernible, while Buildings F and J and the connective corridor structure are generally not distinct. The Queensboro Bridge, and certain tall buildings in Queens (such as Citi Tower), serve as a backdrop in these views. Views of the project site from the waterfront in Queens are limited by existing waterfront development. However, the project site is visible from two open space resources: Gantry Plaza State Park and Queensbridge Park (see Views 51 and 52 of Figure 8-31). Both of these parks are currently undergoing improvements that will increase access to views of the project site when complete. In Gantry State Park, the promenade will expand further north; and in Queensbridge Park, pathways (including one along the waterfront) will be repaved.

8-9

10.9.12

View south from eastern promenade in the northern portion of the Island

41

View north from eastern promenade in the northern portion of the Island

42

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-26

10.9.12

View south from eastern promenade in the southern portion of the Island

43

View north from eastern promenade in the southern portion of the Island

44

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-27

10.9.12

View south from western promenade in the southern portion of the Island

45

View north from western promenade in the southern portion of the Island

46

Views from Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-28

10.9.12

View south from western promenade in the northern portion of the island

47

View north from western promenade in the northern portion of the island

48

Photographs of Study Area

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-29

10.9.12

View east to project site from Sutton Place Park

49

View southeast to project site from Manhattan north of Queensboro Bridge

50

Views from Off-Island Locations

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-30

10.9.12

View northwest to project site from Gantry Park Plaza

51

View southwest to project site from Queensbridge Park

52

Views from Off-Island Locations

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-31

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

In the views from Gantry State Park, the project site is distant, specific buildings are not generally discernible, and the hospital is not easily distinguished from the backdrop of Manhattan. The southernmost portion of the campus is partially obscured by trees in South Point Park. Views of the project site from this location include the Queensboro Bridge above the hospital campus. As in other off-Island views, the project site appears institutional and campuslike in its arrangement and type of buildings. The project site is also visible from the tram that connects Roosevelt Island to East 61st Street in Manhattan, and runs parallel to the Queensboro Bridge to the north. For most of the trip, the project site is not visible, due to the intervening bridge structure. However, views of the project site are available underneath the bridge as the tram is ascending from the tram station on the Island, and above the bridge at the highest point of the trip (see View 53 of Figure 8-32). Buildings D and F are prominent, as is the portion of Building E that is taller than the rest of the campus. Beyond Building D, the rest of the hospital buildings are generally not distinct. The northern boundary of the project site is partially obscured by the Sportspark facility, the western boundary contains trees and green space, and the southern and eastern boundaries are framed by the East River.

E. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA In the future No-Action condition, the hospital structures on the project site are assumed to remain as a vacant complex. No changes are expected to the portion of the project site that is currently vacant land, or to the rezoning area. The rezoning area will continue to include a oneway circulation roadway, promenade, and seawall, under the jurisdiction of RIOC. Therefore, no changes to urban design or views to visual resources from the project site and rezoning area would be anticipated. EFFECTS OF OTHER FUTURE PROJECTS One project is expected to be built on Roosevelt Island by the 2018 analysis year. The Southtown development is expected to expand to include three new residential towers on currently vacant land to the east of the existing Southtown towers; the new towers are anticipated to be approximately 21, 25, and 29 stories in height, or somewhat taller than the existing Southtown development (16 stories or 160 feet). The Southtown project will change the urban design and visual character of the study area by continuing the existing trend of new residential development on the north side of the Island, making it more densely developed with high-rise towers. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR The project site and rezoning area are not expected to change in the No-Action condition between 2018 and 2038. In the No-Action condition, the project site is assumed to continue to contain a vacant hospital complex and vacant land, and the rezoning area is assumed to continue to include a one-way circulation roadway, promenade, and seawall, under the jurisdiction of RIOC. No projects are currently anticipated in the study area between 2018 and 2038. Therefore, no changes to urban design, visual resources, or views to visual resources from the project site or within the rezoning and study areas would be anticipated between 2018 and 2038.

8-10

6.14.12

View to project site from Roosevelt Island Tram

53

View from Off-Island Location

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 8-32

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

F. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Beginning in 2014, over a period of approximately 24 years, Cornell is proposing to build the following on the project site, which represent the maximum likely development program: Two buildings for academic purposes; One residential building; An Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities; Three buildings for corporate co-location space; One mixed-use building with academic space at the base and a residential tower rising above; A mixed-use building that comprises corporate co-location uses at the base with a residential tower rising above; Two central utility plants to serve the campus; and A minimum of 2.5 acres of publicly-accessible open space. In total, 9 buildings consisting of approximately 2.13 million gross square feet are anticipated to be developed. A small amount of campus-oriented retail uses would be developed within these buildings to support campus needs; these uses are assumed to include restaurants, cafes, newsstands, and/or bookstores. In addition, up to 500 parking spaces would be provided belowgrade at the project site, with 250 spaces in Phase 1 and another 250 spaces by full build. In order to develop the project, the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings would be demolished. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed project would require the disposition of city-owned property, rezoning of the project site from R7-2 to C4-5, a map amendment to make the loop road a city street, and the creation of the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District (SSRID) to establish special bulk, use, parking, and waterfront controls for the rezoning area. The change in zoning from R7-2 to C4-5 would not result in a change in the rezoning areas allowable floor area ratio (FAR), although the regulations of the SSRID would permit a maximum residential FAR of 3.44 without regard to height factor, and a maximum FAR of 3.40 for Use Group 17B (research, experimental, or testing laboratory). The proposed special district would, however, have lot coverage requirements and height and setback regulations that differ from the underlying proposed zoning district. Specifically, the proposed special district would have aggregate lot coverage restrictions for all buildings. From the base plane to 20 feet above base plane, the maximum lot coverage of all buildings on the project site would be 70 percent. At a height 20-60 feet above the base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 60 percent. At a height 60-180 feet above the base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 45 percent, and above 180 feet above base plane, the maximum lot coverage would be 25 percent. This aggregate lot coverage restriction is intended to allow flexibility for the academic and corporate co-location buildings. The proposed special district also would have height and setback regulations that differ from those of the underlying proposed zoning district. The height and setback regulations would be set in relation to the surrounding loop road. Buildings within 500 feet of the loop road section north of the site would be capped at 320 feet in height, and buildings on the remaining (southern) portion of the project site would be capped at a height of 280 feet. In addition, the distance between buildings would be a minimum of eight feet at a height of up to 180 feet, and a minimum distance of 60 feet apart above 180 feet. The special district would allow for a waiver 8-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

of height and setback regulations for a limited percentage of the building walls at the perimeter of the zoning lot, to allow for the placement of buildings to take advantage of solar orientation. Specifically, buildings or other structures may exceed the underlying height and setback regulations for a percentage of the length of each street line of the loop road (65 percent for the northern and southern portions of the loop road, and 35 percent for the western and eastern portions). For the portion of any building or structure that exceeds the underlying height and setback regulations, the maximum height of such portion located within 500 feet of the northern loop road will be 320 feet, exclusive of permitted obstructions allowed by the underlying height and setback regulations, and the maximum height for any such portion on the remainder of the project site will be 280 feet (exclusive of such permitted obstructions). In addition, the proposed special district would include design requirements for public access areas, including specific design requirements for three public open space areas: a waterfront connection corridor, a central open area, and a north-south connection. The special district also would require that a visual corridor of at least 50 feet be established that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. Lastly, the proposed zoning text would require that a minimum of 20 percent of the lot area of the project site (2.5 acres) would be publicly accessible. The zoning text would include requirements on the phasing of the open space, so that the amount of open space on the project site would increase with development, as well as specific design requirements for three public open space areas: a waterfront connection corridor, a central open space, and a north-south connection. The proposed buildings are intended to frame the new open spaces and would be placed to take advantage of solar orientation and to provide expansive views of Manhattan and Queens. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA Urban Design In Phase 1 of the project, the Goldwater Hospital buildin1gs would be demolished and it is assumed that four buildings and a minimum of 1.3 acres of open space would be developed. The buildings would total approximately 790,000 gsf and would be located in the northern portion of the project site (see Figure 8-33). They are anticipated to include: An academic building approximately 150,000 sf in size that could be up to 8 stories in height; A corporate co-location building approximately 150,000 sf in size and that could be up to 8 stories in height; A residential building approximately 300,000 sf in size and up to approximately 31 stories (320 feet) in height; and An Executive Education Center. This building would be approximately 170,000 sf in size and up to 17 stories in height.1

The heights and gross square footages provided are approximate as the project is expected to be refined over time.

8-12

3.4.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY ACADEMIC CAMPUS LAWN

THE STREET

CAMPUS PLAZA INTERIM LANDSCAPE

ENTRY COURT

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

SOUTH LOOP ROAD

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT CORPORATE CO-LOCATION

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Phase I - Illustrative Site Plan

Figure 8-33

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

The proposed buildings also would include a small amount of campus-oriented retail (approximately 10,000 gsf). A utility plant approximately 20,000 gsf in size and approximately one to two stories (40 feet) in height could be developed adjacent to the residential building. The specific design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in this chapter are reflective of the design under consideration during preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). At this time, the specific designs shown in the figures reflect an academic building that has a 32,000 sf footprint and is four stories tall (approximately 60 feet, 69 feet including the building canopy), which is shorter than the 8-story potential height described above; a corporate co-location building that has a 30,000 sf footprint and is five stories tall (approximately 74 feet), rather than the 8-story potential height described above; a residential building that is 31 stories tall (320 feet, the maximum height allowed) and has a 10,800 sf footprint; an Executive Education Center that is 13 stories tall (161 feet) and has a 21,200 sf footprint; and a utility plant that has a 9,200 sf footprint and is one story tall (22 feet), rather than the 40-foot-tall structure with the 20,000 sf footprint described above. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed special district would provide for flexibility in architectural design within limits established to assure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms. Photovoltaic (PV) arrays may be constructed above the roof of the academic building, over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly over the roof of the corporate co-location building. Portions of the southern portion of the project site are anticipated to be developed with several interim uses, potentially including a plant nursery and other vegetated surfaces (such as a planted meadow). Approximately 250 parking spaces and service access/loading areas would be developed below-grade, as would a tunnel for utilities. At a minimum, Phase 1 would develop 1.3 acres of new publicly accessible open space. The new open space would have mixed programming, with some open spaces geared toward more active social engagement and others that would encourage quieter contemplation. The open space network would be designed to encourage movement within the campus. As part of the development of these open spaces, a large quantity of new tree planting is proposed, creating an urban forest that would integrate the campus into its surroundings. As part of Phase 1, the roadway circling the project site would be widened with temporary construction to provide a functional 32-foot-wide travelway around the project site. The portion of the roadway adjacent to the Phase 1 development would be built to final conditions as the Phase 1 buildings are completed. No changes to the promenade and seawall would result from the proposed project in Phase 1. With the development of the four proposed buildings, the height and bulk of structures on the project site would change substantially. At approximately eight stories to 320 feet in height and totaling approximately 790,000 gsf, the new buildings would be substantially taller and bulkier than the vacant Goldwater Hospital buildings, which are up to 100 feet in height and in total comprise approximately 647,000 gsf of development. The increased scale, both in terms of bulk and height, of the new buildings on the project site would be a prominent change from the appearance and character of the project site in the No-Action condition. The project site would go from hosting several vacant hospital buildings to being partially occupied by tall, bulky structures. While considerable, this change is not anticipated to be significantly adverse. The total FAR that could be developed on site would not change from the No-Action condition, and the proposed development would comply with the bulk, height, lot coverage, and setback 8-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

regulations of the proposed special district. As described below, the proposed development on the project site would be generally consistent with development on the north side of the Island. The proposed orientation of the buildings to provide extensive daylighting opportunities and expansive, oblique views of Manhattan and Queens is generally consistent with the orientation of the Goldwater Hospital buildings. The anticipated polygonal floorplates of the Cornell NYC Tech buildings would be different from the rectangular floorplate shapes of the Goldwater Hospital buildings, and would have larger and wider floorplates that would be better suited to accommodate the flexibility appropriate for the proposed academic and corporate co-location uses that are integral to the project. The uses proposed for the new buildings would be complementary to land uses found in the surrounding area. The proposed site plan would not create strong streetwalls along the loop road except near the academic building, but as discussed above, only the central core of the Islands residential development has a strong streetwall along Main Street. Compared to the No-Action condition, in the future with the proposed project the visual appearance and thus the pedestrian experience of the project site would change considerably; however, this change would not meet the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for a significant adverse urban design impact in that it would no t alter the arrangement, appearance, or functionality of the project site or rezoning area such that the alteration would negatively affect a pedestrians experience of the area. Rather, instead of a complex of vacant hospital buildings, the pedestrian would experience new buildings with active ground-floor uses, including retail. New open spaces would provide places to rest and play and would visually enhance the experience of walking around the project site. Greater levels of pedestrian activity generated by the proposed uses on the sites would be self-reinforcing, making the project area more inviting and appealing to visit. The interim uses proposed for the southern portion of the project site would help to make these areas appear active in use and integrated with the rest of the developing campus. The proposed mapping action would make the mapped street pattern consistent with the pedestrians current experience of the loop road, and the addition of the bicycle path and sidewalk to the loop road would improve access and circulation to the project site. As planning for the project and specific designs for the proposed buildings are developed, the potential effects of building massings on pedestrian wind conditions will be evaluated. As necessary, building designs would be adjusted to reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse effects on pedestrian wind conditions. Overall, the proposed project would enhance the pedestrians experience of the development sites and improve the urban design of the project site by replacing vacant buildings and vacant land with new active, mixed-use development. Visual Resources As noted above, there are no visual resources located on the project site. With Phase 1 of the proposed project, views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens would still be available from numerous vantage points within the project site and rezoning area. Furthermore, the special district would require that a visual corridor of at least 50 feet be established through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. As in the NoAction condition, however, the expansiveness of views from the project site and rezoning area would be somewhat limited by the substantial tree coverage that surrounds the project site.

8-14

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

STUDY AREA Urban Design The development associated with the proposed project would not result in any changes to the street pattern, block shapes, buildings, or streetscape of the study area. Compared to the NoAction condition, however, in the future with the proposed project the visual appearance of the project siteand thus the pedestrians experience of the study areawould change considerably. The portion of the Island south of the Queensboro Bridge would be filled with new, active development. The anticipated orientation of the proposed buildings (generally aligned to true north) would differ from the orientation of those on the north side of the Island, which are more generally aligned with the Manhattan grid. The anticipated polygonal floorplates of the proposed buildings would be somewhat different from the floorplates of buildings on the remainder of the Island, but the proposed uses would be complementary to those in the surrounding area. The majority of the buildings to be developed would be consistent with the taller buildings on the north side of the Island, which as described above are generally towers on large, irregular sites within a landscaped setting. At approximately 320 feet in height, the proposed residential building would be taller than any of the buildings that would exist on the Island in the No-Action condition; however, it would be slightly lower than the height of the two Queensboro Bridge towers on the Island, which are approximately 350 feet tall. The location of the tallest building at the northern edge of the site is intended to link this residential tower to those on the north side of the Island, and to minimize the potential shadowing and wind effects of the structure on the remainder of the proposed buildings and open spaces. The proposed open spaces would visually enhance the experience of walking around the study area, and would help to integrate the new campus with the rest of the Island. As described above, the proposed mapping action would make the mapped street pattern consistent with the pedestrians current experience of the loop road, and the addition of the bicycle path and sidewalk to the loop road would improve access and circulation to the southern portion of the study area. Visual Resources In the future with the proposed project, pedestrian-level views in the on- and off-Island portions of the study area would include the more dense development anticipated on the project site. While the context of on-Island views from north and south of the project site would change considerably with the new development, these views are anticipated to be an improvement over the views in the No-Action condition, which would include vacant buildings on the project site. Existing view corridors and views to visual resources along the limited on-Island streets would not be obstructed, except for some views of the Queensboro Bridge anchorages; however, the bridge would remain highly visible throughout the rest of the on-Island study area. Specifically, views from South Point Park to the Queensboro Bridge would be partially obscured, but these views are already partially screened by the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings (see Figure 834). The waterfront promenade would continue to provide the most expansive views to on- and off-Island resources. The context of the limited views to the visual resources on the north side of the Island is not anticipated to change considerably. From the more distant off-Island views, it is anticipated that the campus would appear more consistent with the development on the north side of the Island. Figures 8-35 through 8-39 illustrate these potential off-Island views utilizing the designs under consideration at this time. If developed to the maximum envelope allowed under zoning, the proposed Phase 1 buildings 8-15

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2018

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2018

On-Island View North

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-34

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2018

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2018

View from Sutton Place in Manhattan

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-35

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2018

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2018

View from East River Waterfront in Manhattan

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-36

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2018

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2018

View from Queensbridge Park in Queens

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-37

10.5.12 3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2018

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2018

View from Gantry State Park in Queens

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-38

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative Rendering of No Action vs. With Action Conditions - 2018

View from Roosevelt Island Tram

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-39

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

could be several stories taller (with the exception of the residential building) and bulkier than presented, and thus would be more notable in these views. Views of the Queensboro Bridge from Sutton Place and the East River Esplanade in Manhattan would now include a tall residential building in close proximity to the eastern anchorage, and some elements of the bridge would be partially screened or obscured; however, the proposed building would be less tall than the bridge towers, and the various elements of the bridge would continue to be visible from many locations (see Figures 8-35 and 8-36). In views from Queensbridge Park in Queens, the bridge would continue to be the most prominent structure visible in the foreground (see Figure 8-37). The proposed buildings would obscure views to some portions of the Queensboro Bridge from Gantry State Park in Queens; however, the most proximate elements of the bridge structure as it crosses the East River would remain prominently visible (see Figure 8-38). Therefore, while certain views from Gantry State Park would be adversely affected, the loss of these views to portions of the bridge would not constitute a significant adverse impact. In no case would the entire bridge structure be fully blocked from view, and many prominent views of the bridge would remain available. Overall, the changes in views with the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact to visual resources. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) PROJECT SITE AND REZONING AREA Urban Design Between 2018 and 2038, the full build out of the proposed project would add a maximum of 1.34 million gsf of development to the project site, for a total of 2.13 million gsf of development. In 2038 at full build, the project site is assumed to include the Phase 1 buildings and open spaces described above and the following additional buildings: One academic building. This academic building is assumed to be approximately 154,000 gsf in size, rising to up to 12 stories in height, although current designs show the building at 7 stories 1; Two additional corporate co-location buildings. The second and third buildings are assumed to be up to approximately 185,000 and 140,000 gsf in size, respectively, and approximately 10 stories in height, although current plans show the buildings at 7 and 6 stories, respectively; A mixed-use building containing academic and residential uses. The base, which would be for academic use, would rise to a height of approximately 101 feet (7 stories) with 266,000 sf. The residential tower would rise to a height of 235 feet and is assumed to contain 211,900 sf; A mixed use building that comprises corporate co-location space at its base with a residential tower rising above. The base would rise to a height of approximately 74 feet with 75,000 sf of space for the corporate co-location use; the tower would rise to a height of 280 feet and contain another 288,100 sf of residential space. Another approximately 15,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail would be included on the project site (for a total of 25,000). A second central utility plant could be developed south of the

As noted above, the heights and gross square footages provided are approximations only, as the project is expected to be refined over time.

8-16

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

southernmost residential building; it is assumed to be up to approximately 20,000 gsf in size and approximately one to two stories (40 feet) in height. As described above, the specific design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in this chapter are reflective of the design under consideration during preparation of the FEIS. At this time, the specific designs shown in the figures for the full build reflect an academic building that has a 22,000 sf footprint and is 101 feet (7 stories) tall, rather than the 12-story potential height described above; corporate co-location buildings that have 26,400 sf and 23,300 sf footprints and are 101 feet (7 stories) and 87.5 feet (6 stories) tall, respectively, rather than the 10-story potential height described above; and mixed-use buildings that have 38,000 sf and 25,650 sf footprints and are 235 and 280 feet (13 and 27 stories) tall, respectively. The buildings to be developed on the project site between 2018 and 2038 would be developed to the south of the Phase 1 buildings, on the interim use areas. By 2038, the project site would be developed at a higher density (see Figure 8-40). As with Phase 1, buildings added to the site by 2038 would be substantially taller than the vacant hospital complex that would occupy the site in the No-Action condition, creating a distinctive and recognizable campus. In addition to the open spaces developed as part of Phase 1, at full build, there would be a minimum of 1.2 additional acres of open space. In total, the site would contain a minimum of 2.5 acres of open space, which would include both active and passive spaces. It is anticipated that the open spaces could include special features and art works. Site lighting would be incorporated to enhance the pedestrian experience. At full build, the loop roadway circling the project site would be built out to its mapped right-ofway width (50 feet), with two exceptions: the southeast portion of the roadway, which would have a width of 45 feet so as not to encroach upon the south pump station, and North Loop Road, which would have a width of 56 feet. The typical section of the loop roadway would be configured to have (beginning on the campus side), a 15-foot sidewalk, an 8-foot parking lane, an 11-foot travel lane, a 3-foot buffer, a 10-foot two-way Class II bicycle path with a 3-foot buffer on the outboard side (see Figure 1-8 in Chapter 1, Project Description). The bicycle path would provide connections to the parks south of the site as well as to open space and recreation facilities north of the project site. To the north of the loop roadway, additional roadway segments would be mapped to the connection with currently mapped Main Street. These additional segments would be mapped at a width of 50 feet except for the segment of West Main Street just west of the connection with Main Street, which would be mapped with a width of 60 feet. The proposed project would improve the pedestrian experience on the project site, and maintain pedestrian access to the waterfront. By 2038, the full build out of the proposed projects design plan would be complete, creating a pedestrian-oriented campus centered on a new outdoor northsouth connection that would extend at-grade through the project site. The proposed publicly-accessible open spaces totaling a minimum of 2.5 acres would extend from the edge of the site inward to this spine. The proposed buildings would be organized around both the spine and the network of open spaces, with the main entries to the buildings located along the north-south spine. Overall, the full build out of the proposed project would create a cohesive campus with a mix of complementary uses. As described above, the potential effects of building massings on pedestrian wind conditions at full build out will be evaluated as planning for the project and specific designs for the proposed buildings are developed. As necessary, building designs would be adjusted to reduce or eliminate the potential for adverse effects on pedestrian wind conditions.

8-17

3.4.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN CAMPUS LAWN ACADEMIC RESIDENTIAL CORPORATE CO-LOCATION ENTRY COURT CAMPUS PLAZA CAMPUS GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN THE STREET CORPORATE CO-LOCATION RESIDENTIAL ACADEMIC CAMPUS LAWN CORPORATE CO-LOCATION SOUTH LOOP ROAD ACADEMIC

STREET

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Full Build - Illustrative Site Plan

Figure 8-40

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

As with Phase 1, the full build out of the proposed project would improve the urban design of the rezoning area by reconstructing the existing roadway with a new bicycle path and sidewalk, including new plantings. No substantial changes to urban design are expected in the rezoning area between 2018 and 2038. Visual Resources There are no visual resources located on the project site. At full build of the proposed project, while the project site would be developed with a new campus of buildings, views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens would still be available from numerous vantage points within the project site and rezoning area. Furthermore, the special district would require that a visual corridor of at least 50 feet be established through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. As in the No-Action condition, however, the expansiveness of views from the project site and rezoning area would be somewhat limited by the substantial tree coverage that surrounds the project site, which is anticipated to be expanded through the extensive tree planting program. STUDY AREA Urban Design At full build, the development associated with the proposed project would not result in any changes to the urban design of the study area. Compared to the No-Action condition, however, by 2038 the visual appearance of the project siteand thus the pedestrians experience of the study areawould change considerably with the proposed project. The portion of the Island south of the Queensboro Bridge would be filled with new, active development. The anticipated orientation of the proposed buildings (generally aligned to true north) would differ from the orientation of those on the north side of the Island, which are more generally aligned with the Manhattan grid. The anticipated polygonal floorplates of the proposed buildings would be somewhat different from the floorplates of buildings on the remainder of the Island, but the proposed uses would be complementary to those in the surrounding area. At approximately 320 feet in height, the proposed residential building developed in Phase 1 would remain as the tallest building on the Island; however, as noted above, it would be slightly lower than the height of the Queensboro Bridge towers, and its location would minimize its potential shadowing and wind effects on the remainder of the proposed buildings and open spaces. The lack of strong streetwalls at the project site except near the academic building would not be considered a substantial change from the surrounding area; as discussed above, only the central core of the Islands residential development has a strong streetwall along Main Street. The completion of the proposed open spaces at full build would visually enhance the experience of walking around the study area, and would help to integrate the new campus with the rest of the Island. The proposed mapping action would make the mapped street pattern consistent with the pedestrians current experience of the loop road, and the addition of the bicycle path and sidewalk to the loop road would improve access and circulation to the southern portion of the study area. Visual Resources At full build, pedestrian-level views in the on- and off-Island portions of the study area would include the multiple new structures and extensive open spaces anticipated on the project site. While the context of on-Island views to the south would change notably with the full development of the new campus, these views are anticipated to be an improvement over the views in the No-Action condition, which would include vacant buildings on the project site. 8-18

Chapter 8: Urban Design and Visual Resources

Existing view corridors and views to visual resources along the limited on-Island streets would not be obstructed, except for some views of the Queensboro Bridge towers (see Figure 8-41); however, as described above, the bridge would remain highly visible throughout the rest of the study area. The waterfront promenade would continue to provide the most expansive views to on- and off-Island resources. The context of views of the visual resources on the north side of the Island is not anticipated to change considerably. From the more distant off-Island views, it is anticipated that the fully-developed campus would appear more consistent with the development on the north side of the Island and adjacent portions of Manhattan. Figures 8-42 through 8-46 illustrate these potential off-Island views utilizing the designs under consideration at this time. If developed to the maximum envelope allowed under zoning, the buildings on the fully-developed campus could be several stories taller (with the exception of the residential buildings) and bulkier than presented, and thus would be more notable in these views. Some views to towers in the Queens skyline could be obstructed from Manhattan by the fully-developed campus; however, these buildings would still be visible from other viewpoints. Views of the Queensboro Bridge would now include a tall residential building in close proximity, and the proposed tallest buildings could obstruct some views to certain elements of the bridge; however, the proposed buildings would be less tall than the bridge towers, and the bridge would continue to be seen from many locations. Furthermore, due to the scale and breadth of the bridge, including the spans that continue east and west beyond Roosevelt Island, the bridges visual prominence in the study area would not be significantly adversely affected by the full build-out of the project site. Overall, the changes in views with the proposed projectwhile considerablewould not constitute a significant adverse effect on visual resources.

G. CONCLUSIONS
Overall, while the proposed project would result in substantial changes to the urban design of the project site and views to visual resources, it would not have any significant adverse impacts related to urban design and visual resources. As described above, the specific design of the project site buildings is ongoing, and thus the figures presented in this chapter are reflective of the design under consideration during preparation of the FEIS, rather than the maximum envelope allowable under zoning. The proposed residential buildings are illustrated in the figures at their maximum allowable height. For the other structures, while the specific form and height of the building could be somewhat different and taller than illustratedand thus could have a greater presence in surrounding viewsthe conclusions of the analysis would remain the same, i.e., no significant adverse impacts related to urban design and visual resources would be anticipated.

8-19

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2038

On-Island View North

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-41

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2038

View from Roosevelt Island Tram

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-42

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2038

View from Gantry State Park in Queens

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-43

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2038

View from Queensbridge Park in Queens

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-44

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2038

View from East River Waterfront in Manhattan

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-45

3.5.13

No Action

With Action Conditions 2038

Illustrative View of No Action vs. With Action Conditions 2038

View from Sutton Place in Manhattan

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 8-46

Chapter 9: A. INTRODUCTION

Natural Resources

This chapter examines the potential impacts from the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project on terrestrial and aquatic natural resources 1, and floodplains near the project site, which comprises 12.5 acres within Roosevelt Island, south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge (see Figure 9-1). In accordance with the June 2012 CEQR Technical Manual, this chapter describes: The regulatory programs that protect floodplains, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, aquatic resources, or other natural resources within the project site; The current condition of the floodplain and natural resources within the project site and study area, including water quality, aquatic and terrestrial biota, and threatened or endangered species and species of special concern; The floodplain, water quality, and natural resources conditions in the future without the proposed project (the No Action condition); The potential impacts of the proposed project in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years on the floodplain, water quality, and natural resources (the With Action condition); and The measures that would be developed, as necessary, to mitigate and/or reduce any of the proposed projects potential significant adverse effects on natural resources, water quality, and floodplains. As detailed in this chapter, natural resources within and near the project site would remain generally unchanged following the proposed project. Neither Phase 1 nor full build of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota, tidal wetlands, essential fish habitat, or threatened or endangered species.

B. METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW The study area for terrestrial natural resources and floodplains includes the 12.5-acre project site and the area within 400 feet of the project sites boundaries (see Figure 9-1). This area reaches the Roosevelt Island Sportspark to the north, a portion of South Point Park to the south, and portions of the East River to the east and west. The identification of threatened or endangered species was evaluated for a distance of a -mile from the project site. The study area for water quality and aquatic resources includes the overall aquatic resources of the East River.

The CEQR Technical Manual defines natural resources as (1) the Citys 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 Citys environmental stability.

9-1

10.9.12

PA RK AV

E7

E7

E7 4S T

E7 5S T

6S

3S

EA

E7

7S T

E7

8S T

ST E

E7 9S

ND

E8 0S

AV

E8

E8

1S T

2S

E8
T

3S T

UN

NA

ME

AV

ST

LE XIN GT ON

3A V

2A V

RO OS

EV

E6

9S T 8S

2S

EL TI

E7

SH L

CH

VE R

EA

RI

BL VD

E6

1A V

E6

MA I

5S T

34

NO N

9S

W ES TR

E6 E6 0S T
E6

2S
T

T
36 AV

1S

DR

VE R

8S

E5

7S T

E5 6S
E5 5S T

DR

FD

9S

37 AV

FD

ST

14 ST

E5

E5

12 ST

11 S

E6

3S T

10 ST

4S

E6

6S

35

AV

38

E5 4S
E5
E5

QU

40
EE N SB OR O

AV
21 ST
39 AV

3S

T
RD

EA

23 S

24 S

RA M

9S

13

ST

11 ST

10

44 AV

42
ST 22

5 ST

44 R

45 AV

44 D R

24

ST

RD

PL Z

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary (400-Foot Perimeter)

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 9-1

Aerial

41 AV

ST

QN

29

ST

43

AV

27

28

ST

43

12

ST

RD

ST

CR

ES C

EN

E5 0S

ST

RD

E5

ST

1S

41

22

AV

ST

2S

BR
41

13

AV

12

AV

ST

E7 0S

ST

ST

RD

E6

7S

E7

1S T

NL

YO RK AV

E6

PH L

33 R

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing conditions for floodplain and natural resources within the study area were summarized using: Existing information obtained from the following governmental and nongovernmental sources: New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) Harbor Water Quality Surveys and City-Wide Long Term Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Planning Project Reports; New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (NY/NJHEP) Harbor-Wide Water Quality Reports; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and list of federally threatened and endangered species for New York County (http://ecos.fws.gov); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designation areas; records of wetlands, significant natural communities, and threatened and endangered species identified by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) Environmental Resource Mapper; New York State Breeding Bird Atlas results for Block 5851C; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Herp Atlas Project results for the Central Park quadrant, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps. Information identified in peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the natural resources of Roosevelt Island and the lower East River. Observations made during site reconnaissance conducted within the study area on October 10 and 12, 2011. Tree survey conducted within the project site on March 5 and 6, 2012. The tree survey recorded species, diameter at breast height (dbh), height, canopy spread, and tree health (see Appendix 9). FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT (2018 AND 2038) The assessment of floodplain and terrestrial natural resources in the future without the proposed project considers these resources in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years without the proposed project (the No Action condition). In the future without the proposed project, the existing Goldwater Hospital complex is assumed to remain but will be uninhabited. For the assessment of potential effects to terrestrial resources, it is assumed that vegetation management will be reduced, allowing for some succession of vegetative communities. Human activity within the project site will be reduced. For the assessment of potential effects to aquatic resources, the assessment considered the trend of water quality improvements documented within the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary, implementation of planned projects that would result in water quality and aquatic habitat improvements within the East River as identified by sources such as PlaNYC, NYCDEP CityWide Long Term CSO Control Planning Project, New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, and Hudson Raritan Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Project. FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) Potential impacts on the floodplain, wetlands, aquatic, and terrestrial resources from Phase 1 of the proposed project are assessed by considering the following: The anticipated water quality and natural resources of the East River in the vicinity of the project site in 2018. 9-2

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

The potential for discharge of stormwater during operation of Phase 1 of the proposed project to affect aquatic resources. The analysis considers beneficial effects of stormwater management measures that would result in improved quality of the runoff discharged from the project site and reduction in the peak stormwater discharge rate. The proposed project would integrate green infrastructure practices, such as bioswales, natural filtrations systems, rain gardens or rainwater collection and reuse of stormwater to the extent practical as part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project. Additional temporary features during periods of construction may include settling ponds and approved filtration systems, some of which could become integrated into permanent site features. A SWPPP would be prepared for the entire project, with detailed design completed for Phase I construction and development and conceptual design calculations for later phases. The SWPPP would be updated prior to later development phases to describe final plans for these areas and will meet State-mandated reductions in sedimentation and flow for the redevelopment of the site. Indirect impacts to wildlife individuals within the study area such as avoidance of certain habitat areas due to increased human activity, noise, or construction equipment during land disturbing activities. Potential changes in daytime and nighttime bird strikes based on proposed building locations, heights, lighting, and lower story window reflections. Potential long-term beneficial effects on plants and wildlife from the proposed landscaping within the proposed public open space areas, as well as the potential for adverse impacts to natural resources due to management of these open space areas. (e.g., pesticide application). The potential for impacts on the project sites trees due to tree removal as part of site grading and other construction activities is discussed in Chapter 20, Construction. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) Potential impacts on the floodplain, wetlands, aquatic, and terrestrial resources from the full build (Phases 1 and 2) of the proposed project are assessed by considering the following: The anticipated water quality and natural resources of the East River in the vicinity of the project site in 2038. The potential for discharge of stormwater during operation of the proposed project to affect aquatic resources, considering the anticipated improvements in the quality of runoff and reduction in the peak discharge rate due to implementation of green infrastructure practices. Direct impacts to wildlife individuals due to loss of habitat for those individuals using existing habitats and the interim landscaped areas developed during the Phase 1 project that would be developed as part of the full build project. Indirect impacts to wildlife individuals using the open space areas created during Phase 1 that would remain under the full build, such as avoidance of certain habitat areas due to increased human activity, noise, or construction equipment during land disturbing activities. Potential changes in daytime and nighttime bird strikes. Potential long-term beneficial effects on plants and wildlife from the proposed landscaping within the proposed public open spaces developed within the project site. Degree of sea level rise due to climate change projected by the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC).

9-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

C. REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following sections identify the federal and state legislation and regulatory programs that pertain to activities in coastal areas, surface waters, floodplains, wetlands, and the protection of species of special concern that would apply to the proposed project. FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (16 USC 1531 TO 1544) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 recognizes that endangered species of wildlife and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people. The Act provides for the protection of critical habitats on which endangered or threatened species depend for survival. The Act also prohibits the importation, exportation, taking, possession, and other activities involving illegally taken species covered under the Act, and interstate or foreign commercial activities. Species protected under the Act have the potential to occur in the study area. STATE STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) (N.Y. ECL ARTICLE 3, TITLE 3; ARTICLE 15; ARTICLE 17, TITLES 3, 5, 7, AND 8; ARTICLE 21; ARTICLE 70, TITLE 1; ARTICLE 71, TITLE 19; IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS 6 NYCRR ARTICLES 2 AND 3) Title 8 of Article 17, ECL, Water Pollution Control, authorized the creation of SPDES to regulate discharges to New York States waters. Activities requiring a SPDES permit include point source discharges of wastewater into surface or groundwater of the state, including the intake and discharge of water for cooling purposes, constructing or operating a disposal system (sewage treatment plant), discharge of stormwater, and construction activities that disturb one or more acres. The proposed project would require the management of stormwater and would involved construction on a site over one acre in size. Soil disturbing activities resulting from the proposed project would be conducted in accordance with the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-10-001). To obtain coverage under this permit, an SWPPP would be prepared and a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be submitted to NYSDEC. The SWPPP would comply with all of the requirements of GP-0-10-001, NYSDECs technical standard for erosion and sediment control, presented in New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, and NYSDECs technical standard for the design of water quantity and water quality controls (post-construction stormwater control practices) presented in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. TIDAL WETLANDS ACT, ARTICLE 25, ECL, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS 6 NYCRR PART 661. Tidal wetlands regulations apply anywhere tidal inundation occurs on a daily, monthly, or intermittent basis. In New York, tidal wetlands occur along the tidal waters of the Hudson River up to the salt line and along the saltwater shore, bays, inlets, canals, and estuaries of Long Island, New York City, and Westchester County. NYSDEC administers the tidal wetlands regulatory program and the mapping of the states tidal wetlands. A permit is required for almost any activity that would alter wetlands or the adjacent areas (up to 300 feet inland from wetland boundary or up to 150 feet inland within New York City). NYSDEC-regulated wetlands may exist along Roosevelt Islands shoreline. 9-4

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE; SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (ECL, SECTIONS 11-0535[1]-[2], 11-0536[2], [4], IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS 6 NYCRR PART 182) The Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife, Species of Special Concern Regulations prohibit the taking, import, transport, possession, or selling of any endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife, or any hide, or other part of these species as listed in 6 NYCRR 182.6. Under these regulations, adverse modification of occupied habitat of endangered or threatened species is prohibited without authorization from NYSDEC. LOCAL REGULATIONS NEW YORK CITY STREET TREE ZONING AMENDMENT AND LOCAL LAW 3 OF 2010 The City of New York passed a zoning text amendment 2 that requires trees to be planted along the curb of city streets following the construction of new buildings and certain types of alterations citywide. All applicants must apply to the NYCDPR for street tree planting permits. The current zoning requires all new buildings and all enlargements exceeding 20 percent of the floor area to have 1 tree for every 25 feet of road frontage, including existing trees. Like other zoning rules, these requirements must be satisfied in order for the builder to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Species shall be selected from the list of approved Street Trees for New York City. Tree replacement, protection, and transplanting would comply with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)s applicable rules and regulations. The methodology used to determine the number and size of trees to be replanted (e.g., caliper replacement method) would be determined in consultation with DPR and would be in accordance with this zoning amendment and local law, and Chapter 5 Title 56 of the Rules of the City of New York. The proposed project would map the one-way ring road surrounding the project site as a city street and is therefore required to provide street trees consistent with this zoning amendment and local law.

D. EXISTING CONDITIONS
WATER QUALITY The East River is a tidal strait connecting western Long Island Sound with upper New York Harbor. Its lower reach, in the vicinity of the project site, is classified by NYSDEC as Use Classification I. Recommended uses for Class I waters are secondary contact recreation and fishing, and water quality should be suitable for fish propagation and survival. NYCDEP monitors water quality in New York Harbor, including the East River, through its annual Harbor Survey. The results of recent surveys (e.g., NYCDEP 2006, 2010; NYNJHEP 2011) show that water quality has improved significantly as a result of measures undertaken by the city. These measures include infrastructure improvements, the elimination of 99 percent of raw dry-weather sewage discharges, the reduction of illegal discharges, the increased capture of wet-weather-related floatables, and the reduction of toxic metals loadings from industrial sources by 95 percent (NYCDEP 2002). In 2009, the Inner Harbor survey region of the NYCDEP Harbor Survey (which includes the lower East River) had met the fecal coliform standard (an indicator of untreated sewage discharge) for at least 5 years. Average dissolved oxygen (DO)3
2 3

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/street_tree_planting/index.shtml DO in the water column is necessary for respiration by aquatic biota. The bacterial breakdown of high organic loads can deplete DO and result in low DO levels. Persistently low DO can degrade habitat and

9-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

concentrations also met the Use Classification I standards during this same time period and chlorophyll-a concentrations4 were not indicative of high nutrient concentrations. Secchi transparency5 during this 5 year period was indicative of low water clarity, likely due to high suspended solid concentrations of surface waters (NYCDEP 2010, 2011). AQUATIC BIOTA The Upper New York Harbor, which includes the lower East River, provides a variety of habitats that support a diverse and productive aquatic community. Aquatic organisms include phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), benthic macroalgae, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates (including shellfish), and fish, as well as occasional marine mammals and sea turtles, as described below. PHYTOPLANKTON, SAV AND BENTHIC MACROALGAE These organisms are the primary producers of energy in marine food webs. Diatoms, dinoflagellates, green algae, and blue-green algae are the most dominant groups of phytoplankton species in the New York Harbor and East River (Hazen and Sawyer 1983, Brosnan and OShea 1995). SAV refers to vascular plants that grow in shallow areas around the harbor where light sufficient for photosynthesis can penetrate. SAV provide prey with cover from predators, act as host structures for epiphytes, buffer nutrients and trap sediment, and minimize erosion of the harbor floor. The extensively developed shoreline, swift currents, and steeply sloped engineered shorelines of the East River severely limit SAV occurrence. Benthic macroalgae occur in the shallower areas of the harbor and the East River; common species include brown algae (Fucus sp.) and sea lettuce (Ulva lactua) (Perlmutter 1971). ZOOPLANKTON Zooplankton are another integral component of the food web in the Upper New York Harbor. These organisms feed on phytoplankton and decomposed material, and are a primary food source for fish such as bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), as well as early life stages of commercially and recreationally important fish such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and white perch (Morone Americana). Copepods, rotifers, barnacle larva, mysid shrimp, and amphipods are among the most common groups of zooplankton found within this region (Perlmutter 1971, Stepien et al. 1981, Hazen and Sawyer 1983, Lonsdale and Cosper 1994).

affect aquatic biota. Consequently, DO is one of the most universal indicators of overall water quality in aquatic systems.
4

High levels of nutrients can lead to excessive plant growth (a sign of eutrophication) and depletion of DO. Concentrations of the plant pigment chlorophyll-a in water can be used to estimate productivity and the abundance of phytoplankton. Chlorophyll-a concentrations greater than 20 micrograms per liter (g/L) are considered suggestive of eutrophic conditions (NYCDEP 2010). Secchi transparency is a measure of the clarity of surface waters. Transparency greater than 5 feet (1.5 meters) indicates relatively clear water. Decreased clarity can be caused by high suspended solid concentrations or blooms of plankton. Secchi transparencies less than 3 feet (0.9 meters) may be considered indicative of poor water quality conditions. Average Secchi readings in the Inner Harbor area have remained relatively consistent since measurement of this parameter began in 1986, ranging between approximately 3.5 and 5.5 feet (1.1 to 1.8 meters) (NYCDEP 2010).

9-6

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES Benthic invertebrates inhabit the sediments and surfaces of submerged objects such as rock pilings or debris, and are food source for fish and waterfowl in the Upper New York Harbor regional study area. Common groups include aquatic earthworms (oligochaetes), segmented worms (polychaetes), snails (gastropods), bivalves (e.g., soft shell clams, dwarf surf clam, and blue mussel), barnacles, cumaceans, amphipods, isopods, crabs, and shrimp (LMS 1980,1984; NJDEP 1984; EA Engineering Science & Technology 1990). Most benthic invertebrates reported in the area are classified as pollution tolerant species (Adams et al. 1998). Benthic and epibenthic sampling in the East River documented nine benthic macroinvertebrate taxa, including annelids, arthropods, and mollusks (NYCDEP 2007). The annelid Haploscoloplos robustus and mollusks Melampus bidentatus and Mulinia lateralis were found in the highest densities. Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and American lobster (Homarus americanus) may also be present within the Upper New York Harbor regional study area (NMFS 2001). FISH The finfish community in New York Harbor and East River is typical of large coastal estuaries and inshore waterways along the Mid-Atlantic Bight, supporting a variety of estuarine, marine, and anadromous fish species that use this area for spawning habitat, a migratory pathway, and as a nursery/foraging area. Hogchoker (Tinectes maculates), tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), winter flounder (Pseadopeuronectes americanus), white perch (Morone americana), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) are examples of fish found within the Upper New York Harbor and lower East River (NOAA 2001). Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) are common estuarine species that occur year round. Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), striped bass, tomcod, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) are anadromous fish that pass through the harbor during migration to and from spawning areas in the upper Hudson River. Examples of marine species found from spring through fall include bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), tautog (Tautoga onitis), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) (NOAA 2001). Overall, the harbors fish community is very spatially and seasonally dynamic. Transient shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) may occasionally be present in New York Harbor and East River (Bain 1997, NMFS 2001). GROUNDWATER As presented in Chapter 10, Hazardous Materials, groundwater occurs between 12 and 15 feet below grade within the project site. Groundwater beneath the project site is expected to flow outward from the center toward the East River, but the actual flow direction is likely influenced by basements, underground utilities, bedrock geology, and nearby subway tunnels. Analytical results of groundwater samples collected within the project site indicated compliance with NYSDEC Class GA Ambient Water Quality Standard (drinking water standards) with the exception of levels of certain metals (some of these were likely related to urban fill materials whereas other are likely natural). Groundwater on Roosevelt Island is not used as a source of potable water.

9-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

WETLANDS The East River is classified on NWI maps as estuarine subtidal unconsolidated bottom wetland (E1UBL1). Subtidal areas are continuously submerged, and unconsolidated bottoms have at least 25 percent cover of particles smaller than 7 centimeters and less than 30 percent vegetative cover. The Roosevelt Island shoreline is bulkheaded and rip-rapped, and no vegetated tidal wetlands are present. However, the near-shore water depths around the Islands perimeter may be sufficiently shallow (less than 6 feet at mean low water) to be considered NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands. There are no NWI- or NYSDEC-mapped freshwater wetlands present within the project site. FLOODPLAINS On the basis of currently effective FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRM), the 100-year floodplain (i.e., the area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year) reaches beyond the seawall and covers portions of West Road and East Road on the western and eastern edges of the study area. The project site, however, is entirely outside of the 100-year floodplain zone. The 500-year floodplain zone (i.e., the area with a 0.2 percent chance of flooding each year) extends into the project site towards its midpoint where the elevation is lowest (see Figure 9-2). The FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFE) maps 6 indicate that the eastern and western portions of the project site are within the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation (i.e., 100 year flood elevation, 13 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88, which converts to 14.1 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD29] and 16.4 feet Belmont Island Datum7), and much of the project sites center is below the Advisory 0.2%. Base Flood Elevation (i.e., 500-year flood elevation). The ABFE for the 100-year flood elevation is approximately 4 feet higher than the currently applicable 100-year flood elevation at the western and eastern edges of the study area. New York City is affected by local (e.g., flooding of inland portions of the city from short-term, high-intensity rain events in areas with poor drainage), fluvial (e.g., rivers and streams overflowing their banks), and coastal flooding (e.g., long and short wave surges that affect the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, bays such as Upper New York Bay, and tidally influenced rivers such as the Hudson River and East River, streams, and inlets [FEMA 2007]). Because the East River is tidal, its water level is controlled by the tidal conditions within the New York Bay, Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean. Within New York City, tidal flooding is the primary cause of flood damage. Coastal floodplains such as those present on Roosevelt Island are influenced by astronomic tide and meteorological forces (e.g., northeasters and hurricanes [FEMA 2007]) and not by fluvial flooding. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND VEGETATION Roosevelt Island has been highly modified by human activity and is almost entirely developed. Following Edinger et al. (2002), the majority of the Island is best described as a terrestrial cultural system. This category includes ecological communities that are either created and maintained by human activities, or are modified by human influence to such a degree that the physical conformation of the substrate, or the biological composition of the resident community is substantially different from the character of the substrate or community as it existed prior to human influence (Edinger et al. 2002).

The FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) for the portion of New York City that includes the project site was released for review on February 25, 2013. Belmont Island Datum is the datum used for Roosevelt Island.

9-8

10.9.12

E8

PA RK AV

E8 E7 E7 4S T E7 6S 5S T T

PA R

KA V

7S

E7 8S

E7

E7

3S

EA ST E

E7

0S

9S

ND AV

E8

2S

E8

1S

3S T

UN NA M

ED

ST

AV

TO N

LE XIN G

3A V

2A V

E6

9S

2S T

RO OS EV EL TI

E7

SH L

YO RK

VE R

ST

ES

E6 E6 0S T
E6

2S T

VE

RN

EA ST R

DR

IVE

1S

36

AV

E5

7S T

ST

E5

FD

DR

E5 6S
5S

14

8S

FD

E5

9S

12

37 AV

ST

E5

ST

11 S

TR

3S

9S

E6

ON B

10 ST

LV D

E6

1A V

E6

MA

5S

34
35

AV

4S T

E6

6S

AV

E5
E5
E5
E5 1S

4S
T

40

QU

AV

ST

EA

24

RA

12

ST

9S

13

ST

11 ST

10

42

5 ST

44 R
45 AV

44 D

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary (400-Foot Perimeter) 100-Year Floodplain 500-Year Floodplain

24 S

44 AV

ST

22

RD

PL Z

400

1000 FEET

SCALE

FEMA Flood Zone

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 9-2

41 AV

ST

QN

29

ST

43

AV

27

28

ST

43

RD

ST

CR E

SC

EN

E5

0S

ST

23

RD

ST

41

22

AV

ST

2S

BR
41

RD

21

ST

3S

EE

13

38

AV

NS

BO R

39 AV

ST

12 S

RI

IN

EA

E7

0S

ST

RD

CH

E6

7S

1S

NL

8S

E7

PH L

AV

E6

33

RD

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

Ecological communities within the study area include mowed lawn with trees, mowed roadside/pathway, paved road, and urban structure exterior. Most of the vegetated sections of the study area are best described as mowed lawn with trees, which is defined by Edinger et al. (2002) as residential, recreational, or commercial land in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and forbs, and shaded by at least 30 percent cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50 percent cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing. This category applies to the areas of lawn with mature trees on the eastern, western, and southern sides of the hospital buildings, and the medians that divide the Roosevelt Island promenade from West Road and East Road. Tree species in these areas include pin oak (Quercus palustris), alternate-leaf dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), Japanese maple (Acer palmatum), Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii), gingko (Gingko biloba), black cherry (Prunus serotina), Yoshino cherry (Prunus x yedoensis), white spruce (Picea glauca), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), London planetree (Platanus hybrida), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), elm (Ulmus sp.), and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Results of a tree survey conducted on the project site on March 5 and 6, 2012 documented a total of 132 trees comprising 26 species. Pin oak is the most abundant tree, accounting for 51 of the trees on site. Most trees are mature, with an average diameter at breast height of 19 inches. The southern end of the study area extends into the newly created South Point Park. The majority of the park is composed of a grassy area with recently planted sapling trees which include swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and pin oak. Vegetation on the hill centered within the park largely comprises herbaceous vegetation and grasses such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), calico aster (Aster lateriflorus), various goldenrod species (Solidago sp.) and other native herbaceous species. This restoration area cannot be described adequately by one community type but does meet some characteristics of the successional old field and flower/herb garden ecological community classifications defined by Edinger et al. (2002). A peripheral area, which is separated from the restoration area by fencing and bounded by the East River on the east side of the Island, could be described according to Edinger et al. (2002) as urban vacant lot which is defined as an open site in a developed, urban area that has been cleared either for construction or following the demolition of a building. Vegetation may be sparse, with large area of exposed soil and often with rubble or other debris. This area is occupied by species that are characteristic of this ecological community, including common wormwood (Artemisia vulgaris), biennial wormwood (Artemisia biennis), nightshade (Solanum sp.), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). A complete list of plants observed within the study area during the October 12, 2011 field survey is presented in Table 9-1.

9-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 9-1 Plant Species Observed within the Study Area

Scientific name Trees and Shrubs Yoshino cherry Prunus x yedoensis American basswood * Tilia Americana Juniper species Juniperous spp. Cotoneaster Cotoneaster Medik Golden raintree Koelreuteria bipinnata Pin oak * Quercus palustris Domestic pear Pyrus communis Rosemallow * Hibiscus Mulberry species Morus spp. Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Rose species Rosa spp. Japanese maple Acer palmatum English yew Taxus baccata Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima Sweetgum * Liquidambar styraciflua Princess tree Paulownia tomentosa Alternate-leaf dogwood * Cornus alternifolia American hornbeam * Carpinus caroliniana Japanese black pine Pinus thunbergii Silver maple * Acer saccharinum Eastern cottonwood * Populus deltoides London planetree Platanus hybrida American beech * Fagus grandifolia Sugar maple * Acer saccharum Forbs and Herbs Maple species * Acer spp. White spruce * Picea glauca Honeylocust * Gleditsia triacanthos Northern bayberry * Morella pensylvanica Tuliptree * Liriodendron tulipifera Swamp white oak * Quercus bicolor Sumac species * Rhus Gingko Gingko biloba Black cherry Prunus serotina Elm species Ulumus spp. Geranium Geranium spp. Abelia Abelia X grandiflora Daylilly Hemerocallis spp. Liriope Liriope spp. Hydrangea Hydrangea spp. Common plantain Plantago major Common blue violet * Viola sororia Dandelion Taraxacum spp. White clover Trifolium repens Blackeyed Susan * Rudbeckia hirta Blue flax Linum perenne Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Nutgrass Cyperus rotundus Nightshade Solanum spp. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Boneset * Eupatorium perfoliatum Foxtail Alopecurus Echinacea Echinacea spp. Common reed Phragmites australis Solidago species * Solidago spp. Common name

9-10

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

Table 9-1 (contd) Plant Species Observed within the Study Area
Scientific name Forbs and Herbs (contd) Timothy species Phleum spp. Curly dock Rumex crispus Giantdaisy Leucanthemella serotina Common wormwood * Artemisia vulgaris Switchgrass * Panicum virgatum Biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis Calico aster * Aster lateriflorus Cottongrass Eriophorum spp. Vines Boston ivy Parthenocissus tricuspidata Virginia creeper * Parthenocissus quinquefolia Oriental ladys thumb Polygonum cespitosum Morningglory Ipomoea eriocarpa Notes: * Native to North America Source: 10/12/11 Field investigation Common name

ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE Roosevelt Island falls within the boundaries of a regulated quarantine zone for the Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis). The Asian Longhorned Beetle is a destructive wood-boring pest of maple and other hardwoods that was first discovered in the United States in Brooklyn, NY in 1996. Since 1996, U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDAs) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); state and city cooperators in New York, Illinois, and New Jersey; and the U.S. Forest Service have undertaken eradication activities by imposing regulated boundaries, conducting survey and control activities around confirmed sites, removing infested trees, and planting trees to restore areas where trees were removed. Contractors operating in infested areas must be certified and must thoroughly clean all equipment before moving to non-infested areas. As a measure of control, certain tree species are generally prohibited from planting within all of Brooklyn, Manhattan (including Roosevelt Island), Queens, and parts of Staten Island. The most common host species for the Asian Longhorned Beetle include: maples such as Norway, red, silver, sugar, sycamore maple, and boxelder, horsechestnut, buckeye, willows such weeping willow, pussy willow, and white willow, American elm, Siberian elm, Chinese elm, gray birch, European white birch, and river birch. Signs of infestation were not noted during the tree survey. WILDLIFE The habitat available to terrestrial wildlife in the study area primarily consists of manicured lawn, ornamental shrubs, single rows of young trees, and small clusters of mature shade trees. There is no woody understory beneath the mature trees, and herbaceous ground cover consists of mowed grass. As such, wildlife occurring in the study area is largely limited to urban-adapted species that tolerate degraded environments and high levels of human activity. BIRDS The Breeding Bird Atlas is a periodic census of the distribution of breeding birds across New York State. The most recent census was conducted from 2000-2005 and documented 43 species as confirmed or probable/possible breeders in the survey block in which the study area is located (Block 5851C; see Table 9-2). This survey block encompasses larger and more diverse areas of

9-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 9-2 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Atlas Results for Block 5851C
Common Name Scientific Name Canada Goose Branta canadensis Cygnus olor Mute Swan Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant Butorides virescens Green Heron Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Falco sparverius American Kestrel Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Larus argentatus Herring Gull Rock Pigeon Columba livia Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Megascops asio Eastern Screech-Owl Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren Troglodytes aedon House Wren Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush American Robin Turdus migratorius Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch House Sparrow Passer domesticus Note: Boldface indicates the subset of species expected to nest within the study area based on the habitat present.

9-12

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

habitat (including the southern end of Central Park) than what is present on Roosevelt Island; therefore, many bird species that appear in the atlas block are unlikely to breed in the study area. Eighteen of the 43 species listed in the atlas block are considered to have the potential to breed in the study area on the basis of their habitat requirements (see species highlighted in bold in Table 9-2). They are disturbance-tolerant, generalist species that have small area requirements and thrive in human-modified environments. Examples include American robin (Turdus migratorius), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). Many of the birds that likely occur in the study area during the breeding season are year-round resident species that remain at northern latitudes during winter. Landbird species expected to occur in the terrestrial habitats of the study area during winter include urban-adapted species such as blue jay, dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), European starling, house sparrow, mourning dove, northern cardinal, red-bellied woodpecker, and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Waterfowl and other waterbirds that are commonly found in the waters surrounding New York City (Fowle and Kerlinger 2001) and may occur on the lower East River during winter include American black duck (Anus rubripes), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), common merganser (Mergus merganser), greater black-backed gull (Larus marinus), herring gull (Larus argentatus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis). Although the terrestrial resources in the study area provide breeding and wintering habitat for only a limited number of bird species, they may be utilized as stopover sites by numerous additional species migrating through the region. Most bird species are more generalistic in their habitat preferences during migration than during the non-migratory periods, and thus, far more species are likely to occur in the study area during spring and fall than at other times of year. Migratory landbirds expected to occur in the study area during spring and fall include arboreal species that forage in mature trees, such as American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia), northern parula (Parula americana), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), among others. Species that prefer understory vegetation, early successional forests, and fields and meadows may occur in South Point Park during migration. Examples include common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), darkeyed junco, song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Birds observed in the study area during the field surveys included blue jay, Canada goose, cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), European starling, house sparrow, mourning dove, northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), red-bellied woodpecker, ring-billed gull, rock dove (Columba livia), song sparrow, white-throated sparrow, yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), and yellow-rumped warbler. Of these, blue jay, Canada goose, European starling, house sparrow, mourning dove, northern mockingbird, redbellied woodpecker, ring-billed gull, and rock dove are species that likely breed in the study area, and cedar waxwing, song sparrow, white-throated sparrow, yellow-bellied sapsucker, and yellow-rumped warbler were likely migrants headed towards southern wintering grounds. MAMMALS Similar to the bird community, the terrestrial resources available in the study area limits the mammal community to species associated with disturbed habitats within urban landscapes. The mammal community is further limited by Roosevelt Islands isolation from the mainland. 9-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Mammals occurring on the Island are either species that have colonized the Island naturally or were introduced by humans. Mammals expected to occur in the study area include raccoon (Procyon lotor), house mouse (Mus musculus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and domestic cat (Felis catus). Gray squirrel and domestic cat were the only mammals observed during the field surveys. Several feral domestic cats are known to occur at the site. REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS The NYSDEC Herp Atlas Project identified 10 species as occurring within the atlas block that covers the study area (Central Park USGS quadrangle): northern redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (Rana clamitans), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), Italian wall lizard (Podarcis sicula), northern brown snake (Storeria dekayi), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). However, the atlas block spans a large geographic area (most of Manhattan and south Bronx) that includes larger and more diverse areas of habitat than what is present on Roosevelt Island, and on the basis of their habitat requirements (Mitchell et al. 2006, Gibbs et al. 2007), none of these species is expected to occur in the study area. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS The NYNHP Environmental Resource Mapper lists the shortnose sturgeon (state and federally endangered [Acipenser brevirostrum]) and peregrine falcon (state endangered [Falco peregrines]) as occurring in New York County, but does not identify any records of federal or state-listed species within the study area. In response to a request for information on state-listed species within a -mile of the project site, NYNHP indicated that peregrine falcons occur in the area (Pietrusiak 2012). However, the project site does not offer suitable nesting sites for peregrine falconshigh cliff ledges and tall buildings. While bridge towers can also be a nesting site, unlike several other bridges in the New York City region, peregrine falcons are not known to nest on the Queensboro Bridge. Within the vicinity of the project site, peregrine falcons have nested on the Williamsburg Bridge (approximately 3 miles away) in recent years. Occurrence of peregrine falcons in the study area would be limited to migrants passing through the region or individuals from nest sites elsewhere in the city. No federally listed terrestrial wildlife species are listed by the USFWS as occurring in New York County. Federally threatened or endangered aquatic species indicated by NMFS as occurring in the East River in the vicinity of Roosevelt Island include shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (Damon-Randall 2012). Sea turtles neither nest in the East River, nor reside there year-round, and would be unlikely to occur in the study area except as occasional transients. The federally endangered Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon are known to pass through the East River en route to Hudson River breeding grounds or overwintering areas in the Atlantic. NMFS has designated the Atlantic Ocean waters within the greater Hudson River estuary, of which the East River is a part, as Essential Fish Habitat (at the egg, larval, juvenile, and/or adult stage) for the following species: pollock (Pollachius virens), red hake (Urophycis chuss), winter flounder, windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic butterfish, Atlantic mackerel (Scomber 9-14

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

scombrus), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), scup, black sea bass (Centropristis striata), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus), sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus), clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria), little skate (Leucoraja erinacea), and winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata).

E. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES The assessment of water quality and aquatic resources for the future without the proposed project in 2018 considers ongoing programs and proposed projects in the vicinity of the project site that will occur independent of the proposed project, including: Water quality and sediment quality improvements expected to occur as a result of regional and local programs; Habitat enhancement or restoration activities associated with the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) or Hudson-Raritan Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Project (HRE); Water quality improvements in the East River resulting from New York City projects; and The Verdant Power Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) project on Roosevelt Island. New York City water quality improvement projects include the implementation of the East River and Open Waters Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan developed as part of the Citywide Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) to address CSO discharges, in compliance with the EPAs CSO Control Policy and as specified in a Consent Order signed by NYSDEC and New York City in 2005 and modified in 2011 (NYSDEC Case No. CO2-20000107-8). Other water quality improvement projects include Vision 2020, the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan, and the City of New Yorks PlaNYC. The Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan was developed by New York City Department of City Planning to establish goals for the New York City waterfront, with the intention of promoting various ecological objectives and enhancing sustainability and climate resilience planning through the incorporation of climate change considerations, among other goals (see Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy). The plan, which should be largely in effect by 2018, seeks to make improvements to water quality and aquatic resources through measures such as: additional nitrogen reduction at the Bowery Bay, Tallman Island, Hunts Point, and Wards Island wastewater treatment plants (NYCDCP 2011), additional reduction in CSOs with the increased capture of stormwater runoff with implementation of the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan (NYCDEP 2011), improved flushing of constrained water bodies, and optimization of existing sewer systems through improvements to drainage, interceptors, and tide gates (NYCDCP 2011). The City of New Yorks PlaNYC document is a planning agenda that targets a wide range of improvements to New York City by the year 2030 (City of New York 2011). Examples of PlaNYC goals that would result in improvements to water quality and aquatic resources include reducing nitrogen discharges from the Bowery Bay, Tallman Island and Wards Island wastewater treatment plants by more than 50 percent, construction of grey infrastructure projects to reduce the discharge of untreated water to the East River and other waterways, and reintroduction of oysters and eel grass. 9-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The Verdant Power Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) project is located in the East River off Roosevelt Island and will likely be underway by 2018 under the terms of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license issued to the pilot project on January 23, 2012 and valid for 10 years. The RITE project would provide renewable energy to the grid from tidal currents using an array of underwater, tidal turbines. Using up to 30 commercial class turbines, the pilot project would generate 1 megawatt (MW) of power (FERC 2012). The FERC license for the RITE project requires measures to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, cultural, and aesthetic resources, including several environmental monitoring programs such as hydroacoustic and sonar monitoring; species characterization and detection; monitoring for all rare, threatened, and endangered species and migration occurrences; bird monitoring; underwater noise monitoring; and monitoring of recreation use. All project equipment will have to be removed 60 days prior to the expiration of the certification, followed by site restoration, unless a FERC license is obtained (FERC 2012). While some water quality improvements would be achieved by 2018, the aquatic biota within the lower East River in 2018 would be expected to be as described under the existing condition. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE In 2018, without the proposed project, natural resources within the study area are expected to remain the same as at present. The hospital is assumed to be inactive and vacant, but the buildings would remain in place. Land use at the northern end of the study area would not change, and South Point Park at the southern end of the study area would presumably continue to be managed in its current state. Presently manicured areas of vegetation on the hospital campus would likely become slightly overgrown, but neither plant nor wildlife species composition would change as a result. The same urban-adapted, disturbance-tolerant species would continue to inhabit the site and the site would continue to lack suitable habitat to support any species beyond those currently in the area. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES The assessment of water quality and aquatic resources for the future without the proposed project condition in 2038 considers the ongoing programs and proposed projects described above for the 2018 analysis year. In the future without the project in 2038 water quality improvements resulting from implementation of measures identified in the East River and Open Waters Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan would be expected to have continued. Water quality and habitat improvements would have been achieved from the measures and actions identified in Vision 2020 and the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan as well as in PlaNYC. If issued a license, the Verdant Power RITE project would be in operation. Aquatic biota in the East River would likely remain largely the same as described under the existing condition. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE In 2038, without the proposed project, natural resources would be expected to be similar to the existing condition and the future condition without the project in 2018 with some natural maturation of vegetation. For purposes of conservatively assessing impacts, it is assumed that the Goldwater Hospital would remain vacant in the 2038 analysis year. Areas of the project site 9-16

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

that are presently covered by manicured lawn would be overgrown. Land use at the northern end of the study area would not change, and South Point Park at the southern end of the study area would presumably continue to be managed in its current state. Young trees currently in the study area would be mature, and mature trees presently in the study area would be older and larger. The same urban-adapted, disturbance-tolerant wildlilfe species would continue to inhabit the site and the site would continue to lack suitable habitat to support any species beyond those currently in the area.

F. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) By 2018, the first phase of the Cornell NYC Tech project would be completed. Construction of Phase 1 would result in clearing and grading within much of the 12.5-acre project site. Phase 1 would consist of up to 790,000 gsf of development, consisting of academic space, residential units, corporate co-location space, an Executive Education Center, ancillary retail uses, a central utility plant, and up to 250 parking spaces. Phase 1 would also include publicly accessible open space and the integration of green infrastructure practices, such as bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection and reuse of stormwater to the extent practical as part of the SWPPP prepared for the development. As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, Cornell has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. To meet this goal, an array of photovoltaic (PV) panels may be constructed above the roof of the academic building, extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building. The proposed project would not result in any changes to the promenade, which is outside the project site. The following sections discuss the potential for natural resource impacts to occur in 2018 with the proposed project. AQUATIC RESOURCES AND WETLANDS Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in water quality conditions within the East River that fail to meet Class I standards or adversely affect aquatic biota. The implementation of green infrastructure practices, such as bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection and reuse of stormwater to the extent practical, and other measures implemented as part of the postconstruction stormwater management measures that would be incorporated in the SWPPP, would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River and NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands (if any are present) from the project site, and reduce the peak stormwater discharge rate. Operation of Phase 1 of the proposed project would not adversely affect aquatic biota of the East River. GROUNDWATER Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on groundwater resources within the project site. FLOODPLAINS The 500-year floodplain zone within and adjacent to the study area is affected by coastal flooding and would not be affected by construction or regrading/filling. Therefore, Phase 1 of

9-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

the proposed project would not increase the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage, or increase the exposure of public utilities to flood hazards. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND VEGETATION Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to terrestrial ecological communities and vegetation (see Chapter 20, Construction, for a discussion of potential tree loss at the site). The proposed project would be consistent with the tree planting requirements required as part of the New York City street tree zoning amendment. Landscaping within the publicly-accessible open space that would be developed by 2018 would be planted with woody and herbaceous vegetation native to New York consistent with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation tree planting standards (NYCDPR 2009), and would not include tree species known to host the Asian Longhorned beetle. Shade-tolerance would be considered when selecting plantings for any landscaped areas in the shadow of the PV canopy. WILDLIFE The proposed Phase 1 facilities would not have significant adverse impacts to wildlife at either the individual or population level. Terrestrial wildlife habitat in the project area is presently extremely limited, as the site primarily consists of buildings surrounded by manicured lawn with shade trees. Phase 1 of the proposed project would create new buildings surrounded by areas of landscaped open space that would provide habitats similar to those that would occur in the future without the proposed project. The proposed open spaces, largely consisting of manicured lawn with shade trees, would create conditions for wildlife that are the same as those currently present within the project site, and would thus support the same wildlife species (described under Existing Conditions). Examples include gray squirrel, American robin, house sparrow, and European starling. The increased diversity of vegetation that would occur in the landscaped open space areas would have the potential to improve on the quality of the habitat available for urban tolerant wildlife species currently present within the study area, and would improve the suitability of the project site as migratory bird stopover habitat since native trees typically support a greater abundance of macroinvertebrates and produce higher quality fruits (Tallamy 2007) that most migratory songbirds feed upon. Including native fruit-bearing trees within the landscaping would also enhance the quality of the resources available to other wildlife species. The increased human activity that would occur as a result of Phase 1 of the proposed project, when compared to the future without the proposed project, would not be expected to adversely affect disturbance-tolerant wildlife using the limited habitats within the study area. Bird Collisions Windows and other glass surfaces of buildings have the potential to result in losses of birds due to collisions. The risk of bird collisions occurring due to a particular building is a function of building design, location, surrounding habitat, and the abundance and species of birds in the area (Hager et al. 2008, Gelb and Delecretaz 2009, Klem et al. 2009). While birds are known to collide with tall artificial structures such as buildings at night, the overwhelming majority of bird collisions with buildings occur during the daytime when lower story windows reflect images of nearby trees and other vegetation (Gelb and Delecretaz 2006, 2009, Klem et al. 2009). Night time collisions of birds with artificial structures are often strongly related to structure height (Kerlinger 2000). For example, several studies have found bird mortality at communication towers taller than 984 feet to be significantly greater than mortality at towers that are less than 492 feet tall (Longcore et al. 2008). Most birds migrate at altitudes of 656 to 2,461 feet (Able 1970, Mabee et al. 2006) and rarely fly below 295 feet during clear weather 9-18

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

(Mabee and Cooper 2004). Phase 1 of the proposed project would include four buildings of varying height with a maximum height of 320 feet. As such, none of the proposed buildings would intrude upon the air space commonly used by migrating birds. While relatively short structures may still represent collision hazards to birds during inclement weather when their lighting scheme attracts and/or disorients individuals, night time collisions of birds with the proposed projects buildings would likely be an extremely rare occurrence restricted to periods of very dense fog and low cloud cover. Losses under these conditions would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to migratory bird populations (Arnold and Zink 2011). Throughout New York City, bird collisions with buildings are almost entirely attributable to daytime strikes with lower story reflective glass windows, not nighttime collisions with upper floors of skyscrapers (Gelb and Delecretaz 2006, 2009; Klem et al. 2009). The potential for daytime collisions with the proposed projects buildings would be dependent upon building architecture (e.g., percentage of building surface covered by glass, window size, glass type/reflectivity) and surrounding vegetation characteristics (Hager et al. 2008, Gelb and Delecretaz 2009, Klem et al. 2009). Detailed collision monitoring data from similar buildings elsewhere in Manhattan indicate a potential for losses of between 10 to 50 birds per building per year (Gelb and Delecretaz 2006, 2009; Klem et al. 2009). Actual losses would be highly dependent on the specific design features of the buildings and surrounding landscaping (Hager et al. 2008, Gelb and Delecretaz 2009, Klem et al. 2009) and the abundance of birds in the area. The landscaped habitat that would be available in the project site would be used mostly by common, resident bird species which seldom collide with windows relative to migrants (OConnell 2001). The landscaped habitats resulting from Phase 1 of the proposed project would not represent highly attractive stopover habitat that would concentrate very large volumes of migrants, and therefore large concentrations of migrants would not be expected to occur in proximity to the proposed buildings and be at risk of daytime collisions. Measures to decrease the potential for losses due to daytime collisions of birds would be considered in the design of the buildings and landscaping that would be developed as part of Phase 1. Measures known to be effective in reducing daytime bird collisions with windows are varied and include those that substantially reduce the reflectivity of glass, such as the use of etched, fritted, patterned, or frosted glass (ABC 2011, Klem 2009); decorative louvers, rods, shades, and similar materials on building facades (ABC 2011); the placement of fine mesh netting over windows to intercept birds and prevent contact (Evans 1976, Stedman and Stedman 1986, Klem 1991); the inclusion of thin black lines vertically or horizontally spaced a few inches apart on a windows surface (Roessler et al. 2007, Sheppard 2011); or the use of commercially available glass that is transparent but that reflects ultraviolet light, so that birds perceive the glass as a solid barrier (Ley 2006, Sheppard 2011). The PV canopy would be a horizontal and opaque structure that would not be a factor in daytime or nighttime bird collision risk. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS The peregrine falcon is the only federally or state-listed species that is considered to have the potential to occur in the study area. As mentioned above, the project site lacks suitable nesting locations, and the occurrence of peregrine falcons in the area would be limited to migrants briefly passing through or individuals from nest sites elsewhere in the city. As such, the proposed project would not eliminate or degrade nesting habitat for the species. Hunting opportunities in the project area for migrant peregrine falcons or individuals from nests elsewhere in the city would remain the same in the future with Phase 1 of the proposed project. 9-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Urban peregrine falcons primarily eat rock pigeons (DeMent et al. 1986, Rejt 2001), whose abundance would not change as a result of the proposed project. Urban peregrine falcons also consume small songbirds that are on spring and autumn migration (Rejt 2001, DeCandido and Allen 2006), the numbers of which would also remain similar at the site. Overall, Phase 1 would not result in significant adverse impacts to the peregrine falcon. No other federally or state threatened, endangered, or special concern species of terrestrial biota occur on Roosevelt Island. Therefore, operation of Phase 1 of the proposed project would not have the potential to impact any such species. The federally and state-listed species that have the potential to occur in the East River in the vicinity of the project site would only occur in the vicinity of the Roosevelt Island shoreline near the project site as occasional transients. As discussed under Aquatic Resources and Wetlands, operation of Phase 1 would not adversely affect water quality or habitat conditions in the East River, and would therefore have no direct or indirect effects on any individuals of these species potentially occurring in the East River or essential fish habitat. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) In 2038, the entire project site would be developed with academic, corporate co-location, residential, and Executive Education Center buildings. In the 2038 analysis year, up to approximately 1.34 million gsf would have been added to the Phase 1 project, comprising approximately 420,000 gsf of academic space, 500,000 gsf of residential space (652 units), 400,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, another 20,000 gsf central utility plant, and additional publicly accessible open space. AQUATIC RESOURCES AND WETLANDS The operation of the full build phase of the proposed project would not result in water quality conditions within the East River that fail to meet Class I standards or adversely affect aquatic biota. As discussed for the 2018 analysis year with the proposed project (Phase 1), the implementation of green infrastructure practices throughout the project site, such as bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection and reuse of stormwater to the extent possible, and other measures implemented as part of the post-construction stormwater management measures that would be incorporated in the SWPPP, would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River and NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands (if any are present) from the project site, and reduce the peak rate of discharge. Operation of the full build phase of the proposed project would not adversely affect aquatic biota of the East River. GROUNDWATER Operation of the full build phase of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to groundwater resources within the project site. FLOODPLAINS Because the 500-year floodplain within and adjacent to the study area is affected by coastal flooding, it would not be affected by construction or regrading/filling that would occur as part of the full build phase. Chapter 16, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, describes the state and city efforts to address potential impacts to the coastal areas and the citys critical infrastructure against rising seas and the sea level rise projections developed by the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC). As discussed in Chapter 16, for the 2050s period (i.e., a 30-year period extending from 9-20

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

2040 towards 2069) which is the period applicable to the 2038 full build year, the NPCC projected sea level rise under median conditions would result in an approximately 1-foot increase in the flood elevation associated with the current 100-year storm. This would result in an increase in the flood elevation associated with the current 100-year storm from 10 feet NVGD 29 or 12.26 Belmont Island Datum 8, to about 11 feet NVGD 29, or about 13.27 feet in Belmont Island Datum. The design of the buildings within the project site would be consistent with the New York City Building Code requirements for construction within the 100-year floodplain as specified in Appendix G: Flood Resistant Construction, of the New York City Building Code (http://home2. nyc.gov/html/dob/ downloads/pdf/cc_appendix_g.pdf), for the applicable building category (see Table 1604.5 of the New York City Building Code or Table 1-1 of Appendix G to the New York City Building Code), and any subsequent revisions to these requirements (e.g., adoption of the ABFE). The project proposes to set the minimum elevation of the main entrance level to 17.4 feet Belmont Island Datum, which would be about 4 feet above the current 100year flood elevation along the eastern and western portions of the study area, and at least one foot above the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation. Therefore, the project would have resilience for at least a one foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation (using the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation) due to sea level rise, which is within the likely range of sea level rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. The main entrance level elevation for each building would be consistent with the New York City Building Code. The below-grade area for all on-site structures would be waterproofed and designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure exerted by groundwater during a 100-year flood event, consistent with the New York City Building Code. Therefore, the design for the structures at full build would minimize the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage under current and projected flood conditions, and no significant adverse impacts are expected. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND VEGETATION Similar to Phase 1, the full build of the proposed project would not have significant adverse impact to terrestrial ecological communities and vegetation. The proposed project would be consistent with the tree planting requirements required as part of the New York City street tree zoning amendment and any subsequent revisions to these requirements. Landscaping within the publicly-accessible open space added with the full build would be planted with a variety of woody and herbaceous vegetation, including small areas of perennial gardens that would add to the diversity of vegetation present within the project site. All trees planted would be consistent with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation tree planting standards. WILDLIFE Similar to Phase 1, the full build of the proposed project would not have significant adverse impact to wildlife at either the individual or population level. Terrestrial wildlife habitat in the project area is presently limited to manicured lawn with shade trees. The full build of the proposed project would create additional new buildings surrounded by areas of open space and, as with Phase 1, result in minimal change in the types or abundance of habitat available to terrestrial wildlife in the area when compared to the future without the proposed project in 2038. The proposed open space, largely consisting of manicured lawn with shade trees, would create conditions for wildlife that are the same as those currently present within the project site, and
8

Belmont Island Datum is the datum used for Roosevelt Island.

9-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

would thus support the same wildlife species (described under Existing Conditions). Examples include gray squirrel, American robin, house sparrow, European starling, and red-bellied woodpecker. Increasing the diversity of vegetation, including planting native species and fruitbearing plants to the extent possible, in the landscaped open space areas would have the potential to improve the quality of the habitat available for urban tolerant wildlife species currently present within the study area, and may slightly improve the suitability as migratory bird stopover habitat. The increased human activity that would occur as a result of the full build of the proposed project, when compared to the future without the proposed project in 2038 would not be expected to adversely affect disturbance-tolerant wildlife using the limited habitats within the study area. Operation of the full build would result in more buildings with windows in the area with which birds would have the potential to collide, and thus daytime bird collision risk would be slightly greater than that described above for Phase 1 of the proposed project. The additional buildings and glass coverage that would occur in the area under the full build scenario would not be expected to increase the likelihood of nighttime bird strikes, which is considered to be extremely low. Daytime collision potential would be highly dependent on the full build building designs and the surrounding landscaping. As described for Phase 1 of the proposed project, the landscaped habitat that would be available within the project site at full build would be used most likely by common, resident bird species, such as house sparrows and European starlings, which rarely collide with windows. With the incorporation of measures to decrease the potential for losses due to daytime collisions described for the 2018 analysis year with the proposed project, losses of resident and migratory bird species would be minimized and would not result in significant adverse impacts to bird populations. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AREAS Similar to Phase 1, operation of the Full Build would not affect habitat quality or hunting opportunities for any peregrine falcons that may briefly occur in the area. No other federally or state threatened, endangered, or special concern species of terrestrial biota occur on Roosevelt Island. Therefore, operation of the full build would not have the potential to impact any such species. Federally and state-listed species that have the potential to occur in the East River in the vicinity of the project site include shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and several species of marine turtles. Each of these species would only occur in the vicinity of Roosevelt Island shoreline near the project site as occasional transients. As discussed under Aquatic Resources and Wetlands, operation of the Full Build would not affect water quality or habitat conditions in the East River, and would therefore have no direct or indirect effects on any individuals of these species potentially occurring in the area or to EFH.

G. CONCLUSIONS
Neither Phase 1 nor full build of the Cornell NYC Tech project would result in significant adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota, tidal wetlands, essential fish habitat or threatened or endangered aquatic species. The implementation of green infrastructure practices, such as bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection and reuse of stormwater to the extent practical, and other measures implemented as part of the post-construction stormwater management measures that would be incorporated in the SWPPP, would improve the quality of the stormwater discharged to the East River and NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands from the

9-22

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

project site. Grass cover of the project site would increase from the existing and No Action area of 3.1 acres (25 percent) to 3.46 acres (28 percent) at full build. No areas of the 100-year floodplain occur within the project site. Because the floodplain within and adjacent to the study area is affected by coastal flooding, it would not be affected by construction or regrading/filling of the 500-year floodplain that would occur as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage, or increase the exposure of public utilities to flood hazards. The design of the buildings within the project site would be consistent with the New York City Building Code requirements for construction within the 100-year floodplain and any subsequent revisions to these requirements (e.g., adoption of the FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation [ABFE]). The project proposes to set the minimum elevation of the main entrance level to 17.4 feet Belmont Island Datum, which would be about 4 feet above the current 100-year flood elevation and at least 1 foot above the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation. Therefore, the project would have resilience for at least a one foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation (using the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation) due to sea level rise, which is within the likely range of sea level rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. The main entrance level for each building would be consistent with the New York City Building Code. The below-grade area for all on-site structures would be waterproofed and designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure exerted by groundwater during a 100-year flood event, consistent with the New York City Building Code. Therefore, the design for the structures at full build would minimize the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage under current and projected flood conditions, and no significant adverse impacts are expected. Phase 1 and full build of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to terrestrial ecological communities and vegetation. Tree replacement would be consistent with city tree replacement requirements using tree species approved by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in the development of landscaped open space within the project site which would be expected to provide suitable habitat for the urban tolerant species currently present within the study area and would have the potential to enhance the quality of habitat through the introduction of increased diversity and use of native plant species. Bird-safe building features would be considered in final building and landscaping designs to reduce the potential for daytime bird collisions with lowerstory reflective glass, thus reducing potential loss of resident and migratory bird species. Overall, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on natural resources.

9-23

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

H. REFERENCES
Able, K.P. 1970. A radar study of the altitude of nocturnal passerine migration. Bird-Banding 41:282-290. Adams, D.A., J.S. OConnor, S.B. Weisberg. 1998. Final Report: Sediment Quality of the NY/NJ Harbor System. An Investigation Under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP). EPA/902-R-98-001. American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 2011. Bird-safe building guidelines. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA. 58 pp. Arnold T.W., and R.M. Zink. 2011. Collision mortality has no discernible effect on population trends of North American birds. PLoS One 6(9): e24708. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024708 Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divervgent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:347-358. Brosnan, T.M., and M.L. OShea. 1995. 1994 New York Harbor Water Quality Survey. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Sciences Section, Wards Island, NY. City of New York. 2011. plaNYC Update April 2011. April 2011. Damon-Randall, K. 2012. Personal communication between Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS, and Chad Seewagen, AKRF Inc., May 17, 2012. DeMent, S.H., J.J. Chisolm Jr., J.C. Barber, and J.D. Strandberg. 1986. Lead exposure in an urban peregrine falcon and its avian prey. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 22:238-244. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1990. Phase 1 feasibility study of the aquatic ecology along the Hudson River in Manhattan. Final Report. Prepared for New York City Public Development Corporation, New York, NY. Newburgh, NY. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Evans, A. M. 1976. Reflective glass. BioScience 26:596. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). September 5, 2007. Flood Insurance Study: City of New York, New York, Bronx County, Richmond County, New York County, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2012. Order Issuing Pilot Project License (Minor Project). Verdant Power, LLC, Project No. 12611-005. Queens County, Kings County. 108 pages. January 23, 2012.

9-24

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

Fowle, M., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. The New York City Audubon Guide to Finding Birds in the Metropolitan Area. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Gelb, Y., and N. Delacretaz. 2006. Avian window strike mortality at an urban office building. Kingbird 56(3):190-198. Gelb, Y., and N. Delecretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gibbs, J.P., A.R. Breisch, P.K. Ducey, G. Johnson, J.L. Behler, and R.C. Bothner. 2007. The amphibians and reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press, New York. Hager, S.B., H. Trudell, K.J. McKay, S.M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. 1983. Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. Revised application for modification of the requirements of secondary treatment under Section 301(h), PL 97-117. Prepared for the City of New York, Department of Environmental Protection. Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: A review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May Point, NJ. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: Mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 1991. Glass and bird kills: An overview and suggested planning and design methods of preventing a fatal hazard. Pp. 99-104 in L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy (Eds.), Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments. Natl. Inst. Urban Wildl. Symp. Ser.2, Columbia, MD. Klem, D. Jr., D.C. Keck, K.L. Marty, A.J. Miller Ball, E.E. Niciu, and C.T. Platt. 2004. Effects of window angling, feeder placement, and scavengers on avian mortality at plate glass. Wilson Bulletin 116:69-73. Klem, D. Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P.G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121: 126-134. Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1980. Report & Photographic Documentation for the Battery Park City Underwater Recolonization Study. Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation and Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas. Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1984. Westway Mitigation Studies. Phase 1ISummer 1983 Data Report. Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation. 9-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Ley, H.W. 2006. Experimental examination of the perceptibility of patented bird-protecting glass to a sample of Central European perching birds. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, unpublished report. Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S.A. Gautreaux, Jr. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: A review and meta-analysis. Auk 125:485-492. Lonsdale, D.J., and E.M. Cosper. 1994. Phytoplankton productivity and zooplankton feeding and productivity in the lower Hudson River estuary. Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY. Final report to the Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY. Mabee, T.J., and B.A. Cooper. 2004. Nocturnal bird migration in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 85:39-47. Mitchell, J.C., A.R. Breisch, and K.A. Buhlmann. 2006. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles of the northeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG-3. Montogomery, AL. 108 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Habitat Conservation, NOAA. 2001. Regional Council Approaches to the Identification and Protection of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001. New York - New Jersey Metropolitan Region Coastal Resources Atlas. National Ocean Service. Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, WA. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1984. Inventory of the Fishery Resources of the Hudson River from Bayonne to Piermont. Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, Marine Fisheries Administration, Nacote Creek Research Station. New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP). 2011. Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan. March 2011. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2002. 2001 New York Harbor Water Quality Survey Summary. New York, NY. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2006. 2005 New York Harbor Water Quality Report. New York, NY. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2007. East River and Open Waters Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan Report. New York, NY. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2010. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey Report for 2009. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2011. NYC Green Infrastructure Plan 2011 Update.

9-26

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR). 2009. Tree Planting Standards. September 2009. New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (NYNJHEP). 2011. Harbor-Wide Water Quality Monitoring Report for the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. New York, NY. OConnell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. Raven 72(2):141-149. Perlmutter, A. 1971. Ecological studies related to the proposed increase in generating capacity at the Astoria Power Station of Consolidated Edison. Report prepared for the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Rejt, L. 2001. Feeding activity and seasonal changes in prey composition of urban. Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrines. Acta Ornitologica 36:165-169. Roessler, M., W. Laube, and P. Weihs. 2007. Investigations of the effectiveness of patterns on glass, on avoidance of bird strikes, under natural light conditions in Flight Tunnel II. Hohenau-Ringelsdorf Biological Station, unpublished report. Sheppard, C.D. 2011. Personal communication from Dr. Christine Sheppard, American Bird Conservancy, and Dr. Chad Seewagen, AKRF, dated March 1, 2011. Stedman, S. J., and B.H. Stedman. 1986. Preventing window strikes by birds. Migrant 57:18. Stepien, J.C., T.C. Malone, and M.B. Chervin. 1981. Copepod communities in the estuary and coastal plume of the Hudson River. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 13:185-194. Tallamy, D. 2007. Bringing nature home: how you can sustain wildlife with native plants. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Trybus, T. 2003. Effectiveness of raptor silhouettes at preventing small bird collisions with glass. Masters thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Significant habitats and habitat complexes of the New York Bight watershed. Southern New EnglandNew York Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program. Charlestown, RI. Verdant Power. 2012. Environmental Monitoring. http://verdantpower.com/whatenvironmonitor/ (accessed May 8, 2012).

9-27

Chapter 10: A. INTRODUCTION

Hazardous Materials

This chapter presents the findings of the hazardous materials assessment and identifies potential issues of concern with respect to workers, the community, and/or the environment during construction and after implementation of the Cornell NYC Tech project. The project site includes the existing Goldwater Hospital, surrounding parking areas, and open space. The potential for hazardous materials was evaluated based on a May 2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a July 2011 Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation of the project site. Both reports have been reviewed and approved by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) (see Appendix 10). The proposed project would entail the demolition of the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings, followed by the construction of new academic, residential, corporate co-location, and Executive Education Center buildings and publicly accessible open space. The new construction would occur in stages and would entail subsurface disturbance (e.g., for building basements, foundations, underground parking garages and subsurface utilities). As discussed in this chapter, to reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during and following construction of the proposed project, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and associated Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP), which has been approved by NYCDEP (see Appendix 10), would be implemented during project construction. The RAP would address requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP would identify potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). In addition, during and following construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chemical use and storage would be followed. As described in more detail in this chapter, with these measures, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The project site lies at an elevation of approximately 13 to 23 feet above mean sea level, sloping down toward the east and west shorelines. Geotechnical borings advanced at the present location

10-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

of Building J 1 of the existing Goldwater Hospital encountered sand with silt, gravel, urban fill materials, and/or organic matter with a thickness of approximately 3 to 20 feet, underlain by a layer of decomposed bedrock (generally less than 5 feet thick), with competent bedrock beneath. Geotechnical borings advanced approximately 300 feet north of the project site (near the Queensboro Bridge) and approximately 50 feet west of the project site (near the western shore of the Island) encountered generally similar subsurface conditions and noted that fill materials included sand, gravel, and ash. Borings advanced during the Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation encountered groundwater at depths ranging from approximately 12 to 15 feet below grade. Groundwater beneath the project site would be expected to flow outward from the center of the project site toward the surrounding East River (a tidal strait). However, actual groundwater depth and flow direction can be affected by many factors including subsurface openings or obstructions such as basements, underground utilities, tunnels (including a utility tunnel extending partially under and north from the project site, the 60th Street subway tunnels approximately 400 feet to the north, the 63rd Street subway tunnels and East Side Access tunnels approximately 1,200 feet to the north, and the 53rd Street subway tunnels approximately 400 feet to the south), bedrock geology, and other factors. Groundwater on Roosevelt Island is not used as a source of potable water (the municipal water supply uses upstate reservoirs). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT The scope of the Phase I ESA included a reconnaissance of the project site and surrounding area and review of a variety of information sources, including recent and historical Sanborn fire insurance maps, environmental regulatory agency databases identifying state and federally listed sites, engineering site plans, and geotechnical data. The Phase I ESA identified the following: Three diesel aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) ranging from 110 to 330 gallons and a 5,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST) were located on the project site. No reported spills were associated with these tanks. Although an address consistent with the project site was listed in regulatory databases as a Major Oil Storage Facility (MOSF), i.e., more than 400,000 gallons of petroleum storage capacity, Goldwater Hospital representatives indicated that with the exception of the tanks described above, the tanks noted in the MOSF listing were actually located off-site, approximately 450 feet to the north at the steam plant. Similarly, although nine closed-status petroleum spills were reported for an address consistent with the project site, according to hospital representatives, these also pertain to the steam plant. Regulatory databases also listed a minor closed-status mercury spill in a utility room either on-site or (more likely) at the steam plant. The project site, sparsely developed by 1892, included a prison prior to the construction of the Goldwater Hospital. The existing buildings were constructed between approximately 1939 and the early 1970s. Geotechnical borings advanced on and near the project site in the 1940s to 1960s encountered urban fill including sand, gravel, and ash. The hospital historically included laboratories in Buildings D and F, a photography room in Building F, and an incinerator room in Building E (see Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1, Project Description, for the location of these buildings). At the time of the Phase I ESA, a small laboratory for

See Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1, Project Description.

10-2

Chapter 10: Hazardous Materials

analyzing blood samples was located in Building D, and a dental office was located in Building E. An amalgam separator in the dental office was used to capture dental amalgam for pickup by a private contractor. The basement contained a mortuary, workshops, a paint room, medical waste storage rooms, a fluorescent light bulb storage room, and a radiological waste closet. Small quantities of paints, cleaning, maintenance, and laboratory chemicals in containers up to five gallons in size were stored in the active medical spaces and basement workshops and storage rooms. No odors or staining were noted in any of these areas. Regulatory databases identified the project site as a generator of various hazardous wastes. According to Goldwater Hospital representatives, hazardous waste generated on the project site was picked up by a private contractor, chemicals were only disposed of in sinks as permitted by NYCDEP regulations, and effluent testing was conducted to ensure compliance with NYCDEP regulations. A sanitary pump station east of Building J was surrounded by a steel fence and was locked and inaccessible for inspection. A small building in the pump station could contain a petroleum storage tank; however, no indications, such as fill ports or vent pipes, were noted on the exterior of the building. A review of the pump station plans subsequent to the Phase 1 ESA indicated that there is no tank at the pump station. Based on the age of the hospital buildings, fluorescent lighting components and electrical equipment may contain PCBs. Fluorescent lights may contain mercury. Underground electrical transformer vaults owned and maintained by Consolidated Edison, located adjacent to Buildings AD, may utilize PCB-containing dielectric fluid. A minor closedstatus spill of PCB-containing dielectric fluid was reported for the vault adjacent to Building B in 1999; the spill was reportedly contained within the vault. The 1939 building plans showed dry wells connected to the transformer vaults near Buildings B and C. The dry wells were not observed during the reconnaissance. A 1992 asbestos survey indicated the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in the buildings. According to hospital representatives, limited ACM abatement has occurred since the survey as part of routine repairs and renovations. Chipped vinyl floor tiles were noted in portions of the basement and in a hallway on the third floor of Building E. Other suspect ACM were observed to be in good condition. Based on the buildings age, lead-based paint may be present. Interior painted surfaces were observed to be in good condition. Peeling paint was noted on the buildings balconies. The surrounding area was sparsely developed in 1892, but by the mid-20th century included various uses such as the steam plant for the hospital, a vacant building, a gym, parkland, and residential and institutional uses. In 1909, the Queensboro Bridge was completed north of the project site. A building approximately 300 feet south of the project site was historically used as a laboratory, and subsequently included a transformer for a subway tunnel south of the project site. Roosevelt Island to the south of the project site was expanded by landfilling during the 20th century, and according to Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation representatives, elevated lead concentrations in soil were identified during the construction of the Four Freedoms Park south of the project site. SUBSURFACE (PHASE II) INVESTIGATION The Phase II investigation included the collection and laboratory analysis of 17 soil and 3 groundwater samples from 10 borings. This investigation identified the following:

10-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

In two borings, sand with silt, gravel, and/or mica fragments was encountered from the surface down. In the remaining eight borings, a similar layer was found beneath 2 to 10 feet of typical urban fill material (generally sand with silt, gravel, brick, glass, coal, metal, plant roots, and/or mica fragments). Refusal on either boulders or bedrock was encountered at depths of approximately 2 to 13 feet in five borings. In the remainder, the borings encountered the water table at depths of 12 to 15 feet, but rock was not reached. Analytical results of soil samples indicated only trace levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and PCBs in a small number of samples. These levels were below the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (USCOs). Levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals were in some cases above USCOs. However, they were generally below NYSDEC Part 375 Restricted Residential Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (RRSCOs), which were developed for multifamily residences and active recreational uses (public uses with a reasonable potential for soil contact). Only selected SVOCs commonly associated with urban fill material and two metals (chromium and mercury) exceeded their respective RRSCOs in one soil sample each. The soil analytical results were typical of urban fill materials. Analytical results of groundwater samples indicated compliance with NYSDEC Class GA Ambient Water Quality Standards (drinking water standards) with the exception of levels of certain metals (some of these were likely related to the urban fill materials whereas others are likely natural).

C. THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

In the future without the proposed project, or No-Action condition, in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, the existing hospital buildings will be vacated and will remain on the project site. During the closure of the existing hospital and following vacating the buildings, applicable legal requirements would need to be followed, including but not limited to, disposal of chemicals or other wastes, NYSDEC regulations relating to closure or removal of unused petroleum tanks along with any associated contaminated soil, and maintenance of ACM.

D. THE FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The future with the proposed project, or With Action condition, would involve demolition of the existing buildings followed by soil disturbance for the construction of new buildings as well as creation of new open space (in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years). As noted above, the existing buildings may contain hazardous materials such as ACM and lead-based paint. Soil that would be disturbed by the proposed project includes urban fill materials with elevated concentrations of certain metals and SVOCs. Demolition and excavation activities could disturb these hazardous materials and potentially increase pathways for human or environmental exposure. Impacts would be avoided by implementing the following measures: A RAP and associated CHASP were prepared and submitted to NYCDEP and were approved by NYCDEP in a letter dated November 8, 2012 (see Appendix 10). The RAP addresses requirements for items such as: installation of two feet of clean fill as a site cap in unpaved areas; soil reuse criteria; soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures should additional petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies

10-4

Chapter 10: Hazardous Materials

potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring requirements including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). Unless information exists to indicate that suspect ACM do not contain asbestos, prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey would be completed and all ACM that would be disturbed by these activities would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any renovation/demolition activities with the potential to disturb lead-based paint would be performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62Lead Exposure in Construction). Unless labeling or laboratory testing data indicates that suspect PCB-containing electrical equipment (including underground transformers) and fluorescent lighting fixtures do not contain PCBs, and that fluorescent lights do not contain mercury, disposal would be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. No wet labs (i.e., laboratories utilizing chemicals or medications) are anticipated to be constructed as part of the proposed project. Any petroleum storage tanks installed for the new buildings (e.g., for emergency generators) would be maintained in accordance with the applicable regulations, including NYSDEC tank maintenance requirements and spill reporting requirements. With these measures, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials.

E. CONCLUSIONS
The Phase I ESA identified potential on-site sources of contamination, including historical fill materials of unknown origin; historical laboratories, a photography room and an incinerator room associated with the hospital; underground electrical transformer vaults potentially utilizing PCB-containing transformer oil; and four diesel petroleum storage tanks (one 5,000-gallon UST and three ASTs ranging from 110 to 330 gallons) used for emergency generators. Based on these potential concerns, a Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation was performed which included the collection and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples. The analysis indicated that levels of certain SVOCs and metals in the soil samples were somewhat elevated, but most likely attributable to the historical fill materials rather than a spill or release. Soil concentrations of VOCs, pesticides and PCBs met the most stringent state guidelines. Results for the groundwater samples met state drinking water standards2 with the exception of levels of certain metals, some of which were likely related to the urban fill materials, whereas others were likely natural. To reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during and following construction of the proposed project, a RAP and associated CHASP has been prepared and approved by NYCDEP. The RAP and CHASP

Groundwater on Roosevelt Island is not used as a source of potable water and would not be used as such in the future.

10-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

would be implemented during project construction. The RAP addresses requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). Lead-based paint, ACM and PCB-containing electrical equipment and fluorescent lighting fixtures may be present within the existing structures or elsewhere on the project site. During and following construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to ACM, lead-based paint, PCBs and chemical use and storage would be followed. With these above-described measures, the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials.

10-6

Chapter 11:

Water and Sewer Infrastructure

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential for the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project to result in significant adverse impacts on New York Citys water supply, wastewater and stormwater conveyance and treatment infrastructure. As described in this chapter, on Roosevelt Island the water mains, sanitary pump stations, and sanitary force mains are maintained by New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). However, the existing gravity sanitary and storm sewers are not NYCDEP-maintained infrastructure.1 All new sewer and water infrastructure within the new mapped streets required to serve the Cornell NYC Tech project would be built to NYCDEP standards and specifications. This chapter discusses all components of the water and sewer infrastructure. The new uses and project-generated residents, faculty, staff, and other users introduced by the Cornell NYC Tech project would increase the project sites water demand and sewage generation compared to the future without the proposed project in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. Stormwater runoff from the site would be reduced from the future without the proposed project in the 2018 analysis year and would be approximately the same in the 2038 analysis year. As described in this chapter, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the citys water supply, wastewater treatment or stormwater conveyance infrastructure in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year.

B. METHODOLOGY
This analysis follows the methodologies set forth in the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a preliminary water analysis would be needed if a project would result in the exceptionally large demand for water of over 1 million gallons per day (mgd) or is located in an area that experiences low water pressure (i.e., at the end of the water supply distribution system such as the Rockaway Peninsula or Coney Island). The project site is not located in an area that experiences low water pressure, 2 and the Cornell NYC Tech project (either Phase 1 or at Full Build) would not result in an incremental water demand exceeding 1 mgd. Therefore, further analysis of the projects effects on water supply is not warranted; however, the proposed projects total water demand is

NYCDEP does not own the infrastructure under the street on Roosevelt Island. In the future, NYCDEPs ownership and maintenance obligations will not change unless the infrastructure is built out to NYCDEP specifications and pursuant to an approved drainage plan and NYCDEP accepts the infrastructure into its portfolio. 2 Based on hydrant flow tests conducted by NYCDEP in April 2011, the water pressure in the area surrounding the project site is estimated to be 70 pounds per square inch (psi). A pressure of 20 psi is the minimum water pressure acceptable for uninterrupted service and City Fire Department service requirements.

11-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

calculated for purposes of the preliminary sewer assessment. Due to their age, the existing water mains in East Loop Road, West Loop Road, and South Loop Road would be replaced to latest NYCDEP standards as part of the project infrastructure work. Unobstructed access to all NYCDEP water mains and other infrastructure would be maintained at all times. A preliminary sewer assessment is warranted if a project exceeds 100 residential units or 100,000 square feet of commercial/public and institution/community facility use in a separately sewered area zoned R7. The proposed project meets this CEQR Technical Manual threshold; therefore, a preliminary sewer assessment is warranted and is provided in this chapter. The preliminary sewer assessment is undertaken by calculating existing and future water demands and sanitary sewage generation based on use generation rates set by the CEQR Technical Manual. 3 The estimated amount of sewage generated from the proposed project conservatively includes all of the project sites water consumption excluding air conditioning, which is typically not discharged into the sewer system. The NYCDEP Volume Calculation Matrix is then used to calculate the overall combined sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff volume discharged to the sewer system for four rainfall volume scenarios with varying durations. Stormwater runoff volumes are determined by estimating the project sites pervious and impervious surfaces. This chapter focuses on the changes to the 12.5-acre project site.4 The ability of the citys sewer infrastructure to handle the proposed projects anticipated demand is assessed by estimating existing water demand and sewage generation rates, and then comparing the future with and without the proposed project (Phases 1 and 2).

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SANITARY SEWAGE The project site is served by the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Bowery Bay WWTP treats wastewater through full secondary physical and biological processes before the wastewater is discharged into the East River. Secondary treatment includes the removal of a minimum of 85 percent of biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids from the influent. The quality of effluent from this WWTP is regulated by the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit issued by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The permit specifies the maximum limit for effluent parameters that include suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria and other pollutants; the treatment capacity of the Bowery Bay WWTP is limited to a maximum of 150 mgd. The average monthly flow over the past 12 months is 116 mgd, below the maximum permitted level.

3 4

CEQR Technical Manual, June 2012, p.13-12. The loop road adjacent to the project site, which would be slightly widened in the future with the proposed project but would remain mostly paved, is excluded from the stormwater runoff calculations for the project site. The additional area located within the rezoning area, i.e., the promenade, is also not included in the stormwater runoff calculations since no changes would result to the promenade with the proposed project. As set forth in the proposed Special Southern Roosevelt Island District, the waterfront area between the shoreline and West and East Loop Roads would be used exclusively for open recreational uses.

11-2

Chapter 11: Water and Sewer Infrastructure

The amount of sanitary sewage generated by the project site is conservatively estimated to be all of the project sites water consumption excluding air conditioning, which is typically not discharged into the sewer system. As shown in Table 11-1, which estimates existing water consumption at the Goldwater Hospital, the amount of daily sanitary sewage currently generated by the existing Goldwater Hospital is estimated to be 297,300 gallons per day (gpd).

Table 11-1 Existing Water Consumption Goldwater Hospital

Rate (Gallons per day per unit) Domestic 300 gpd/bed2 Air conditioning 0.17 gpd/sf TOTAL 1. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) website http://www.nyc.gov/html/hhc/html/facilities/colergoldwater.shtml 2. Rate obtained from CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012 Edition) Use Unit (Beds) 9911 Size (Square feet) 647,900 Consumption (Gallons per day) 297,300 110,143 407,443

Sanitary sewage from the project site is conveyed via gravity sanitary sewers (10-inch diameter to 18-inch diameter) sewers in East and West Roads. The NYCDEP south pump station receives sanitary sewage from the buildings south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge and pumps flows via a NYCDEP force main to a 30-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer within Main Street which eventually discharges to the NYCDEPs main pump station (adjacent to the Islands automated vacuum collection system [AVAC] building). According to information provided by NYCDEP in December 2011, the south pump station is operating at 17 percent of its design capacity. The NYCDEP north pump station also conveys sanitary flow from Coler Hospital, located at the northern end of Roosevelt Island, to the main pump station. The main pump station is operating at 23 percent of its design capacity. All sanitary flow on Roosevelt Island is eventually conveyed to the main pump station. From the main pump station, a 20-inch diameter force main extends east, beneath the East River, to a 30-inch diameter combined sewer located within 35th Avenue in Queens. This 30-inch diameter sewer discharges to an 84-inch diameter interceptor in Vernon Boulevard which then conveys flow to the Bowery Bay WWTP. STORMWATER The project site is served by a network of 19 outfalls that discharge stormwater runoff east of the site and into the East River (East Channel) and 18 outfalls that discharge stormwater runoff west of the site into the East River (West Channel). The direct discharge of stormwater runoff into the East River does not affect combined sewer overflow (CSO) conditions in the citys combined sewer system. The project site is approximately 12.5 acres in size (excluding the roadway/sidewalk within the public rights-of-way). It is estimated that approximately 4.01 acres (32 percent) of the project site is covered by impervious building roof, 5.35 acres (43 percent) is paved, and 3.1 acres (25 percent) is grassed area. Table 11-2 describes the surface types and areas of the project site, and how stormwater runoff is currently discharged.

11-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 11-2 Project Site Surface Coverage: Existing Conditions

Surface Type Building Roofs Paved Surfaces Grassed Areas Total Source: Surface Area (sf) 174,809 233,097 134,742 542,648 Discharge Method Direct Drainage Direct Drainage Infiltration/Direct Drainage ----

Site surface data provided by Philip Habib & Associates

The weighted runoff coefficient of the project site is calculated to be 0.74; the runoff coefficient is the percentage of precipitation that becomes surface runoff.

D. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

In both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, in the future without the proposed project, Goldwater Hospital is expected to be vacant, with the existing water and sanitary sewer connections properly capped within the project site; therefore, water consumption and sewage generation at the project site would be negligible. It is expected that the existing buildings would remain vacant but would not be demolished; therefore, the existing stormwater surface runoff at the project site would remain the same as in existing conditions. Other recent and future projects that would affect the same infrastructure as described have been identified to analyze the cumulative impacts of additional sanitary flows. The Southtown development, located on Roosevelt Island north of the Queensboro Bridge, is a proposed 540 residential unit development. It is anticipated that the sanitary sewage would be discharged to the 30-inch gravity sanitary sewer in Main Street and the NYCDEP main pump station. Based on an average of 1.79 persons per household in Community Board 8 and using multipliers from the CEQR Technical Manual, the increase in sanitary sewage conveyed by the sanitary sewer infrastructure on Roosevelt Island for the Southtown development is approximately 96,700 gpd, which is approximately 0.06 percent of the permitted average daily flow of 150 mgd at the Bowery Bay WWTP.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) SANITARY SEWAGE Table 11-3 summarizes the estimated water consumption of Phase 1 of the proposed project. The proposed uses are estimated to have a water demand of 244,100 gpd, of which an estimated 159,100 gpd would be conveyed to the sanitary sewage system. Water demand could be reduced through water recycling, which would be considered where possible for irrigation of the landscape features, as well as other potential uses.

11-4

Chapter 11: Water and Sewer Infrastructure

Table 11-3 Projected Water Consumption: 2018

Use Size Rate 0.24 gpd/sf 0.17 gpd/sf 100 gpd/person 120 gpd/rm/occupant 0.17 gpd/sf 0.10 gpd/sf 0.17 gpd/sf Consumption (gpd) 2,400 1,700 84,200 40,500 28,900 30,000 51,000 2,000 3,400 159,100 244,100 Retail1 Domestic 10,000 sf Air Conditioning 10,000 sf Residential Domestic 842 persons Executive Education Center Domestic 225 rooms (1.5 occupants/rm) Air Conditioning 170,000 sf Commercial/Office2 Domestic 300,000 sf Air Conditioning 300,000 sf Central Utility Plant3 Domestic 20,000 sf Air Conditioning 20,000 sf

0.10 gpd/sf 0.17 gpd/sf Total (Domestic) TOTAL (Domestic and Air Conditioning)

Notes: 1. Retail uses include: campus-oriented retail space. 2. Commercial uses include: Academic space and corporate co-location space. 3. No rate for mechanical spaces is provided in the CEQR Technical Manual; therefore, the Commercial/Office rate was used for the Central Utility Plant. Source: Rates from 2012 CEQR Technical Manual.

Sanitary sewage from the project site would continue to be conveyed via gravity sanitary sewers in East and West Roads with new sanitary sewer connections to the East and West Road sanitary sewers from the new buildings. Due to the condition of the existing sanitary sewers in East and West Roads, nearly all of the sewers would need to be relined or replaced, and two segments require repair or replacement. This work would be required for Phase 1, since the sanitary sewers flow from north to south to reach the south pump station. All sewer construction would conform to NYCDEP standards and be in accordance with the citys drainage plan. The sanitary pump stations and force mains located on the Island would remain in operation and continue to convey sanitary flow to the interceptor in Vernon Boulevard in Queens. Both the pump stations and force mains would have adequate capacity to handle the Phase 1 flows. The volume of sanitary sewage generated by Phase 1 of the proposed project would be 0.11 percent of the permitted average daily flow of 150 mgd at the Bowery Bay WWTP and would not result in an exceedance of the Bowery Bay WWTPs capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the citys sanitary sewage treatment system. All project buildings would be required to file site connection proposals for approval to tie into the sewer system. As a part of the standard filing requirements, an Industrial Waste Approval would be submitted as part of the supporting documentation where required. The proposed project does not include laboratory uses which could potentially have hazardous discharges to the sanitary sewer system. Per the New York City Plumbing Code (Local Law 33 of 2007) and consistent with the LEED goals for the project, low-flow fixtures are required to be implemented and would help to reduce sanitary flows from the project site. The existing pump stations and force mains would be adequate to serve Phase 1, since they are currently handling flows from the Goldwater Hospital.

11-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

STORMWATER Based on the proposed site plan under Phase 1, approximately 5.80 acres of the project site would be developed, with 2.91 acres (approximately 23 percent) of the site occupied by building roofs, 1.30 acres (approximately 10 percent) occupied by paved surfaces, and 1.59 acres (approximately 13 percent) occupied by grassed areas and landscaping. The remaining 6.66 acres (approximately 54 percent) of the site would be occupied by interim uses, including a field of photovoltaic panels, a tree nursery, and other vegetated surfaces. Based on the above, the weighted runoff coefficient would be 0.45 which would result in a decrease of stormwater surface runoff in comparison to the No Action and existing conditions. Using the existing and proposed site data, the NYCDEP Volume Calculation Matrix was completed for the existing, No Action and With Action (Phase 1) conditions and is summarized in Table 11-4.

Table 11-4 NYCDEP Volume Calculation MatrixExisting, No Action and With Action (Phase 1) Volume Comparison
Existing 542,648 sf / 12.5 Acres
Rainfall Volume (in.) Rainfall Duration (hr.) Runoff Vol. to River (MG) Runoff Vol. to CSS (MG) Sanitary Vol. to CSS (MG) Total Vol. to CSS (MG) Runoff Vol. to River (MG)

No Action 542,648sf / 12.5 Acres

Runoff Vol. Sanitary to CSS Vol. to (MG) CSS (MG) Total Vol. to CSS (MG)

With Action (Phase 1) 542,648sf / 12.5 Acres

Runoff Vol. to River (MG) Runoff Sanitary Vol. to Vol. to CSS CSS (MG) (MG) Total Vol. to CSS (MG)

0.00 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 3.80 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.20 11.30 0.30 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.00 0.00 2.50 19.50 0.63 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.63 0.00 0.00 Notes: Vol. = Volume CSS = Sanitary to Combined Sewer System; MG = Million Gallons

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.06 0.18 0.38

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.03 0.03 0.07 0.13

0.03 0.03 0.07 0.13

The calculations from the flow volume matrix determine the wastewater volumes to the downstream sewer system from the existing, No Action and Phase 1 With Action conditions. Runoff volumes are calculated for four rainfall volume scenarios with varying durations; all stormwater runoff would continue to be directly discharged to the East River. The increase in sanitary sewer discharge from the project site for the above rainfall volume-duration scenarios from the Phase 1 flows, in comparison to the No Action condition, would be 0.03MG, 0.03MG, 0.07MG and 0.13MG, respectively. However, the Phase 1 flows would represent an overall reduction of 0.02MG, 0.02MG, 0.07MG and 0.11MG of sanitary sewer discharge in comparison to existing conditions and would not result in a significant adverse impact on the citys sanitary sewage treatment system. As part of the proposed project, coverage under a NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-10-001) would be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared to describe the entire project, with detailed design completed for Phase 1 construction and development and conceptual design calculations for later phases. The SWPPP would be updated prior to later development phases to describe final plans for these areas and would meet State-mandated reductions in sedimentation and flow for the redevelopment of the site. Post-construction stormwater management measures that would be integrated into the proposed project as part of the projects SWPPP could include bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection systems, and reuse of stormwater to the extent possible. Temporary erosion and sediment controls during construction may include settling

11-6

Chapter 11: Water and Sewer Infrastructure

ponds and approved filtration systems, some of which could become integrated into permanent site features. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) SANITARY SEWAGE Table 11-5 summarizes the estimated water consumption of the proposed project at Full Build. The proposed uses on the project site are estimated to have a water demand of 625,450 gpd, of which 395,100 gpd would be conveyed to the sanitary system. As stated above, water demand could be reduced through water recycling, which would be considered where possible for irrigation of the landscape features, as well as other potential uses.

Table 11-5 Projected Water Consumption: 2038

Use Retail1 Domestic Air Conditioning Residential Size (Square feet) 25,000 25,000 Rate 0.24 gpd/sf 0.17 gpd/sf 100 gpd/person 120 gpd/rm/occupant 0.17 gpd/sf 0.10 gpd/sf 0.17 gpd/sf Consumption (gpd) 6,000 4,250 232,600 40,500 28,900 112,000 190,400 4,000 6,800 395,100 625,450

2,326 persons2 Executive Education Center Domestic 225 rooms (1.5 occupants/rm) Air conditioning 170,000 Commercial/Office3 Domestic 1,120,000 Air Conditioning 1,120,000 Central Utility Plant4 Domestic 40,000 sf Air Conditioning 40,000 sf

0.10 gpd/sf 0.17 gpd/sf Total (Domestic) TOTAL (Domestic and Air Conditioning)

Notes: 1. Retail uses include: Campus-oriented retail space. 2. Based on Chapter 1, Project Description. 3. Commercial uses include: Academic space, corporate co-location space. 4. No rate for mechanical spaces is provided in the CEQR Technical Manual; therefore, the Commercial/Office rate was used for the Central Utility Plant. Source: Rates from 2012 CEQR Technical Manual.

Sanitary sewage from the project site would continue to be conveyed via gravity sanitary sewers in East and West Roads. New sanitary sewer connections to the East and West Road sanitary sewers from the new buildings would be built. The sanitary pump stations and force mains located on the Island would remain in operation and would continue to convey sanitary flow to the interceptor in Vernon Boulevard in Queens. An analysis was conducted in coordination with NYCDEP to determine the capacity of the south pump station and its ability to handle the flows from the proposed project (see Appendix 11). As indicated above, the analysis showed that Phase 1 flows are comparable to existing flows from Goldwater Hospital and therefore well within the capacity of the pump station. Although the estimated flows from the Full Build project, at 531 gpm, are below the pump operation point of 770 gpm, NYCDEP has determined that, at that flow level, pump operation would be compromised and an additional pump would likely be needed for redundancy. Therefore, when design begins for the final phase of the project, NYCDEP will be consulted to determine if upgrades are needed at the south pump 11-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

station; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York. Flows in the interceptor sewer in Vernon Boulevard were monitored in order to verify current flow levels and evaluate its ability to handle the flows from the proposed project as well as other No Action projects. The monitoring confirmed that there is available capacity (see Appendix 11). Sanitary sewage generated in the Full Build condition would be higher than in Phase 1 by 236,000 gpd. The volume of sanitary sewage generated by the proposed project at Full Build would be 0.26 percent of the permitted average daily flow of 150 mgd at the Bowery Bay WWTP and would not result in an exceedance of the Bowery Bay WWTPs capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the citys sanitary sewage treatment system. All project buildings would be required to file site connection proposals for approval to tie into the sewer system. As a part of the standard filing requirements, an Industrial Waste Approval would be submitted as part of the supporting documentation where required. The proposed project does not include laboratory uses that could potentially have hazardous discharges to the sanitary sewer system. Additionally, and as mentioned above, per the New York City Plumbing Code (Local Law 33 of 2007) and consistent with the LEED goals for the project, low-flow fixtures are required to be implemented and would help to reduce sanitary flows from the project site. STORMWATER Based on the proposed site plan, approximately 12.5 acres of the project site would be developed, with 6.17 acres (approximately 50 percent) of the site occupied by building roofs, 2.83 acres (approximately 23 percent) occupied by paved surfaces, and 3.46 acres (approximately 28 percent) occupied by grassed areas and landscaping. Based on the above, the weighted runoff coefficient would be 0.74 which would result in the same amount of stormwater surface runoff in comparison to the No Action and existing conditions. The NYCDEP Volume Calculation Matrix was completed for the existing, No Action and With Action conditions (Full Build) and is summarized in Table 11-6.

Table 11-6 NYCDEP Volume Calculation MatrixExisting, No Action and With Action (Full Build) Volume Comparison
Existing 542,648 sf / 12.5 Acres
Rainfall Volume (in.) Rainfall Duration (hr.) Runoff Vol. to River (MG) Runoff Vol. to CSS (MG) Sanitary Vol. to CSS (MG) Total Vol. to CSS (MG)

No Action 542,648 sf / 12.5 Acres

Runoff Vol. to River (MG) Runoff Sanitary Vol. to Vol. to CSS (MG) CSS (MG) Total Vol. to CSS (MG)

With Action (Full Build) 542,648 sf / 12.5 Acres

Runoff Vol. to River (MG) Runoff Sanitary Vol. to Vol. to CSS CSS (MG) (MG) Total Vol. to CSS (MG)

0.00 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 3.80 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.20 11.30 0.30 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.00 0.00 2.50 19.50 0.63 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.63 0.00 0.00 Notes: Vol. = Volume CSS = Sanitary to Combined Sewer System; MG = Million Gallons

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.10 0.30 0.63

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.06 0.06 0.19 0.32

0.06 0.06 0.19 0.32

The calculations from the volume calculation matrix determine the wastewater volumes to the downstream sewer system from existing, No Action and With Action (Full Build) conditions. Runoff volumes were calculated for four rainfall volume scenarios with varying durations; all stormwater runoff would continue to be directly discharged to the East River. The overall increase in sanitary sewer discharge from the project site for the above rainfall volume-duration 11-8

Chapter 11: Water and Sewer Infrastructure

scenarios, compared to the No Action condition, would be 0.06MG, 0.06MG, 0.19MG and 0.32MG, respectively. The Full Build sanitary discharge would represent a smaller increase of 0.01MG, 0.01MG, 0.05MG and 0.08MG in comparison to the existing conditions. The increase in flows from the No Action condition would be due to an increase in sanitary sewer discharge from the proposed project. As stated above, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the citys sanitary sewage treatment system. Per the New York City Plumbing Code (Local Law 33 of 2007) and consistent with the LEED goals for the project, low-flow fixtures would be implemented and to help reduce sanitary flows from the project site. As in Phase 1, coverage under the NYSDEC SPDES GP-0-10-001 would be required. A SWPPP would be prepared to describe the remaining portions of the project with detailed design updated for the Full Build condition and would meet State-mandated reductions in sedimentation and flow for the redevelopment of the site. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures would be installed during construction, and post-construction stormwater management measures (which could include bioswales, rain gardens or rainwater collection systems, and/or reuse of stormwater to the extent possible) also would be required. The water and sediment quality of the lower East River due to stormwater from the project site is assessed in Chapter 9, Natural Resources. As described above, stormwater from the project site is directly discharged to the East River and is not conveyed to the citys combined or separate sewers; therefore the proposed project would have no impact on the citys stormwater conveyance infrastructure. The required water quality treatment measures would be reflected in a stormwater best management practice (BMP) concept plan, which would be incorporated into the projects SWPPP and subject to NYSDEC approval for water quality treatment. With the incorporation of these selected water quality treatment BMPs outlined in the BMP concept plan, the overall stormwater runoff quality would be improved as compared to No Action condition.

F. CONCLUSIONS
Phase 1 and Full Build sanitary sewage generation would increase compared to the No Action condition. The increases would be minimal and would continue to be conveyed via gravity sanitary sewers in East and West Roads. New sanitary sewer connections to the East and West Road sanitary sewers from the new buildings would be built. The sanitary pump stations and force mains located on the Island would remain in operation and would continue to convey sanitary flow to the interceptor in Vernon Boulevard in Queens. The south pump station has adequate capacity to handle the flows from Phase 1. When design begins for the final phase of the project, NYCDEP will be consulted to determine if upgrades are needed at the south pump station. The proposed project would not significantly impact the existing WWTP infrastructure. Phase 1 and Full Build stormwater runoff volumes would decrease or remain the same as compared to the No Action condition. Stormwater runoff would continue to discharge into the East River. In addition, a SWPPP would be implemented for both phases of the project. The SWPPP would meet NYSDEC standard requirements and design guidelines for temporary erosion and sediment control and for post-construction stormwater management and would improve the quality of the stormwater prior to its discharge to the East River via the existing outfalls. Overall, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the citys wastewater and stormwater conveyance or wastewater treatment infrastructure. 11-9

Chapter 12:

Solid Waste and Sanitation Services

A. INTRODUCTION
According to the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, a solid waste and sanitation services assessment should be conducted if a project would generate solid waste or enacts regulatory changes affecting the management of the citys waste, or if the action involves the construction, operation, or closing of any type of solid waste management facility. The manual also states that projects with a generation rate of less than 100,000 pounds per week are not considered large and do not warrant detailed analysis. To assess the potential impacts of the proposed project on solid waste and sanitation services, a quantitative assessment was conducted. This entailed the calculation of existing solid waste generation on the project site, as well as a comparison of projected calculations in the future without the proposed project (the No-Action condition) and the future with the proposed project (the With Action condition). This chapter also describes existing and future New York City solid waste disposal practices, and assesses the impacts of the proposed projects solid waste generation on the citys collection needs and disposal capacity. The proposed projects consistency with the citys Solid Waste Management Plan is also assessed. As described in this chapter, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on solid waste and sanitation services in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the citys Solid Waste Management Plan.

B. METHODOLOGY
To assess the proposed projects potential impacts on solid waste and sanitation services, this chapter: Describes the existing solid waste management services on the project site and estimates solid waste generation under existing conditions and in the No-Action condition (for the 2018 and 2038 analysis years) using solid waste generation rates for typical land uses and activities provided in the CEQR Technical Manual; Forecasts solid waste generation by the proposed project based on CEQR guidelines; and Assesses the impacts of the proposed projects incremental solid waste generation on municipal and private sanitation services.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SANITATION SERVICES In the City of New York, residential and institutional refuse is handled by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY), while solid waste from commercial and manufacturing uses

12-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

is collected by private carters. DSNY collects approximately 15,000 tons per day of refuse and recyclables, of which approximately 4,000 tons are recycled. Commercial carters pick up solid waste from businesses, manufacturers and offices and take the waste materials to transfer stations where the recyclable materials are separated from the solid waste. The solid waste is consolidated into larger trucks for transport and disposal in landfills outside of New York City. The recyclable materials are sold and transported to manufacturing facilities. Private carters handle about 14,830 tons per week of recyclables and solid waste. In addition, private carters handle about 19,070 tons per day of construction debris and excavated materials. 1 The citys solid waste management services are undertaken in accordance with the existing Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which is the responsibility of DSNY. The SWMP, which modified the citys previously approved 1992 plan, as amended in 1996 and 2000, was approved for submission to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by a resolution of the City Council on July 19, 2006. The city adopted the plan on July 27, 2006 and it was approved by NYSDEC in a letter received by DSNY on October 27, 2006. The SWMP establishes a hierarchy of preferred solid waste management methods to reduce and process solid waste generated within the city. The objectives of the SWMP are, in order of importance: waste minimization; reuse, recycling, or composting; and export for out-of-city disposal. The SWMP provides for residential and institutional refuse to be brought to certain transfer stations located in each borough for transfer to rail or barge and export to out-of-town disposal facilities. The SWMP also provides for special (hazardous materials) waste collection sites, and composting facilities. New York Citys Recycling Law, Local Law 19 of 1989, as amended, requires that DSNY and private carters collect recyclable materials and deliver them to material recovery facilities. New York City residents are required to separate aluminum foil, glass, plastic, and metal containers, and newspapers and other paper wastes from household waste for separate collection. The Recycling Law also requires commercial establishments to recycle. Businesses must source-separate certain types of paper wastes, cardboard, metal items, and construction wastes. Food and beverage establishments must recycle metal, glass, and plastic containers, and aluminum foil, in addition to meeting the commercial recycling requirements. The new SWMPs Long Term Export Program for residential waste is being implemented through: the development of four converted marine transfer stations and; the award of up to five contracts with private transfer stations for consolidation, containerization, and barge or rail export of DSNY-managed waste for disposal and an intergovernmental agreement to dispose of a portion of Manhattans DSNY-managed waste at a Port Authority waste-to-energy facility in New Jersey. The barges formerly used at MTS facilities would carry new sealed containers or intermodal containers capable of being transported on barge or rail. The four MTS facilities would each process up to 4,290 tons per day and accommodate up to 30 collection vehicles at the peak hour, but daily amounts to be processed would be well below these maximums. In the Bronx, waste is currently exported via rail out of the city for disposal from a privately-owned transfer station. In Staten Island, waste is currently exported via rail out of the city for disposal from a city-owned transfer station. In Manhattan, a portion of the waste is disposed of at the Port Authority waste-to-energy plant in New Jersey. In Brooklyn, Queens, and the remainder of
1

The DSNY SWMP anticipates and provides for a projected increase in solid waste generation citywide over the 20-year plan period as a result of population growth and non-specific development. By 2020, the SWMP anticipates a daily increase of 2,145 tons or 12.7 percent.

12-2

Chapter 12: Solid Waste and Sanitation Services

Manhattan nearly half of the citys residential/institutional refuse continues to be trucked out of the city. 2 The new SWMP also proposes three broad categories of action to address traffic issues associated with commercial waste handling as follows: (1) improve conditions at and around transfer stations; (2) facilitate a transition from a network heavily reliant on trucks to one that relies primarily on barge and rail; and (3) redistribute private transfer capacity from a small number of communities that have the largest proportion of the systems impacts. Solid waste on Roosevelt Island is collected by an automated vacuum assisted collection (AVAC) system, except for the Goldwater and Coler Hospitals, whose waste is handled by DSNY. Waste that is collected by AVAC is transported through pneumatic tubes to a central facility where it is compacted and then collected by DSNY trucks. The operation of the AVAC system is the responsibility of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). Cornell University does not intend to utilize or connect to the existing RIOC AVAC system. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE GENERATION The project site is currently occupied by the Goldwater Hospital facility, which contains up to approximately 991 beds. Utilizing the rates provided in Table 14-1 of the CEQR Technical Manual, the hospital currently generates approximately 50,541 pounds of solid waste per week. This waste is collected by DSNY.

D. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR In the absence of the proposed project, the project site will be vacant by 2018. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, independently of, and prior to, the proposed project, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) will vacate the Goldwater Hospital facility and relocate patients and services elsewhere. Therefore, the project site will not generate any solid waste by 2018 in the No-Action condition. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR As with the 2018 analysis year, the project site is expected to be vacant in the No-Action condition by 2038. By 2038, NYCHHC will have vacated the Goldwater Hospital, and therefore, the project site will not generate any solid waste.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) Under the With Action condition, Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in the development of approximately 200,000 gross square feet (gsf) of academic space, 104 residential units for Cornell leadership and faculty, 338 residential units for students, 100,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 170,000 gsf for an Executive Education Center, and 10,000-

DSNY, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, September 2006.

12-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

gsf of university-oriented retail uses. 3 Up to another 20,000 gsf would be developed as a central utility plant. Using the rates provided in Table 14-1 of the CEQR Technical Manual, Phase 1 of the proposed project would generate approximately 38,451 pounds of solid waste per week by 2018, of which 23,606 pounds would be handled by DSNY and 14,845 pounds would be handled by commercial carters (see Table 12-1).

Table 12-1 Solid Waste Generation of Phase 1 of the Proposed Project

Use Academic Leadership and Faculty Housing Student Housing Utility Plant Size (area or units) Solid Waste Generation (lbs/week) 10,751 3 4,264 4 7,871 5 720 23,606 5,200 7 7,275 8 2,370 14,845 38,451
6 2 1

Corporate Co-location Executive Education Center Retail Uses

DSNY Collection 200,000 gsf 104 units 463 students 20,000 gsf DSNY Subtotal Commercial Carter Collection 100,000 gsf 170,000 gsf 10,000 gsf Commercial Carter Subtotal Total

Notes:

Solid waste generation rates based on Table 14-1 of the CEQR Technical Manual. Assumes an academic population of 827 at a rate of 13 pounds per person. 3 Assumes a rate of 41 pounds per household. 4 Assumes a rate of 17 pounds per student. 5 Assumes 3 workers at a rate of 240 pounds per person. 6 Assumes 400 workers at a rate of 13 pounds per person. 7 Assumes 97 workers at a rate of 75 pounds per person. 8 Assumes 30 workers at a rate of 79 pounds per person. Sources: Cornell University; CEQR Technical Manual.
2

Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be collected by DSNY collection trucks and private carters. The project site would be served by existing DSNY collection routes. As a practice, DSNY adjusts its operations to service the community. Residents would be required to participate in the citys ongoing recycling program for paper, metals, and certain types of plastics and glass. The solid waste generated by the proposed project by 2018 in the With Action condition would constitute an incremental increase of approximately 19.2 tons per week (approximately 2.7 tons per day) as compared with the No-Action condition. Approximately 11.8 tons of this waste would be handled by DSNY and approximately 7.4 tons of this waste would be handled by commercial carters.
3

Under the RWCDS described in Chapter 1, Project Description, retail uses would be included in the overall Phase 1 program and would not result in an additional 10,000 gsf of floor area. However, for the purposes of conservative analysis, retail uses are treated as additional floor area in this chapter.

12-4

Chapter 12: Solid Waste and Sanitation Services

According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the typical DSNY collection truck carries approximately 12.5 tons of waste material, and commercial carters typically carry between 12 and 15 tons of waste material per truck. Therefore, the new uses introduced by Phase 1 of the proposed project would be expected to generate solid waste equivalent to approximately one DSNY truck load per week and less than one commercial carter truck load per week. This minimal increase would not overburden existing DSNY or commercial solid waste handling services. In addition, the proposed project would include waste reduction measures that would decrease the incremental demand on DSNY services. As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, sustainability principles would influence the design of the proposed project by focusing on recycling, minimizing waste, and sustainability strategies for the specification, construction, operations, and maintenance of the proposed buildings and public open spaces. The proposed project would be built to LEED Silver certification specifications, which contain provisions regarding recyclables and construction waste management. Thus, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the citys solid waste and sanitation services. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) By 2038, the full build out of the proposed project would add additional buildings to the campus. The full build out of the proposed project would result in the development of approximately 620,000 gsf of academic space, 246 residential units for Cornell leadership and faculty, 848 residential units for students, 500,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 170,000 gsf of an Executive Education Center, 40,000 gsf for the central utility plants, and 25,000 gsf of retail uses. Using the rates provided in Table 14-1 of the CEQR Technical Manual, the proposed project would generate approximately 116,029 pounds of solid waste per week by 2038, of which 76,829 pounds would be handled by DSNY and 39,200 pounds would be handled by commercial carters (see Table 12-2). As with Phase 1, solid waste generated by the full build out of the proposed project would be collected by DSNY collection trucks and commercial carters. Residents would be required to participate in the citys ongoing recycling program for paper, metals, and certain types of plastics and glass. The solid waste generated by the proposed project by 2038 in the With Action condition would constitute an incremental increase of approximately 58 tons per week (approximately 8.3 tons per day) as compared with the No-Action condition. Approximately 38.4 tons of this waste would be handled by DSNY and approximately 19.6 tons of this waste would be handled by commercial carters.

12-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 12-2 Solid Waste Generation of the Full Build Out of the Proposed Project
Size (area or units) Solid Waste Generation (lbs/week) DSNY Collection 2 Academic 620,000 gsf 41,639 3 Leadership and Faculty Housing 246 units 10,086 4 Student Housing 1,392 students 23,664 5 Utility Plant 40,000 gsf 1,440 DSNY Subtotal 76,829 Commercial Carter Collection 6 Corporate Co-location 500,000 gsf 26,000 7 Executive Education Center 170,000 gsf 7,275 8 Retail Uses 25,000 gsf 5,925 Commercial Carter Subtotal 39,200 TOTAL: 116,029 1 Notes: Solid waste generation rates based on Table 14-1 of the CEQR Technical Manual. 2 Assumes an academic population of 3,203 at a rate of 13 pounds per person. 3 Assumes a rate of 41 pounds per household. 4 Assumes a rate of 17 pounds per student. 5 Assumes 6 workers at a rate of 240 pounds per person. 6 Assumes 2,000 workers at a rate of 13 pounds per person. 7 Assumes 97 workers at a rate of 75 pounds per person. 8 Assumes 75 workers at a rate of 79 pounds per person. Sources: Cornell University; CEQR Technical Manual. Use
1

The new uses introduced by the full build out of the proposed project would be expected to generate solid waste equivalent to approximately three DSNY truck loads per week and less than two commercial carter truck loads per week. This minimal increase would not overburden existing DSNY or commercial solid waste handling services. In addition, the proposed project would include waste reduction measures that would decrease the incremental demand on DSNY services. As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, sustainability principles would influence the design of the proposed project by focusing on recycling, minimizing waste, and sustainability strategies for the specification, construction, operations, and maintenance of the proposed buildings and public open spaces. The proposed project would be built to LEED Silver certification specifications, which contain provisions regarding recyclables and construction waste management. Thus, the full build out of the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the citys solid waste and sanitation services.

F. CONCLUSIONS
No significant adverse impacts on solid waste and sanitation services are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project site is served by an existing system of solid waste collection and disposal services provided by DSNY and by commercial carters. The net increment of solid waste under the proposed project would be a minimal addition to the citys solid waste stream, and the proposed project would include sustainability measures that would reduce waste generation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on solid waste and sanitation services and would be consistent with the citys SWMP.

12-6

Chapter 13: A. INTRODUCTION

Energy

This chapter describes the effects of the Cornell NYC Tech project on the use and conservation of energy. The chapter first provides a discussion of the existing and future energy supply for the project area and the relevant energy codes and energy conservation regulations. Based on project specific information, the chapter then discloses the amount of energy that would be consumed during the 2018 analysis year for Phase 1 and during the 2038 analysis year for Full Build. The chapter also describes planned green measures to reduce the proposed projects energy consumption and to use renewable energy sources. Energy measures that would be included in the proposed project, enabling it to achieve at least the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification, are also described. As described in this chapter, the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project would not result in significant adverse energy impacts in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis years.

B. METHODOLOGY
As noted in the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, the incremental demand caused by most projects would not create a significant impact on energy supply. Consequently, a detailed assessment of energy impacts is limited to those projects that may have a significant effect on the transmission or generation of energy. The proposed project would not have such effects. Energy would be generated on site using renewable resources, which would reduce the demand on existing energy systems serving the city. The onsite energy generation would not have a significant effect on the transmission or generation of energy beyond the project site. Based on a preliminary assessment the projected energy consumption for the proposed project in Phase 1 and Full Build is disclosed. A range is presented for the amount of electricity that may be generated on-site, using renewable resources and distributed generation. The energy consumption projections for Phase 1 are based on energy modeling for prototype buildings, scaled to account for the reasonable worst case development scenario (RWCDS) floor area analyzed in this EIS, and doubled to conservatively account for uncertainties in the occupancy schedules assumed in the energy model. For the Full Build, the Phase 1 energy consumption projections were adjusted to account for the Full Build RWCDS floor area. Energy efficiency features that were accounted for in the building energy modeling include technologies aimed at reducing energy use by approximately 30 percent as compared with ASHRAE 90.1 standard. 1 It was assumed that the Phase 1 academic building would be designed to an even higher level of
1

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 Energy Standards for Buildings, is the guidance standard used by LEED to define energy standards for rating.

13-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

energy efficiency, representing the approximate limit of readily-available technology to limit loads, a better building envelope, better controls, and geothermal heat pumps providing all heating and cooling needs, except for a small gas-fired hot water unit. In addition, it was assumed that at least 20 percent of the annual electricity consumed in Phase 1 and Full Build could be generated on-site using distributed generation.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
ENERGY PROVIDER Electricity on Roosevelt Island is distributed by Con Edison. The electricity is supplied from a variety of sources that originate both within and outside New York City, including locations across the Northeast, and from places as far away as Canada. The electricity consumed in New York City is produced both by non-renewable sources, such as oil, natural gas, coal fuel, and uranium; and renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity and, to a much lesser extent, biomass fuels, solar power, and wind power. Con Edison distributes power throughout the city. Transmission substations receive electricity from the regional high voltage transmission system and reduce the voltage to a level that can be delivered to area substations. Area substations further reduce the voltage to a level that can be delivered to the distribution system, or street grid. Within the grid, voltage is further reduced for delivery to customers. Con Edison also provides natural gas service to Roosevelt Island. There is no Con Edison steam service on Roosevelt Island, but there is a Roosevelt Island steam plant located just north of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge that provides heat to the Goldwater and Coler Hospitals as well as the Sportspark and the Motorgate Garage. As discussed below, it is expected that this steam plant would be decommissioned independent of the proposed project. In 2010 (the most recent year for which data are available), annual electricity usage totaled approximately 59 billion kilowatt-hours (KWH), or 200 trillion Btu in Con Edisons delivery area. In addition, Con Edison supplied approximately 124 trillion Btu of natural gas and approximately 23 billion pounds of steam, which is equivalent to approximately 23 trillion Btu. Overall, approximately 347 trillion Btu of energy are consumed within its New York City and Westchester County service area.2 For 2011-2012, the independent, non-profit New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) recommends that a minimum of 81 percent of the citys peak load be provided by sources within the city. Presently, there is sufficient capacity within the city to meet this 81 percent local energy generation requirement. 3 However, as the energy demand increases over time, additional in-city generation would be needed to satisfy this requirement. RECENT ENERGY CONSERVATION DIRECTIVES In 2001, New York State began implementing measures to address the increasing electrical power capacity needs of the New York City region. New York State Governors Executive Order No. 111 (EO 111) was introduced in June 2001, directing state agencies, state authorities, and other affected entities to address energy efficiency, renewable energy, green building
2 3

Con Edison of New York, Annual Report, year ended December 31, 2010. New York State Reliability Council, New York Control Area Installed Capacity Requirements for the Period May 2011 through April 2012, December 10, 2010.

13-2

Chapter 13: Energy

practices, and alternate fuel vehicles. EO 111 identified the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) as the organization responsible for coordinating and assisting agencies and other affected entities with their responsibilities. NYSERDA and other utilities have implemented programs to encourage businesses to reduce energy usage and increase energy efficiency. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AND PLANYC 2030 PlaNYC 2030 encourages the development of clean distributed generation (clean DG), which enables properties to create their own power with higher efficiencies and less environmental impact than central plants. For example, cogeneration systems can achieve high efficiencies by capturing the heat by-product of electricity production and reusing it for heating and cooling. Such clean DG systems help lower peak demand for electricity and improve the reliability of the citys electrical grid. PROJECT SITE Currently, Goldwater Hospital occupies the project site. Gas is provided to the site from Manhattan and Queens via the Ravenswood Tunnel, and electrical service is provided from the 63rd Street Substation in Manhattan. In addition, heat is provided to Goldwater Hospital by a steam plant located slightly north of the Queensboro Bridge.

D. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which manages the safety and reliability of the states electric transmission system, reported in September 2010 that the states wholesale electric power system will continue to meet accepted reliability standards through 2020. According to the NYISOs 2010 Reliability Needs Assessment, the accepted reliability standards will be met because there are two new proposed generating plants totaling 1,060 MW and because there is lower energy demand forecasted since a) the 2009 recession reduced the peak demand forecast for 2011 by 1,400 MW, reducing the projections of peak load in subsequent years; and b) statewide energy efficiency programs seek to lower energy consumption on the electric system by 15 percent, resulting in energy savings of 13,040 GWh by 2018 and 13,684 GWh by 2020. 4 Because of the existing supply, the addition of the proposed NYISO generating plants, and the States planning process to identify potential shortfalls years before they would materialize, it is expected that an adequate generating capacity, which would exceed projected demands, would be available in the New York City metropolitan area through the 2038 Full Build analysis year for the proposed project. In the future No-Action condition, in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, the Goldwater Hospital campus on the project site is expected to be vacant. Therefore, energy use at the project site is expected to be minimal. The Roosevelt Island steam plant is expected to be decommissioned, independent of the proposed project.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Cornell NYC Tech would develop and operate the proposed project in a manner that maximizes energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation. These energy measures ensure that Cornell NYC Techs operations consume less fossil-fuel derived energy than comparable New
4

New York Independent System Operator, 2010 Reliability Needs Assessment, September 2010.

13-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

York City institutions. Projected energy consumption for Phase 1 and Full Build, the energy conservation measures to be incorporated in the proposed project design, and a description of the proposed on-site generation systems are described in the following sections. As noted in Chapter 1, Project Description, in support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, Con Edison would upgrade an existing gas line to Roosevelt Island. The upgrade would require the replacement of some piping and the change-out of pressure regulators within the Con Edison system. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE I) The projected electricity, natural gas, and total energy consumption for Phase 1 is presented in Table 13-1. The projected energy consumption for Phase 1 would not affect Con Edisons ability to continue supplying sufficient electricity and natural gas to Roosevelt Island and New York City. The proposed project in Phase 1 would therefore not have an adverse significant impact on energy.

Table 13-1 Annual Energy Consumption, Phase 1 (2018)

Electricity Natural Gas Total Energy (MWh) (MMBtu) (MMBtu) Academic 3,656 975 13,440 Corporate Co-location 2,133 1,189 8,463 Residential 3,650 13,082 25,527 Executive Education Center 2,196 7,814 15,301 Central Energy Plant 427 238 1,693 Total 12,062 23,298 64,423 Note: The estimates are based on project-specific energy modeling by AKF, an energy modeling consultant. A factor of safety of 2 (doubling all of the values) was imposed to reflect the very early stage of design and space programming, and Cornells experience with achievable energy demands, so as to allow a conservative assessment of potential impacts. Sources: Cornell and AKRF. Proposed Uses

2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) The projected electricity, natural gas, and total energy consumption for Full Build is presented in Table 13-2.

Table 13-2 Annual Energy Consumption, Full Build (2038)

Electricity Natural Gas Total Energy (MWh) (MMBtu) (MMBtu) Academic 11,334 5,970 44,612 Corporate Co-location 10,667 5,947 42,315 Residential 9,733 34,885 68,071 Executive Education Center 2,196 7,814 15,301 Central Energy Plant 853 476 3,385 Total 34,783 55,092 173,694 Note: The estimates are based on project-specific energy modeling for Phase 1 and the ratio of the proposed floor area in Full Build to Phase 1. Sources: Cornell and AKRF. Proposed Uses

13-4

Chapter 13: Energy

By 2038, full development of the proposed project is projected to result in a combined annual energy demand of 173,694 million Btu. The proposed projects total combined energy intensity is 81,542Btu per square foot. This is substantially lower than the average intensities in New York City: 5 This efficiency would come from design of the proposed buildings (see Cornell NYC Tech Energy Conservation Measures, below) and the use of geothermal energy for heating and cooling. The proposed projects energy demand would account for approximately 0.05 percent of energy consumed within Con Edisons New York City and Westchester County service area, and would be considered a negligible increment. The proposed project would not be an energy intensive facility that would significantly affect the transmission or generation of energy, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to the transmission or generation of energy. CORNELL NYC TECH ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, Cornell has committed to achieving a minimum of LEED Silver certification for all project buildings. LEED certification requires building energy efficiency that results in energy expenditure at least 10 percent lower than the baseline building designed to meet minimum code requirements. The building design would be aimed at attaining an energy efficiency of 30 percent better than code, which is well above the minimum LEED requirement. Some energy efficiency measures (high-efficiency building envelopes and systems; high efficiency lighting and controls, and heating and cooling building envelopes and systems; high-efficiency lighting and controls, and heating and cooling set-points which are Cornell standards) were included in the energy modeling and are reflected in the results presented above; however, additional efficiency may be achieved due to sustainable project elements not yet designed and additional measures still under consideration. To attain the LEED certification, the designs for the proposed project would include: Energy efficient building envelopes to reduce cooling/heating requirements; High-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or generators; Green roofs or rooftop gardens, that would provide shade and remove heat from the air through evapotranspiration, reducing the building energy needs and providing other environmental benefits; Features to optimize interior daylighting and minimize heat loss and solar gain (e.g., window glazing, superinsulation); Motion sensors and lighting and climate controls; Efficient, directed exterior lighting; A commitment to conduct third party building commissioning to ensure energy performance; and Building orientation that minimizes energy use. Other measures likely to be part of the design include high-albedo roofing materials except on roofs with solar panels or green roofs; peak shaving or load shifting strategies, subject to acceptable life-cycle cost evaluation; efficient lighting and elevators and Energy Star appliances; an on-site charging station for electric vehicles; and other sustainable design features that may
5

CEQR Technical Manual Table 15-1.

13-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

indirectly also reduce energy consumption, such as use of water conserving fixtures that exceed building code requirements, water efficient landscaping, and potential re-using of gray water and/or collection and re-use of rainwater. ENERGY GENERATION Cornell has also set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. This means that the campus collectively would generate enough electricity from renewable sources to offset the cumulative electrical power, heating, and cooling energy use of the Phase 1 academic building on an annual basis. The electricity would be generated using photovoltaic (PV) panels and would reduce the need for electricity that would be purchased from Con Edison. This Phase 1 academic building would also use geothermal energy for heating, if economically feasible. In addition, the installation of fuel cells or microturbines would be considered for both Phase 1 and Full Build. These systems would require additional use of natural gas, but would reduce the need for grid power. While these systems have not been designed yet, it is anticipated that they could likely supply approximately 20 percent of the electricity demand. Depending on individual building as well as campus thermal and electric loads and economic considerations, as much as 50 percent of the electricity demand for the Full Build development could be met through on-site generation. The on-site systems would be designed for high efficiency and could potentially reduce source energy consumption by 2 to 6 percent, assuming a factor of 2.867, to estimate the source energy for the grid given electricity output.6 The systems that are being considered to generate energy on-site are briefly described below: A below-grade closed-loop geothermal well field would be developed to serve the academic building. Approximately 140 geothermal wells may be constructed during Phase 1. These wells, linked to a heat pump system, would likely meet the heating and cooling demand for the academic building. Cornell is also considering whether other heat rejection means (such as cooling towers) could be used to reduce the peak heating and cooling needs. Cornell may expand the geothermal system as practical for the Full Build, depending on the success of the Phase 1 system. The utility plants would provide space for in-coming utility services and may also include equipment to supply power, chilled water, and heat to portions of the campus. As the campus develops, it may also evolve to contain (in this structure or added facilities) distributed energy generation units that would operate on natural gas (fuel cells, micro-turbines, or novel enginegenerators) to support the campus energy demand while reducing fossil fuel needs (and thus reducing the campus carbon footprint). Photovoltaic (PV) panels would be installed throughout the project site (e.g., on roofs of proposed buildings and on the southern portion of the project site during Phase 1). PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures as needed to achieve the renewable electricity goals of the campus.

F. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact with respect to the transmission and generation of energy. The proposed project would comply with the New York City Energy Conservation Code (NYCECC) and Energy Conservation Construction Code of

PlaNYC, Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 39, September 2011.

13-6

Chapter 13: Energy

New York State (ECCCNYS), incorporating all measures relating to energy efficiency and thermal transmittance. By 2038, full development of the proposed project is projected to result in a combined 173,684 million British thermal units (Btu) of energy demand annually. The proposed projects total combined energy intensity for Full Build is 81,542 Btu per square foot. This is substantially lower than the average intensities in New York City. 7 The proposed project would incorporate a number of measures intended to reduce energy consumption. Cornell has committed to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification for all project buildings. In Phase 1, Cornell NYC Tech would design the academic building to consume net zero energy. The building would use on-site generated solar power and be heated and cooled using geothermal energy. Cornell is exploring the feasibility of additional on-site power generation, using fuel cells and microturbines.

CEQR Technical Manual Table 15-1.

13-7

Chapter 14:

Transportation

A. INTRODUCTION
As described in detail in Chapter 1, Project Description, Cornell is seeking a number of discretionary approvals (the proposed actions) to support and permit the development of the Cornell NYC Tech project on Roosevelt Island. The proposed development would include academic space, student and faculty housing, an Executive Education Center with hotel conference facilities, corporate co-location space, and university-oriented retail. The project would also result in 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space. For purposes of the EIS, the project is assumed to result in a reasonable worst-case development of approximately 2.1 million gross square feet (gsf) at Full Build. As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project would be built out over an approximately 27-year period; therefore, the EIS uses 2018 and 2038 as analysis years, as those represent the first full years of operation for Phase 1 and Full Build of the project. The transportation analyses consider both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years to identify potential impacts and determine feasible mitigation measures that would be appropriate in both analysis years. This chapter examines the potential effects of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project on nearby transportation systems on Roosevelt Island and in Queens, New York. Presented in the following sections are a description of the proposed project, an overview of the analysis methodology, a projection of site generated trips and assignments, the results of the capacity analysis for existing and future conditions without and with the proposed project (the No Action and With Action conditions), and findings of potential significant adverse transportation impacts. The travel demand projections, trip assignments, and capacity analysis were conducted pursuant to the methodologies outlined in the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. As detailed in this chapter and summarized in Section I, Conclusions, the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts at several study area intersections, segments of the bus service for the Q102 route and the Red Bus on Roosevelt Island, and two sidewalk locations in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years.

B. CEQR SCREENING ASSESSMENT

The CEQR Technical Manual recommends a two-tier screening procedure for the preparation of a preliminary analysis to determine if quantified operational analyses of transportation conditions are warranted. As discussed in the following sections, the preliminary analysis begins with a trip generation analysis (Level 1) to estimate the volumes of person and vehicle trips attributable to the proposed project. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, if the proposed project is expected to result in fewer than 50 peak hour vehicle trips and fewer than 200 peak 14-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

hour transit or pedestrian trips, further quantified analyses are not warranted. When these thresholds are exceeded, detailed trip assignments (Level 2) are performed to estimate the incremental trips for specific transportation elements and to identify potential locations for further analyses. If the trip assignments show that the proposed project would generate 50 or more peak hour vehicle trips at an intersection, 200 or more peak hour subway trips at a station, 50 or more peak hour bus trips in one direction along a bus route, or 200 or more peak hour pedestrian trips traversing a pedestrian element, then further quantified operational analyses may be warranted to assess the potential for significant adverse impacts on traffic, transit, pedestrians, parking, and vehicular and pedestrian safety. LEVEL 1 SCREENING ASSESSMENT A Level 1 trip generation screening assessment was conducted to estimate the numbers of person and vehicle trips by mode expected to be generated by the proposed project during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours. These estimates were then compared to the CEQR analysis thresholds to determine if a Level 2 screening and/or quantified operational analyses may be warranted. BACKGROUND It is anticipated that the development program would be completed in two stages, with the first year of full occupancy for Phase 1 in 2018 and for the Full Build in 2038. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the reasonable worst-case development scenario for analysis in the EIS, which reflects the highest potential trip generation, would include 620,000 gsf of academic facilities, 500,000 gsf of corporate co-location space, 800,000 gsf for housing (1,094 total dwelling units), a 170,000 gsf Executive Education Center (225 hotel rooms with 25,000 gsf of conference space), and 25,000 gsf of university retail use. A summary of the above breakdown separated into Phase 1 and Full Build is shown in Table 14-1.

Table 14-1 Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario Program (GSF)

Land Use Academic Facilities Corporate Co-location Executive Education Center (1) Housing Facilities (2) (3) University Retail Total Phase 1 (2018) 200,000 100,000 170,000 300,000 10,000 780,000 Full Build Increment 420,000 400,000 -500,000 15,000 1,335,000 Full Build (2038) 620,000 500,000 170,000 800,000 25,000 2,115,000

Notes: (1) The proposed Executive Education Center is projected to include 225 hotel rooms with conference facilities of approximately 25,000 gross square feet. (2) Phase 1 includes a projected housing allowance of 442 dwelling units (104 units of faculty/postdoctoral housing and 338 units of student housing). (3) Full Build includes an additional projected housing allowance of 652 dwelling units (142 additional units of faculty/postdoctoral housing and 510 units of student housing).

For travel demand projection purposes, the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project can be categorized into the following trip-generating land uses; Academic, including faculty, graduate students, researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and administrative/support staff; 14-2

Chapter 14: Transportation

Corporate co-location space; Executive Education Center; University retail; and University housing (external campus trips). A portion of the campus population would live on campus (making internal campus trips); however, the proposed project-generated trips that would be subject to study would include those trips made between the campus and locations on and off Roosevelt Island. Chapter 1, Project Description, provides information on the academic population expected to be housed on campus (see Table 1-3), and a summary of the anticipated residential status (on- and offcampus) for the academic population is provided in Table 14-2.

Table 14-2 Projected Academic Population Residents

Population Administrative Staff Leadership Faculty and Visitors/Adjuncts Postdoctoral Fellows Ph.D. Candidates Masters Students Funded Researchers Total Phase 1 OnOffCampus Campus -72 2 0 77 34 30 7 208 52 255 45 -45 572 255 Total 72 2 111 37 260 300 45 827 Phase 2 Full Build OnOffCampus Campus Total -131 131 3 0 3 180 139 319 76 49 125 450 300 750 942 808 1,750 -125 125 1,651 1,552 3,203

The transportation planning assumptions and projected person and vehicle trips are described below. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS Academic and Corporate Co-Location Use Trip generation estimates for the academic component for person and vehicle trips were based on Cornells projections and information developed for the Manhattanville in West Harlem Rezoning and Academic Mixed-Use Development Project FEIS, dated 2007 (Manhattanville FEIS). The following academic user groups were identified: Graduate Students, including students pursuing masters and Ph.D. degrees; Academic Researchers, including employees supporting the research programs; Corporate co-location workers, includes employees or tenants of the corporate co-location buildings; Faculty and Postdoctoral fellows; Administrators; and Visitors. The modal split and auto and taxi occupancy factors were developed based on a review of the travel survey conducted as part of the Manhattanville FEIS; the survey results were interpreted and adjusted to reflect the Roosevelt Island campus environment. 14-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Walk trips were identified separately for those trips being generated internally, or within the campus and those trips being generated externally, or outside the campus but within Roosevelt Island. For example, internally generated walk trips may include campus residents who travel intra-campus to an adjacent academic building, while off-campus walk trips include those made for lunch or errands from the campus to other parts of Roosevelt Island or those living offcampus on Roosevelt Island commuting to the campus. All of the academic populations who live on campus were assumed to walk the short distance between their dwelling and destination (lab, class, office, etc.) during the AM and PM peak periods. During other hours of the day (i.e., the midday peak period), it was assumed that of the population living on-campus would leave the campus for discretionary trip-making (for example, to get lunch) while would remain on campus and use the on-campus amenities (i.e., cafe/restaurant) or return to their on-campus dwelling. Executive Education Center Travel demand factors from the CEQR Technical Manual were used to estimate daily person and delivery trip rates generated by the proposed Executive Education Center. The modal split, vehicle occupancy, and person temporal and directional distributions were identified by using the data available from the Long Island City Gotham Garage EAS. For the conference center space, the daily person and delivery trip rates, vehicle occupancy, and temporal and directional distributions were generated based on the NYU Core EIS. Administrative modal split factors from the Columbia Manhattanville FEIS were adapted for the Conference Facilities/Employees (approximately 20 percent auto share). University Retail Travel demand factors for local retail from the CEQR Technical Manual were applied for the daily person and delivery vehicle trip generation rates and weekday peak hour percentages. Since the university retail space would mainly serve the on-campus population, it was estimated that 90 percent of the trips would be made intra-campus; the remaining 10 percent was allocated to off-campus modes of transportation based on the modal split factors used in the New School DASNY FEAF. University Housing-External Trips University Housing-External trips include the population who lives on campus but makes offcampus trips. These trips could include spouses or family members working off-campus and/or student trips made to primary or secondary schools, as well as other discretionary trips not related to the on-campus academic uses. Trip estimates for non-academic related or external housing trips for the campus housing component were developed using temporal distribution, daily person trip rates, taxi occupancy, and delivery-trip generation factors from the Manhattanville FEIS. The modal split and auto occupancy factors for the external housing trips were developed based on a review of the American Community Census Survey, 2006-2010, U.S Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census, and Journey-to-Work (JTW) data from Manhattan Census Tract #238 (Roosevelt Island).

14-4

Chapter 14: Transportation

TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 14-3 provides a detailed presentation of the travel demand factors. The travel demand analysis included a detailed assessment of a range of parameters including: daily person trip rate, absentee rate, peak hour temporal distribution, modal split, vehicle occupancy rate, and daily delivery trip characteristics. Individual projections were conducted for the different population groups and programmed uses discussed above. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) Person-trip and vehicle-trip generation estimates for the proposed Phase 1 uses are presented in Table 14-4. As shown, there would be 689, 652, and 838 total person-trips, including 346, 173, and 404 subway-trips; 58, 50, and 72 bus-trips; 30, 20, and 34 tram-trips; and 95, 242, 118 walktrips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. Phase 1 would generate approximately 143, 162, and 179 vehicle-trip, including 95, 78, and 119 auto-trips, and 40, 72, and 58 taxi-trips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) Person-trip and vehicle-trip generation estimates for the proposed uses at Full Build are presented in Table 14-5. As shown, there would be 2,196, 1,856, and 2,550 total person-trips including 1,175, 415, and 1,337 subway-trips, 159, 141, and 185 bus-trips, 103, 76, and 115 tram-trips, and 382, 940, 456 walk-trips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. At Full Build, the project would generate approximately 352, 304, and 404 vehicle-trip, including 266, 150, and 312 auto-trips, and 62, 124, and 84 taxi-trips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. Since the projected trips would exceed the CEQR analysis thresholds for vehicular traffic, transit, and pedestrians for all three peak hours (i.e., weekday AM, midday, and PM), a Level 2 screening assessment was undertaken to identify specific locations where detailed analyses may be warranted. LEVEL 2 SCREENING ASSESSMENT A Level 2 screening assessment involves the distribution and assignment of projected trips to the transportation network and the determination of whether specific locations are expected to incur volumes in excess of the CEQR thresholds. For the Cornell NYC Tech project, trips projected for the 2038 analysis year, representing the maximum amount of project-generated trips, were allocated to the areas roadways, transit facilities, and pedestrian elements to identify the various study areas for which detailed analyses of potential impacts would be prepared. As previously stated, further quantified analyses to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system would be warranted if the trip assignments resulted in 50 or more peak hour vehicles-trips or pedestrian elements incurring 200 or more peak hour pedestrian-trips. Similarly, for transit elements, the projected trips were considered in determining the likely transit facilities requiring a detailed analysis of potential impacts.

14-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-3 Travel Demand Assumptions

Land Use
Daily Person Trip Absentee Rate Link Credit Final Trip Rate Temporal Direction In Out Total Living OffCampus (2) 6.0% 2.5% 68.8% 6.0% 0.0% 15.0% 1.7% 100.0% (1) 1.20 1.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% AM (1) 7% (1) 95% 5% 100% Living OnCampus (1) 3.5 Trips / Person 5% n/a 3.3 MD PM AM (1) (1) (1) 9% 7% 11% (1) (1) (1) 50% 10% 95% 50% 90% 5% 100% 100% 100% Living Living Living Living Living Living OffOnOffOnOffOnCampus Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus (2) (2) (2) 5.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 35.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 68.8% 0.0% 34.3% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 37.5% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 37.5% 25.0% 15.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (1) (1) (1) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.30 1.30 1.30

Graduate Students (Masters/Ph.D.)

Faculty (Postdoc/Faculty)
(1) 3.5 Trips / Person 20% n/a 2.8 MD PM (1) (1) 9% 11% (1) (1) 50% 10% 50% 90% 100% 100% Living Living Living Living OffOnOffOnCampus Campus Campus Campus (2) (2) 5.0% 0.0% 35.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 34.3% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 37.5% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0% 37.5% 25.0% 20.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (1) (1) 1.20 1.20 1.30 1.30

Researchers
(1) 3.5 Trips / Person 5% n/a 3.3 AM MD (1) (1) 19% 13% (1) (1) 95% 50% 5% 50% 100% 100% Living Off-Campus (2) 15.9% 0.5% 49.0% 6.0% 0.0% 22.6% 6.0% 100.0% (1) 1.20 1.30 (2) 5.0% 2.0% 10.0% 5.0% 37.5% 37.5% 3.0% 100.0% (1) 1.20 1.30

Administrators

PM (1) 19% (1) 10% 90% 100%

(1) 3.5 Trips / Person 5% n/a 3.3 AM MD (1) (1) 21% 13% (1) (1) 95% 50% 5% 50% 100% 100% Living Off-Campus (2) 15.9% 0.5% 49.0% 6.0% 0.0% 22.6% 6.0% 100.0% (1) 1.20 1.30

PM (1) 21% (1) 10% 90% 100%

Modal Split Auto Taxi Subway Bus Walk - Internal Walk - External Tramway Total Vehicle Occupancy Auto Taxi Daily Delivery Trip Generation Rate

Delivery Temporal Delivery Direction In Out Total

(2) (2) (2) 20.4% 5.0% 20.4% 1.5% 2.0% 1.5% 49.5% 10.0% 49.5% 10.5% 5.0% 10.5% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 16.1% 37.5% 16.1% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (1) (1) (1) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.30 1.30 1.30 (1) 0.10 Delivery Trips / KSF AM MD PM (1) (1) (1) 9.7% 9.1% 5.1% (3) (3) (3) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100%

Source (1) Proposed Columbia Manhattanville in West Harlem Rezoning and Academic Mixed-Use Development FEIS. (2) The Columbia Manhattanville On-line Travel Survey was also utilized and adjusted for area characteristics to have lower walk only share, higher subway share in comparison. Shuttle mode is added to subway, tramway mode is added (subway trip is distributed to tramway). In addition, the modal split factors used for the Columbia Manhattanville for administrative staff was applied to Conference Facilities/Employees. (3) 2012 CEQR Technical Manual (4) 4.0 of 8.075 daily person trips (CEQR- residential) were conservatively assumed not to be journey trips to/from University facilities. (5) 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates- Journey To Work for New York County Census Tract #238. (6) The New School DASNY FEAF (2010). Modal split factors were reapportioned for various modes of transportation, only for off-campus trips. (7) NYU Core EIS (2011) For trips made by the Conference Facilities/Patrons, the same modal split factors used for the NYU Core DEIS were applied, with the walk trip component allocated to solely on-campus travel. (8) Long Island City Gotham Garage (EA) - Hotel Trips gen factors used in No Action Trip Gen was approved by NYCDOT.

14-6

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-3 (continued) Travel Demand Assumptions

Corporate Co-location Executive Education Center Land Use Workers Visitors University Retail Hotel Daily Person (1) Academic (3) (3) Trip 18.0 0.4 205.0 9.4 Trips/1,000 gsf Trips /1,000 gsf Trips /1,000 gsf Trips /room Absentee Rate n/a n/a n/a n/a Link Credit n/a n/a 0% n/a Final Trip Rate Same as the initial Trip Rate Same as the initial Trip Rate 205.0 Same as the initial Trip Rate AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM Temporal (3) (3) (3) (1) (1) (1) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 12% 15% 14% 15% 15% 15% 3% 19% 10% 8% 14% 13% Direction (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (6) (6) (6) (8) (8) (8) In 95% 50% 10% 90% 50% 10% 50% 50% 50% 41% 68% 59% Out 5% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 50% 50% 50% 59% 32% 41% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Living Off-Campus Modal Split (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (6) (6) (6) (8) (8) (8) Auto 15.9% 5.0% 15.9% 25.0% 5.0% 25.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 30.1% 30.1% 30.1% Taxi 0.5% 2.0% 0.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% Subway 49.0% 10.0% 49.0% 50.0% 10.0% 50.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 16.8% 16.8% 16.8% Bus 6.0% 5.0% 6.0% 11.0% 5.0% 11.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% Walk - Internal 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Walk - External 22.6% 37.5% 22.6% 10.0% 37.5% 10.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tramway 6.0% 3.0% 6.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Vehicle Occupancy (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (7) (7) (7) Auto 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 Taxi 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.40 1.40 1.40 Daily Delivery (3) (9) (7) Trip Generation 0.32 0.35 0.06 Rate Delivery Trips / KSF Delivery Trips / KSF Delivery Trips / room AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM (3) (3) (3) (9) (9) (9) (7) (7) (7) 10.0% 11.0% 2.0% 8.0% 11.0% 2.0% 12.2% 8.7% 0.0% (2) 20.4% 1.5% 49.5% 10.5% 0.0% 16.1% 2.0% 100.0% Delivery Temporal Delivery Direction In Out Total
Source

Executive Education Center Conf. Facilities/Employees (7) 10.0 Trips /1,000 gsf n/a n/a Same as the initial Trip Rate AM MD PM (7) (7) (7) 14.7% 20.0% 12.9% (7) (7) (7) 96% 55% 5% 4% 44% 95% 100% 100% 100%

Executive Education Center Conf. Facilities/Patrons (7) 27.2 Trips /1,000 gsf n/a n/a Same as the initial Trip Rate AM MD PM (7) (7) (7) 10.5% 9.5% 10.5% (7) (7) (7) 91% 53% 15% 9% 47% 85% 100% 100% 100%

University Housing - External (1,3,4) 4.0 Trips / unit n/a n/a Same as the initial Trip Rate AM MD PM (1) (1) (1) 9.1% 4.7% 10.7% (1) (1) (1) 20% 51% 65% 80% 49% 35% 100% 100% 100%

(2) 5.0% 2.0% 10.0% 5.0% 37.5% 37.5% 3.0% 100.0%

(2) 20.4% 1.5% 49.5% 10.5% 0.0% 16.1% 2.0% 100.0% (7) (7) (7) 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.40 (7) 0.35 Delivery Trips / KSF AM MD PM (7) (7) (7) 7.9% 14.7% 1.1% (9) 50% 50% 100% (9) 50% 50% 100% (9) 50% 50% 100% (3) 50% 50% 100% (3) 50% 50% 100% (3) 50% 50% 100% (3) 50% 50% 100% (3) 50% 50% 100% (3) 50% 50% 100%

(7) 7.0% 6.0% 20.0% 10.0% 52.0% 0.0% 5.0% 100.0% (7) 2.3 1.8

(7) 7.0% 6.0% 25.0% 10.0% 52.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% (7) 2.30 1.80

(7) 7.0% 6.0% 25.0% 10.0% 52.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

(5) 6.1% 0.0% 71.4% 9.4% 0.0% 8.6% 4.5% 100.0%

(5) 6.1% 0.0% 71.4% 9.4% 0.0% 8.6% 4.5% 100.0%

(5) 6.1% 0.0% 71.4% 9.4% 0.0% 8.6% 4.5% 100.0%

(7) 2.30 1.80

(1)(5) (1)(5) (1)(5) 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.30 1.30 1.30 (1) 0.03 Delivery Trips / Unit MD PM (1) (1) 9.1% 5.1%

AM (1) 9.7%

(3) 50% 50% 100%

(3) 50% 50% 100%

(3) 50% 50% 100%

(3) 50% 50% 100%

(3) 50% 50% 100%

(3) 50% 50% 100%

(1) Proposed Columbia Manhattanville in West Harlem Rezoning and Academic Mixed-Use Development FEIS. (2) The Columbia Manhattanville On-line Travel Survey was also utilized and adjusted for area characteristics to have lower walk only share, higher subway share in comparison. Shuttle mode is added to subway, tramway mode is added (subway trip is distributed to tramway). In addition, the modal split factors used for the Columbia Manhattanville for administrative staff was applied to Conference Facilities/Employees. (3) 2012 CEQR Technical Manual (4) 4.0 of 8.075 daily person trips (CEQR- residential) were conservatively assumed not to be journey trips to/from University facilities. (5) 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates- Journey To Work for New York County Census Tract #238. (6) The New School DASNY FEAF (2010). Modal split factors were reapportioned for various modes of transportation, only for off-campus trips. (7) NYU Core DEIS (2011) For trips made by the Conference Facilities/Patrons, the same modal split factors used for the NYU Core DEIS were applied, with the walk trip component allocated to solely on-campus travel. (8) Long Island City Gotham Garage (EA) - Hotel Trips gen factors used in No Action Trip Gen was approved by NYCDOT.

14-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-4 Weekday Trip Generation SummaryPhase 1 (2018)

PERSON TRIPS USER GROUP Graduate Student Masters PEAK AM MD PM Graduate Student Ph.D. AM MD PM Academic AM MD PM Faculty AM MD PM Postdoctor al fellows AM MD PM Admin. Support AM MD PM Visitors AM MD PM DIR. In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Auto 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 1 11 1 1 2 1 9 10 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 Taxi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subway 7 0 7 1 1 2 1 7 8 8 0 8 1 1 2 1 7 8 13 1 14 1 1 2 1 13 14 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 1 25 2 2 4 2 22 24 5 1 6 1 1 2 1 5 6 Bus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 1 2 1 5 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Walk Internal 56 3 59 32 32 64 6 53 59 46 2 48 26 26 52 5 44 49 0 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 0 23 1 24 9 9 18 2 22 24 9 0 9 3 3 6 1 8 9 0 0 0 6 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 Walk External 2 0 2 13 13 26 0 1 1 2 0 2 11 11 22 0 2 2 6 0 6 4 4 8 1 6 7 2 0 2 4 4 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 0 8 6 6 12 1 7 8 1 0 1 2 2 4 0 1 1 Tram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VEHICLE TRIPS Total w/ Total w/o Walk Walk Internal Internal Auto Taxi Delivery Total 67 11 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 70 11 1 0 0 1 46 13 0 0 0 0 46 13 0 0 0 0 92 26 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 63 10 0 0 0 0 70 11 0 0 0 0 58 12 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 12 1 0 0 1 38 12 0 0 0 0 38 12 0 0 0 0 76 24 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 55 11 1 0 0 1 61 12 1 0 0 1 27 27 4 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 28 28 4 0 0 4 9 5 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 18 10 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 27 27 3 0 0 3 29 29 3 0 0 3 31 8 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 32 8 3 0 0 3 13 4 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 26 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 8 3 0 0 3 32 8 3 0 0 3 11 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 1 0 0 1 11 2 1 0 0 1 49 49 8 1 1 10 2 2 0 1 1 2 51 51 8 2 2 12 16 10 1 0 1 2 16 10 1 0 1 2 32 20 2 0 2 4 5 5 1 1 1 3 45 45 8 1 1 10 50 50 9 2 2 13 10 10 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 11 2 0 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 10 2 0 0 2 11 11 2 0 0 2

14-8

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-4 (contd) Weekday Trip Generation SummaryPhase 1 (2018)

PERSON TRIPS USER GROUP University Retail PEAK AM MD PM Corporate Co-location AM MD PM Executive Education Center (Hotel) AM MD PM Executive Education Center (Conf. Facility) AM MD PM University Housing External AM MD PM TOTAL AM MD PM DIR. In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Auto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2 35 7 7 14 4 36 40 21 30 51 61 29 90 49 34 83 12 0 12 3 3 6 1 10 11 2 8 10 3 2 5 8 4 12 91 41 132 75 42 117 63 106 169 Taxi 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 6 0 1 1 9 12 21 25 12 37 20 14 34 5 0 5 3 2 5 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 12 28 32 18 50 21 20 41 Subway 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 101 5 106 14 14 28 12 11 123 12 17 29 34 16 50 27 19 46 30 2 32 12 10 22 4 30 34 23 92 115 30 29 59 88 47 135 227 119 346 97 76 173 138 266 404 Bus 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 12 1 13 7 7 14 2 14 16 4 5 9 11 5 16 9 6 15 10 1 11 4 4 8 1 9 10 3 12 15 4 4 8 12 6 18 39 19 58 28 22 50 26 46 72 Walk Internal 28 28 56 175 175 350 92 92 184 0 0 0 51 51 102 0 0 0 23 33 56 67 32 99 54 38 92 34 3 37 28 24 52 6 32 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 70 289 403 364 767 166 289 455 Walk External 3 3 6 16 16 32 9 9 18 46 2 48 51 51 102 6 51 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 10 8 18 0 5 5 3 11 14 4 4 8 11 6 17 79 16 95 122 120 242 28 90 118 Tram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 13 4 4 8 2 14 16 1 2 3 4 2 6 3 2 5 4 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 6 7 2 2 4 6 3 9 21 9 30 11 9 20 11 23 34 VEHICLE TRIPS Total w/ Total w/o Walk Walk Internal Internal Auto Taxi Delivery Total 31 3 0 0 0 0 31 3 0 0 0 0 62 6 0 0 0 0 194 19 0 2 1 3 194 19 0 2 1 3 388 38 0 4 2 6 103 11 0 0 0 0 103 11 0 0 0 0 206 22 0 0 0 0 205 205 27 1 2 30 11 11 1 1 2 4 216 216 28 2 4 34 137 86 6 5 2 13 137 86 6 5 2 13 274 172 12 10 4 26 26 26 3 1 0 4 227 227 30 1 0 31 253 253 33 2 0 35 70 47 13 15 1 29 99 66 19 15 1 35 169 113 32 30 2 64 202 135 38 26 1 65 96 64 18 26 1 45 298 199 56 52 2 110 162 108 31 24 0 55 113 75 21 24 0 45 275 183 52 48 0 100 101 67 6 3 0 9 6 3 0 3 0 3 107 70 6 6 0 12 61 33 2 3 1 6 52 28 2 3 1 6 113 61 4 6 2 12 13 7 0 3 0 3 91 59 6 3 0 9 104 66 6 6 0 12 32 32 2 0 0 2 129 129 7 0 0 7 161 161 9 0 0 9 43 43 2 0 0 2 41 41 2 0 0 2 84 84 4 0 0 4 125 125 6 0 0 6 66 66 3 0 0 3 191 191 9 0 0 9 692 473 68 20 4 92 286 216 27 20 4 51 978 689 95 40 8 143 768 365 49 36 6 91 651 287 29 36 6 71 1,419 652 78 72 12 162 453 287 41 29 1 71 840 551 78 29 1 108 1,293 838 119 58 2 179

14-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-5 Weekday Trip Generation SummaryFull Build (2038)

PERSON TRIPS PEAK DIR. AM In Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Graduate AM In Student Out Ph.D. Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Academic AM In Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Faculty AM In Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Postdoctoral AM In Fellows Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Admin. AM In Support Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Visitors AM In Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total USER GROUP Graduate Student Masters Auto 11 1 12 6 6 12 1 10 11 4 0 4 2 2 4 0 4 4 12 1 13 1 1 2 1 11 12 14 1 15 1 1 2 1 13 14 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 5 6 18 1 19 1 1 2 2 17 19 8 1 9 1 1 2 1 8 9 Taxi 4 0 4 2 2 4 0 4 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Subway 123 6 129 12 12 24 13 116 129 46 2 48 4 4 8 5 43 48 37 2 39 3 3 6 4 35 39 14 1 15 2 2 4 1 13 14 5 0 5 1 1 2 1 5 6 43 2 45 3 3 6 5 41 46 17 2 19 2 2 4 2 17 19 Walk Bus Internal 11 208 1 11 12 219 6 151 6 151 12 302 1 22 10 197 11 219 4 100 0 5 4 105 2 67 2 67 4 134 0 10 4 94 4 104 5 0 0 0 5 0 1 10 1 10 2 20 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 54 0 3 2 57 1 24 1 24 2 48 0 6 2 51 2 57 1 22 0 1 1 23 0 9 0 9 0 18 0 2 1 21 1 23 9 0 0 0 9 0 1 11 1 11 2 22 1 0 9 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 7 1 7 2 14 0 0 4 0 4 0 Walk External Tram 27 3 1 0 28 3 80 4 80 4 160 8 3 0 25 3 28 3 10 1 1 0 11 1 34 1 34 1 68 2 1 0 9 1 10 1 17 5 1 0 18 5 10 1 10 1 20 2 2 0 16 4 18 4 8 1 0 0 8 1 13 1 13 1 26 2 1 0 8 1 9 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 14 0 1 0 15 2 11 1 11 1 22 2 1 0 13 2 14 2 3 1 0 0 3 1 7 1 7 1 14 2 0 0 3 1 3 1 VEHICLE TRIPS Total w/ Total w/o Walk Walk Internal Internal Auto Taxi Delivery Total 387 179 9 3 0 12 20 9 0 3 0 3 407 188 9 6 0 15 261 110 5 3 0 8 261 110 5 3 0 8 522 220 10 6 0 16 40 18 1 3 0 4 365 168 8 3 0 11 405 186 9 6 0 15 167 67 3 2 0 5 8 3 0 2 0 2 175 70 3 4 0 7 111 44 2 2 0 4 111 44 2 2 0 4 222 88 4 4 0 8 16 6 0 2 0 2 157 63 3 2 0 5 173 69 3 4 0 7 76 76 10 0 0 10 4 4 1 0 0 1 80 80 11 0 0 11 27 17 1 2 0 3 27 17 1 2 0 3 54 34 2 4 0 6 7 7 1 0 0 1 70 70 9 0 0 9 77 77 10 0 0 10 94 40 12 1 0 13 5 2 1 1 0 2 99 42 13 2 0 15 42 18 1 0 0 1 42 18 1 0 0 1 84 36 2 0 0 2 9 3 1 1 0 2 89 38 11 1 0 12 98 41 12 2 0 14 37 15 4 1 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 1 39 15 4 2 0 6 14 5 0 0 0 0 14 5 0 0 0 0 28 10 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 35 14 4 0 0 4 39 16 4 0 0 4 84 87 15 1 3 19 4 4 1 1 3 5 91 91 16 2 6 24 29 18 1 2 3 6 29 18 1 2 3 6 58 36 2 4 6 12 9 9 2 1 2 5 83 83 14 1 2 17 92 92 16 2 4 22 34 34 7 1 0 8 3 3 1 1 0 2 37 37 8 2 0 10 19 12 1 0 0 1 19 12 1 0 0 1 38 24 2 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 0 2 34 34 7 1 0 8 37 37 8 2 0 10

14-10

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-5 (contd) Weekday Trip Generation SummaryFull Build (2038)

PERSON TRIPS PEAK DIR. AM In Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Corporate AM In Co-location Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Executive AM In Education Out Center Total (Hotel) MD In Out Total PM In Out Total Executive AM In Education Out Center Total (Conf. MD In Facility) Out Total PM In Out Total University AM In Housing Out External Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total TOTAL AM In Out Total MD In Out Total PM In Out Total USER GROUP University Retail Auto 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 163 9 172 34 34 68 20 180 200 21 30 51 61 29 90 49 34 83 12 0 12 3 3 6 1 10 11 5 19 24 6 6 12 19 10 29 273 63 336 117 85 202 97 303 400 Taxi 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 0 5 14 14 28 1 6 7 9 12 21 25 12 37 20 14 34 5 0 5 3 2 5 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 12 41 48 34 82 23 34 57 Subway 0 0 0 3 3 6 2 2 4 503 26 529 68 68 136 62 556 618 12 17 29 34 16 50 27 19 46 30 2 32 12 10 22 4 30 34 57 228 285 75 72 147 217 117 334 887 288 1,175 219 196 415 343 994 1,337 Bus 0 0 0 3 3 6 2 2 4 62 3 65 34 34 68 8 68 76 4 5 9 11 5 16 9 6 15 10 1 11 4 4 8 1 9 10 7 30 37 10 9 19 29 15 44 119 40 159 74 67 141 51 134 185 Walk Internal 69 69 138 438 438 876 231 231 462 0 0 0 253 253 506 0 0 0 23 33 56 67 32 99 54 38 92 34 3 37 28 24 52 6 32 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 510 125 635 1,065 1,026 2,091 331 664 995 Walk External 6 6 12 40 40 80 21 21 42 232 12 244 253 253 506 28 256 284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 10 8 18 0 5 5 7 27 34 9 9 18 26 14 40 333 49 382 471 469 940 83 373 456 Tram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 3 65 20 20 40 8 68 76 1 2 3 4 2 6 3 2 5 4 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 14 18 5 5 10 14 7 21 84 19 103 39 37 76 25 90 115 VEHICLE TRIPS Total w/ Total w/o Walk Walk Internal Internal Auto Taxi Delivery Total 75 6 0 0 0 0 75 6 0 0 0 0 150 12 0 0 0 0 486 48 1 2 1 4 486 48 1 2 1 4 972 96 2 4 2 8 258 27 0 2 0 2 258 27 0 2 0 2 516 54 0 4 0 4 1,027 1,027 136 4 8 148 53 53 7 4 8 19 1,080 1,080 143 8 16 167 676 423 28 22 9 59 676 423 28 22 9 59 1,352 846 56 44 18 118 127 127 17 5 2 24 1,134 1,134 150 5 2 157 1,261 1,261 167 10 4 181 70 47 13 15 1 29 99 66 19 15 1 35 169 113 32 30 2 64 202 135 38 26 1 65 96 64 18 26 1 45 298 199 56 52 2 110 162 108 31 24 0 55 113 75 21 24 0 45 275 183 52 48 0 100 101 67 6 3 0 9 6 3 0 3 0 3 107 70 6 6 0 12 61 33 2 3 1 6 52 28 2 3 1 6 113 61 4 6 2 12 13 7 0 3 0 3 91 59 6 3 0 9 104 66 6 6 0 12 80 80 4 0 0 4 318 318 17 0 0 17 398 398 21 0 0 21 105 105 5 0 0 5 101 101 5 0 0 5 206 206 10 0 0 10 305 305 16 0 0 16 163 163 9 0 0 9 468 468 25 0 0 25 2,235 1,725 219 31 12 262 596 471 47 31 12 90 2,831 2,196 266 62 24 352 2,033 968 85 62 15 162 1,914 888 65 62 15 142 3,947 1,856 150 124 30 304 953 622 70 42 4 116 2,592 1,928 242 42 4 288 3,545 2,550 312 84 8 404

14-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

TRAFFIC As shown above, incremental vehicle trips resulting from the proposed project would exceed the CEQR Level 1 screening threshold during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours for both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. These vehicle trips were assigned to area intersections based on logical and direct travel routes to and from the project site. Traffic assignments for autos, taxis, and deliveries are discussed in detail later in this chapter under Section C, Transportation Analyses Methodology. Figures 14-1 through 14-3 depict the projected 2018 vehicle-trip increments. The projected 2038 vehicle-trip increments are presented in Figures 14-4 through 14-6. In coordination with the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), 14 intersections were identified for analysis, including four intersections on-Island, and 10 others at key locations along the primary traffic routes to the Roosevelt Island Bridge from off-Island (see Figure 14-7). These traffic analysis locations are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Main Street at East and West Main Street Roundabout Main Street and West Road Main Street at Roosevelt Island Bridge Motorgate garage at Roosevelt Island Bridge 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 36th Avenue at 21st Street 36th Avenue at 31st Street 21st Street at Broadway 21st Street at 30th Avenue Vernon Boulevard at Broadway Vernon Boulevard at 41st Avenue Astoria Boulevard and 21st Street Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street

TRANSIT Subway As presented in Table 14-5, in the 2038 analysis year, the Cornell NYC Tech project is projected to result in 1,175, 415, and 1,337 subway trips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. These trips were assigned to the Roosevelt Island Station (F), which links Roosevelt Island with stations at 63rd Street and Lexington Avenue in Manhattan and 21st Street/Queensbridge in Queens. The Roosevelt Island Station (F) and station elements (including stairway, escalators and control areas) are expected to receive 200 or more peak hour incremental subway trips from the proposed project; therefore, these elements have been identified for analysis for the weekday AM and PM peak periods. To determine whether a subway line-haul analysis is warranted, the estimated incremental ridership for the F subway line by direction was compared with the peak period service frequency to determine the increase in subway riders per subway car as shown in Table 14-6. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an incremental ridership of fewer than five riders per subway car is unlikely to result in the potential for a significant subway line-haul impact. The detailed subway trip assignments showed that the F subway line would incur fewer than five

14-12

10.9.12

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Trafc Increments

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-1

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2018 Build Trafc Increments

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-2

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2018 Build Trafc Increments

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-3

10.9.12

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2038 Build Trafc Increments

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-4

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2038 Build Trafc Increments

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-5

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2038 Build Trafc Increments

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-6

10.9.12

Trafc Analysis Locations

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-7

Chapter 14: Transportation

additional riders per car in all directions and time periods. Since the projected peak ridership increment would be below this threshold, a detailed subway line-haul analysis is not warranted.

Table 14-6 Subway Line Haul Screening Analysis

Subway Line To Site F Manhattan bound- to Roosevelt Island F Queens bound- to Roosevelt Island From Site F Manhattan bound- from Roosevelt Island F Queens bound- from Roosevelt Island Projected Riders No. of Cars/HR * No. Riders/Car/HR Screening Result AM Peak Hour 887 621 266 288 86 202 150 140 150 140 PM Peak Hour To Site 343 F Manhattan bound- to Roosevelt 240 120 2.0 Screened Out Island F Queens bound- to Roosevelt Island 103 150 0.7 Screened Out From Site 994 F Manhattan bound- from Roosevelt 298 120 2.5 Screened Out Island F Queens bound- from Roosevelt 696 150 4.6 Screened Out Island Note: * Number of cars available for each line during the peak hour was obtained from MTA New York City Transit 2010 Weekday Cordon Count. 4.1 1.9 0.6 1.4 Screened Out Screened Out Screened Out Screened Out

Tramway As presented in Table 14-5, in the 2038 analysis year, the Cornell NYC Tech project is projected to result in 103, 76, and 115 tramway trips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. Although an analysis guideline for the tramway is not provided in the CEQR Technical Manual, a noticeable number of tramway trips are expected to be generated by the proposed project; therefore, a detailed tramway line-haul analysis was conducted to address potential impacts on the tramway. Bus As presented in Table 14-5, in the 2038 analysis year, the Cornell NYC Tech project is projected to result in 159, 141, and 185 bus trips during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. The project-generated bus trips were distributed to Q102 and the Roosevelt Island Red Bus serving the island (see Figure 14-8). Based on the distribution of project-generated bus trips, the Q102 and the Red Bus routes would experience more than 50 peak hour bus trips in one directionthe CEQR Technical Manual recommended threshold for undertaking a quantified bus analysis. Therefore, a detailed bus line-haul analysis was conducted to address potential transit impacts on the bus system associated with the proposed project. PEDESTRIANS As shown in Tables 14-4 and 14-5, the projected peak hour pedestrian increments would be more than 200 during the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours for both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. To account for the highest project-generated pedestrian volumes, Level 2 pedestrian trip assignments were developed for Full Build for all the uses presented in Table

14-13

10.9.12

PA RK AV

MA DIS O

NA V

E8

PA RK AV

E7 E7 5S T E7 6S T T

7S T

E7

8S

E7 9S T

E8 0S

E7

E7 4S

3S

AV

EA ST EN DA V

E8

1S

2S T

E8 3S

2A V

TO N

3A V

ING

LE X

E6 9S E6

MA

IN

RI VE

ST

E7

0S

EA ST R

E6 7S

YO R

CH

1S

NL

8S

KA V

E7

PH L

RO

OS

E7

2S

EV

EL TI

SH

E6

4S

ES

E6

E6 2S 0S T
E6 1S

Q102
T

9S
36

E6 3S

Q102 to Astoria 27th Ave- 2nd St

F
Roosevelt Island
DR

AV

8S

E5 7S T

FD

E5

9S

12 S
40 AV
41 R

E5

RIOC

T
37 AV

QU EE

NS

Q102
BO RO BR

DR

E5 6S
E5 5S

FD

T
13 ST
ST EA

E5
E5
E5

4S

3S T
T

E5
E5

0S

RA

12

ST

9S T

43

AV

13

43

RD

ST

23
42
QN

ST
ST 22

1S

22

AV

ST

2S

41

RD

21

ST

10 ST
PL Z

E6

VE RN ON

1A V

E6 5S

6S

BL VD
35 AV

TR

11 ST

ST

5 ST

44 R D

45 AV

44 D

Project Site Boundary Roosevelt Island Red bus Q102 Route

F
T

500

24

ST

44 AV

RD

10

1000 FEET

SCALE

Subway Line Tramway

Transit Map
Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-8

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

14-3. For each use, pedestrian trips would follow similar assignment procedures, as described below: Auto Trips The zoning changes proposed as part of the project would allow a maximum of 500 parking spaces on the project site; no minimum requirement is set forth; therefore, it was assumed that 100 percent of the auto trips would be assigned to the existing Motorgate garage for the most conservative pedestrian/transit assessment. It was assumed that 50 percent of the trips would transfer to the Red Bus to reach the campus and the other 50 percent would walk. Taxi Trips Taxi riders were assumed to be dropped off and picked up near or at their destinations within the campus. These trips would not affect area pedestrian facilities outside the campus. Bus Trips The Q102 bus circles the island and carries passengers to and from Queens, connecting with the Q101 and Q60 buses at Queensboro Plaza in Queens. The Red Bus provides service internal to the island, frequently looping between South Point Park and the Octagon development at the north end of the island, and stopping at locations along Main Street. Project generated bus riders would use Q102 or the Red Bus. Subway Trips Local subway service includes the F train which links Roosevelt Island with stations at 63rd Street and Lexington Avenue in Manhattan and 21st Street/Queensbridge in Queens. Project-generated subway riders were assigned to the Roosevelt Island Station (F) and would either walk (assumed 90 percent) or transfer to the Q102 or the Red Bus (assumed 10 percent). Tramway The tramway provides service between Roosevelt Island and 60th Street at Second Avenue in Manhattan. Fares are $2.25, equivalent to the subway or bus. Similar to the Red Bus, the tramway operates from 5:45 to 2:30 AM Sunday through Thursday and 5:45 to 3:30 AM on Friday and Saturday. Tram service runs approximately every 8 minutes during peak hours and 15 minutes during off-peak times. Project-generated tramway riders were assigned to the Roosevelt Island Tramway Station and would walk to and from campus. Walk-Only Trips Pedestrian walk only trip assignments were developed by distributing person trips to surrounding pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, corner reservoirs, and crosswalks, adjacent to and near the project site. The proposed site would be accessible from the subway and tram service via West Road or Main Street. Pedestrians who walk to and from the proposed campus were distributed based on the neighborhood land-use characteristics and available pedestrian facilities (i.e., midblock crossing, crosswalks, and sidewalks). Peak hour incremental pedestrian volume maps were prepared following the pedestrian distribution patterns described above (see Figures 14-9 through 14-11 and Figures 14-12 through 14-14 for the 2018 and 2038 projected peak hour pedestrian increments, respectively). Based on this Level 2 assessment, 11 sidewalks at five area intersections were identified to receive more than 200 project-generated pedestrian trips per hour and were selected for detailed analysis. These analysis locations are depicted in Figure 14-15 and summarized below in Table 14-7.

14-14

10.9.12

60

64 15

21

64 15

14

57

60 21

ET

MAIN

STRE

39
45 111

100
WEST RO AD 220 99 220 99 226 102 (RAMP) 5

68 14

SUBWAY (F)
227

18 40 21 64
119

9 5
1

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET
6 3 4 8 13

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
102

226

NOT TO SCALE

2018 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak Hour

Figure 14-9

10.9.12

67

93 88

53

93 88

76

81

67 53

ET

MAIN

STRE

75
79 97

92
WEST RO AD 151 131 151 131 154 134 (RAMP) 5

88 76

SUBWAY (F)
97

23 26 14 27

ST W. MAIN

76

4 3
1

E. MAIN STREET

REET
3 3 4 4 7

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
134

154

NOT TO SCALE

2018 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak Hour
Figure 14-10

10.9.12

34

26 74

69

26 74

65

23

34 69

ET

MAIN

STRE

116
129 62

11

56
WEST RO AD 122 256 122 256 126 263 (RAMP) 14

50 65

SUBWAY (F)
138

46 22 48 39
266

6 11
2

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET
3 7 9 4 7

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
263

126

NOT TO SCALE

2018 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak Hour

Figure 14-11

10.9.12

209

260 41

40

260 41

227

209

36

40

ET

MAIN

STRE

85
99 410

12 35

367
WEST RO AD 866 243 866 243 891 249 (RAMP) 11

256 36

SUBWAY (F)
887

45 157 52 248
288

35 12
2

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET
25 6 8 34 50

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
249

891

NOT TO SCALE

2038 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak Hour

Figure 14-12

10.9.12

188

341 337

175

341 337

294

188

290

175

ET

MAIN

STRE

249
261 279

266
WEST RO AD 452 431 452 431 464 442 (RAMP) 22

314 290

SUBWAY (F)
219

74 78 35 61
196

9 8
4

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET
12 11 15 16 23

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
442

464

NOT TO SCALE

2038 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak Hour
Figure 14-13

10.9.12

64

68 291

233

68 291

254

60

64 233

ET

MAIN

STRE

410
458 136

40 14

120
WEST RO AD 306 970 306 970 314 997 (RAMP) 54

159 254

SUBWAY (F)
343

176 56 179 96
994

14 40
9

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET
8 27 36 10 15

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
997

314

NOT TO SCALE

2038 Proposed Project Net Incremental Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak Hour

Figure 14-14

10.9.12

WEST RD .

W. MAIN ST.

E. MAIN ST.

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

MAIN ST.

Project Boundary Sidewalk Subway Station

Transit and Pedestrian Analysis Locations

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-15

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-7 Sidewalk Capacity Analysis Locations

Study Location Sidewalk Location West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station East West Main Street (W) between West Main Street (N) and 1 Bus Stop East West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge East Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street South 2 West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop East West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street East West 3 Main Street and West Road intersection East 4 Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East East 5 East Main Street and Main Street North Note: The above analysis locations are also depicted in Figure 14-15. Intersection No.

C. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSES METHODOLOGY

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The operation of all of the signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis locations were assessed using methodologies presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ 5.5), which is the analysis methodology approved for use by NYCDOT. The HCM procedure evaluates the levels of service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized intersections using average stop control delay, in seconds per vehicle, as described below. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The average control delay per vehicle is the basis for determining levels of service for individual lane groups (grouping of movements in one or more travel lanes), the overall approaches to each intersection, and the overall intersection itself. Levels of service are defined in Table 14-8.

Table 14-8 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections

LOS A B C D E F
Source:

Average Control Delay

>80.0 seconds
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

LOS A describes operations with low delays, i.e., an average control delay of 10.0 seconds or less per vehicle. This occurs when signal progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.

14-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

LOS B describes operations with delays in excess of 10.0 seconds up to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Again, most vehicles do not stop at the intersection. LOS C describes operations with delays in excess of 20.0 seconds up to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is noticeable at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delays in excess of 35.0 seconds up to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumeto-capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. LOS E describes operations with delays in excess of 55.0 seconds up to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such delays. Often, vehicles do not pass through the intersection in one signal cycle. Based on CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, LOS A, B, and C are considered acceptable, LOS D is considered marginally acceptable up to mid-LOS D (45 seconds of delay for signalized intersections) and unacceptable above mid-LOS D, and LOS E and F indicate congestion. These guidelines are applicable to individual traffic movements and overall intersection levels of service. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS For unsignalized intersections, the average control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from which a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. The Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 14-9.

Table 14-9 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections

LOS A B C D E F Average Control Delay 10.0 seconds 10.0 and 15.0 seconds 15.0 and 25.0 seconds 25.0 and 35.0 seconds 35.0 and 50.0 seconds 50.0 seconds

Source: Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

For unsignalized intersections, LOS E is considered the limit of acceptable delay, while LOS F is considered unacceptable to most drivers. LOS F conditions exist when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size in a major vehicular traffic stream to allow side street traffic to cross safely.

14-16

Chapter 14: Transportation

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA The assessment of potential significant traffic impacts of a proposed action is based on significant impact criteria defined in the CEQR Technical Manual. No Action LOS A, B, or C conditions that deteriorate to unacceptable LOS D, E, or F in the future With Action condition are considered a significant traffic impact. For future No Action LOS A, B, or C conditions that deteriorate to unacceptable LOS D, mitigation to mid-LOS D (45.0 seconds of delay for signalized intersections and 30.0 seconds of delay for unsignalized intersections) needs to be considered to fully mitigate the impact. For a No Action LOS D, an increase of delay by five or more seconds in the With Action condition is considered a significant impact if the With Action condition delay meets or exceeds 45.0 seconds. For a No Action LOS E, the threshold is a four second increase in With Action condition delay; for a No Action LOS F, a three second increase in delay in the With Action condition is significant. For unsignalized intersections, for the minor street to generate a significant impact, 90 passenger car equivalents (PCEs) must be identified in the With Action condition in any peak hour. TRANSIT OPERATIONS SUBWAY STATION ELEMENTS The methodology for assessing station circulation (stairs, escalators, and passageways) and fare control (regular turnstiles, high entry/exit turnstiles, and high exit turnstiles) elements compares the user volume with the analyzed elements design capacity, resulting in a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. For stairs, the design capacity considers the effective width of a tread, which accounts for railings or other obstructions, the friction or counter-flow between upward and downward pedestrians (up to 10-percent capacity reduction applied to account for counter-flow friction), surging of exiting pedestrians (up to 25-percent capacity reduction applied to account for detraining surges near platforms), and the average area required for circulation. For passageways, similar considerations are made. For escalators and turnstiles, capacities are measured by the number and width of an element and the New York City Transit (NYCT optimum capacity per element, also account for the potential for surging of exiting pedestrians. In the analysis for each of these elements, volumes and capacities are presented for 15-minute intervals. The estimated v/c ratio is compared with NYCT criteria to determine a Level-ofService (LOS) for the operation of an element, as summarized in Table 14-10.

Table 14-10 LOS Criteria for Subway Station Elements

LOS V/C Ratio A 0.00 to 0.45 B 0.45 to 0.70 C 0.70 to 1.00 D 1.00 to 1.33 E 1.33 to 1.67 F Above 1.67 Source: CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012).

At LOS A (free flow) and B (fluid flow), there is sufficient area to allow pedestrians to freely select their walking speed and bypass slower pedestrians. When cross and reverse flow movement exists, only minor conflicts may occur. At LOS C (fluid, somewhat restricted), movement is fluid although somewhat restricted. While there is sufficient room for standing
14-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

without personal contact, circulation through queuing areas may require adjustments to walking speed. At LOS D (crowded, walking speed restricted), walking speed is restricted and reduced. Reverse and cross flow movement is severely restricted because of congestion and the difficult passage of slower moving pedestrians. At LOS E (congested, some shuffling and queuing) and F (severely congested, queued), walking speed is restricted. There is also insufficient area to bypass others, and opposing movement is difficult. Often, forward progress is achievable only through shuffling, with queues forming. Significant Impact Criteria The determination of significant impacts for station elements varies based on their type and use. For stairs and passageways, significant impacts are defined in term of Width Increment Threshold (WIT) based on the minimum amount of additional capacity that would be required either to mitigate the location to its service conditions (LOS) under the future No Action levels, or to bring it to a v/c ratio of 1.00 (LOS C/D), whichever is greater. Significant impacts are typically considered to occur once the WITs in Table 14-11 are reached or exceeded.

Table 14-11 Significant Impact Guidance for Stairs and Passageways

No Action V/C Ratio 1.00 to 1.09 1.10 to 1.19 1.20 to 1.29 1.30 to 1.39 1.40 to 1.49 1.50 to 1.59 1.60 and up
Notes: Sources:

WIT for Significant Impact (inches) Stairway Passageway 8.0 13.0 7.0 11.5 6.0 10.0 5.0 8.5 4.0 6.0 3.0 4.5 2.0 3.0

WIT = Width Increment Threshold CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012).

For escalators and control area elements, impacts are significant if the proposed action causes a v/c ratio to increase from below 1.00 to 1.00 or greater. Where a facility is already at or above its capacity (a v/c of 1.00 or greater) in the No Action condition, a 0.01 increase in v/c ratio is also significant. SUBWAY, TRAMWAY, AND BUS LINE HAUL CAPACITIES Per the CEQR Technical Manual, line-haul capacities are evaluated when a proposed action is anticipated to generate a perceptible number of passengers on a particular subway and bus route. For subways, if, on average, a subway car for a particular route is expected to incur five or more riders from a proposed action, a review of ridership levels at its maximum load point and/or other project-specific load points would be required to determine if the routes guideline (or practical) capacity would be exceeded. NYCT operates six different types of subway cars with different seating and guideline capacities. The peak period guideline capacity of a subway car, which ranges from 110 to 175 passengers, is compared with ridership levels to determine the acceptability of conditions. Bus line-haul capacities are evaluated when a proposed action is anticipated to generate 50 or more bus passengers to a single bus line in one direction. The assessment of bus line-haul conditions involves analyzing bus routes at their peak load points and, if necessary, also their 14-18

Chapter 14: Transportation

bus stops closest to the project site to identify the potential for the analyzed routes to exceed their guideline (or practical) capacities. NYCT, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Bus Company, and Long Island Buses operate three types of buses: standard buses, articulated buses, and over-the-road coaches. During peak hours, standard buses operate with up to 54 passengers per bus, articulated buses operate with up to 85 passengers per bus, and overthe-road coaches operate with up to 55 passengers per bus. According to Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC), the Roosevelt Island Tram can carry a maximum of 109 passengers plus an attendant per cabin. Significant Impact Criteria For subways, projected increases from the future No Action condition within guideline capacity to a future Action condition that exceeds guideline capacity may be a significant impact. PEDESTRIAN OPERATIONS The adequacy of the study areas sidewalks capacities in relation to the demand imposed on them is evaluated based on the methodologies presented in the HCM, pursuant to procedures detailed in the CEQR Technical Manual. Sidewalks are analyzed in terms of pedestrian flow. The calculation of the average pedestrians per minute per foot (PMF) of effective walkway width is the basis for a sidewalk LOS analysis. The determination of walkway LOS is also dependent on whether the pedestrian flow being analyzed is best described as non-platoon or platoon. Non-platoon flow occurs when pedestrian volume within the peak 15-minute period is relatively uniform, whereas, platoon flow occurs when pedestrian volumes vary significantly with the peak 15-minute period. Such variation typically occurs near bus stops, subway stations, and/or where adjacent crosswalks account for much of the walkways pedestrian volume. The LOS standards for sidewalks are summarized in Table 14-12.

Table 14-12 LOS Criteria for Sidewalks

LOS A B C D E F Notes: Source: Non-Platoon Flow 5 PMF > 5 and 7 PMF > 7 and 10 PMF > 10 and 15 PMF > 15 and 23 PMF > 23 PMF PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012). Platoon Flow 0.5 PMF > 0.5 and 3 PMF > 3 and 6 PMF > 6 and 11 PMF > 11 and 18 PMF > 18 PMF

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA The determination of significant pedestrian impacts considers the level of predicted deterioration in pedestrian flow or decrease in pedestrian space between the No Action and Action conditions. For different pedestrian elements, flow conditions, and area types, the CEQR procedure for impact determination corresponds with various sliding-scale formulas, as further detailed below. There are two sliding-scale formulas for determining significant sidewalk impacts. For nonplatoon flow, the increase in average pedestrian flow rate (Y) in PMF needs to be greater or equal to 3.5 minus X divided by 8.0 (where X is the No Action pedestrian flow rate in PMF [Y 14-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

3.5 X/8.0]) for it to be a significant impact. For platoon flow, the sliding-scale formula is Y 3.0 X/8.0. Since deterioration in pedestrian flow within acceptable levels would not constitute a significant impact, these formulas would apply only if the Action pedestrian flow exceeds LOS C in non-CBD areas or mid-LOS D in CBD areas. Table 14-13 summarizes the sliding scale guidance provided by the CEQR Technical Manual for determining potential significant sidewalk impacts. Roosevelt Island is treated as a Non-CBD area in this analysis.

Table 14-13 Significant Impact Guidance for Sidewalks

Non-Platoon Flow Platoon Flow Sliding Scale Formula: Sliding Scale Formula: Y 3.53 X/8.0 Y 3.03 X/8.0 Non-CBD Areas CBD Areas Non-CBD Areas CBD Areas No Action Action Ped. No Action Action Ped. No Action Action Ped. No Action Action Ped. Ped. Flow (X, Flow Incr. (Y, Ped. Flow (X, Flow Incr. (Y, Ped. Flow (X, Flow Incr. (Y, Ped. Flow (X, Flow Incr. (Y, PMF) PMF) PMF) PMF) PMF) PMF) PMF) PMF) 7.5 to 7.8 2.6 3.5 to 3.8 2.6 7.9 to 8.6 2.5 3.9 to 4.6 2.5 8.7 to 9.4 2.4 4.7 to 5.4 2.4 9.5 to 10.2 2.3 5.5 to 6.2 2.3 10.3 to 11.0 2.2 10.4 to 11.0 2.2 6.3 to 7.0 2.2 6.4 to 7.0 2.2 11.1 to 11.8 2.1 11.1 to 11.8 2.1 7.1 to 7.8 2.1 7.1 to 7.8 2.1 11.9 to 12.6 2.0 11.9 to 12.6 2.0 7.9 to 8.6 2.0 7.9 to 8.6 2.0 12.7 to 13.4 1.9 12.7 to 13.4 1.9 8.7 to 9.4 1.9 8.7 to 9.4 1.9 13.5 to 14.2 1.8 13.5 to 14.2 1.8 9.5 to 10.2 1.8 9.5 to 10.2 1.8 14.3 to 15.0 1.7 14.3 to 15.0 1.7 10. to 11.0 1.7 10. to 11.0 1.7 15.1 to 15.8 1.6 15.1 to 15.8 1.6 11.1 to 11.8 1.6 11.1 to 11.8 1.6 15.9 to 16.6 1.5 15.9 to 16.6 1.5 11.9 to 12.6 1.5 11.9 to 12.6 1.5 16.7 to 17.4 1.4 16.7 to 17.4 1.4 12.7 to 13.4 1.4 12.7 to 13.4 1.4 17.5 to 18.2 1.3 17.5 to 18.2 1.3 13.5 to 14.2 1.3 13.5 to 14.2 1.3 18.3 to 19.0 1.2 18.3 to 19.0 1.2 14.3 to 15.0 1.2 14.3 to 15.0 1.2 19.1 to 19.8 1.1 19.1 to 19.8 1.1 15.1 to 15.8 1.1 15.1 to 15.8 1.1 19.9 to 20.6 1.0 19.9 to 20.6 1.0 15.9 to 16.6 1.0 15.9 to 16.6 1.0 20.7 to 21.4 0.9 20.7 to 21.4 0.9 16.7 to 17.4 0.9 16.7 to 17.4 0.9 21.5 to 22.2 0.8 21.5 to 22.2 0.8 17.5 to 18.2 0.8 17.5 to 18.2 0.8 22.3 to 23.0 0.7 22.3 to 23.0 0.7 18.3 to 19.0 0.7 18.3 to 19.0 0.7 > 23.0 0.6 > 23.0 0.6 > 19.0 0.6 > 19.0 0.6

Notes:

PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot; Y = increase in average pedestrian flow rate in PMF; X = No Action pedestrian flow rate in PMF. Sources: CEQR Technical Manual (June 2012).

VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY EVALUATION An evaluation of vehicular and pedestrian safety is necessary for locations within the traffic and pedestrian study areas that have been identified as high accident locations, where 48 or more total reportable and non-reportable crashes or five or more pedestrian/bicyclist injury crashes occurred in any consecutive 12 months of the most recent three-year period for which data are available. For the high accident locations, accident trends would be identified to determine whether projected vehicular and pedestrian traffic would further impact safety at these locations or whether existing unsafe conditions could adversely impact the flow of the projected new trips. The determination of potential significant safety impacts depends on the type of area where the project site is located, traffic volumes, accident types and severity, and other contributing factors. Where appropriate, measures to improve traffic and pedestrian safety should be identified and coordinated with NYCDOT. 14-20

Chapter 14: Transportation

PARKING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT The parking analysis identifies the extent to which on-street and off-street parking is available and utilized under existing and future conditions, and estimates the parking demand resulting from the proposed actions during peak periods. It takes into consideration anticipated changes in area parking supply and provides a comparison of parking needs versus availability to determine if a parking shortfall is likely to result from parking displacement attributable to or additional demand generated by the proposed actions. Typically, this analysis encompasses a study area within -mile of the project site. An inventory of the Motorgate garage was also conducted to determine off-street parking utilization. Even though this garage is outside of the typical -mile radius study area, it was included in the analysis since it may, in the future, need to accommodate project-generated trips. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the parking study area can be extended to include facilities within a maximum of a -mile radius of the site. For the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project, preliminary plans indicate that 250 spaces would be provided under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition and 500 spaces would be provided under the 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition. However, on-site parking is not required under the proposed actions and a formal parking analysis is warranted and is presented in Section J, Parking.

D. TRAFFIC
2011 EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY NETWORK As detailed above in Section E, Level 2 Screening Assessment, 14 key intersections near the project site were identified that would most likely be affected by the project-generated traffic. The traffic study area encompasses 10 signalized intersections and four unsignalized intersections. The specific analysis locations were selected in coordination with NYCDOT. The traffic study area primarily encompasses intersections along Main Street on Roosevelt Island, and 36th Avenue and 21St. Street in Long Island City and Astoria, Queens. 36th Avenue, which becomes the Roosevelt Island Bridge, provides the only vehicular access to the island. The main vehicular access routes to the site within the study area are discussed below. Main Street Main Street is the central spine road of Roosevelt Island that runs north-south along the length of most of the island. It spans between the Roosevelt Island Tram station to the south and the Coler Campus of the Coler/Goldwater Specialty Hospital & Nursing Facility to the north. Main Street operates with one travel lane in each direction, and some sections have parking on one side of the street while others have no curbside parking. A local bus (Q102) and the RIOC bus also travel along this corridor. 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge 36th Avenue is an east-west street in Long Island City that extends between Northern Boulevard to the east and Roosevelt Island/the East River to the west. Between Vernon Boulevard and the river, the road transitions to the Roosevelt Island Bridge approach. West of Vernon Boulevard, 36th Avenue continues over the Roosevelt Island Bridge; a one-way loop provides access to the foot of the bridge and serves the adjacent waterfront industrial uses. East of Vernon Boulevard, 14-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

36th Avenue is primarily mixed residential and commercial, and generally operates with one travel lane and curbside parking in each direction. The Roosevelt Island Bridge operates with one travel lane per direction and has no parking. Vernon Boulevard Vernon Boulevard is a north-south street that travels adjacent to the waterfront in Western Queens, and has a mix of industrial, transportation/utilities, commercial, residential, and open space/recreational uses. It extends from Borden Avenue in Hunters Point in the south to 27th Avenue in Astoria in the north. Within the study area, the road operates with one travel lane and one striped (Class II), buffered bike lane in each direction. There is also curbside parking in the northbound direction. Vernon Boulevard also has local bus service and is a local truck route. 21st Street 21st Street is a north-south arterial that spans between Astoria to the north and Hunters Point to the south, and provides direct access to the Ed Koch/Queensboro Bridge and the QueensMidtown Tunnel. Within the study area, the roadway has two travel lanes and a parking lane in each direction south of the RFK/Triboro Bridge and one travel lane and a parking lane in each direction north of it. Motorists are prohibited from making left turns from 21st Street along much of the corridor during weekday AM and PM peak periods. Multiple local bus routes operate along 21st Street, and it is a designated through truck route. The traffic analysis locations are shown in the Figure 14-7. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing traffic volumes for the study area intersections were established based on field counts, including manual turning movement counts and Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts conducted between November 2008 and March 2012. To supplement the field data, inventories of roadway geometry, traffic controls, bus stops, and parking regulations/activities were also recorded to provide appropriate inputs for the operational analyses. In addition, official signal timings obtained from NYCDOT were used in the analysis for all the signalized intersections. Traffic counts were collected at the intersections of Main Street at West Road, East/West Main Roundabout, and the Roosevelt Island Bridge; the intersections of 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard, 21st Street, and 31st Street; and the intersection of 21st Street at Broadway in November 2011 for weekday AM, midday, and PM peak periods using manual intersection counts and 24-hour ATR machine counts. Traffic counts were conducted at the intersections of 21st Street at 30th Avenue, Motorgate garage at Roosevelt Island Bridge, and Vernon Boulevard at Broadway and at 41st Avenue in March 2012 for weekday AM, midday, and PM peak periods using manual intersection counts and 24-hour ATR machine counts. Traffic counts were conducted for the intersections of 21st Street at Broadway, Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street, Hoyt Avenue North at 21st Street, and Hoyt Avenue South at 21st Street in June 2008 as part of another project (the Halletts Point Development Project) for weekday AM, midday, and PM peak periods using manual intersection counts and 24-hour ATR machine counts. A traffic count validation was performed for that project in September 2011 to determine whether traffic volumes changed since 2008 at its analysis locations. The traffic validation analysis concluded that, overall, 2011 peak hour traffic volumes were comparable to 2008 in its traffic study area, and the 2008 count data were approved by NYCDOT for continued use. These traffic counts were used 14-22

Chapter 14: Transportation

along with observations of traffic conditions to determine levels of service for the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, which are generally 7:30 to 8:30 AM, 12:00 to 1:00 PM, and 4:30 to 5:30 PM. The following is a summary of traffic volumes within the traffic study area during the weekday peak hours. Along Main Street, traffic volumes range from 75 to 350 vehicles per hour (vph) in each direction during weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. The Main Street and East/West Main Street loop road around the Goldwater Hospital campus (the proposed project site) at the southern end of Roosevelt Island carries up to 135 vph during weekday peak hours. The Roosevelt Island Bridge carries approximately 375 to 475 vph per direction in the weekday AM peak hour and 200 to 275 vph per direction in the midday peak hour. During the PM peak hour, traffic volumes are approximately 575 vph in the eastbound (outbound) direction and 375 vph in the westbound (inbound) direction. Traffic volumes on 36th Avenue range from 125 to 300 vph per direction during all weekday peak hours except in the AM peak hour, when westbound volumes are between 300 and 475 vph. Along Vernon Boulevard between 41st Avenue and Broadway, the weekday AM peak hour traffic volumes range from 325 to 400 vph in the northbound direction and 475 to 650 vph in the southbound direction, and midday peak hour volumes range from 275 to 425 vph per direction. In the weekday PM peak hour, volumes range from 500 to 675 vph in the northbound direction and 425 to 550 vph in the southbound direction. Traffic volumes on 21st Street range from 400 to 650 vph in the northbound direction and 1,225 to 1,450 vph in the southbound direction during the weekday AM peak hour. During the midday peak hour, traffic volumes along 21st Street range from 725 to 950 vph per direction, except between Astoria Boulevard and Hoyt Avenue North where northbound volumes are between 375 and 575 vph. During the PM peak hour, traffic volumes range from 675 to 975 vph per direction, except between 36th Avenue and Astoria Boulevard where northbound volumes are between 1,100 and 1,350 vph. The existing traffic volumes for the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours are presented in Figure 14-16, Figure 14-17, and Figure 14-18, respectively. LEVELS OF SERVICE Tables 14-14a and 14-14b provide an overview of the levels of service that characterize existing overall intersection conditions and individual traffic movements, respectively, during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. Detailed descriptions of the existing conditions traffic levels of service are provided in Table 14-15 and Table 14-16. Overall, the capacity analysis indicates that most of the study areas intersection approaches/lane groups operate acceptably at mid-LOS D (delays of 45 seconds or fewer per vehicle for signalized intersections and 30 seconds or fewer per vehicle for unsignalized intersections) or better for the peak hours.

Table 14-14a 2011 Existing Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections
AM Midday Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersections at Overall LOS A/B/C 11 12 Intersections at Overall LOS D 3 2 Intersections at Overall LOS E 0 0 Intersections Overall LOS F 0 0 Note: Includes the 14 analyzed intersections (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized). PM Peak Hour 12 2 0 0

14-23

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-16

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour Existing Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-17

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour Existing Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-18

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-14b 2011 Existing Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements
AM Peak Hour Traffic movements at LOS A/B/C and acceptable LOS D Traffic movements at unacceptable LOS D Traffic movements at LOS E Traffic movements at LOS F Number of individual traffic movements* 46 9 4 0 59 Midday Peak Hour 51 7 1 0 59 PM Peak Hour 50 5 4 0 59

Table 14-15 2011 Existing Conditions Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.32 13.5 EB L 0.60 17.2 TR 0.48 15.2 WB LTR 0.95 22.7 NB LTR 0.85 20.8 SB LTR Overall Intersection 19.1 36th Avenue and 21st Street 0.79 47.5 EB LTR 0.95 51.9 WB LTR 0.33 12.1 NB LTR 0.97 26.4 SB LTR Overall Intersection 29.4 21st Street and Broadway 0.68 46.1 EB LTR 0.79 48.2 WB LTR 0.45 15.5 NB LTR 0.93 26.3 SB LTR Overall Intersection 27.1 36th Avenue and 31st Street 0.70 33.1 EB LTR 0.73 32.3 WB LTR 0.60 16.9 NB LTR 0.61 16.7 SB LTR Overall Intersection 23.0 LOS B B B C C B D D B C C D D B C C C C B B C Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 12.4 14.6 13.8 18.4 17.8 16.4 48.1 47.8 16.6 15.6 23.9 48.0 53.7 20.6 19.2 26.6 35.2 32.1 16.0 13.8 23.5 LOS B B B B B B D D B B C D D C B C D C B B C Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 14.7 21.2 13.9 41.0 22.6 26.2 52.8 47.2 22.4 16.7 26.5 69.4 67.8 25.0 19.3 31.9 38.7 32.4 17.8 14.0 25.1 LOS B C B D C C D D C B C E E C B C D C B B C

0.22 L 0.43 TR 0.36 LTR 0.73 LTR 0.64 LTR Overall Intersection 0.80 LTR 0.82 LTR 0.64 LTR 0.58 LTR Overall Intersection 0.78 LTR 0.87 LTR 0.73 LTR 0.67 LTR Overall Intersection 0.80 LTR 0.72 LTR 0.55 LTR 0.44 LTR Overall Intersection

0.49 L 0.81 TR 0.36 LTR 1.04 LTR 0.80 LTR Overall Intersection 0.93 LTR 0.81 LTR 0.87 LTR 0.64 LTR Overall Intersection 1.03 LTR 1.02 LTR 0.88 LTR 0.67 LTR Overall Intersection 0.91 LTR 0.73 LTR 0.65 LTR 0.44 LTR Overall Intersection

14-24

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-15 (contd) 2011 Existing Conditions Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Vernon Boulevard and 41st Avenue 0.27 16.1 B WB LR 0.60 12.2 B NB TR 0.95 20.9 C SB LT Overall Intersection 17.3 B 30th Avenue and 21st Street 0.47 37.6 D EB LTR 0.67 43.9 D WB LTR 0.42 13.1 B NB LTR 0.90 21.7 C SB LTR Overall Intersection 22.4 C Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street EB WB NB Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 15.1 11.8 11.7 12.0 34.2 38.0 17.8 19.1 20.6 26.1 27.0 50.5 2.5 2.6 29.8 33.7 24.8 34.6 35.9 49.1 34.9 69.4 48.4 51.3 42.0 42.3 37.9 14.1 25.1 40.9 32.7 35.7 31.5 35.2 13.0 15.4 17.4 LOS B B B B C D B B C Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 15.7 17.5 15.4 16.5 34.0 36.7 18.6 15.3 19.1 LOS B B B B C D B B B

0.17 LR 0.57 TR 0.56 LT Overall Intersection 0.32 LTR 0.47 LTR 0.69 LTR 0.75 LTR Overall Intersection

0.23 LR 0.88 TR 0.78 LT Overall Intersection 0.32 LTR 0.43 LTR 0.75 LTR 0.57 LTR Overall Intersection

0.01 28.0 C 0.02 LTR LTR 0.79 54.9 D 0.79 LTR LTR 0.24 2.2 A 0.24 LT LT 0.04 1.1 A 0.16 R R 0.87 44.2 D 0.58 SB LTR LTR 0.36 41.9 D 0.21 NB LTR LTR Overall Intersection 36.2 D Overall Intersection Astoria Boulevard and 27th Avenue/ Newtown Avenue and 21st Street 0.75 54.7 D 0.25 EB L L 0.79 50.9 D 0.38 TR TR 0.94 57.0 E 0.81 WB L L 0.71 42.5 D 0.36 TR TR 0.75 33.3 C 1.05 NB LTR LTR 1.05 59.2 E 0.96 SB LTR LTR Overall Intersection 50.7 D Overall Intersection Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street 0.02 40.4 D 0.11 EB L L 0.36 47.1 D 0.13 R R 0.88 43.1 D 0.66 WB L L 0.24 14.7 B 0.16 TR TR 0.27 30.4 C 0.10 NB L L 0.99 73.5 E 0.73 T T 0.97 46.6 D 0.55 SB TR TR Overall Intersection 48.2 D Overall Intersection Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street 0.12 29.9 C 0.21 EB L L 1.02 59.7 E 0.40 TR TR 0.51 14.6 B 0.41 NB LTR LTR 0.98 32.1 C 0.58 SB LTR LTR Overall Intersection 32.1 C Overall Intersection Note: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle

C D A A C C C C D D C E D D D D D B C D C D C D B B B

0.03 LTR 0.70 LTR 0.43 LT 0.12 R 0.64 LTR 0.31 LTR Overall Intersection 0.44 L 0.73 TR 0.82 L 0.65 TR 0.99 LTR 0.87 LTR Overall Intersection 0.09 L 0.17 R 0.59 L 0.27 TR 0.16 L 1.05 T 0.73 TR Overall Intersection 0.17 L 0.73 TR 0.86 LTR 0.83 LTR Overall Intersection

33.5 52.2 2.0 2.3 32.1 39.2 21.7 41.8 46.9 57.2 47.2 40.3 34.2 41.4 41.7 43.0 36.4 15.5 25.8 76.6 37.4 48.0 30.7 43.1 22.3 23.3 25.6

C D A A C D C D D E D D C D D D D B C E D D C D C C C

14-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-16 2011 Existing Conditions Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) East-West Main Street at Main Street EB LT 7.4 A LT 7.7 SB LR 8.4 A LR 7.6 A Overall Intersection 8.3 Overall Intersection 7.6 West Road at Main Street EB1 LR 10.1 B LR 8.8 EB2 LR 12.5 B LR 10.9 NB LT 10.4 B LT 9.3 SB TR 11.6 B TR 9.0 B Overall Intersection 11.1 Overall Intersection 9.4 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Main Street WB LR 21.8 C LR 10.7 NB T 10.6 B T 9.3 R 12.6 B R 9.4 SB LT 13.1 B LT 10.6 C Overall Intersection 17.2 Overall Intersection 10.1 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Motorgate Garage Driveway EB LT 8.7 A LT 7.7 NB LR 11.4 B LR 10.0 A Overall Intersection 1.1 Overall Intersection 0.7 Note: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle LOS A A A A B A A A B A A B B A A A Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS A A A C B C B B B A B C B A B A

LT 7.6 LR 8.0 Overall Intersection 7.9 LR LR LT TR Overall Intersection LR T R LT Overall Intersection 15.8 13.2 15.8 12.0 14.6 13.9 10.0 14.0 16.3 14.6

LT 8.0 LR 14.6 Overall Intersection 0.8

This summary overview of existing conditions indicates that: In the weekday AM peak hour, none of the 14 intersections analyzed are operating at overall LOS E or F, and three intersections are operating at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D. Overall LOS E or F means that serious congestion existseither one specific traffic movement has severe delays or two or more of the specific traffic movements at the intersection are at LOS E or F with significant delays (the overall intersection LOS is a weighted average of all the individual traffic movements). Four individual traffic movements out of 59 such movements (e.g., left turns from one street to another, through traffic on one street passing through the intersection, etc.) analyzed are at LOS E or F, while nine are operating at unacceptable LOS D. In the weekday midday peak hour, none of the intersections is operating at overall LOS E or F, and two intersection are operating at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D. One individual traffic movement operates at LOS E or F and seven other traffic movements operate at unacceptable LOS D. In the weekday PM peak hour, no intersections operate at overall LOS E or F, and two intersections are operating at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D. Four individual traffic movements operate at LOS E or F and five other traffic movements operate at unacceptable LOS D. All of the four unsignalized intersections analyzed are operating at LOS A, B or C during all peak hours analyzed. Traffic movements operating at unacceptable levels of service are listed below. 36th Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) 14-26

Chapter 14: Transportation

Westbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Broadway and 21st Street Eastbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Broadway and Vernon Boulevard / 11th Street Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Astoria Boulevard / 27th Avenue / Newtown Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound Astoria Boulevard left-turn (weekday AM) Eastbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard left-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street Eastbound Hoyt Avenue North right-turn (weekday AM) Northbound 21st Street through (weekday AM and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared through/right-turn (weekday AM) Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street Eastbound Hoyt Avenue South shared through/right-turn (weekday AM) 2018 NO ACTION CONDITION The 2018 No Action condition was developed by increasing existing traffic volumes by the expected growth in overall travel through and within the study area. As per CEQR guidelines, an annual background growth rate of 0.5 percent was assumed for the first five years and then 0.25 percent for the remaining years to the year 2018. In addition, planned or proposed background projects were researched within the study area; 30 No Action projects are planned or proposed within or just outside the traffic study area. Table 14-17 and Figure 14-19 summarize the projects that were included in the future 2018 baseline; some smaller projects that would generate a very modest volume of traffic were considered as part of the general study area background traffic growth rate. After reviewing the development programs for each of the 30 No Action projects, it was determined that background growth will address the increase in traffic and pedestrian levels for three of the small projects in the study area. These small projects are dispersed throughout the study area and are not clustered together on a single block. As a result, these sites would not add a noticeable amount of traffic to any single block and have been screened out; they are considered as part of the general background growth rate. Person and vehicle trips generated by the remaining 27 projects were then determined, their traffic assigned, and their trips added to background growth to form the 2018 No Action traffic volumes.

14-27

MA
10.9.12

IN

AV

N
24

30 AVE.
25

30 RD. 30 DR.
26 27

12 ST.

14 ST.

HALLETTS COVE
19

22 23

31 AVE.
28

21 20

31 DR.

BROADW AY

21 ST.

ROOSEVELT ISLAND

34 AVE.

F.D.R.

35 AVE.
12 ST. 10 ST.

37 AVE.
9 13 10 15 16 14 7 8

12 11

ST.

38 AVE. 39 AVE.
1

CRESCENT

40 AVE.
2

28 ST

29

41 AVE.
3

QUEENSBORO BR.
4

43 AVE.

R I V E R

R. 44 D

E A S T

30

46 R

D.

D. 47 R

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

No Action Project (See Table 14-17 for reference)

E. 49 AV

31 ST

35 ST

17

1000 FEET

SCALE

Future Development Projects in the 2018 No Action Condition

Figure 14-19

Cornell NYC Tech

38 ST

VD. VERNON BL
VER NON . 5 ST BLVD .

36 AVE.
18

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-17 2018 Analysis Year No Action Projects

Map No. Project/Location Description Transportation Assumptions
Trip rates and temporal distribution from the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual; Modal splits and vehicle occupancies from 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year Estimates; Directional trip distribution from Dutch Kills Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS (2008) Same assumptions as site 1. Same assumptions as site 1. Mixed-use development with 1,045 residential units;161,490 gsf retail; 1,001,642 gsf commercial office; a 126,401 Assumptions from Silver Cup West EIS (2006) gsf community facility; with 1,400 parking spaces Residential development with 8 units Included in background growth Assumptions from Dutch Kills Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS (2008) with updated modal splits and Residential development with 14 units vehicle occupancies based on 2006-2010 Census American Community Survey (ACS) estimates Residential development with 22 units Same assumptions as Site 3 Residential development with 22 units Same assumptions as Site 3 Mixed-use development with 24 residential Same assumptions as Site 3 units and a 31,773 gsf community facility Residential development with 61 units Same assumptions as Site 3 Residential development with 25 units Same assumptions as Site 3 Residential development with 29 units Residential development with 27 units Residential development with 6 units Residential development with 12 units Residential development with 26 units Residential development with 19 units A 20,000 gsf community facility Residential development with 82 units Residential development with 190 units Residential development with 6 units Residential development with 6 units Residential development with 14 units and 8 parking spaces Residential development with 65 units and 18 parking spaces Residential development with 33 units Residential development with 20 units Residential development with 22 units Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Included in background growth Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3 Same assumptions as Site 3

Build Year

Main St, Roosevelt Island, Block 1373 Residential development with 540 units (Southtown)

2018

2 3

Main St, Roosevelt Island, Block 1373 Main St, Roosevelt Island, Block 1373

2018 2018

42-02 Vernon Blvd

2016

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

35-34 10th St Queens Block 383, Lot 9 Queens Block 370, Lot 29 Queens Block 371, Lot 38 Queens Block 367, Lots 15, 17, and 23 Queens Block 370, Lot 12 Queens Block 375, Lot 18 Queens Block 600, Lots 8 and 111 Queens Block 367, Lot 33 Queens Block 370, Lot 3 Queens Block 370, Lots 26 and 28 Queens Block 371, Lots 33 and 34 Queens Block 600, Lot 34 Queens Block 351, Lot 14 (36-11 12 Street) Queens Block 502, Lot 41 (11-15 Broadway) Queens Block 519, Lot 6 (1207 Broadway) Queens Block 519, Lot 31 (12-20 31 Drive) Queens Block 533, Lot 31 (14-18 31 Ave) Queens Block 533, Lot 37 (14-34 31 Drive) Queens Block 535, Lot 51 (30-50 21 Street) Queens Block 549, Lot 14 (30-11 21 Street) Queens Block 570, Lot 30 (23-12 30 Drive) Queens Block 570, Lot 33 (23-20 30 Drive) Queens Block 614, Lot 54 (31-30 33 Street) 29-27 40th Road (Fairfield Inn) Four Freedoms Park

2013 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2013 2012 2012 2013 2017 2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

Mixed-use development with 66 residential Included in background growth units and a 3,371 gsf community facility Assumptions from Dutch Kills Rezoning and Related Development of a 60,680 gsf hotel Actions FEIS (2008) New RIOC open space that will include a Included in background growth memorial to President Roosevelt

14-28

Chapter 14: Transportation

It is projected that the Southtown development on Roosevelt Island would be completed by 2018. This development is not expected to supply on-site parking. Therefore, it is assumed that auto trips destined to Southtown would park in the Motorgate garage, and traffic has been assigned there accordingly. A small number of autos and all taxi and delivery trips would be destined to and originate from Southtown. Overall, the volume of vehicle trips that would be generated by these developments is estimated to be 355 inbound and 270 outbound in the AM peak hour, 345 inbound and 285 outbound in the midday peak hour, and 457 inbound and 463 outbound in the PM peak hour. In addition, the Goldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Islandwhere the proposed project would be builtwould be vacated. Therefore, since the Goldwater Hospital site would be vacated with or without the proposed actions, vehicle trips during the AM, midday and PM peak hours have been removed from the 2018 No Action traffic network. According to existing traffic counts, the Goldwater Hospital currently generates 101 inbound and 39 outbound trips in the AM peak hour, 28 inbound and 23 outbound trips in the midday peak hour, and 67 inbound trips and 149 outbound trips in the PM peak hour. The net increase in traffic as a result of planned and proposed projects and the planned vacating of the Goldwater Hospital would be 254 inbound and 231 outbound trips in the AM peak hour, 317 inbound and 262 outbound trips in the midday peak hour, and 390 inbound and 314 outbound trips in the PM peak hour. The growth of existing traffic volumes and addition of these trips to the traffic network are the basis of the 2018 No Action traffic volumes, which are shown in Figures 14-20 through 14-22. Projected traffic volume increases in the study area roadway network due to the cumulative effect of background projects, the annual growth in background traffic and the vacating of the Goldwater Hospital are quantified and discussed below. Because the Goldwater Hospital site would be vacated and the Southtown development would not generate significant vehicular traffic compared to Goldwater Hospital, there would be a projected decrease in traffic on Main Street south of the Roosevelt Island Bridge and between Main Street and Vernon Boulevard on the Roosevelt Island Bridge. Traffic volumes along Main Street and the Bridge are expected to decrease by approximately 25 to 100 vph in the westbound/southbound direction during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. In the northbound/eastbound direction along Main Street and the Bridge, traffic volumes are expected to decrease by approximately 25 to 150 vph in all time periods. East of Vernon Boulevard, eastbound traffic volumes along 36th Avenue are expected to decrease by up to 100 vph during all peak hours. Traffic volumes in the westbound direction are expected to decrease by up to 70 vph in all peak hours, with the exception of the westbound 36th Avenue approach at 31st Street, which would increase by about up to 5 vph in the midday peak period. Vernon Boulevard traffic volumes between 41st Avenue and Broadway are expected to increase by up to 75 vph in the northbound direction and 50 vph in the southbound direction during all peak hours. Traffic volumes along 21st Street between 36th Avenue and Hoyt Avenue North are generally expected to increase by 5 to 20 vph in the northbound direction and 5 to 10 vph in the southbound direction during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours.

14-29

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2018 No Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-20

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2018 No Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-21

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2018 No Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-22

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The traffic analyses for the 2018 No Action condition include changes at one intersection because of a future planned NYCDOT improvement36th Avenue and 31st Street. A bus bulb-out will be implemented by NYCDOT on the northbound and southbound approaches of 31st Street. The bulb-outs will be installed on the east side of the northbound approach and on the west side of the southbound approach within the narrow right lanes, which are too narrow for vehicular travel because of existing raised curbs around subway columns, and, according to observations, are used for loading and unloading. Because the bulb-outs would build upon existing raised curbs adjacent to the travel lanes, the northbound and southbound approaches would continue to operate as shared left-turn/through/right-turn lanes. LEVELS OF SERVICE Based on these traffic conditions, 2018 No Action traffic levels of service were determined for the 14 analysis locations. Tables 14-18a and 14-18b provide an overview of the levels of service that characterize 2018 No Action overall intersection conditions and individual traffic movements, respectively, during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. Detailed descriptions of the 2018 No Action traffic levels of service are provided in Table 14-19 and Table 14-20.

Table 14-18a 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections
AM Midday Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersections at Overall LOS A/B/C 10 12 Intersections at Overall LOS D 3 1 Intersections at Overall LOS E 1 1 Intersections Overall LOS F 0 0 Note: Includes the 14 analyzed intersections (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized). PM Peak Hour 10 4 0 0

Table 14-18b 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements
AM Peak Hour Traffic movements at LOS A/B/C and acceptable LOS D Traffic movements at unacceptable LOS D Traffic movements at LOS E Traffic movements at LOS F Number of individual traffic movements* 42 10 6 1 59 Midday Peak Hour 51 5 2 1 59 PM Peak Hour 49 5 1 4 59

14-30

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-19 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.29 13.0 EB L 0.59 16.9 TR 0.37 13.7 WB LTR 0.92 20.4 NB LTR 0.89 23.2 SB LTR Overall Intersection 19.2 36th Avenue and 21st Street 0.73 44.1 EB LTR 0.91 48.0 WB LTR 0.34 12.2 NB LTR 0.98 28.9 SB LTR Overall Intersection 29.6 21st Street and Broadway 0.84 55.7 EB LTR 0.87 54.6 WB LTR 0.46 15.7 NB LTR 0.95 27.9 SB LTR Overall Intersection 29.7 36th Avenue and 31st Street 0.68 32.0 EB LTR 0.68 30.3 WB LTR 0.63 17.5 NB LTR 0.65 17.6 SB LTR Overall Intersection 22.5 Vernon Boulevard and 41st Avenue 0.26 16.0 WB LR 0.65 13.1 NB TR 1.06 46.1 SB LT Overall Intersection 31.7 30th Avenue and 21st Street 0.47 37.8 EB LTR 0.72 46.2 WB LTR 0.44 13.4 NB LTR 0.91 22.3 SB LTR Overall Intersection 23.0 LOS B B B C C B D D B C C E D B C C C C B B C B B D C D D B C C Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 12.4 14.3 13.5 19.7 19.0 17.2 46.5 50.5 17.3 16.1 24.2 51.4 71.9 21.5 19.8 29.7 35.8 33.2 16.2 14.4 23.9 15.2 13.6 13.2 13.6 34.4 38.9 18.6 20.0 21.5 B B B B B B D D B B C D E C B C D C B B C B B B B C D B B C LOS Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 14.3 15.6 12.8 86.8 25.3 42.2 35.1 45.5 24.8 17.8 25.5 106.0 115.7 26.4 20.1 41.4 32.0 31.6 19.0 14.5 23.2 16.1 39.7 24.7 31.8 34.1 38.0 18.7 15.6 19.5 LOS B B B F C D D D C B C F F C C D C C B B C B D C C C D B B B

0.22 L 0.41 TR 0.33 LTR 0.78 LTR 0.68 LTR Overall Intersection 0.78 LTR 0.86 LTR 0.67 LTR 0.61 LTR Overall Intersection 0.83 LTR 0.99 LTR 0.76 LTR 0.69 LTR Overall Intersection 0.81 LTR 0.74 LTR 0.57 LTR 0.48 LTR Overall Intersection 0.18 LR 0.66 TR 0.64 LT Overall Intersection 0.33 LTR 0.50 LTR 0.72 LTR 0.78 LTR Overall Intersection

0.46 L 0.59 TR 0.28 LTR 1.15 LTR 0.85 LTR Overall Intersection 0.51 LTR 0.79 LTR 0.92 LTR 0.69 LTR Overall Intersection 1.13 LTR 1.15 LTR 0.90 LTR 0.70 LTR Overall Intersection 0.80 LTR 0.71 LTR 0.69 LTR 0.48 LTR Overall Intersection 0.26 LR 1.03 TR 0.93 LT Overall Intersection 0.32 LTR 0.48 LTR 0.76 LTR 0.59 LTR Overall Intersection

14-31

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-19 (continued) 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street 0.01 28.0 C 0.02 27.0 EB LTR LTR 0.82 57.9 E 0.82 53.8 WB LTR LTR 0.25 2.2 A 0.26 2.7 NB LT LT 0.04 1.1 A 0.17 2.8 R R 0.93 52.2 D 0.63 31.5 SB LTR LTR 0.37 42.1 D 0.22 34.0 NB LTR LTR D Overall Intersection 40.4 Overall Intersection 26.2 Astoria Boulevard and 27th Avenue/ Newtown Avenue and 21st Street 0.78 56.4 E 0.26 34.9 EB L L 0.82 52.4 D 0.39 36.2 TR TR 0.98 63.8 E 0.86 53.0 WB L L 0.84 45.9 D 0.43 36.1 TR TR 0.82 36.7 D 1.13 102.1 NB LTR LTR 1.08 70.9 E 1.00 56.1 SB LTR LTR E Overall Intersection 57.2 Overall Intersection 64.0 Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street 0.02 40.4 D 0.11 42.0 EB L L 0.37 47.5 D 0.13 42.5 R R 0.90 44.1 D 0.69 38.5 WB L L 0.25 14.8 B 0.17 14.2 TR TR 0.30 31.5 C 0.11 25.2 NB L L 1.04 85.7 F 0.77 43.0 T T 1.00 53.9 D 0.57 33.4 SB TR TR D Overall Intersection 53.1 Overall Intersection 36.6 Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street 0.13 30.0 C L 0.21 31.6 EB L 1.06 75.0 E TR 0.41 35.5 TR 0.55 15.1 B LTR 0.43 13.3 NB LTR 1.03 46.1 D LTR 0.61 15.9 SB LTR D Overall Intersection 42.3 Overall Intersection 17.8 Note: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle LOS C D A A C C C C D D D F E E D D D B C D C D C D B B B Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 33.5 53.9 2.2 2.5 34.4 39.5 22.6 42.4 48.0 63.5 51.0 48.5 36.3 45.9 41.8 43.1 36.8 15.7 26.1 90.0 39.0 52.9 30.8 44.3 26.3 27.4 29.2 LOS C D A A C D C D D E D D D D D D D B C F D D C D C C C

0.03 LTR 0.73 LTR 0.46 LT 0.13 R 0.69 LTR 0.33 LTR Overall Intersection 0.47 L 0.76 TR 0.88 L 0.76 TR 1.02 LTR 0.90 LTR Overall Intersection 0.09 L 0.17 R 0.61 L 0.29 TR 0.17 L 1.09 T 0.76 TR Overall Intersection 0.17 L 0.75 TR 0.92 LTR 0.89 LTR Overall Intersection

14-32

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-20 2018 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) East-West Main Street at Main Street 7.1 A 7.6 EB LT LT 7.3 A 7.3 SB LR LR A Overall Intersection 7.3 Overall Intersection 7.4 West Road at Main Street 9.1 A 8.4 EB1 LR LR 11.3 B 10.7 EB2 LR LR 9.9 A 9.2 NB LT LT 9.3 A 8.6 SB TR TR A Overall Intersection 9.8 Overall Intersection 9.2 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Main Street 14.6 B 10.1 WB LR LR 10.2 B 9.2 NB T T 10.8 B 9.0 R R 12.2 B 10.5 SB LT LT B Overall Intersection 12.8 Overall Intersection 9.8 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Motorgate Garage Driveway 8.4 A 7.7 EB LT LT 11.2 B 9.9 NB LR LR A Overall Intersection 1.4 Overall Intersection 0.9 Note: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle LOS A A A A B A A A B A A B A A A A Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS A A A A B A A A B A A B B A B A

7.4 LT 7.2 LR Overall Intersection 7.3 LR LR LT TR Overall Intersection LR T R LT Overall Intersection 8.7 10.6 9.9 8.7 9.6 11.0 9.6 9.6 14.2 11.9

7.9 LT 12.5 LR Overall Intersection 1.0

The summary overview of the 2018 No Action condition indicates that: In the weekday AM peak hour, one out of the 14 study area intersections analyzed would operate at overall LOS E or F, and three intersections would operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D. Seventeen individual traffic movements out of approximately 59 movements analyzed would operate at unacceptable levels of service as compared to 13 in the existing conditions. In the weekday midday peak hour, one out of the 14 intersections would operate at overall LOS E, and one intersection would operate at LOS D. Eight individual movements would operate at unacceptable levels of service, which is the same as existing conditions. In the weekday PM peak hour, no intersections would operate at LOS E and LOS F, and four intersections would operate at marginally acceptable levels of service. Ten individual traffic movements would operate at unacceptable levels of service compared to nine in the existing conditions. All four of the unsignalized intersections on Roosevelt Island would continue to operate at overall LOS B or better during all peak hours. Based on the analysis results, the majority of traffic movements would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the following: Roosevelt Island Bridge / 36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) 36th Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday)

14-33

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Westbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Broadway and 21st Street Eastbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) 41st Avenue and Vernon Boulevard Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through (weekday AM) 30th Avenue and 21st Street Westbound 30th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Broadway and Vernon Boulevard / 11th Street Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Astoria Boulevard / 27th Avenue / Newtown Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound Astoria Boulevard left-turn (weekday AM) Eastbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard left-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street Eastbound Hoyt Avenue North right-turn (weekday AM) Northbound 21st Street through (weekday AM and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared through/right-turn (weekday AM) Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street Eastbound Hoyt Avenue South shared through/right-turn (weekday AM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) 2018 WITH ACTION CONDITION As discussed above in Section E, Level 2 Screening Assessment, Phase 1 (2018) of the proposed project would result in 92 vehicle trips arriving at the project site and 51 vehicle trips leaving the project site in the weekday AM peak hour, for a total of 143 vehicle trips. In the weekday midday peak hour, it would generate 90 inbound vehicle trips plus 70 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 160 vehicle trips. In the weekday PM peak hour, it would generate 71 inbound vehicle trips plus 108 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 179 vehicle trips. The distribution of these vehicle trips and the resulting 2018 traffic volume increases are shown in Figures 14-1 to 14-3, and impacts on levels of service are presented below.

14-34

Chapter 14: Transportation

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Autos Academic Use To determine the distribution of auto trips for the academic use, the latest Reverse Journey-toWork (RJTW) US Census data were obtained for census tracts on Roosevelt Island and blocks immediately adjacent to Roosevelt Island in Long Island City to reflect worker population origins destined to this part of Queens. Based on these data, approximately 74 percent of auto trips would originate in Queens, 5 percent in Manhattan and points west including New Jersey, 7 percent in Brooklyn and points south including Staten Island, 3 percent in the Bronx and points north including Westchester, Upstate and New England, and 11 percent in Long Island. The following academic and corporate land uses/populations were assigned using these distributions: Academic researchers, including employees supporting the research program; Corporate Co-location workers; Faculty; Postdoctoral fellows; and Administrators. Trips from Manhattan and points west were generally assigned to the Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge (Queensboro Bridge), and would approach the site using northbound Vernon Boulevard or northbound 21st Street to westbound 36th Avenue to the Roosevelt Island Bridge. Trips from Brooklyn using the Pulaski Bridge would also use northbound Vernon Boulevard or northbound 21st Street to approach the site. Trips from points north that would use the RFK Bridge or approach the area from sections of Astoria to the north of the bridge were assigned along southbound Vernon Boulevard or southbound 21st Street to westbound 36th Avenue. Trips from Flushing, Corona, Jackson Heights, other neighborhoods in northeast Queens, and Long Island would use the Grand Central Parkway, Northern Boulevard, Queens Boulevard or the Long Island Expressway. These trips were then assigned to westbound Hoyt Avenue North, Astoria Boulevard, 30th Avenue, or Broadway to southbound Vernon Boulevard, 21st Street and 31st Street to then approach Roosevelt Island via westbound 36th Avenue and the Roosevelt Island Bridge. Trips from southeast Queens, Brooklyn, and other points south were generally assigned to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, Long Island Expressway or local streets to approach the site along westbound 36th Avenue or along northbound Vernon Boulevard or northbound 21st Street to westbound 36th Avenue. Academic Student Use To determine the distribution of auto trips for academic student land uses, the same RJTW US Census data were researched for census tracts on Roosevelt Island and blocks immediately adjacent to Roosevelt Island in Long Island City. To reflect the origins of student populations as opposed to worker populations used in the academic land uses, it was estimated that approximately 50 percent of auto trips would originate in Queens, 10 percent in Manhattan and points west including New Jersey, 25 percent in Brooklyn and points south including Staten Island, 5 percent in the Bronx and points north including Westchester, Upstate and New England, and 10 percent in Long Island. The following academic student land uses were assigned using these distributions:

14-35

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Graduate Students-masters; Graduate Students-Ph.D. candidates; Visitors; University Retail; and University Housing-External. Trips from these origins were generally assigned along the same routes as discussed in the previous section. Executive Education Center To determine the distribution of auto trips for the Executive Education Center, it was estimated that approximately 65 percent of auto trips would originate in Queens at LaGuardia or JFK Airports, central business districts in Flushing, Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn, or points east such as Long Island. It was estimated that about 30 percent would originate in Manhattan and points west including New Jersey, and 5 percent would originate in the Bronx and points north including Westchester, Upstate and New England. Auto trips destined to the conference center space would primarily be made by employees. These would originate according to worker populations discussed in the academic use, where approximately 74 percent of auto trips would originate in Queens, 5 percent in Manhattan and points west including New Jersey, 7 percent in Brooklyn and points south including Staten Island, 3 percent in the Bronx and points north including Westchester, Upstate and New England, and 11 percent in Long Island. Trips from these origins were generally assigned along the same routes as discussed in the Academic Use section. TAXIS It was assumed that approximately 45 percent would originate in Queens and points east including Long Island from airports, central business districts, and nearby neighborhoods, and 55 percent in Manhattan from CBDs, hotels, train stations and residential neighborhoods, and New Jerseys Newark airport. Trips from these origins were generally assigned along the same routes as discussed in the Academic Use section. DELIVERIES Truck delivery trips for all land uses were assigned to NYCDOT designated truck routes. Trucks were assigned to the study area from regional origins to the Queensboro and RFK Bridges, Queens Midtown Tunnel, and Long Island Expressway. Trucks were then assigned along regional and local truck routes as close to the project site as possible. TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREMENTS All project-generated auto trips were assigned to the site with the exception of those generated by the University Housing-External land use, which were assigned to the Motorgate garage. It is assumed that Cornell NYC would prioritize on-site parking by directing or mandating that University Housing-External auto trips park at the Motorgate garage. Therefore, the AM, midday and PM peak hour trips generated by the University Housing-External land use have been assigned in and out of the Motorgate garage, and the remaining land uses have been assigned to the site. The locations of driveways and entrances to parking facilities are currently under study and are not yet known, so peak hour trips assigned to the site are shown on figures

14-36

Chapter 14: Transportation

on southbound Main Street and trips assigned away from the site are shown on figures on northbound West Road. The proposed actions would add approximately 50 to 105 vehicles per hour (vph) in each direction along the Roosevelt Island Bridge. On northbound and southbound Main Street on Roosevelt Island, projected traffic increases range from about 45 to 105 vph during the peak hours. Along 36th Avenue, eastbound and westbound traffic volumes would increase by approximately 20 to 50 vph per direction during all peak hours between Vernon Boulevard and 21st Street; east of 21st Street, traffic volumes would increase by 5 to 20 vph per direction. Along northbound and southbound Vernon Boulevard north of 36th Avenue, traffic volumes would increase by approximately 10 to 15 vph per direction up to Broadway, with more modest increases of approximately 5 to 10 vph per direction north of Broadway. South of 36th Avenue, Vernon Boulevard traffic volumes would increase by 25 to 40 vph per direction down to 41st Avenue, and about 20 to 35 vph per direction south of 41st Avenue. Along northbound and southbound 21st Street, traffic volumes would increase by 10 to 25 vph per direction south of 36th Avenue, and 10 to 20 vph per direction north of 36th Avenue up to Hoyt Avenue North. The 2018 With Action traffic volumes are shown in Figures 14-23 through 14-25 for the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS As part of the proposed project, the roadways surrounding the campus, i.e., the loop road, would be mapped and reconfigured. These changes, however, would not alter traffic flow and affect the analyses presented in this chapter. The design of the loop road is on-going and traffic operation and roadway design details may not be available within the timeframe of the environmental review process. The lead agency will work with the project sponsor to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in approval documents (i.e., restrictive declaration and commitment letters) and that RIOC and NYCDOT will be involved in the review and approval of the necessary design, analyses, and implementation during the actual build-out of the project. LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Based on 2018 With Action traffic volumes, traffic levels of service were determined for the 14 analysis locations. Also, significantly impacted locations and traffic movements were identified according to the criteria presented in the CEQR Technical Manual and discussed previously in Section F, Transportation Analyses Methodology. The assessment of potential significant traffic impacts of the proposed actions is based on the significant impact criteria summarized below. No Action LOS A, B, or C conditions that deteriorate to unacceptable With Action LOS D, E, or F conditions are considered a significant traffic impact. For No Action LOS A, B, or C conditions that deteriorate to unacceptable LOS D, mitigation to mid-LOS D (45.0 seconds of delay for signalized intersections and 30.0 seconds of delay for unsignalized intersections) needs to be considered to fully mitigate the impact. For a No Action LOS D, an increase of delay by five or more seconds in the With Action condition is considered a significant impact if the With Action delay meets or exceeds 45.0 seconds. For a No Action LOS E, the threshold is a four second increase in With Action delay; for a No Action LOS F, a three second increase in delay in the With Action condition is significant. For

14-37

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2018 Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-23

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2018 Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-24

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2018 Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

unsignalized intersections, for the minor street to generate a significant impact, 90 passenger car equivalents (PCEs) must be identified in the With Action condition in any peak hour. Tables 14-21a and 14-21b provide an overview of the levels of service that would characterize 2018 With Action overall intersection conditions and individual traffic movements, respectively, during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. Also summarized within each table are the number of intersections and number of movements, respectively, that would have significant impacts. Detailed descriptions of the 2018 No Action condition traffic levels of service are provided in Table 14-22 and Table 14-23, where significant adverse impacts are identified by the shaded rows in the analysis summary tables.

Table 14-21a 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections
AM Midday Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersections at Overall LOS A/B/C 8 12 Intersections at Overall LOS D 5 1 Intersections at Overall LOS E 1 1 Intersections Overall LOS F 0 0 Number of Intersections with Significant Impacts 5 3 Note: Includes the 14 analyzed intersections (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized). PM Peak Hour 9 4 1 0 4

Table 14-21b 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements
AM Peak Hour Traffic movements at LOS A/B/C and acceptable LOS D Traffic movements at unacceptable LOS D Traffic movements at LOS E Traffic movements at LOS F Number of significantly impacted movements Number of individual traffic movements* 39 6 12 2 6 59 Midday Peak Hour 51 4 3 1 4 59 PM Peak Hour 48 4 3 4 5 59

14-38

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-22 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.34 13.8 EB L 0.67 19.0 TR 0.44 14.7 WB LTR 1.12 75.7 NB LTR 0.92 26.5 SB LTR Overall Intersection 34.8 36th Avenue and 21st Street 0.90 58.2 EB LTR 0.97 55.6 WB LTR 0.34 12.2 NB LTR 1.00 33.4 SB LTR Overall Intersection 35.0 21st Street and Broadway 0.85 57.1 EB LTR 0.89 56.5 WB LTR 0.47 15.8 NB LTR 0.97 29.7 SB LTR Overall Intersection 31.1 36th Avenue and 31st Street 0.70 32.7 EB LTR 0.70 31.0 WB LTR 0.66 18.5 NB LTR 0.65 17.6 SB LTR Overall Intersection 23.1 Vernon Boulevard and 41st Avenue 0.27 16.1 WB LR 0.69 14.0 NB TR 1.09 57.7 SB LT Overall Intersection 38.2 30th Avenue and 21st Street 0.47 37.8 EB LTR 0.72 46.4 WB LTR 0.45 13.6 NB LTR 0.93 22.9 SB LTR Overall Intersection 23.4 LOS B B B E* C C E* E* B C D E E B C C C C B B C B B E* D D D B C C Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 13.1 16.3 15.1 30.3 20.3 21.2 71.5 53.7 21.5 16.5 29.7 53.1 76.1 21.9 20.4 30.7 36.8 34.1 16.2 14.4 24.4 15.2 14.4 14.0 14.3 34.4 38.9 19.1 20.7 21.9 B B B C C C E* D C B C D E* C C C D C B B C B B B B C D B C C LOS Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 15.1 19.8 13.6 192.0 27.4 76.6 42.0 48.4 24.8 18.2 26.7 118.8 124.3 27.8 20.5 44.4 34.9 32.3 19.0 14.5 24.2 16.9 47.7 35.4 40.1 34.2 38.0 19.3 15.8 19.8 LOS B B B F* C E D D C B C F* F* C C D C C B B C B D* D D C D B B B

0.28 L 0.53 TR 0.44 LTR 0.93 LTR 0.72 LTR Overall Intersection 0.97 LTR 0.89 LTR 0.79 LTR 0.62 LTR Overall Intersection 0.86 LTR 1.00 LTR 0.77 LTR 0.71 LTR Overall Intersection 0.82 LTR 0.76 LTR 0.57 LTR 0.48 LTR Overall Intersection 0.18 LR 0.70 TR 0.68 LT Overall Intersection 0.33 LTR 0.50 LTR 0.73 LTR 0.80 LTR Overall Intersection

0.51 L 0.78 TR 0.34 LTR 1.20+ LTR 0.87 LTR Overall Intersection 0.78 LTR 0.83 LTR 0.92 LTR 0.70 LTR Overall Intersection 1.16 LTR 1.17 LTR 0.92 LTR 0.71 LTR Overall Intersection 0.85 LTR 0.73 LTR 0.69 LTR 0.48 LTR Overall Intersection 0.32 LR 1.05 TR 0.99 LT Overall Intersection 0.33 LTR 0.48 LTR 0.78 LTR 0.60 LTR Overall Intersection

14-39

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-22 (contd) 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street 0.01 28.0 C 0.02 27.0 EB LTR LTR 0.84 60.1 E 0.84 55.0 WB LTR LTR 0.25 2.2 A 0.27 2.8 NB LT LT 0.05 1.1 A 0.18 2.9 R R 0.95 56.4 E 0.65 32.3 SB LTR LTR 0.37 42.1 D 0.22 33.6 NB LTR LTR D Overall Intersection 42.7 Overall Intersection 26.6 Astoria Boulevard and 27th Avenue/ Newtown Avenue and 21st Street 0.78 56.4 E 0.26 34.9 EB L L 0.83 53.0 D 0.40 36.3 TR TR 0.98 63.8 E 0.86 53.0 WB L L 0.84 46.1 D 0.44 36.2 TR TR 0.86 38.8 D 1.17 121.8 NB LTR LTR 1.10 80.4 F* 1.04 65.9 SB LTR LTR E Overall Intersection 61.4 Overall Intersection 73.1 Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street 0.02 40.4 D 0.11 42.0 EB L L 0.37 47.5 D 0.13 42.5 R R 0.92 45.8 D 0.72 39.3 WB L L 0.25 14.8 B 0.17 14.2 TR TR 0.30 31.7 C 0.11 25.2 NB L L 1.04 85.7 F 0.77 43.1 T T 1.01 55.8 E 0.58 33.5 SB TR TR D Overall Intersection 54.2 Overall Intersection 37.1 Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street 0.13 30.0 C 0.21 31.6 EB L L 1.06 75.0 E 0.41 35.5 TR TR 0.55 15.2 B 0.44 13.4 NB LTR LTR 1.05 52.3 D* 0.62 16.2 SB LTR LTR D Overall Intersection 45.7 Overall Intersection 17.9 Notes: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle * indicates significant adverse impact. LOS C D A A C C C C D D D F* E* E D D D B C D C D C D B B B Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 33.5 58.3 2.3 2.6 35.0 39.5 23.6 42.4 48.6 63.5 51.2 62.9 38.1 51.1 41.8 43.1 37.3 15.7 26.1 92.4 39.0 53.8 30.8 44.3 28.1 29.3 30.7 LOS C E A A C D C D D E D E* D D D D D B C F D D C D C C C

0.03 LTR 0.78 LTR 0.47 LT 0.14 R 0.70 LTR 0.33 LTR Overall Intersection 0.47 L 0.78 TR 0.88 L 0.77 TR 1.06 LTR 0.93 LTR Overall Intersection 0.09 L 0.17 R 0.63 L 0.29 TR 0.17 L 1.09 T 0.76 TR Overall Intersection 0.17 L 0.75 TR 0.94 LTR 0.91 LTR Overall Intersection

14-40

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-23 2018 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) East-West Main Street at Main Street 7.4 A 7.9 EB LT LT 8.3 A 8.3 SB LR LR A Overall Intersection 8.3 Overall Intersection 8.2 West Road at Main Street 10.4 B 10.1 EB1 LR LR 12.5 B 11.9 EB2 LR LR 10.6 B 10.1 NB LT LT 11.7 B 10.8 SB TR TR B Overall Intersection 11.3 Overall Intersection 10.6 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Main Street 23.2 C 13.7 WB LR LR 10.7 B 9.8 NB T T 13.2 B 11.4 R R 13.5 B 11.7 SB LT LT C Overall Intersection 18.0 Overall Intersection 12.2 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Motorgate Garage Driveway 8.8 A 7.9 EB LT LT 11.9 B 10.6 NB LR LR A Overall Intersection 1.4 Overall Intersection 0.7 Note: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle LOS A A A B B B B B B A B B B A B A Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS A A A B B B B B B B B C B A B A

7.6 LT 8.0 LR Overall Intersection 7.9 LR LR LT TR Overall Intersection LR T R LT Overall Intersection 13.0 11.4 11.9 11.1 12.0 13.9 10.1 13.0 16.7 14.4

8.1 LT 14.3 LR Overall Intersection 0.9

This summary overview of the 2018 With Action condition indicates that: During the weekday AM peak hour, the number of intersections analyzed that are projected to operate at overall LOS E or F under the No Action condition would remain at one under the With Action condition. The number of intersections that are projected to operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D would increase from three to five. The number of traffic movements projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service would increase from 17 under the No Action condition to 20 under the With Action condition. Overall, five of the 14 intersections would have significant impacts. During the weekday midday peak hour, the number of intersections analyzed that are projected to operate at overall LOS E or F under the No Action condition would remain at one under the With Action condition. The number of intersections that are projected to operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D would remain at one. The number of traffic movements at unacceptable levels of service would remain at eight. Overall, three intersections would be significantly impacted. During the weekday PM peak hour, the number of intersections analyzed that are projected to operate at overall LOS E or F under the No Action condition would increase from zero to one under the With Action condition. The number of intersections that are projected to operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D would remain at four. The number of traffic movements projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service would increase from 10 to 11. Overall, four intersections would experience significant impacts. All four unsignalized intersections analyzed would continue to operate at overall LOS A, B or C during all peak hours and would not be significantly impacted. Traffic movements expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under the No Action condition would continue to do so

14-41

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

under the With Action condition. Additional movements expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service as a result of the proposed actions are listed below. Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) 36th Avenue & 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) 41st Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Hoyt Avenue North & 21st Street Westbound Hoyt Avenue North left-turn (weekday AM) The remainder of this section provides an overview of significant traffic impacts that would result under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition. Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed, the proposed actions would cause significant traffic impacts at five intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, three in the weekday midday peak hour, and four in the weekday PM peak hour. Impacted traffic movements and the peak hours in which they are impacted are identified below. Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) 36th Avenue & 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Westbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Broadway & 21st Street Eastbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday and PM) 41st Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through (weekday AM) Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue & 21st Street Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Hoyt Avenue South & 21st Street Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Only the intersection of Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street during all three peak hours was analyzed. Other intersections would be significantly impacted in one or two of the three peak hours analyzed, while all four study locations on Roosevelt Island and four more in Queens would not be significantly impacted during any of the peak hours analyzed. 14-42

Chapter 14: Transportation

2038 NO ACTION CONDITION The 2038 No Action condition was developed by increasing existing traffic and pedestrian volumes by the expected growth in overall travel through and within the study area. As per CEQR guidelines, an annual background growth rate of 0.5 percent was assumed for the first five years and then 0.25 percent for the remaining years to the year 2038. In addition, a total of 19 No Action development projects anticipated to be completed by 2038 were added to establish the future baseline traffic volume. Table 14-24 and Figure 14-26 summarize the projects that were accounted for in this future 2038 baseline, including some smaller projects that would generate a modest volume of traffic that were considered as part of the general study area background traffic growth rate. After reviewing the development programs for each of the 19 planned and proposed projects, it was determined that the background growth would address the increase in traffic and pedestrian volumes for two of the small projects in the study area. These small projects are dispersed throughout the study area and are not clustered together on a single block. As a result, these sites would not add a noticeable amount of traffic to any single block and have been screened out; they are considered as part of the general background traffic growth rate. Person and vehicle trips generated by the remaining 17 projects were then determined, their traffic assigned, and their trips added to background growth to form the 2038 No Action traffic volumes. The cumulative volume of vehicle trips that would be generated by these and the developments projected to be built by 2018 is estimated to be 1,362 inbound and 1,606 outbound in the AM peak hour, 1,084 inbound and 1,033 outbound in the midday peak hour, and 1,718 inbound and 1,825 outbound in the PM peak hour. In addition, the Goldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Island where the proposed site would be built would be vacated, as discussed in the 2018 No Action condition. Therefore, vehicle trips associated with the Goldwater Hospital during the AM, midday and PM peak hours have been removed from the 2038 No Action traffic network. The net increase in traffic as a result of planned and proposed projects and the planned vacating of the Goldwater Hospital would be 1,261 inbound and 1,567 outbound in the AM peak hour, 1,056 inbound and 1,010 outbound in the midday peak hour, and 1,651 inbound and 1,676 outbound in the PM peak hour. The growth of existing traffic volumes and addition of these trips to the traffic network are the basis of the 2038 No Action traffic volumes, which are shown in Figures 14-27 through 14-29.

14-43

10.9.12

N
R I V E R

AB ORI AST
19

27 AVE.

18

MA

IN

AV
10

E A S T

30 AVE. 30 RD. 30 DR.

12 ST.

14 ST.

HALLETTS COVE

15 16

17

31 AVE.

31 DR.

BROADW AY
4

21 ST.

ROOSEVELT ISLAND

34 AVE.
3 1

F.D.R.

35 AVE.
10 ST.

37 AVE.
2

CRESCENT

ST.

38 AVE. 39 AVE.

40 AVE.

28 ST

41 AVE.
6 11

13

QUEENSBORO BR.
9 8 12 14

43 AVE.
7

31 ST

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

No Action Project (See Table 14-24 for reference)

35 ST

1000 FEET

NOTE: Does not include No Action projects built before 2018 (see Figure 14-22)

SCALE

Future Development Projects in the 2038 No Action Condition

Figure 14-26

Cornell NYC Tech

38 ST

VD. VERNON BL

36 AVE.

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2038 No Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-27

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2038 No Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-28

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2038 No Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-29

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-24 Phase 2 (2038) No Action Projects

Map No. Project/Location Description Transportation Assumptions Residential: Assumptions from Dutch Kills Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS (2008) with updated modal splits and vehicle occupancies based on 2006-2010 Census American Community Survey (ACS) Estimates.; Community Facility: Trip rates, modal splits, vehicle occupancies, and temporal distributions for community facility from Webster Avenue Rezoning FEIS (2011) Included in background growth Build Year

34-20-50 Vernon Blvd.

Mixed-use development with 350 residential units; 20,000 gsf community facility; and 250 parking spaces

2037*

Queens Block 601, Lot 22 (36-31 32 Street) Queens Block 645 (38 Street bet. 34 & 35 Ave)

4 5 6

8 9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16

Included in background growth (43 of the residential units are from conversion and enlargement of existing commercial building) Assumptions from Dutch Kills Rezoning and Queens Block 315, Lot Residential development with Related Actions FEIS (2008) with updated modal splits and vehicle occupancies based 1 (32-01 Vernon Blvd) 313 units on 2006-2010 ACS Estimates. Residential development with 41-50 24th Street Same assumptions as site 7 416 units Residential development with 23-10 41st Avenue 117 units and 25 parking Same assumptions as site 7 spaces Residential: Same assumptions as site 7; Mixed-use development with Retail: Trip rates and temporal distribution 709 residential units; 16,399 from the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual; 24-02 43rd Avenue Modal splits, vehicle occupancies, and gsf local retail; and 204 directional trip distribution from Dutch Kills parking spaces Rezoning and Related Actions FEIS (2008) Residential development with 27-11 42nd Road Same assumptions as site 7 184 units Residential development with 27-03 42 Road 143 units and 38 parking Same assumptions as site 7 spaces Mixed-use development with 28 residential units; 3,098 gsf 27-37 27th Street Included in background growth local retail; and 7 parking spaces Residential development with 29-28 41st Avenue Same assumptions as site 7 91 units Gotham Center Build975,000 gsf commercial Assumptions from the Gotham Center EAS out development (2009) 201,550 gsf commercial 30-30 Northern Blvd. development with 115 Same assumptions as site 15 parking spaces 1,500,000 gsf commercial QP Market Site Same assumptions as site 15 development Residential: Same assumptions as site 7; Retail: Same assumptions as Site 10; Mixed-use development with Community Facility: Medical Office Queens Block 504, Lots 450 residential units; 16,367 assumptions from Dutch Kills Rezoning and 1 and 3 gsf local retail; and a 40,000 Related Actions FEIS (2008); Daycare assumptions from 363-365 Bond Street gsf community facility FEIS (2009). Assumed 30k sf medical office and 10k sf daycare space. Mixed-use development with Queens Block 533, Lots Residential: Same assumptions as site 7; 40 residential units and 1 and 45 Retail: Same assumptions as site 10. 9,017gsf local retail

Mixed-use development with 1,719 gsf commercial use and 2,447 gsf manufacturing Mixed-use development with 106 residential units; 2,651gsf local retail; and 81 parking spaces

2037*

2037*

2037* 2037* 2037*

2037*

2037* 2037*

2037* 2037* 2037* 2037* 2037*

2019

2019

14-44

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-24 (contd) Phase 2 (2038) No Action Projects

Map No. Description Transportation Assumptions Mixed-use development with 66 residential Same assumptions as site 19. units and 15,037 gsf local retail Residential: Same assumptions as site 7; Retail: same assumptions as site 18; Supermarket: Trip rates and temporal distribution from the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual; Modal splits, vehicle Hallett's Point (Block 490, Mixed-use development with 2,326 occupancies, and directional trip distribution Lots 1, 11 and portion of 101; residential units; 77,678 gsf retail; a 10,000 from The Food Retail Expansion to Support 18 Block 916, Lots 1 and 10; gsf community facility; and 1,687 parking Health (FRESH) Food Store Program, NYCDCP, 2009; Parkland: assumptions from the 2012 Block 915, Lot 6) spaces CEQR Technical Manual and Hunters Point South EIS (2008); Community Facility: assumptions from the Webster Avenue Rezoning FEIS (2011) Mixed-use development with 1,800 19 Astoria Cove residential units; 132,000 gsf retail; and Same assumptions as Site 21 1,600 parking spaces Note: This list does not include No Action projects built before 2018 (see Table 14-17). * indicates exact Build year is unknown but will be prior to 2038. Project/Location Queens Block 551, Lots 17 17 and 19 Build Year 2019

2026

2037*

Projected traffic volume increases in the study area roadway network due to the cumulative effect of background projects, the annual growth in background traffic and the vacating of the Goldwater Hospital are quantified and discussed below. East of Vernon Boulevard, eastbound traffic volumes along 36th Avenue are expected to increase by approximately 25 to 80 vph during all peak hours. Traffic volumes in the westbound direction are expected to increase by approximately 25 to 90 vph in all peak hours. Vernon Boulevard traffic volumes between 41st Avenue and Broadway are expected to increase by approximately 110 to 250 vph in the northbound direction and 100 to 230 vph in the southbound direction during all peak hours. Traffic volumes along 21st Street between 36th Avenue and Hoyt Avenue North are generally expected to increase by 70 to 255 vph in the northbound direction and 55 to 560 vph in the southbound direction during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours as a result of two major development projects being proposed to the north. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic analyses for the 2038 No Action condition include the same change at 36th Avenue and 31st Street discussed for 2018 No Action condition. The Halletts Point and Astoria Cove developments would be fully occupied by 2038, and traffic volumes associated with those projects have been added to the 2038 No Action conditions. However, traffic improvements that would be implemented as part of those projects have not been included since the draft environmental impact statements for those projects are being prepared and are not yet certified. The improvements will not be known until the respective documents are certified and released to the public. Because traffic improvements for those developments would increase traffic capacity and reduce delays, the results provided in the 2038 No Action, With Action and Mitigation conditions are conservative.

14-45

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

LEVELS OF SERVICE Based on these traffic conditions, 2038 No Action traffic levels of service were determined for the 14 analysis locations. Tables 14-25a and 14-25b provide an overview of the levels of service that characterize 2038 No Action overall intersection conditions and individual traffic movements, respectively, during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. Detailed descriptions of the 2038 No Action condition traffic levels of service are provided in Table 14-26 and Table 14-27.

Table 14-25a 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections
AM Midday Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersections at Overall LOS A/B/C 6 10 Intersections at Overall LOS D 0 3 Intersections at Overall LOS E 3 0 Intersections Overall LOS F 5 1 Note: Includes the 14 analyzed intersections (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized). PM Peak Hour 6 1 0 7

Table 14-25b 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements
AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic movements at LOS A/B/C and 34 48 36 acceptable LOS D Traffic movements at unacceptable LOS D 2 2 5 Traffic movements at LOS E 5 4 3 Traffic movements at LOS F 18 5 16 Number of individual traffic movements* 59 59 60 Note: * Number of movements may vary between peak hours due to turn prohibitions, parking regulations, and the presence of de facto left turn movements.

Table 14-26 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.31 13.3 EB L 0.62 17.7 TR 0.43 14.5 WB LTR 1.16 91.6 NB LTR 1.14 87.6 SB LTR Overall Intersection 61.5 36th Avenue and 21st Street 0.91 59.0 EB LTR 1.02 68.4 WB LTR 0.40 13.0 NB LTR 1.14 88.8 SB LTR Overall Intersection 69.5 LOS B B B F F E E E B F E Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 12.5 14.6 14.0 27.5 27.4 22.6 56.6 63.8 19.4 18.1 28.5 B B B C C C E E B B C LOS Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 14.8 16.4 13.5 233.8 63.3 107.7 37.4 54.2 44.7 22.8 38.0 LOS B B B F E F D D D C D

0.24 L 0.44 TR 0.37 LTR 0.91 LTR 0.85 LTR Overall Intersection 0.89 LTR 0.96 LTR 0.75 LTR 0.69 LTR Overall Intersection

0.49 L 0.64 TR 0.34 LTR 1.20+ LTR 1.06 LTR Overall Intersection 0.62 LTR 0.89 LTR 1.03 LTR 0.82 LTR Overall Intersection

14-46

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-26 (contd) 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS 21st Street and Broadway 1.20+ 202.5 F EB LTR 1.14 124.1 F WB LTR 0.51 16.4 B NB LTR 1.11 77.6 E SB LTR F Overall Intersection 82.1 36th Avenue and 31st Street 0.79 38.1 D EB LTR 0.74 32.6 C WB LTR 0.73 20.8 C NB LTR 0.73 20.2 C SB LTR C Overall Intersection 25.7 Vernon Boulevard and 41st Avenue 0.31 16.7 B WB LR 0.72 15.0 B NB TR 1.20+ 110.2 F SB LT E Overall Intersection 68.4 30th Avenue and 21st Street 0.82 56.4 E EB LTR 0.94 72.2 E WB LTR 0.52 14.6 B NB LTR 1.00 31.3 C SB LTR C Overall Intersection 32.8 Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street 0.01 28.0 C EB LTR 1.02 97.7 F WB LTR 0.30 2.1 A NB LT 0.10 1.2 A R SB NB LTR 1.20+ 207.0 F D F Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 86.9 156.5 24.7 23.1 46.1 42.3 36.2 17.9 15.3 26.5 15.5 15.7 15.3 15.5 38.7 45.0 23.4 23.8 26.3 27.0 100.7 3.3 3.4 46.4 F F C C D D D B B C B B B B D D C C C C F A A D D D LOS Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 283.2 301.3 51.1 24.2 95.8 38.7 35.9 25.2 16.1 27.7 18.9 97.4 86.1 85.2 39.2 45.3 24.2 16.8 24.1 33.5 134.4 3.4 3.7 243.5 LOS F F D C F D D C B C B F F F D D C B C C F A A F D F

1.04 LTR 1.20+ LTR 0.85 LTR 0.08 LTR Overall Intersection 0.88 LTR 0.80 LTR 0.63 LTR 0.53 LTR Overall Intersection 0.21 LR 0.74 TR 0.73 LT Overall Intersection 0.50 LTR 0.65 LTR 0.84 LTR 0.86 LTR Overall Intersection LTR LTR LT R LTR 0.02 1.03 0.31 0.20 0.75 0.85 0.26

1.20+ LTR 1.20+ LTR 1.04 LTR 0.82 LTR Overall Intersection 0.90 LTR 0.80 LTR 0.83 LTR 0.56 LTR Overall Intersection 0.44 LR 1.17 TR 1.14 LT Overall Intersection 0.52 LTR 0.67 LTR 0.89 LTR 0.65 LTR Overall Intersection LTR LTR LT R LTR 0.03 1.09 0.57 0.16 1.20+

0.43 43.7 LTR Overall Intersection 120.6

35.2 LTR Overall Intersection 43.6

0.37 41.9 LTR Overall Intersection 95.5

14-47

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-26 (contd) 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) Astoria Boulevard and 27th Avenue/ Newtown Avenue and 21st Street 0.98 83.6 F 0.36 36.8 EB L L 1.20+ 443.9 F 0.70 43.6 TR TR 1.05 81.9 F 0.92 59.6 WB L L 0.95 53.7 D 0.55 38.2 TR TR 1.20+ 178.5 F 1.20+ 443.0 NB LTR LTR SB 1.20+ 172.0 F LTR F Overall Intersection 203.2 Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street 0.02 40.4 D EB L 0.39 48.2 D R 1.10 91.1 F WB L 0.26 15.0 B TR 0.36 35.0 C NB L 1.20+ 188.8 F T 1.13 99.5 F SB TR F Overall Intersection 108.3 Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street 0.36 32.5 C EB L 1.20+ 219.6 F TR 0.80 23.0 C NB LTR 1.20+ 147.4 F SB LTR F Overall Intersection 123.7 Notes: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle 1.20+ 220.2 LTR Overall Intersection 205.7 0.12 L 0.14 R 0.91 L 0.17 TR 0.13 L 0.90 T 0.65 TR Overall Intersection 0.28 L 0.60 TR 0.52 LTR 0.77 LTR Overall Intersection 42.3 42.7 49.9 14.3 25.6 55.3 35.8 45.7 32.7 40.7 14.6 20.2 21.4 LOS D D E D F F F D D D B C E D D C D B C C Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 45.2 152.6 73.1 111.1 466.5 434.7 250.0 249.9 41.9 43.3 86.0 15.9 26.9 166.0 45.6 95.0 31.7 72.1 171.7 185.2 160.9 LOS D F E F F F F F D D F B C F D F C E F F F

0.59 L 1.20+ TR 0.95 L 1.11 TR 1.20+ LTR 1.20+ DefL 1.20+ LTR Overall Intersection 0.10 L 0.18 R 1.07 L 0.30 TR 0.21 L 1.20+ T 0.87 TR Overall Intersection 0.24 L 0.99 TR 1.20+ LTR 1.20+ LTR Overall Intersection

14-48

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-27 2038 No Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) East-West Main Street at Main Street 7.2 A 7.6 EB LT LT 7.4 A 7.4 SB LR LR A Overall Intersection 7.3 Overall Intersection 7.5 West Road at Main Street 9.3 A 8.5 EB1 LR LR 11.5 B 10.9 EB2 LR LR 10.1 B 9.4 NB LT LT 9.6 A 8.7 SB TR TR B Overall Intersection 10.1 Overall Intersection 9.4 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Main Street 16.2 C 10.4 WB LR LR 10.4 B 9.3 NB T T 11.4 B 9.2 R R 12.8 B 10.8 SB LT LT B Overall Intersection 13.9 Overall Intersection 10.0 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Motorgate Garage Driveway 8.5 A 7.7 EB LT LT 11.5 B 10.1 NB LR LR A Overall Intersection 1.5 Overall Intersection 0.9 Notes: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle LOS A A A A B A A A B A A B B A B A Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS A A A A B B A A B A A C B A B A

7.4 LT 7.3 LR Overall Intersection 7.3 LR LR LT TR Overall Intersection LR T R LT Overall Intersection 9.0 10.9 10.4 9.0 9.9 11.5 9.7 10.0 15.4 12.7

7.9 LT 13.0 LR Overall Intersection 1.0

The summary overview of the 2038 No Action condition indicates that: In the weekday AM peak hour, eight out of the 14 study area intersections analyzed would operate at overall LOS E or F, and none would operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D. Twenty-five individual traffic movements out of approximately 59 movements analyzed would operate at unacceptable levels of service as compared to 13 in the existing conditions. In the weekday midday peak hour, one out of the 14 intersections would operate at overall LOS E and LOS F, and three intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS D. Eleven individual movements would operate at unacceptable levels of service as compared to eight in the existing conditions. In the weekday PM peak hour, seven intersections would operate at LOS E and LOS F, and one intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS D. Twenty-four individual traffic movements would operate at unacceptable levels of service as compared to nine in the existing conditions. All four of the unsignalized intersections on Roosevelt Island would continue to operate at overall LOS B or better during all peak hours. Based on the analysis results, most of the approaches/lane-groups would operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the following traffic movements operating at unacceptable levels of service: Roosevelt Island Bridge / 36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) 14-49

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

36th Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Westbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Broadway and 21st Street Eastbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) 41st Avenue and Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through (weekday AM and PM) 30th Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound 30th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Westbound 30th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Broadway and Vernon Boulevard / 11th Street Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Astoria Boulevard / 27th Avenue / Newtown Avenue and 21st Street Eastbound Astoria Boulevard left-turn (weekday AM and PM) Eastbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard left-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Northbound 21st Street left-turn (weekday PM) Northbound 21st Street shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street Eastbound Hoyt Avenue North right-turn (weekday AM) Westbound Hoyt Avenue North left-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Northbound 21st Street through (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street Eastbound Hoyt Avenue South shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) 14-50

Chapter 14: Transportation

2038 WITH ACTION CONDITION As discussed above in Section E, Level 2 Screening Assessment, the Phase 2 2038 Full Buildout With Action condition would generate 262 vehicle trips arriving at the project site and 90 vehicle trips leaving the project site in the weekday AM peak hour, for a total of 352 vehicle trips. In the weekday midday peak hour, it would generate 161 inbound vehicle trips plus 141 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 302 vehicle trips. In the weekday PM peak hour, it would generate 116 inbound vehicle trips plus 288 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 404 vehicle trips. The distribution of these vehicle trips and the resulting 2038 traffic volume increases are shown in Figures 14-4 to 14-6, and impacts on levels of service are presented below. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition would have the same land uses as Phase 1. Therefore, the same distribution and assignment of trips was used. For a summary of these distributions and assignments, see the 2018 With Action Condition. section of this chapter. TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREMENTS All project-generated auto trips were assigned to the site with the exception of those generated by the University Housing-External land use, which were assigned to the Motorgate garage. The parking demand estimates discussed later in Section K, Parking, assume that the 500 on-site spaces allowed under the proposed actions would be built under the Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition. Because these spaces would not fully accommodate on-site demand, it is assumed that on-site parking would be managed by directing or mandating that University Housing-External auto trips park at the Motorgate garage. Therefore, the AM, midday and PM peak hour trips generated by the University Housing-External land use have been assigned in and out of the Motorgate garage, and the remaining land uses have been assigned to the site. The locations of driveways and entrances to parking facilities are currently under study and are not yet known, so peak hour trips assigned to the site are shown on figures on southbound Main Street and trips assigned away from the site are shown on figures on northbound West Road. The proposed actions would add approximately 90 to 290 vehicles per hour (vph) in each direction along the Roosevelt Island Bridge. On northbound and southbound Main Street on Roosevelt Island, projected traffic increases would range from about 75 to 280 vph during the peak hours. Along 36th Avenue, eastbound and westbound traffic volumes would increase by approximately 40 to 145 vph per direction during all peak hours between Vernon Boulevard and 21st Street; east of 21st Street, traffic volumes would increase by 10 to 55 vph per direction. Along northbound and southbound Vernon Boulevard north of 36th Avenue, traffic volumes would increase by approximately 15 to 50 vph per direction up to Broadway, and would increase by approximately 10 to 30 vph per direction north of Broadway. South of 36th Avenue, Vernon Boulevard traffic volumes would increase by 35 to 100 vph per direction down to 41st Avenue, and about 30 to 90 vph per direction south of 41st Avenue. Along northbound and southbound 21st Street, traffic volumes would increase by 10 to 40 vph per direction south of 36th Avenue, and by 15 to 70 vph per direction north of 36th Avenue up to Hoyt Boulevard North. The 2038 With Action traffic volumes are shown in Figures 14-30 through 14-32 for the AM, midday, and PM peak hours.

14-51

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street and 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and in the southbound direction at the intersection of 36th Avenue and 31st Street during the weekday AM Peak hour.

Weekday AM Peak Hour 2038 Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-30

10.9.12

Weekday Midday Peak Hour 2038 Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-31

3.7.13

NOTE: Left turns are prohibited in the northbound and southbound direction at the intersections of Broadway at 21st Street, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, and 36th Avenue at 31st Street during the weekday PM peak hour.

Weekday PM Peak Hour 2038 Build Trafc Volumes

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 14-32

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Based on 2038 With Action traffic volumes, traffic levels of service were determined for the 14 analysis locations. Also, impacted locations and traffic movements were identified according to the criteria presented in the CEQR Technical Manual and discussed previously in Section F, Transportation Analyses Methodology. Tables 14-28a and 14-28b provide an overview of the levels of service that characterize 2018 With Action overall intersection conditions and individual traffic movements, respectively, during the weekday AM, midday and PM peak hours. Also summarized within each table are the number of intersections and number of movements, respectively, that would have significant impacts. Detailed descriptions of the 2018 No Action condition traffic levels of service are provided in Table 14-29 and Table 14-30, where significant adverse impacts are identified by the shaded rows in the analysis summary tables.

Table 14-28a 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Overall Intersections
AM Midday Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersections at Overall LOS A/B/C 4 8 Intersections at Overall LOS D 1 3 Intersections at Overall LOS E 0 2 Intersections Overall LOS F 9 1 Number of Intersections with Significant Impacts 9 7 Note: Includes the 14 analyzed intersections (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized). PM Peak Hour 3 2 2 7 11

Table 14-28b 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Summary Traffic Movements
AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic movements at LOS A/B/C and 33 44 31 acceptable LOS D Traffic movements at unacceptable LOS D 1 4 3 Traffic movements at LOS E 3 4 5 Traffic movements at LOS F 22 7 21 Number of significantly impacted movements 19 11 23 Number of individual traffic movements* 59 59 60 Note: * Number of movements may vary between peak hours due to turn prohibitions, parking regulations, and the presence of de facto left turn movements.

14-52

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-29 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.46 16.3 EB L 0.77 22.5 TR 0.64 18.8 WB LTR 1.20+ 358.8 NB LTR 1.20+ 133.7 SB LTR Overall Intersection 144.9 36th Avenue and 21st Street 1.20+ 169.1 EB LTR 1.17 123.1 WB LTR 0.41 13.2 NB LTR 1.20 115.1 SB LTR Overall Intersection 104.5 21st Street and Broadway 1.20+ 222.4 EB LTR 1.20+ 165.4 WB LTR 0.52 16.6 NB LTR 1.16 97.1 SB LTR Overall Intersection 98.9 36th Avenue and 31st Street 0.84 42.0 EB LTR 0.80 35.8 WB LTR 0.82 25.8 NB LTR 0.74 20.6 SB LTR Overall Intersection 28.7 Vernon Boulevard and 41st Avenue 0.34 17.1 WB LR 0.83 19.4 NB TR 1.20+ 157.1 SB LT Overall Intersection 93.0 30th Avenue and 21st Street 0.82 56.4 EB LTR 0.95 75.2 WB LTR 0.53 14.8 NB LTR 1.04 43.7 SB LTR Overall Intersection 39.9 LOS B C B F* F* F F* F* B F* F F* F* B F* F D D C C C B B F* F E E B D D Lane Group MIDDAY PEAK HOUR v/c Ratio Delay (sec) 14.7 20.0 18.2 140.4 36.0 58.9 193.8 78.2 52.1 19.3 61.7 99.6 176.1 26.0 24.8 50.8 48.3 38.5 18.2 15.4 28.6 15.5 17.8 18.1 17.8 38.7 45.2 25.7 25.9 28.1 LOS B B B F* D E F* E* D* B E F* F* C C D D* D B B C B B B B D D C C C Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 17.5 83.2 18.8 439.4 80.2 183.8 250.7 70.8 44.9 24.0 66.0 334.0 321.5 71.7 25.4 113.7 81.2 37.9 25.2 16.2 37.9 20.4 114.8 164.2 125.4 39.5 45.6 28.3 17.3 26.3 LOS B F* B F* F* F F* E* D C E F* F* E* C F F* D C B D C F* F* F D D C B C

0.37 L 0.68 TR 0.59 LTR 1.20+ LTR 0.93 LTR Overall Intersection 1.20+ LTR 1.02 LTR 1.02 LTR 0.73 LTR Overall Intersection 1.08 LTR 1.20+ LTR 0.87 LTR 0.83 LTR Overall Intersection 0.93 LTR 0.83 LTR 0.64 LTR 0.53 LTR Overall Intersection 0.21 LR 0.80 TR 0.80 LT Overall Intersection 0.50 LTR 0.66 LTR 0.88 LTR 0.89 LTR Overall Intersection

0.64 L 1.12 TR 0.56 LTR 1.20+ LTR 1.10 LTR Overall Intersection 1.20+ LTR 0.99 LTR 1.03 LTR 0.85 LTR Overall Intersection 1.20+ LTR 1.20+ LTR 1.09 LTR 0.84 LTR Overall Intersection 1.08 LTR 0.83 LTR 0.84 LTR 0.56 LTR Overall Intersection 0.52 LR 1.20+ TR 1.20+ LT Overall Intersection 0.53 LTR 0.67 LTR 0.94 LTR 0.67 LTR Overall Intersection

14-53

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-29 (contd) 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street 0.01 28.0 C 0.02 27.0 EB LTR LTR 1.08 111.8 F* 1.07 119.4 WB LTR LTR 0.31 2.1 A 0.32 3.6 NB LT LT 0.11 1.2 A 0.21 3.6 R R 1.20+ 247.9 F* 0.88 50.3 SB LTR LTR 0.43 43.7 D 0.26 35.6 NB LTR LTR F Overall Intersection 143.0 Overall Intersection 49.7 Astoria Boulevard and 27th Avenue/ Newtown Avenue and 21st Street 0.98 83.6 F 0.36 36.8 EB L L 1.20+ 452.8 F* 0.72 44.3 TR TR 1.05 81.9 F 0.92 59.6 WB L L 0.97 56.0 E 0.57 38.4 TR TR 1.20+ 198.7 F* 1.20+ 501.8 NB LTR LTR SB 1.20+ 199.2 F* LTR F Overall Intersection 217.8 Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street 0.02 40.4 D EB L 0.39 48.2 D R 1.16 116.3 F* WB L 0.26 15.0 B TR 0.37 36.2 D NB L 1.31 191.5 F* T 1.16 112.2 F* SB TR F Overall Intersection 122.3 Hoyt Avenue South and 21st Street 0.36 32.5 C EB L 1.20+ 219.6 F TR 0.83 25.1 C NB LTR 1.20+ 170.0 F* SB LTR F Overall Intersection 136.3 Notes: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle * indicates significant adverse impact. 1.20+ 242.7 LTR Overall Intersection 229.8 0.12 L 0.14 R 0.96 L 0.17 TR 0.13 L 0.90 T 0.66 TR Overall Intersection 0.28 L 0.60 TR 0.53 LTR 0.80 LTR Overall Intersection 42.3 42.7 55.7 14.3 25.6 56.2 36.1 48.9 32.7 40.7 14.8 21.1 21.9 LOS C F* A A D D D D D E D F* F* F D D E* B C E D D C D B C C Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) 33.5 157.1 4.1 4.2 293.9 41.9 114.0 45.2 169.8 73.1 115.9 466.5 492.4 267.8 276.3 41.9 43.3 97.2 15.9 26.9 176.4 45.9 103.0 31.7 72.1 196.0 204.9 179.5 LOS C F* A A F* D F D F* E F* F F* F* F D D F* B C F* D F C E F* F* F

0.03 LTR 1.12 LTR 0.60 LT 0.19 R 1.20+ LTR 0.37 LTR Overall Intersection 0.59 L 1.20+ TR 0.95 L 1.12 TR 1.20+ DefL 1.20+ TR 1.20+ LTR Overall Intersection 0.10 L 0.18 R 1.10 L 0.30 TR 0.21 L 1.20+ T 0.87 TR Overall Intersection 0.24 L 0.99 TR 1.20+ LTR 1.20+ LTR Overall Intersection

14-54

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-30 2038 With Action Traffic Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Delay Lane v/c Location Group v/c Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio Delay (sec) East-West Main Street at Main Street 8.0 A 8.1 EB LT LT 11.3 B 9.1 SB LR LR B Overall Intersection 11.2 Overall Intersection 9.0 West Road at Main Street 12.7 B 12.6 EB1 LR LR 16.4 C 13.4 EB2 LR LR 12.1 B 11.4 NB LT LT 25.2 D 14.5 SB TR TR C Overall Intersection 19.4 Overall Intersection 13.1 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Main Street 110.6 F* 21.5 WB LR LR 11.6 B 10.5 NB T T 17.9 C 16.9 R R 15.9 C 13.4 SB LT LT F Overall Intersection 67.9 Overall Intersection 17.6 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp at Motorgate Garage Driveway 9.6 A 8.2 EB LT LT 13.0 B 11.4 NB LR LR A Overall Intersection 1.4 Overall Intersection 0.7 Notes: (1): Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle * indicates significant adverse impact. LOS A A A B B B B B C B C B C A B A Lane Group PM PEAK HOUR v/c Delay Ratio (sec) LOS A A A F* B C C E C B E* C D A C A

7.8 LT 8.5 LR Overall Intersection 8.4 LR LR LT TR Overall Intersection LR T R LT Overall Intersection 84.8 12.2 17.3 16.8 48.6 20.2 10.7 37.6 23.5 28.0

8.3 LT 20.0 LR Overall Intersection 1.1

This summary overview of the 2038 With Action condition indicates that: During the weekday AM peak hour, the number of intersections analyzed that are projected to operate at overall LOS E or F under the With Action condition would increase from eight under the No Action condition to nine under the With Action condition, and one intersection would operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D compared to none under the No Action condition. The number of traffic movements projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service would increase from 25 under the No Action condition to 26 under the With Action condition. Overall, nine of the 14 intersections would have significant impacts. During the weekday midday peak hour, the number of intersections analyzed that are projected to operate at overall LOS E or F under the With Action condition would increase from one under the No Action condition to three under the With Action condition, and three intersections would continue to operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D. The number of traffic movements at unacceptable levels of service would increase from 11 to 15. Overall, seven intersections would be significantly impacted. During the weekday PM peak hour, the number of intersections analyzed that are projected to operate at overall LOS E or F under the With Action condition would increase from seven under the No Action condition to nine under the With Action condition, and the number of intersections that would operate at marginally acceptable/unacceptable LOS D would increase from one to two. The number of traffic movements projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service would increase from 24 to 29. Overall, 11 intersections would experience significant impacts. Of the four unsignalized intersections analyzed, three would continue to operate at overall LOS A, B or C during the AM peak hour, four would do so during the midday peak hour, and two 14-55

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

would do so during the PM peak hour. One unsignalized intersection would be significantly impacted in the AM peak hour and two would be in the PM peak hour. Traffic movements expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under the No Action condition would continue to do so under the With Action condition. Additional movements expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service as a result of the proposed actions are listed below. West Road & Main Street Eastbound West Road shared left-turn/right-turn (weekday PM) Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp & Main Street Westbound Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp shared left-turn/right-turn (weekday AM) Northbound Main Street right-turn (weekday PM) Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday) Eastbound Roosevelt Island Bridge shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) 36th Avenue & 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday) 36th Avenue & 31st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday and PM) 30th Avenue & 21st Street Westbound 30th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday) The remainder of this section provides an overview of significant traffic impacts that would result under the Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition. Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed, the proposed actions would cause significant traffic impacts at nine intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, seven in the weekday midday peak hour, and 11 in the weekday PM peak hour. Impacted traffic movements and the peak hours in which they are impacted are identified below. West Road & Main Street Eastbound West Road shared left-turn/right-turn (weekday PM) Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp & Main Street Westbound Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp shared left-turn/right-turn (weekday AM) Northbound Main Street right-turn (weekday PM) Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Eastbound Roosevelt Island Bridge shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM)

14-56

Chapter 14: Transportation

36th Avenue & 21st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) Broadway & 21st Street Eastbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM) 36th Avenue & 31st Street Eastbound 36th Avenue shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday midday and PM) 41st Avenue & Vernon Boulevard Northbound Vernon Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through (weekday AM and PM) Broadway & Vernon Boulevard/11th Street Westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Southbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue & 21st Street Eastbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Westbound Astoria Boulevard shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and midday) Northbound 21st Street shared through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM, midday and PM) Hoyt Avenue North & 21st Street Westbound Hoyt Avenue North left-turn (weekday AM, midday, and PM) Northbound 21st Street through (weekday AM and PM) Southbound 21st Street shared through/right-turn (weekday AM) Hoyt Avenue South & 21st Street Northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday PM) Southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn (weekday AM and PM) Six of the intersections where significant impacts would occur would experience those impacts during all three peak hours analyzed: Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard; 36th Avenue and 21st Street; Broadway and 21st Street; Broadway and Vernon Boulevard and 11th Street; Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street; and Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street. Other intersections would be significantly impacted in one or two of the three peak hours analyzed, while two study locations on Roosevelt Island would not be significantly impacted during any of the peak hours analyzed. 14-57

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

E. TRANSIT
Mass transit options serving Roosevelt Island include the F line, the Q102 bus, the Roosevelt Island Red Bus, and the Tramway. A detailed analysis of transit operations for the critical elements during the weekday AM and PM peak periods is presented below. During other time periods, background transit ridership, station utilization, and project trip generation, are comparatively lower. Hence, potential transit impacts were evaluated only for the weekday AM and PM peak periods. To reflect a Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario, conservative conditions were developed independent of the traffic assignments. All off-campus pedestrian trips would be generated from the Roosevelt Island subway station, bus stops, or the Motorgate garage. A credit was not taken for the potential on-campus parking accommodations. At the Motorgate garage, 50 percent of the person trips were assigned as bus trips to the campus and the remaining 50 percent were assigned as pedestrian trips to the campus. At the subway station, ten percent of the trips were projected to utilize the bus to transfer to campus. TRANSIT STUDY AREAS SUBWAY SERVICE Local subway service includes the F train which links Roosevelt Island with stations at 63rd Street and Lexington Avenue in Manhattan and 21st Street/Queensbridge in Queens. The F train service at the Roosevelt Island station is characterized by high demand, especially in the southbound direction during the weekday morning peak hours. TRAM SERVICE The Tram provides service between Roosevelt Island and 60th Street at Second Avenue in Manhattan. Tram service runs approximately every 8 minutes during peak hours and 15 minutes during off peak times. According to the RIOC, it has a capacity to carry 109 passengers plus an attendant per cabin. BUS SERVICE The Q102 bus circles the island and carries passengers to and from Queens, connecting with the Q101 and Q60 at Queensboro Plaza in Queens. The Roosevelt Island Red Bus provides service internal to the Island, frequently looping between the South Point Park and the Octagon development at the north end of the Island, stopping at locations along Main Street. Based on the travel demand estimates and the availability and service frequencies of the bus routes in the study area, it was determined that the Q102 and Red Bus routes would experience more than 50 peak hour bus trips in one directionthe CEQR Technical Manual recommended threshold for undertaking a quantified bus analysis. Therefore, detailed bus line-haul analyses were conducted to address potential transit impacts on the bus system associated with the proposed project. Table 14-31 provides a summary of the NYCT Q102 route and RIOC Red Bus route. These routes use standard buses with a guideline capacity of 54 and 55 passengers per bus for the Q102 and Red Bus route, respectively.

14-58

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-31 Local Bus Routes Serving The Study Area

Bus Route Start Point End Point Routing in Study Area Q102 27th Avenue/ 2nd Main Street, Main Street loop from Octagon to (EB/WB) Street, Astoria, Queens Roosevelt Island South Point Park RIOC 888 Main StreetMain Street loop from Octagon to South Point Park (SB/NB) Octagon South Point Park Source: MTA NYCT Bus Timetables (2011)/ Roosevelt Island Red Bus Service Schedule(2012) Freq. of Bus Service (Headway in Minutes) AM Afternoon PM 20/20 8/8 30/30 15/15 30/30 8/8

2011 EXISTING CONDITIONSSUBWAY STATION OPERATIONS As presented in Section D, Level 1 Screening Assessment, the Full Build of the proposed project is expected to result in approximately 1,085 and 1,250 project-generated subway trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These trips were distributed to the Roosevelt Island subway station (F line). As detailed in Section B, CEQR Level 2 Screening Assessment, station elements were identified for analysis, as follows. Station control area; Station escalators; and Station stairways. Field surveys conducted on Thursday, November 17, 2011 and Tuesday, March 27, 2012 during the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM. The field data were then calibrated based on the metro card entry data obtained from the NYCT. The calibrated data were used as the baseline volumes for the analysis of the above subway station elements. As shown in Tables 14-32 through 14-34, all critical subway station elements operate at LOS A during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Table 14-32 2011 Existing Conditions Subway Control Area Analysis

Peak Condition AM Peak PM Peak Control Element Two-Way Turnstile Two-Way Turnstile Quantity 4 4 15-Minute Pedestrian Volumes In Out 297 126 121 153 Surging Factor 0.90 0.90 Friction Factor 0.90 0.90 V/C Ratio 0.25 0.16 LOS A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ Cin* Ff ] + [Vx/ Cx* Sf*Ff] Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Cin = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstiles for entering passengers Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger Cx = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstile for exiting passengers Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

14-59

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-33 2011 Existing Conditions Subway Escalator Analysis

Station Element AM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/Down PM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Down Quantity 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tread Width (in.) 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 Capacity (people/ minute) 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 Surge Factor Exiting 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 15-Min. Pedestrian Volume Up Down 28 59 91 0 91 0 19 90 106 0 106 0 0 0 0 238 0 238 0 0 0 106 0 106 Peak 15-Min. Capacity (w/o Surge) 1,890 1,890 1,695 945 1,695 945 1,890 1,890 1,695 945 1,695 945 V/C ratio 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.25 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.11 LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = V/ GCap* Sf Where V = Peak 15-minute passenger volume GCap = Guideline Capacity for the escalator Sf = Surging factor (if applicable)

Table 14-34 2011 Existing Conditions Subway Stairway Analysis

Friction Factor (AM/PM) AM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio PM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio

Stairway Location Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level Upper Level

Width

Effective Width

Surge Factor

LOS

LOS

5.8 5.8 7.4 7.4

4.8 4.8 6.4 6.4

0.75 0.75 0.80 0.90

1.00/1.00 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90

228 21 9 9

4 4 4 4

0.428 0.049 0.018 0.016

B A A A

78 29 7 7

1 6 4 4

0.146 0.069 0.015 0.014

A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff )] + [Vx/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff)]

Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger volume We = Effective width of stairs Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

14-60

Chapter 14: Transportation

2011 EXISTING CONDITIONSBUS LINE-HAUL OPERATIONS To assess the potential impact on the study area bus routes and to establish the baseline load points for the Q102 and Red Bus routes, field surveys were conducted on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 and Thursday, June 28, 2012 during the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. As shown in Table 14-35, the Q102 and Red Bus routes operate within the guideline capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Table 14-35 2011 Existing Bus Line-Haul Analysis

Hourly Buses/ Passengers Capacity/ Capacity Maximum Load Point Volume Hour per Bus Bus Shortfall AM Peak Hour Queens: 10th Street at 41st Avenue 88 4 22 54 No Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 72 4 18 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 56 4 14 54 No Queens: 8th Street at Astoria Blvd 90 3 30 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 63 3 21 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 33 3 11 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 120 9 14 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 15 9 2 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 343 9 39 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 123 9 14 55 No PM Peak Hour Queens: 27th Street at 30th Avenue 60 2 30 54 No Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 8 2 4 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 30 2 15 54 No Queens: 12th Street at 41st Avenue 54 2 27 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 24 2 12 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 20 2 10 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 255 9 29 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 99 9 11 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 160 9 18 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 48 9 6 55 No Notes: Q102 route Maximum Load Point data was based on maximum load on bus over 2 hour survey period. One stop from both Roosevelt Island and Queens were selected for Analysis Red Bus existing counts were increased based on comparison of May to June subway counts (increased by 14% in the AM Peak Hour) Nine Red Buses were observed in the AM and PM peak period both in the Northbound and Southbound direction. As the schedule specifies 8 buses/hr this assumption was used for the No Action and With Action analyses. Source: Q102 Bus Survey (May 2012) and Red Bus Survey (June 2012) Route- Direction

2011 EXISTING CONDITIONSTRAM LINE-HAUL OPERATIONS To assess the potential impacts and to establish the baseline volumes for the tramway, a field survey was conducted on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 during the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM. As shown in Table 14-36, the tramway operates within the guideline capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Table 14-36 2011 Existing Tram Line-Haul Analysis

Route- Direction Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Hourly Volumes 72 754 461 218 Trams/ Hour 8 8 8 8 Passengers per Tram Capacity/ Tram AM Peak Hour 9 109 95 109 PM Peak Hour 58 109 28 109 Capacity shortfall No No No No

14-61

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

2018 NO ACTION CONDITIONSUBWAY STATION OPERATIONS Estimates of peak hour transit volumes in the 2018 No Action condition were developed by applying the recommended CEQR Technical Manual annual background growth rates. An annual compounded background growth rate of 0.50 percent was applied to the transit volumes from 2011 to 2016, and 0.25 percent was applied to the transit volumes from 2016 to 2018. In addition, trips associated with No Action projects were incorporated into the future No Action transit volumes. The No Action peak period volume projections were allocated to the transit analysis elements described above. As shown in Tables 14-37 through 14-39, all station control area elements, stairways, and escalators would continue to operate at acceptable levels.

Table 14-37 2018 No Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis

15-Minute Pedestrian Volumes Peak Surging Condition Control Element Quantity In Out Factor AM Peak Two-Way Turnstile 4 375 142 0.90 PM Peak Two-Way Turnstile 4 163 220 0.90 Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ Cin* Ff ] + [Vx/ Cx* Sf*Ff] Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Cin = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstiles for entering passengers Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger Cx = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstile for exiting passengers Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable) Friction Factor 0.90 0.90 V/C Ratio 0.32 0.21 LOS A A

Table 14-38 2018 No Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis

Station Element Quantity AM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan 2 40 63 0.75 30 Platform Level/ To Queens 2 40 63 0.75 76 Mezzanine Level/ Up 1 40 63 0.80 110 Mezzanine Level/ Up 1 32 50 Mezzanine Level/ Down 1 40 63 1.00 0 Upper Level/ Up 1 40 63 0.90 110 Upper Level/ Up 1 32 50 Upper Level/Down 1 40 63 1.00 0 PM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan 2 40 63 0.75 74 Platform Level/ To Queens 2 40 63 0.75 98 Mezzanine Level/ Up 1 40 63 0.80 168 Mezzanine Level/ Up 1 32 50 Mezzanine Level/ Down 1 40 63 1.00 0 Upper Level/ Up 1 40 63 0.90 169 Upper Level/ Up 1 32 50 Upper Level/ Down 1 40 63 1.00 0 Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = V/ GCap* Sf Where V = Peak 15-minute passenger volume GCap = Guideline Capacity for the escalator Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Tread Width (in.) Capacity (people/ minute) Surge Factor Exiting 15-Min. Pedestrian Volume Up Down 0 0 0 311 0 311 0 0 0 139 0 140 Peak 15-Min. Capacity (w/o Surge) 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 V/C ratio 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.15 LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A

14-62

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-39 2018 No Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis

Friction Factor (AM/PM) AM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio PM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio

Stairway Location Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level Upper Level

Width

Effective Width

Surge Factor

LOS

LOS

5.8 5.8 7.4 7.4

4.8 4.8 6.4 6.4

0.75 0.75 0.80 0.90

1.00/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90

299 28 12 12

4 5 5 5

0.559 0.065 0.023 0.021

B A A A

83 61 9 9

5 6 6 6

0.178 0.135 0.020 0.019

A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff )] + [Vx/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff)]

Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger volume We = Effective width of stairs Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

2018 NO ACTION CONDITIONBUS LINE-HAUL LEVELS Estimates of peak hour bus volumes in the No Action condition were developed by applying the CEQR Technical Manual recommended annual background growth rates as previously mentioned. In addition, trips associated with No Action projects were incorporated into the future No Action bus volumes. As shown in Table 14-40, the Q102 and Red Bus routes would continue to operate within the guideline capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. 2018 NO ACTION CONDITIONTRAM LINE-HAUL OPERATIONS Estimates of peak hour tramway volumes in the No Action condition were developed by applying CEQR Technical Manual recommended annual background growth rates as mentioned above. As shown in Table 14-41, the tramway would continue to operate within the guideline capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. 2018 WITH ACTION CONDITION SUBWAY STATION OPERATIONS The 344 (225 in and 119 out) AM peak hour and 403 (138 in and 265 out) PM peak hour project-generated subway trips (see Table 14-4) were allocated to the transit analysis elements previously described. These trips were added to the projected 2018 With Action volumes to generate the 2018 With Action volumes for analysis. As shown in Tables 14-42 through 14-44, all station stairways, escalators, and control area elements would continue to operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse subway impacts in the interim Phase 1 (2018) With Action condition. 14-63

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-40 2018 No Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis

Hourly Buses/ Passengers Capacity/ Capacity Maximum Load Point Volume Hour per Bus Bus Shortfall AM Peak Hour Queens: 10th Street at 41st Avenue 137 4 34 54 No Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 107 4 27 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 91 4 23 54 No Queens: 8th Street at Astoria Blvd 107 3 36 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 73 3 24 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 42 3 14 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 135 8 17 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 15 8 2 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 356 8 45 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 130 8 16 55 No PM Peak Hour Queens: 27th Street at 30th Avenue 86 2 43 54 No Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 24 2 12 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 47 2 24 54 No Queens: 12th Street at 41st Avenue 80 2 40 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 54 2 27 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 50 2 25 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 268 8 34 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 102 8 13 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 175 8 22 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 59 8 7 55 No Notes: Q102 route Maximum Load Point data was based on maximum load on bus over 2 hour survey period. One stop from both Roosevelt Island and Queens were selected for Analysis Red Bus existing counts were increased based on comparison of May to June subway counts (increased by 14% in the AM Peak Hour) Nine Red Buses were observed in the AM and PM peak period both in the Northbound and Southbound direction. As the schedule specifies 8 buses/hr this assumption was used for the No Action and With Action analyses. Route- Direction

Table 14-41 2018 No Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis

Route- Direction Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Hourly Volumes 78 793 489 233 Passengers Trams/Hour per Tram AM Peak Hour 8 10 8 99 PM Peak Hour 8 61 8 29 Capacity/ Tram 109 109 109 109 Capacity shortfall No No No No

14-64

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-42 2018 With Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis
Peak Condition AM Peak PM Peak Control Element Two-Way Turnstile Two-Way Turnstile Quantity 4 4 15-Minute Pedestrian Volumes In Out 408 237 205 258 Surging Factor 0.90 0.90 Friction Factor 0.90 0.90 V/C Ratio 0.37 0.28 LOS A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ Cin* Ff ] + [Vx/ Cx* Sf*Ff] Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Cin = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstiles for entering passengers Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger Cx = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstile for exiting passengers Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

Table 14-43 2018 With Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis

Station Element AM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/Down PM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Down Quantity 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tread Width (in.) 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 Capacity (people/ minute) 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 Surge Factor Exiting 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 15-Min. Pedestrian Volume Up Down 73 94 170 0 170 0 85 123 204 0 206 0 0 0 0 343 0 343 0 0 0 207 0 209 Peak 15-Min. Capacity (w/o Surge) 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 V/C ratio 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.36 0.11 0.36 0.06 0.09 0.15 0.22 0.14 0.22 LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = V/ GCap* Sf Where V = Peak 15-minute passenger volume GCap = Guideline Capacity for the escalator Sf = Surging factor (if applicable)

14-65

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-44 2018 With Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis

Friction Factor (AM/PM) AM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio PM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio

Stairway Location Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level Upper Level

Width

Effective Width

Surge Factor

LOS

LOS

5.8 5.8 7.4 7.4

4.8 4.8 6.4 6.4

0.75 0.75 0.80 0.90

1.00/1.00 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90

309 51 13 13

7 6 8 8

0.582 0.114 0.028 0.026

B A A A

135 83 14 14

6 8 7 7

0.258 0.183 0.028 0.026

A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff )] + [Vx/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff)]

Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger volume We = Effective width of stairs Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

2018 WITH ACTION CONDITIONBUS LINE-HAUL LEVELS Peak period bus ridership for the With Action condition was generated by adding the incremental trips associated with the proposed project to the With Action bus line-haul volumes. As described in Section E, Transportation Analysis Methodologies, impacts on bus line-haul levels are considered significant if a proposed action would result in operating conditions above guideline capacities. As shown in Table 14-45, the Q102 and Red Bus routes would continue to operate within the guideline capacity, with the exception of the Q102 in the eastbound direction during the PM peak period. These projected increases in bus ridership are in excess of the guideline capacities and constitute a significant adverse bus line-haul impact. Potential measures to mitigate the significant adverse bus line-haul impact include scheduling additional buses to increase capacity. NYCT routinely monitors changes in bus ridership and would make the necessary service adjustments where warranted. These service adjustments are subject to fiscal and operational constraints and, if implemented, are expected to occur over time. These measures are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 21, Mitigation Measures. 2018 WITH ACTION CONDITIONTRAMWAY LINE-HAUL LEVELS Peak period bus ridership for the With Action condition was generated by adding the incremental trips associated with the proposed project to the With Action tramway line-haul volumes. As described in Section C, Transportation Analysis Methodologies, impacts on tramway linehaul levels are considered significant if a proposed action would result in operating conditions above guideline capacities. As shown in Table 14-46, the tramway would continue to operate within the guideline capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse tramway line-haul impacts in the interim Phase 1 (2018) With Action condition.

14-66

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-45 2018 With Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis

Hourly Buses/ Passengers Capacity/ Capacity Volume Hour per Bus Bus Shortfall AM Peak Hour Queens: 10th Street at 41st Avenue 151 4 38 54 No Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 132 4 33 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 105 4 27 54 No Queens: 8th Street at Astoria Blvd 136 3 46 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 102 3 34 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 92 3 31 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 160 8 20 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 41 8 6 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 411 8 52 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 188 8 24 55 No PM Peak Hour (61)* Queens: 27th Street at 30th Avenue 121 2 54 Yes Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 82 2 41 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 82 2 41 54 No Queens: 12th Street at 41st Avenue 100 2 50 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 86 2 43 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 70 2 35 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 333 8 42 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 169 8 22 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 213 8 27 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 98 8 13 55 No Notes: (#)*: Indicates a significant adverse bus line-haul impact Q102 route Maximum Load Point data was based on maximum load on bus over 2 hour survey period. One stop from both Roosevelt Island and Queens were selected for Analysis Red Bus existing counts were increased based on comparison of May to June subway counts (increased by 14% in the AM Peak Hour) Nine Red Buses were observed in the AM and PM peak period both in the Northbound and Southbound direction. As the schedule specifies 8 buses/hr this assumption was used for the No Action and With Action analyses. Route- Direction Maximum Load Point

Table 14-46 2018 With Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis

Route- Direction Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Hourly Volumes 99 802 500 256 Passengers per Tram Trams/Hour AM Peak Hour 8 13 8 101 PM Peak Hour 8 63 8 32 Capacity/ Tram 109 109 109 109 Capacity shortfall No No No No

2038 NO ACTION CONDITIONSUBWAY STATION OPERATIONS Estimates of peak hour subway volumes in the 2038 No Action condition were developed by applying the CEQR Technical Manual recommended annual background growth rates. An annual compounded background growth rate of 0.50 percent was applied to the transit volumes from 2011 to 2016, and a growth rate of 0.25 percent was applied to the transit volumes from 2016 to 2038. In addition, trips associated with No Action projects were incorporated into the future No Action transit volumes.

14-67

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The No Action peak period volume projections were allocated to the transit analysis elements described above. As shown in Tables 14-47 through 14-49, all station stairways, control elements, and escalators would continue to operate at acceptable levels.

Table 14-47 2038 No Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis

Peak Condition AM Peak PM Peak Control Element Two-Way Turnstile Two-Way Turnstile Quantity 4 4 15-Minute Pedestrian Volumes In Out 391 169 148 228 Surging Factor 0.90 0.90 Friction Factor 0.90 0.90 V/C Ratio 0.33 0.22 LOS A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ Cin* Ff ] + [Vx/ Cx* Sf*Ff] Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Cin = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstiles for entering passengers Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger Cx = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstile for exiting passengers Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

Table 14-48 2038 No Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis

Station Element AM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/Down PM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Down Quantity 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tread Width (in.) 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 Capacity (people/ minute) 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 Surge Factor Exiting 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 15-Min. Pedestrian Volume Up Down 30 76 110 0 110 0 74 98 168 0 169 0 0 0 0 311 0 311 0 0 0 139 0 140 Peak 15-Min. Capacity (w/o Surge) 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 V/C ratio 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.15 LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = V/ GCap* Sf Where V = Peak 15-minute passenger volume GCap = Guideline Capacity for the escalator Sf = Surging factor (if applicable)

14-68

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-49 2038 No Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis

Friction Factor (AM/PM) AM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio PM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio

Stairway Location Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level Upper Level

Width

Effective Width

Surge Factor

LOS

LOS

5.8 5.8 7.4 7.4

4.8 4.8 6.4 6.4

0.75 0.75 0.80 0.90

1.00/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90

311 29 13 13

4 5 5 5

0.581 0.067 0.025 0.023

C A A A

87 62 10 10

5 6 6 6

0.187 0.137 0.021 0.020

A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff )] + [Vx/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff)]

Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger volume We = Effective width of stairs Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

2038 NO ACTION CONDITIONBUS LINE-HAUL LEVELS Estimates of peak hour bus volumes in the 2038 No Action condition were developed by applying CEQR Technical Manual recommended annual background growth rates as previously mentioned. In addition, bus trips generated by No Action projects in the study area were added to the projected 2038 volumes to generate the 2038 No Action bus volumes used in the analysis. The No Action Bus trips were assigned to the Q102 and Red Bus routes. As shown in Table 14-50, under the No Action condition, the Q102 route would exceed guideline capacity for the AM and PM peak periods in the eastbound and westbound directions. 2038 NO ACTION CONDITIONTRAM LINE-HAUL LEVELS As shown in Table 14-51, under the No Action condition, the tramway would continue to operate within the guideline capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. 2038 WITH ACTION CONDITIONSUBWAY STATION OPERATIONS The 1,175 (887 in and 288 out) AM peak hour and 1,337 (343 in and 994 out) PM peak hour project-generated subway trips (see Table 14-5) were allocated to the transit analysis elements previously described. These trips were distributed in the same manner as described for the 2018 With Action condition to yield the 2038 With Action volumes for analysis. As shown in Tables 14-52 and 14-54, all station stairways and control elements would continue to operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, the proposed actions would not result in any significant adverse subway impacts.

14-69

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-50 2038 No Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis

Hourly Buses/ Passengers Capacity/ Capacity Maximum Load Point Volume Hour per Bus Bus Shortfall AM Peak Hour Queens: 10th Street at 41st Avenue 277 4 69 54 Yes Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 111 4 28 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 94 4 24 54 No Queens: 8th Street at Astoria Blvd 178 3 59 54 Yes Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 76 3 25 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 44 3 15 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 141 8 18 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 16 8 2 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 374 8 47 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 136 8 17 55 No PM Peak Hour Queens: 27th Street at 30th Avenue 224 4 112 54 Yes Q102- Eastbound Roosevelt Island: Tram Station West 25 4 13 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 48 4 24 54 No Queens: 12th Street at 41st Avenue 252 3 126 54 Yes Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 55 3 28 54 No Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk Commons 51 3 26 54 No RI Subway Station (Existing) 281 8 35 55 No Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 107 8 13 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 183 8 23 55 No Red BusSouthbound 425 Riverwalk Commons (With Action) 62 8 8 55 No Notes: Q102 route Maximum Load Point data was based on maximum load on bus over 2 hour survey period. One stop from both Roosevelt Island and Queens were selected for Analysis Red Bus existing counts were increased based on comparison of May to June subway counts (increased by 14% in the AM Peak Hour) Nine Red Buses were observed in the AM and PM peak period both in the Northbound and Southbound direction. As the schedule specifies 8 buses/hr this assumption was used for the No Action and With Action analyses. Route- Direction

Table 14-51 2038 No Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis

Route- Direction Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Hourly Volumes 82 833 513 244 Passengers Trams/Hour per Tram AM Peak Hour 8 10 8 104 PM Peak Hour 8 64 8 31 Capacity/ Tram 109 109 109 109 Capacity shortfall No No No No

Table 14-52 2038 With Action Condition Subway Control Area Analysis
Peak Quantit 15-Minute Pedestrian Volumes Surging Condition Control Element y In Out Factor AM Peak Two-Way Turnstile 4 471 394 0.90 PM Peak Two-Way Turnstile 4 445 323 0.90 Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ Cin* Ff ] + [Vx/ Cx* Sf*Ff] Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Cin = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstiles for entering passengers Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger Cx = Total 15-minute capacity of all turnstile for exiting passengers Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable) Friction Factor 0.90 0.90 V/C Ratio 0.50 0.45 LOS B A

14-70

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-53 2038 With Action Condition Subway Escalator Analysis

Station Element AM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/Down PM Peak Period Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Up Mezzanine Level/ Down Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Up Upper Level/ Down Quantity 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tread Width (in.) 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 40 40 40 32 40 40 32 40 Capacity (people/ minute) 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 63 63 63 50 63 63 50 63 Surge Factor Exiting 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 15-Min. Pedestrian Volume Up Down 197 145 346 0 346 0 101 160 258 0 261 0 0 0 0 388 0 388 0 0 0 393 0 397 Peak 15-Min. Capacity (w/o Surge) 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 1890 1890 1695 945 1695 945 V/C ratio 0.14 0.10 0.26 0.41 0.23 0.41 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.42 0.17 0.42 LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = V/ GCap* Sf Where V = Peak 15-minute passenger volume GCap = Guideline Capacity for the escalator Sf = Surging factor (if applicable)

Table 14-54 2038 With Action Condition Subway Stairway Analysis

Friction Factor (AM/PM) AM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio PM Peak Period 15-Min. Pedestrian Vol. Down Up V/SVCD (Enter) (Exit) Ratio

Stairway Location Platform Level/ To Manhattan Platform Level/ To Queens Mezzanine Level Upper Level

Width

Effective Width

Surge Factor

LOS

LOS

5.8 5.8 7.4 7.4

4.8 4.8 6.4 6.4

0.75 0.75 0.80 0.90

1.00/1.00 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90 0.90/0.90

335 85 16 16

16 10 15 15

0.643 0.190 0.041 0.038

C A A A

280 145 29 29

7 11 9 9

0.528 0.315 0.052 0.048

B A A A

Notes: Capacities were calculated based on rates presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual. Surging factors are only applied to the exiting pedestrian volume (2012 CEQR Technical Manual). V/C = [Vin/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff )] + [Vx/ (150 * We * Sf * Ff)]

Where Vin = Peak 15-minute entering passenger volume Vx = Peak 15-minute exiting passenger volume We = Effective width of stairs Sf = Surging factor (if applicable) Ff = Friction factor (if applicable)

14-71

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

2038 WITH ACTION CONDITIONBUS LINE-HAUL LEVELS Peak period bus ridership levels for the 2038 With Action condition were generated by adding the incremental trips associated with the proposed project to the No Action bus line-haul volumes. As described in Section C, Transportation Analysis Methodologies, impacts on bus line-haul levels are considered significant if a proposed action would result in operating conditions above guideline capacities. As shown in Table 14-55, under the With Action condition, with the exception of the Roosevelt Island maximum load point in eastbound direction during the AM peak period, the Q102 route would exceed guideline capacity for the AM and PM peak periods in the eastbound and westbound directions. The Red Bus would exceed the guideline capacity in the southbound direction in the AM peak period and the northbound direction in the PM peak period. These projected increases in bus ridership beyond guideline capacities constitute significant adverse bus line-haul impacts.

Table 14-55 2038 With Action Bus Line-Haul Analysis

Hourly Buses/ Passengers per Capacity/ Capacity Volume Hour Bus Bus Shortfall AM Peak Hour (77)* Queens: 10th Street at 41st Avenue 307 4 54 Yes Roosevelt Island: Tram Station Q102- Eastbound 167 West 4 42 54 No Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 124 4 31 54 No (89)* Queens: 8th Street at Astoria Blvd 267 3 54 Yes Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 165 3 (55)* 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk 213 (71)* Commons 3 54 Yes RI Subway Station (Existing) 183 8 23 55 No Red BusNorthbound 60 8 8 55 No Tram Station West (With Action) (68)* 543 Main Street (Existing) 540 8 55 Yes Red Bus425 Riverwalk Commons (With Southbound 311 Action) 8 39 55 No PM Peak Hour (163)* Queens: 27th Street at 30th Avenue 325 4 54 Yes Roosevelt Island: Tram Station Q102- Eastbound 215 (108)* West 4 54 Yes (75)* Roosevelt Island: Subway Station 149 4 54 Yes (145)* Queens: 12th Street at 41st Avenue 290 3 54 Yes Roosevelt Island: 543 Main Street 93 3 47 54 No Q102- Westbound Roosevelt Island: 425 Riverwalk 120 (60)* Commons 3 54 Yes (59)* RI Subway Station (Existing) 466 8 55 Yes Red BusNorthbound Tram Station West (With Action) 302 8 38 55 No 543 Main Street (Existing) 244 8 31 55 No Red Bus425 Riverwalk Commons (With Southbound 127 Action) 8 16 55 No Notes: (#)*: Indicates a significant adverse bus line-haul impact Q102 route Maximum Load Point data was based on maximum load on bus over 2 hour survey period. One stop from both Roosevelt Island and Queens were selected for Analysis Red Bus existing counts were increased based on comparison of May to June subway counts (increased by 14% in the AM Peak Hour) Nine Red Buses were observed in the AM and PM peak period both in the Northbound and Southbound direction. As the schedule specifies 8 buses/hr this assumption was used for the No Action and With Action analyses. Route- Direction Maximum Load Point

Potential measures to mitigate the significant adverse bus line-haul impacts include scheduling additional buses to increase capacity. NYCT routinely monitors changes in bus ridership and 14-72

Chapter 14: Transportation

would make the necessary service adjustments where warranted. These service adjustments are subject to fiscal and operational constraints and, if implemented, are expected to occur over time. These measures are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 21, Mitigation Measures. 2038 WITH ACTION CONDITIONTRAM LINE-HAUL LEVELS Peak period tramway ridership for the 2038 With Action condition was generated by adding the incremental trips associated with the proposed project to the No Action tramway line-haul volumes. As shown in Table 14-56, under the With Action condition, the tramway would continue to operate within the guideline capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. Therefore, the proposed actions would not result in any significant adverse tramway line-haul impacts.

Table 14-56 2038 With Action Condition Tram Line-Haul Analysis

Route- Direction Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Hourly Volumes 166 852 538 334 Passengers Trams/Hour per Tram AM Peak Hour 8 21 8 107 PM Peak Hour 8 68 8 42 Capacity/ Tram 109 109 109 109 Capacity shortfall No No No No

F. PEDESTRIANS
2011 EXISTING CONDITIONS Pedestrian data were collected for a typical weekday in November 2011 at key locations near the project site during the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM, 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM, and 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM. Additional data were collected in March and April 2012 during the same time periods to; supplement the November data for locations subsequently added for analysis, calibrate the existing data, and establish a data set sufficient for analysis in accordance with procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual. Peak hours were determined by comparing rolling hourly averages and the highest 15-minute volumes for each element within the selected peak hours were selected for analysis. The pedestrian analysis locations are presented in Figure 14-15. The existing peak 15-minute AM, midday, and PM pedestrian analysis networks are presented in Figure 14-33, Figure 14-34, and Figure 14-35, respectively. As shown in Table 14-57, all sidewalk locations operate at acceptable LOS C or better (maximum of 6.0 PMF platoon flows for sidewalks). 2018 NO ACTION CONDITION No Action pedestrian volumes were estimated by increasing existing pedestrian levels to reflect expected growth in overall travel through and within the study area. As per CEQR guidelines, an annual background growth rate of 0.50 percent was assumed for the first five years (year 2011 to year 2016) and then 0.25 percent for the remaining years (year 2016 to year 2018). Pedestrian volumes from anticipated projects in the study area were also added to arrive at the 2018 No Action pedestrian volumes. The total 2018 No Action peak 15-minute pedestrian volumes for the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak periods are presented in Figures 14-36 through 14-38.

14-73

10.9.12

60

94 21

17

30

134

5 5

ET

MAIN

STRE

2
4 5

3
WEST RO AD 56 6

172 59

SUBWAY (F)
143 9

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

30 5

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
44 16

NOT TO SCALE

Existing Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-33

10.9.12

36

52 9

58

22

39

7 40

ET

MAIN

STRE

3
6 5

2
WEST RO AD 15 23

52 39

SUBWAY (F)
29 10

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

14 16

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
20 15

NOT TO SCALE

Existing Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-34

10.9.12

31

31 27

20

52

48

5 13

ET

MAIN

STRE

6
10 11

10
WEST RO AD 31 70

52 144

SUBWAY (F)
73 17

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

29 60

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
24 65

NOT TO SCALE

Existing Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-35

10.9.12

70

97 22

23

31

138

83 27

ET

MAIN

STRE

4
4 6

8
WEST RO AD 58 6

177 73

SUBWAY (F)
228 26

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

31 5

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
45 16

NOT TO SCALE

2018 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-36

10.9.12

40

54 9

64

23

40

31 67

ET

MAIN

STRE

5
6 5

4
WEST RO AD 15 24

54 44

SUBWAY (F)
55 32

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

14 16

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
21 15

NOT TO SCALE

2018 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-37

10.9.12

38

32 28

29

54

49

44 83

ET

MAIN

STRE

10
10 12

13
WEST RO AD 32 72

54 154

SUBWAY (F)
114 80

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

30 62

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
25 67

NOT TO SCALE

2018 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-38

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-57 2011 Existing Conditions Sidewalk Analysis

No. Location West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street Effective Sidewalk Width (ft.) AM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 15-Min. Two-Way Volume 62 35 50 152 231 164 77 115 10 5 9 38 30 35 39 91 61 94 61 47 5 11 101 89 89 90 196 100 51 58 18 16 21 Platoon Flow PMF 1.53 0.27 1.11 1.30 1.83 3.64 0.55 1.14 0.27 0.09 0.14 0.94 0.23 0.65 0.33 0.72 1.36 0.67 0.61 1.25 0.09 0.17 2.49 0.67 1.65 0.77 1.56 2.22 0.36 0.58 0.48 0.30 0.32 LOS B A B B B C B B A A A B A B A B B B B B A A B B B B B B A B A A A

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 Midday Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 PM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East East North 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4

3 4 5

Note: PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot

14-74

Chapter 14: Transportation

As summarized in Table 14-58, all sidewalk analysis locations will continue to operate at acceptable LOS C or better (maximum of 6.0 PMF platoon flows for sidewalks). 2018 WITH ACTION CONDITION For the 2018 With Action condition, the project-generated pedestrian volumes were assigned to the pedestrian network considering current land uses in the area, nearby parking locations, available transit services, and pedestrian pathways connecting to/from the proposed project. Based on the peak hour project-generated pedestrian trips presented on Figures 14-9 to 14-11 in Section E, Level 2 Screening Assessment, peak 15-minute incremental pedestrian volumes were developed by dividing the hourly incremental volumes by four and accounting for peaking characteristics within the peak hours. These pedestrian volumes were added to the projected 2018 No Action volumes to generate the 2018 With Action pedestrian volumes for analysis. The total 2018 With Action peak 15-minute pedestrian volumes are presented in Figures 14-39 through 14-41. As presented in Table 14-59, all sidewalk locations would continue to operate at acceptable levels (within LOS C, with a maximum of 6.0 PMF in sidewalk platoon flows) or incur degradations that, when compared to the No Action condition, do not exceed the CEQR Technical Manual sliding scale impact thresholds (see Table 14-12). 2038 NO ACTION CONDITION No Action pedestrian volumes were estimated by increasing existing pedestrian levels to reflect expected growth in overall travel through and within the study area. As per CEQR guidelines, an annual background growth rate of 0.50 percent was assumed for the first five years (year 2011 to year 2016) and then 0.25 percent for the remaining years (year 2016 to year 2038). Pedestrian volumes from anticipated projects in the study area were also added to arrive at the 2038 No Action pedestrian volumes. The total 2038 No Action peak 15-minute pedestrian volumes for the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak periods are presented in Figures 14-42 through 14-44. As summarized in Table 14-60, all sidewalk analysis locations would continue to operate at acceptable LOS C or better (maximum of 6.0 PMF platoon flows for sidewalks). 2038 WITH ACTION CONDITION For the 2038 Full Build condition, the project-generated pedestrian volumes were assigned to the pedestrian network considering; current land uses in the area, nearby parking locations, available transit services, and future pedestrian pathways connecting to/from the proposed project. Based on the peak hour project-generated pedestrian trips presented in Section E, Level 2 Screening Assessment, peak 15-minute incremental pedestrian volumes were developed by dividing the hourly incremental volumes by four and accounting for peaking characteristics within the peak hours. These pedestrian volumes were added to the projected 2038 No Action volumes to generate the 2038 With Action pedestrian volumes for analysis (see Figures 14-45 through 14-47).

14-75

10.9.12

88

112 26

29

153

101

35

33

ET

MAIN

STRE

15
19 34

35
WEST RO AD 118 33

195 77

SUBWAY (F)
234 44

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

93 33

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
44

107

NOT TO SCALE

2018 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-39

10.9.12

61

76 30

82

44

62

52 85

ET

MAIN

STRE

26
27 32

29
WEST RO AD 56 60

78 65

SUBWAY (F)
59 40

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

56 53

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
63 52

NOT TO SCALE

2018 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes
Figure 14-40

10.9.12

48

39 46

50

72

56

54 104

ET

MAIN

STRE

42
45 30

29
WEST RO AD 66 143

68 172

SUBWAY (F)
127 91

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

65 135

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
60 140

NOT TO SCALE

2018 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-41

10.9.12

73

102 23

23

32

145

83 27

ET

MAIN

STRE

4
4 6

8
WEST RO AD 61 6

186 76

SUBWAY (F)
236 27

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

32 5

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
48 17

NOT TO SCALE

2038 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-42

10.9.12

42

56 10

67

24

42

32 69

ET

MAIN

STRE

5
6 5

4
WEST RO AD 16 25

56 46

SUBWAY (F)
56 33

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

15 17

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
22 16

NOT TO SCALE

2038 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-43

10.9.12

40

34 29

30

56

52

44 84

ET

MAIN

STRE

10
11 13

14
WEST RO AD 34 76

56 162

SUBWAY (F)
118 80

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

31 65

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
26 70

NOT TO SCALE

2038 No Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-44

10.9.12

135

161 32

35

204

145

41

39

ET

MAIN

STRE

27
32 109

102
WEST RO AD 280 72

253 85

SUBWAY (F)
250 89

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

258 73

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
85

274

NOT TO SCALE

2038 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes AM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-45

10.9.12

103

132 84

124

98

118

93 126

ET

MAIN

STRE

69
72 79

73
WEST RO AD 134 137

137 120

SUBWAY (F)
65 50

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

136 131

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
130

143

NOT TO SCALE

2038 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes Midday Peak 15 Minutes
Figure 14-46

10.9.12

60

50 96

101

123

68

64 155

ET

MAIN

STRE

117
130 50

47
WEST RO AD 117 326

98 229

SUBWAY (F)
164 106

E. MAIN STREET

ST W. MAIN

REET

(RAMP)

ROOSEVELT ISLAND TRAMWAY

116 322

Cornell NYC Tech

W. MAIN ST REET

RI RACQUET CLUB
327

111

NOT TO SCALE

2038 With Action Peak 15 Minute Pedestrian Volumes PM Peak 15 Minutes

Figure 14-47

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-58 2018 No Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis

No. Location West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street Effective Sidewalk Width (ft.) AM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 15-Min. Two-Way Volume 64 36 61 254 250 169 93 119 110 12 10 39 30 36 87 98 63 104 63 98 9 11 104 92 92 194 208 103 67 60 127 23 22 Platoon Flow PMF 1.58 0.27 1.13 2.17 1.98 3.76 0.66 1.18 2.93 0.22 0.15 0.96 0.23 0.67 0.74 0.78 1.40 0.74 0.63 2.61 0.17 0.17 2.57 0.70 1.70 1.66 1.65 2.29 0.48 0.60 3.39 0.43 0.33 LOS B A B B B C B B B A A B A B B B B B B B A A B B B B B B A B C A A

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 Midday Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 PM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East East North 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4

3 4 5

Note: PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot

14-76

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-59 2018 With Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis

No. Location West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street Effective Sidewalk Width (ft.) AM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 15-Min. Two-Way Volume 152 127 152 278 273 189 116 141 133 51 54 117 110 116 99 144 106 137 113 131 55 60 209 200 200 218 240 128 97 88 157 71 76 Platoon Flow PMF 3.75 0.96 2.81 2.38 2.17 4.20 0.82 1.40 3.55 0.94 0.82 2.89 0.83 2.15 0.85 1.14 2.36 0.97 1.12 3.49 1.02 0.91 5.16 1.52 3.70 1.86 1.90 2.84 0.70 0.85 4.19 1.31 1.14 LOS C B B B B C B B C B B B B B B B B B B C B B C B C B B B B B C B B

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 Midday Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 PM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East East North 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4

3 4 5

Note: PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot

14-77

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-60 2038 No Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis

No. Location West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street Effective Sidewalk Width (ft.) AM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 15-Min. Two-Way Volume 67 37 65 263 262 177 96 125 110 12 10 41 32 38 89 102 66 109 66 101 9 11 110 96 96 198 218 108 70 63 128 24 24 Platoon Flow PMF 1.65 0.28 1.20 2.25 2.08 3.93 0.68 1.24 2.93 0.22 0.15 1.01 0.24 0.70 0.76 0.81 1.47 0.77 0.66 2.69 0.17 0.17 2.72 0.73 1.78 1.69 1.73 2.40 0.50 0.63 3.41 0.44 0.36 LOS B A B B B C B B B A A B A B B B B B B B A A B B B B B B A B C A A

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 Midday Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5

3 4 5

East 3.6 North 4.4 PM Peak 15 Minutes East East East South East East East West East East North 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4

3 4 5

Note: PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot

14-78

Chapter 14: Transportation

As presented in Table 14-61, all sidewalk locations would continue to operate at acceptable levels (within LOS C, with a maximum of 6.0 PMF in sidewalk platoon flows) or incur degradations that, when compared to the No Action condition, do not exceed the CEQR Technical Manual impact thresholds (see Table 14-12), except for the two analysis locations listed below, where significant adverse pedestrian impacts have been identified.

Table 14-61 2038 With Action Condition Sidewalk Analysis

No. Location Effective Sidewalk Width (ft.) AM Peak 15 Minutes East East East 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4 2.7 8.8 3.6 7.8 8.4 3.0 9.4 6.7 2.5 3.6 4.4 15-Min. Two-Way Volume 376 353 381 346 343 250 165 210 179 138 152 286 283 289 116 269 228 210 254 202 152 160 465 460 460 275 333 195 152 163 210 171 188 Platoon Flow PMF LOS 9.28 2.67 7.06 2.96 2.72 5.56 1.17 2.09 4.77 2.56 2.30 7.06 2.14 5.35 0.99 2.13 5.07 1.49 2.53 5.39 2.81 2.42 11.48 3.48 8.52 2.35 2.64 4.33 1.08 1.62 5.60 3.17 2.85 D* B D* B B C B B B B B D* B C B B C B B C B B D* C D* B B C B B C C B

2 3 4 5

West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street

South East East East Main Street and West Road intersection West East Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East East Main Street and Main Street North Midday Peak 15 Minutes

2 3 4 5

West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street

East East East

South East East East Main Street and West Road intersection West Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East East East Main Street and Main Street North PM Peak 15 Minutes

2 3 4 5

West Road between West Main Street and Subway Station West Main Street(W) between West Main Street(N) and Bus Stop West Main Street between Bus Stop and Queensboro Bridge Plaza Pathway between West Road and Main Street West Road between Subway Station and Bus Stop West Road between Bus Stop and Main Street Main Street and West Road intersection Main Street between West Road and Plaza Pathway East Main Street and Main Street

East East East South East East East West East East North

Note: PMF = pedestrians per minute per foot * denotes a significant adverse pedestrian impact.

14-79

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

The West Road east sidewalk between West Main Street and the Subway Station would operate with pedestrian flow rates of 9.28 PMF, 7.06 PMF, and 11.48 PMF under the With Action condition, during the AM, midday and PM peak periods, respectively. Since this sidewalk is expected to operate under 3.5 PMF for all three peak periods (i.e., 1.65 PMF AM, 1.01 PMF midday, and 2.72 PMF PM) under the No Action condition and over 6.0 PMF under the With Action condition, the projected deterioration in operations is considered a significant adverse impact. The West Main Street east sidewalk between the bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge would operate with pedestrian flow rates of 7.06 PMF and 8.52 PMF under the With Action condition during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Since this sidewalk is expected to operate under 3.5 PMF for these two peak periods (i.e., 1.20 PMF for AM peak period and 1.78 PMF for PM peak period) under the No Action condition and over 6.0 PMF under the With Action condition, the projected deterioration in operations is considered a significant adverse impact. Measures that can be implemented to mitigate these significant adverse pedestrian impacts are discussed in Chapter 22, Mitigation.

G. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

Accident data for the study area intersections were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for the time period between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011. The data obtained quantify the total number of reportable accidents (involving fatality, injury, or property damages in excess of $1,000), fatalities, and injuries during the study period, as well as a yearly breakdown of pedestrian- and bicycle-related accidents at each location. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a high accident location is one where there were five or more pedestrian/bicyclist-related accidents or 48 or more reportable and non-reportable accidents in any consecutive 12 months within the most recent 3-year period for which data are available. During the July 2008 to June 2011 3-year period, a total of 30 reportable and non-reportable accidents, zero fatalities, 17 injuries, and 1 pedestrian/bicyclist-related accident occurred at the study area intersections. A rolling total of accident data identifies no study area intersections as high pedestrian accident locations in the 2008 to 2011 period. Table 14-62 depicts total accident characteristics by intersection during the study period, as well as a breakdown of pedestrian and bicycle accidents by year and location.

14-80

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-62 Accident Summary

Study Period Accidents by Year All Accidents by Year Pedestrian Bicycle East-West Total Total Roadway 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fatalities Injuries 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 41st Avenue 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broadway 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broadway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27th/Newton Ave 3 4 4 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hoyt Avenue S 0 1 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hoyt Avenue N 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street (split) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main St (S. of 36th) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street (North) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street (South) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roosevelt Island Bridge Entry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street E. Road & W. Road (triangle interchange) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W. Road Rd 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street Rd 5 (roundabout) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W. Road Rd 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street Rd 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Bold intersections are high pedestrian accident locations. Roosevelt Island roadway names shown above do not reflect changes made due to the proposed projects mapping actions. Source: NYSDOT July1, 2008 and June 30, 2011 accident data. North-South Roadway Vernon Boulevard Vernon Boulevard Vernon Boulevard 21st Street 21st Street 21st Street 21st Street 21st Street 21st Street 31st Street W. Road Rd 10 E. Road E. Road E. Road River Road River Road W. Road Main Street Intersection 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

H. PARKING
EXISTING CONDITIONS A detailed on-street parking inventory of the area surrounding the project site was conducted in November 2011 on a typical weekday. The study area encompasses a -mile radius (approximately a five-minute walk) from the project site, as recommended by CEQR guidelines. This area spans the width of the island and extends between the southern end of the Goldwater Hospital site to the south and the merge of West Main Street and West Road to the north. Parking data were collected during the mid-morning (9:30 to 11:00 AM) and mid-afternoon (2 to 4 PM) peak periods. On-street parking inventories were collected for all public streets within the parking study area. There are approximately 185 legal on-street parking spaces within the primary parking study area; however, many of the spaces in the southern half of the parking study area are restricted to authorized vehicles. The northern half of the parking study area has more publicly accessible parking spaces, all of which are metered. Of the 185 on-street spaces within the primary parking study area, approximately 60 are publicly accessible and 125 are restricted to authorized vehicles. Overall, on-street parking spaces within this study area are about 70 percent occupied during mid-morning and mid-afternoon peak periods.

14-81

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

An inventory of the Motorgate garage was also conducted in November 2011 during the midmorning and mid-afternoon hours to determine off-street parking utilization in the facility, and overnight parking data from two weeks in March 2012 were provided by the RIOC. The garage is located adjacent to the Roosevelt Island Bridge on the north side and provides direct access to the bridge, minimizing vehicular traffic on the island. Even though this garage is outside of the typical -mile radius study area, it was included in the analysis since it may, in the future, need to accommodate project-generated trips. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the parking study area can be extended to include facilities within a maximum of a -mile radius of the site. According to RIOC, the parking capacity at the Motorgate garage is approximately 1,900 spaces. Of these spaces, 53 percent were occupied during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon periods. Overnight, according to parking data provided by RIOC, an average of 1,435 (74 percent) are occupied. As shown in Table 14-63, there are about 55 to 58 spaces available on-street during mid-morning and mid-afternoon peak periods, and there are approximately 900 to 910 parking spaces available at the Motorgate garage during these periods. Overnight at the Motorgate garage, there are about 165 spaces available.

Table 14-63 2011 Existing Weekday Parking Inventory and Utilization

Parking Facility On-Street Parking Motorgate Garage (Off-Street) Total Parking within Mile Mid-morning Utilization 127 1,018 1,145 Mid-afternoon Utilization 129 1,027 1,156 Overnight Utilization -1,435 1,435 Inventory 185 1,929 2,114

2018 NO ACTION CONDITION Under the 2018 No Action condition, the Southtown development would be completed. In the event that parking is not provided at the Southtown site, parking would be accommodated at the Motorgate garage. Due to general background traffic growth and the Southtown development parking needs, approximately 61 percent of on-street and off-street parking would be used during the daytime and approximately 83 percent would be used at Motorgate garage overnight. None of the projected traffic that would be generated by the Southtown development was assigned to park on-street since there is limited publicly-accessible on-street parking in the primary parking study area; all Southtown parking was assigned to the Motorgate garage. As shown in Table 14-64, there would be approximately 50 to 55 spaces available on-street during mid-morning and mid-afternoon periods, and there would be about 770 to 780 spaces available at the Motorgate garage during these periods. Overnight at the Motorgate garage, there would be approximately 320 spaces available.

Table 14-64 2018 No Action Weekday Parking Inventory and Utilization (Projected)
Parking Facility On-Street Parking Motorgate Southtown Demand Motorgate Other Demand Motorgate Total Demand Total Parking within Mile Mid-morning Utilization 131 102 1,049 1,151 1,282 Mid-afternoon Utilization 133 102 1,058 1,160 1,293 Overnight Utilization -135 1,475 1,610 1,610 Inventory 185 --1,929 2,114

14-82

Chapter 14: Transportation

2018 WITH ACTION CONDITION It is expected that 250 spaces would be available under the 2018 With Action condition. According to parking demand projections, up to 220 parking spaces (87 percent) of the on-site parking would be used during the peak weekday midday period with about 155 parking spaces (62 percent) used overnight, as shown in Table 14-65. Under these conditions, on-street and off-street parking at the Motorgate garage would not need to be used by the projects parking demand. It should be noted that under the proposed actions, on-site parking is not required under the 2018 With Action condition. If no parking was provided on-site under the 2018 With Action condition, daytime parking needs would be met by the available Motorgate garage spaces. 2038 NO ACTION CONDITION Under the 2038 No Action condition, due to general background traffic growth and the Southtown development parking needs discussed for the 2018 No Action condition, approximately 64 percent of on-street and Motorgate garage parking would be used during the daytime and about 87 percent of the Motorgate garage would be used overnight. As shown in Table 14-66, there would be approximately 45 to 50 spaces available on-street during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon periods, and there would be about 715 to 725 spaces available at the Motorgate garage during these periods. Overnight at the Motorgate garage, there would be approximately 245 spaces available.

Table 14-65 Phase 1- 2018 Parking Accumulation Table

HOUR 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total Grad Students Grad Students Corporate CoMasters Ph.D. Candidates Academic location Faculty Postdoctoral Fellows ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 27 1 27 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 4 22 0 49 1 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 6 5 4 50 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 4 47 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 6 6 47 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 6 4 49 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 4 2 51 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 3 49 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 3 3 30 22 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 24 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -3 3 -7 7 -83 83 -7 7 -2 2 --

14-83

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 14-65 (continued) Phase 1- 2018 Parking Accumulation Table

HOUR 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total University Housing Executive Admin. Support Visitors - External Retail Education Center GRAND TOTAL ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC 3 1 3 4 2 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 88 0 0 0 3 1 3 3 2 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 86 0 0 0 2 5 2 6 9 151 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 84 0 0 0 19 19 19 68 27 192 8 0 9 2 0 2 2 7 79 0 0 0 11 23 11 44 30 206 4 1 12 1 0 3 2 4 77 0 0 0 10 17 10 25 25 206 4 0 16 1 0 4 2 2 77 0 0 0 8 13 8 12 19 199 1 0 17 0 0 4 2 2 77 0 0 0 40 20 40 49 29 219 1 1 17 0 0 4 2 2 77 0 0 0 8 17 8 17 24 212 0 1 16 0 0 4 2 2 77 0 0 0 7 17 7 14 22 204 0 1 15 0 0 4 2 2 77 0 0 0 21 14 21 25 20 209 0 1 14 0 0 4 3 2 78 0 0 0 31 28 31 41 78 172 1 8 7 0 2 2 6 3 81 0 0 0 34 36 34 46 72 146 1 3 5 0 1 1 7 4 84 0 0 0 27 40 27 37 52 131 1 2 4 0 1 0 6 4 86 0 0 0 47 34 47 53 40 144 1 1 4 0 0 0 5 3 88 0 0 0 22 15 22 26 20 150 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 89 0 0 0 13 11 13 15 15 150 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 89 0 0 0 9 5 9 11 8 153 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 89 0 0 0 5 2 5 6 4 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 88 0 0 0 24 24 -4 4 -51 51 -0 0 -320 320 -502 502 --

Table 14-66 2038 No Action Weekday Parking Inventory and Utilization (Projected)
Parking Facility On-Street Parking Motorgate - Southtown Demand Motorgate - Other Demand Motorgate - Total Demand Grand Total Parking within Mile Mid-morning Utilization 138 102 1,102 1,204 1,342 Mid-afternoon Utilization 140 102 1,112 1,214 1,354 Overnight Utilization -135 1,550 1,685 1,685 Inventory 185 --1,929 2,114

2038 WITH ACTION CONDITION Up to 500 parking spaces would be provided on-site to accommodate site-generated trips under Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition. As shown in Table 14-67, there would be a demand of up to approximately 615 spaces during the midday peak period and about 290 spaces during the overnight period. The additional spaces needed beyond what can be accommodated on-site would be available during the daytime period using the Motorgate garage. It should be noted that under the proposed actions, on-site parking is not required under the 2038 With Action condition. If no parking was provided on-site under the 2038 With Action condition, daytime parking needs would be met by the available Motorgate garage parking spaces.

14-84

Chapter 14: Transportation

Table 14-67 Phase 2- 2038 Parking Accumulation Table

HOUR 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total Grad Students Grad Students Corporate CoMasters Ph.D. Candidates Academic location Faculty Postdoctoral Fellows ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 11 2 9 2 0 2 1 0 1 9 0 10 3 0 3 10 1 11 136 7 138 12 1 13 4 0 5 5 0 15 2 0 5 5 0 16 108 5 241 6 2 17 2 0 7 4 1 18 1 1 5 4 1 19 26 20 247 6 0 23 2 0 9 4 2 20 2 0 7 1 0 20 6 17 236 1 0 24 0 0 9 5 5 20 2 2 7 1 1 20 28 28 236 1 1 24 0 0 9 2 4 18 1 1 7 1 0 21 29 16 249 0 1 23 0 0 9 2 3 17 1 1 7 0 1 20 17 9 257 0 1 22 0 0 9 1 4 14 0 2 5 0 1 19 6 8 255 0 1 21 0 0 9 1 8 7 0 3 2 1 9 11 17 150 122 1 11 11 0 4 5 1 4 4 1 0 3 1 5 7 17 121 18 1 6 6 0 2 3 2 3 3 0 1 2 1 4 4 9 23 4 1 4 3 0 2 10 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 40 40 -13 13 -29 29 -411 411 -34 34 -9 9 -University Housing Executive Admin. Support Visitors External Retail Education Center GRAND TOTAL ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC ENTER EXIT ACC 5 4 287 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 219 0 0 0 3 1 68 5 2 290 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 220 0 0 0 3 1 70 1 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 1 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 220 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 1 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 219 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 1 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 218 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 4 284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 216 0 0 0 0 2 68 24 15 293 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 8 210 0 0 0 2 5 65 219 47 465 15 1 16 7 1 7 4 17 197 0 0 0 19 19 65 155 44 576 8 2 22 4 1 10 4 11 190 0 0 0 11 23 53 69 45 600 7 1 28 4 0 14 5 4 191 0 0 0 10 17 46 29 36 593 1 0 29 1 0 15 5 4 192 0 0 0 8 13 41 85 65 613 1 1 29 1 1 15 5 5 192 1 1 0 40 20 61 47 46 614 0 1 28 0 1 14 5 5 192 1 0 1 8 17 52 32 40 606 0 1 27 0 1 13 4 5 191 1 1 1 7 17 42 35 38 603 0 1 26 0 1 12 7 5 193 0 1 0 21 14 49 70 242 431 2 14 14 1 7 6 16 9 200 0 0 0 31 27 53 75 194 312 1 7 8 1 3 4 19 10 209 0 0 0 33 36 50 59 92 279 1 5 4 1 2 3 17 8 218 0 0 0 27 40 37 67 58 288 1 3 2 1 2 2 14 7 225 0 0 0 47 33 51 33 34 287 2 2 2 1 2 1 6 6 225 0 0 0 21 16 56 21 20 288 1 1 2 0 1 0 5 6 224 0 0 0 13 10 59 14 17 285 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 9 220 0 0 0 9 5 63 9 9 285 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 219 0 0 0 5 2 66 43 43 -23 23 -131 131 -3 3 -318 318 -- 1,054 1,054 --

HOUR 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM Total

14-85

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

However, there would be an overnight parking shortfall of approximately 45 spaces if parking resources are only available off-street at the Motorgate garage and on-street parking is not considered. As described earlier, approximately 60 on-street parking spaces are publically accessible and 125 are restricted to authorized vehicles during the daytime. It is not currently known whether the existing on-street parking that is restricted to authorized vehicles within the primary parking study area would continue to be signed as restricted because the design of the campus roadways has not been completed. If restricted parking regulations are not in effect overnight under 2038 conditions, additional on-street overnight parking capacity may be available to accommodate the overnight parking shortfall if no parking was provided on-site under the 2038 With Action condition. If there was not adequate overnight on-street parking capacity, there would be an overnight parking shortfall under this condition, which would potentially require overnight parking utilization further north on Roosevelt Island, where available.

I. CONCLUSIONS
TRAFFIC In accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, a RWCDS was developed for the Phase 1 2018 and the Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action conditions to estimate the peak hour vehicular and pedestrian volumes expected as a result of the proposed actions. Under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition during the weekday AM peak hour, the RWCDS would generate 92 vehicle trips arriving at the project site and 51 vehicle trips leaving the project site, for a total of 143 vehicle trips. In the weekday midday peak hour, it would generate 90 inbound vehicle trips plus 70 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 160 vehicle trips. In the weekday PM peak hour, it would generate 71 inbound vehicle trips plus 108 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 179 vehicle trips. Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed (10 signalized and 4 unsignalized intersections), the proposed actions would create significant adverse traffic impacts at five intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, three in the weekday midday peak hour, and four in the weekday PM peak hour under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition. Under the Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition, during the weekday AM peak hour, the RWCDS would generate 262 vehicle trips arriving at the project site and 90 vehicle trips leaving the project site, for a total of 352 vehicle trips. In the weekday midday peak hour, it would generate 161 inbound vehicle trips plus 141 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 292 vehicle trips. In the weekday PM peak hour, it would generate 116 inbound vehicle trips plus 288 outbound vehicle trips for a total of 386 vehicle trips. There would be significant adverse traffic impacts at nine intersections in the weekday AM peak hour, seven in the weekday midday peak hour, and 11 in the weekday PM peak hour under the Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition. To a large extent, many of the significant traffic impacts can be attributed to background traffic growth plus a substantial volume of No Action development generated traffic, especially over the extended period between existing conditions and year 2038. Traffic capacity improvements that would be needed to mitigate these significant impacts are addressed in Chapter 21, Mitigation Measures.

14-86

Chapter 14: Transportation

TRANSIT The screening assessment summarized below in Section E, Level 2 Screening assessment, concluded that a detailed examination of subway line-haul analysis is not warranted. However, bus and tramway line-haul analyses, and a detailed analysis of station elements at the Roosevelt Island subway station (F line) were prepared. Under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition, the proposed project would not result in any significant transit impacts, with the exception of the Q102 bus route in the eastbound direction during the PM peak period. Under Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition, the proposed project would not result in any significant subway station or tramway impact. However, it would result in significant adverse impacts on bus line-haul levels on the eastbound and westbound Q102 route during the AM and PM peak periods as well as on the Red Bus route in the southbound and northbound direction during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Potential measures to mitigate the projected significant adverse bus line-haul impacts are described in Chapter 21, Mitigation Measures. PEDESTRIANS Weekday peak period pedestrian conditions were evaluated at key sidewalk elements at five intersections. Under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition, there would be no significant adverse pedestrian impact. Under the Phase 2 2038 Full Build-out With Action condition, significant adverse impacts are anticipated for two pedestrian elements including the east sidewalk at West Road between West Main Street and the subway station during the AM, midday and PM peak periods, and the east sidewalk at West Main Street between the bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge during the AM, midday and PM peak periods. Measures that can be implemented to mitigate these significant adverse pedestrian impacts are discussed in Chapter 21, Mitigation. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Accident data for the study area intersections were obtained from NYSDOT for the 3-year time period between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011. A total of 30 reportable and non-reportable accidents, no fatalities, 17 injuries, and 1 pedestrian/bicyclist-related accident occurred at the study area intersections. A rolling total of accident data has not identified any study area locations as high pedestrian accident locations in the 2008 to 2011 period. PARKING Up to 500 spaces would be built on-site under the proposed actions, with 250 spaces assumed under the Phase 1 With Action condition and 500 spaces under the Phase 2 Full Build-out With Action condition. Under Phase 1, 250 spaces would accommodate the projected daytime peak demand of approximately 220 spaces and overnight parking demand of about 155 spaces. Under the Full Build Phase, the 500 space supply would not accommodate the projected peak daytime demand of approximately 615 spaces, but would accommodate overnight demand of about 290 spaces. There is expected to be sufficient parking elsewhere on Roosevelt Island to accommodate the projected on-site parking shortfall under the Phase 2 Full Build-out With Action condition.

14-87

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

It should be noted that under the proposed actions, on-site parking is not required under the 2018 or 2038 With Action condition. If no parking was provided on-site under 2018 With Action condition, parking needs would be met by the available Motorgate garage spaces. If no parking was provided on-site under the 2038 With Action condition, daytime parking needs would be met by the available Motorgate garage spaces. However, there would be an overnight parking shortfall of about 45 spaces, which would need to be accommodated beyond -mile from the site and the Motorgate garage. This would potentially require overnight parking utilization further north on Roosevelt Island, where available. There would also potentially be additional on-street overnight parking available pending the design of the campus roadways to accommodate the projected parking shortfall if no parking was provided on-site under the 2038 With Action condition.

14-88

Chapter 15:

Air Quality

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses sources of air pollutant emissions and their potential effect that could result from development of the Cornell NYC Tech project on Roosevelt Island (the proposed project). Air quality impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts result from emissions generated by stationary sources at a development site, such as emissions from on-site fuel combustion for heat and hot water systems. Indirect impacts are impacts from emissions associated with the transportation of people and goods or solid waste to and from a proposed project. Cornell has proposed a substantial use of renewable sources of energy, including potential applications of geothermal, photovoltaic panels, and fuel cells. However, for the purpose of this air quality analysis, it is conservatively assumed that natural gas-fired combustion equipment would be used to provide building heat and hot water, and to provide a portion of campus electrical energy needs. Potential effects on the proposed project from nearby existing emission sources were not examined since stationary sources of concern were not identified around the project site. The proposed project would increase traffic in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Therefore, an analysis was performed on the potential impacts on air quality from motor vehicles. The results of the air quality analysis determined that the maximum predicted pollutant concentrations and concentration increments from mobile sources and stationary sources in Phase 1 and the Full Build of the proposed project would be below the applicable air quality impact criteria. Specific design measures would be required to ensure that stationary source impacts do not exceed applicable standards.

B. POLLUTANTS FOR ANALYSIS

Ambient air quality is affected by air pollutants produced both by motor vehicles and stationary sources. Emissions from motor vehicles are referred to as mobile source emissions, while emissions from fixed facilities are referred to as stationary source emissions. Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are predominantly influenced by mobile source emissions. Particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide, NO, and nitrogen dioxide, NO2, collectively referred to as NOx) are emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. Fine PM is also formed when emissions of NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), ammonia, organic compounds, and other gases react or condense in the atmosphere. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) are associated mainly with stationary sources, and sources utilizing non-road diesel such as diesel trains, marine engines, and non-road vehicles (e.g., construction engines). On-road diesel vehicles currently contribute very little to SO2 emissions since the sulfur content of on-road diesel fuel, which is federally regulated, is 15-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

extremely low. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by complex photochemical processes that include NOx and VOCs. CARBON MONOXIDE CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is produced in the urban environment primarily by the incomplete combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. In urban areas, approximately 80 to 90 percent of CO emissions are from motor vehicles. Since CO is a reactive gas which does not persist in the atmosphere, CO concentrations can vary greatly over relatively short distances; elevated concentrations are usually limited to locations near crowded intersections, heavily traveled and congested roadways, parking lots, and garages. Consequently, CO concentrations must be predicted on a local, or microscale, basis. The proposed project would result in changes in traffic patterns and an increase in traffic volumes in the study area. Therefore, a mobile source analysis was conducted at critical intersections in the study area to evaluate future CO concentrations with and without the proposed project. A parking garage analysis was also conducted to evaluate future CO concentrations with the operation of the parking garages associated with the proposed project. NITROGEN OXIDES, VOCS, AND OZONE NOx are of principal concern because of their role, together with VOCs, as precursors in the formation of ozone. Ozone is formed through a series of reactions that take place in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because the reactions are slow, and occur as the pollutants are advected downwind, elevated ozone levels are often found many miles from the sources of the precursor pollutants. The effects of NOx and VOC emissions from all sources are therefore generally examined on a regional basis. The contribution of any action or project to regional emissions of these pollutants would include any added stationary or mobile source emissions; the change in regional mobile source emissions of these pollutants would be related to the total vehicle miles traveled added or subtracted on various roadway types throughout the New York metropolitan area, which is designated as a moderate non-attainment area for ozone by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The proposed project would not have a significant effect on the overall volume of vehicular travel in the metropolitan area; therefore, no measurable impact on regional NOx emissions or on ozone levels is predicted. An analysis of project-related emissions of these pollutants from transportation sources was therefore not warranted. In addition to being a precursor to the formation of ozone, NO2 (one component of NOx) is also a regulated pollutant. Since NO2 is mostly formed from the transformation of NO in the atmosphere, it has mostly been of concern farther downwind from large stationary point sources, and not a local concern from mobile sources. (NOx emissions from fuel combustion consist of approximately 90 percent NO and 10 percent NO2 at the source.) However, with the promulgation of the 2010 1-hour average standard for NO2, local sources such as vehicular emissions may become of greater concern for this pollutant. Potential impacts on local NO2 concentrations from fuel combustion for power, heat and hot water systems for the full development of the proposed project are addressed.

15-2

Chapter 15: Air Quality

LEAD Airborne lead emissions are currently associated principally with industrial sources. Effective January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act (CAA) banned the sale of the small amount of leaded fuel that was still available in some parts of the country for use in on-road vehicles, concluding a 25year effort to phase out lead in gasoline. Even at locations in the New York City area where traffic volumes are very high, atmospheric lead concentrations are far below the 3-month average national standard of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). No significant sources of lead are associated with the proposed project and, therefore, analysis was not warranted. RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTERPM10 AND PM2.5 PM is a broad class of air pollutants that includes discrete particles of a wide range of sizes and chemical compositions, as either liquid droplets (aerosols) or solids suspended in the atmosphere. The constituents of PM are numerous and varied, and they are emitted from a wide variety of sources (both natural and anthropogenic). Natural sources include the condensed and reacted forms of naturally occurring VOC; salt particles resulting from the evaporation of sea spray; wind-borne pollen, fungi, molds, algae, yeasts, rusts, bacteria, and material from live and decaying plant and animal life; particles eroded from beaches, soil, and rock; and particles emitted from volcanic and geothermal eruptions and from forest fires. Naturally occurring PM is generally greater than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Major anthropogenic sources include the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., vehicular exhaust, power generation, boilers, engines, and home heating), chemical and manufacturing processes, all types of construction, agricultural activities, as well as wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. PM also acts as a substrate for the adsorption (accumulation of gases, liquids, or solutes on the surface of a solid or liquid) of other pollutants, often toxic, and some likely carcinogenic compounds. As described below, PM is regulated in two size categories: particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10, which includes PM2.5). PM2.5 has the ability to reach the lower regions of the respiratory tract, delivering with it other compounds that adsorb to the surfaces of the particles; it is also extremely persistent in the atmosphere. PM2.5 is mainly derived from combustion material that has volatilized and then condensed to form primary PM (often soon after the release from a source exhaust) or from precursor gases reacting in the atmosphere to form secondary PM. Diesel-powered vehicles, such as heavy-duty trucks, buses, and marine vessels are a potentially significant source of respirable PM, most of which is PM2.5; PM concentrations may, consequently, be locally elevated near roadways with high volumes of heavy, diesel-powered vehicles. An analysis was conducted to assess the worst case PM impacts due to the increased traffic associated with the proposed project. Stationary combustion by the proposed projects HVAC system would result in emissions of PM; therefore, the HVAC system was evaluated for potential impacts. Potential 24-hour and annual incremental impacts of PM2.5 from the HVAC system were evaluated using an incremental microscale analysis.

15-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

SULFUR DIOXIDE SO2 emissions are primarily associated with the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels (oil and coal). Monitored SO2 concentrations in New York City are lower than the current national standards. Due to the federal restrictions on the sulfur content in diesel fuel for on-road and nonroad vehicles, no significant quantities are emitted from vehicular sources. Vehicular sources of SO2 are not significant and therefore, analysis of SO2 on-road vehicles is not warranted. As part of the proposed project, natural gas would be burned in the proposed heat and hot water systems. The sulfur content of natural gas is negligible; therefore, no analysis was performed to estimate the future levels of SO2 with the proposed project.

C. AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND BENCHMARKS

NATIONAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS As required by the CAA, primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollutants: CO, NO2, ozone, respirable PM (both PM2.5 and PM10), SO2, and lead. The primary standards represent levels that are requisite to protect the public health, allowing an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards are intended to protect the nations welfare, and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the environment. The primary and secondary standards are the same for NO2 (annual), ozone, lead, PM2.5 (24-hr), and PM10, and there is no secondary standard for CO and the 1-hour NO2 standard. The NAAQS are presented in Table 15-1. The NAAQS for CO, annual NO2, and 3-hr SO2 have also been adopted as the ambient air quality standards for New York State, but are defined on a running 12-month basis rather than for calendar years only. New York State also has standards for total suspended particulate matter (TSP), settleable particles, non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), 24-hour and annual SO2, and ozone that correspond to federal standards that have since been revoked or replaced, and for the noncriteria pollutants beryllium, fluoride, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). EPA has revised the NAAQS for PM, effective December 18, 2006. The revision included lowering the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 g/m3 to 35 g/m3 and retaining the level of the annual standard at 15 g/m3. The PM10 24-hour average standard was retained and the annual average PM10 standard was revoked. EPA recently lowered the primary annualaverage standard to 12 g/m3, effective March 2013 . EPA has also revised the 8-hour ozone standard, lowering it from 0.08 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm), effective as of May 2008. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed a change in the 2008 ozone NAAQS, lowering the primary NAAQS from the current 0.075 ppm level to within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. EPA is also proposing a secondary ozone standard, measured as a cumulative concentration within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours aimed mainly at protecting sensitive vegetation. A final decision on this standard has been postponed but is expected to occur in 2013. , effective January 12, 2009. EPA revised the averaging time to a rolling 3-month average and the form of the standard to not-to-exceed across a 3-year span.
3

15-4

Chapter 15: Air Quality

Table 15-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average Lead Rolling 3-Month Average Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour Average Annual Average Ozone (O3) 8-Hour Average
(3,4) (2) (1) (1)

Primary ppm 9 35 NA g/m

3

Secondary ppm g/m

3

10,000 40,000 0.15 NA

None

0.15

0.100 0.053 0.075 NA NA

188 100 150 150 12 35 196 NA 0.053 0.075 NA NA NA NA 0.50

None 100 150 150 15 35 NA 1,300

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour Average Annual Mean

(8) (5) (6) (1)

Fine Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-Hour Average 1-Hour Average

(7) (1)

NA 0.075 NA

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Maximum 3-Hour Average Notes:

ppm parts per million g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter NA not applicable All annual periods refer to calendar year. PM concentrations (including lead)
(1) (2)

since ppm is a measure for gas concentrations. Concentrations of all 3 are presented.

Not to be exceeded more than once a year. 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. Effective April 12, 2010. (3) 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average concentration. (4) EPA has proposed lowering this standard further to within the range 0.060-0.070 ppm, and adding a secondary standard measured as a cumulative concentration within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours aimed mainly at protecting sensitive vegetation. A final decision on this standard has been postponed but is expected to occur in 2013 (5) Not to be exceeded by the annual 98th percentile when averaged over 3 years. (6) EPA revoked the 24-hour and annual primary standards, replacing them with a 1-hour average standard. Effective August 23, 2010. (7) 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. (8) EPA lowered the primary annual standard from 15 g/m3, effective March 2013 Source: 40 CFR Part 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

EPA established a 1-hour average NO2 standard of 0.100 ppm, effective April 12, 2010, in addition to the annual standard. The statistical form is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentration in a year. 15-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

EPA also established a 1-hour average SO2 standard of 0.075 ppm, replacing the 24-hour and annual primary standards, effective August 23, 2010. The statistical form is the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations (the 4th highest daily maximum corresponds approximately to the 99th percentile for a year.) NAAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS The CAA, as amended in 1990, defines non-attainment areas (NAA) as geographic regions that have been designated as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS. When an area is designated as non-attainment by EPA, the state is required to develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which delineates how a state plans to achieve air quality that meets the NAAQS under the deadlines established by the CAA, followed by a plan for maintaining attainment status once the area is in attainment. In 2002, EPA re-designated New York City as in attainment for CO. Under the resulting maintenance plan, New York City is also committed to implementing site-specific control measures throughout the city to reduce CO levels, should unanticipated localized growth result in elevated CO levels during the maintenance period. Manhattan has been designated as a moderate NAA for PM10. On January 30, 2013, New York State requested that EPA approve its withdrawal of the 1995 SIP and redesignation request for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, and that EPA make a clean data finding instead, based on data monitored from 2009-2011 indicating PM10 concentrations well below the 1987 NAAQS. Although not yet a redesignation to attainment status, if approved, this determination would remove further requirements for related SIP submissions. On December 17, 2004, EPA took final action designating the five New York City counties and Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and Orange Counties as a PM2.5 non-attainment area under the Clean Air Act due to exceedance of the annual average standard. EPA determined that the New YorkNorthern New JerseyLong Island PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual NAAQS, effective December 15, 2010. As stated earlier, EPA has recently lowered the annual average primary standard to 12 g/m3. EPA will make initial attainment designations by December 2014. Based on analysis of 2009-2011 monitoring data, it is likely that the region will be in attainment for the new standard. In November 2009 EPA designated the New York City Metropolitan Area as nonattainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The nonattainment area includes the same 10-county area designated as nonattainment with the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on recent monitoring data, EPA determined that the area has attained the standard. This determination removes further requirements for related SIP submissions. Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester, Lower Orange County Metropolitan Area (LOCMA), and the five New York City counties had been designated as a severe non-attainment area for ozone (1-hour average standard, 0.12 ppm). In November 1998, New York State submitted its Phase II Alternative Attainment Demonstration for Ozone, which was finalized and approved by EPA effective March 6, 2002, addressing attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. The 1-hour standard was revoked in 2004 when it was replaced by the 8-hour ozone standard, but certain further requirements remained (anti-backsliding). Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated these same counties as moderate non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour average ozone standard (LOCMA was moved to the Poughkeepsie moderate non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone). On February 8, 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

15-6

Chapter 15: Air Quality

(NYSDEC) submitted final revisions to the SIP to EPA to address the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On December 7, 2009, EPA determined that the Poughkeepsie nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour standard. On June 18, 2012, EPA determined that the NYMA has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm). Although not yet a redesignation to attainment status, this determination removes further requirements under the 1997 8-hour standard. In March 2008 EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards. EPA designated the counties of Suffolk, Nassau, Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, and Westchester (NY portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long, NY-NJ-CT NAA) as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012. SIPs are due in 2015. New York City is currently in attainment of the annual-average NO2 standard. EPA has designated the entire state of New York as unclassifiable/attainment for the new 1-hour NO2 standard effective February 29, 2012. Since additional monitoring is required for the 1-hour standard, areas will be reclassified once three years of monitoring data are available (2016 or 2017). EPA has established a 1-hour SO2 standard that replaces the former 24-hour and annual standards, effective August 23, 2010. Based on the available monitoring data, all New York State counties currently meet the 1-hour standard. Additional monitoring will be required. EPA plans to make final attainment designations in the near future, based on 2008 to 2010 monitoring data and refined modeling. SIPs for nonattainment areas will be due by June 2014. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations states that the significance of a predicted consequence of a project (i.e., whether it is material, substantial, large, or important) should be assessed in connection with its setting (e.g., urban or rural), its probability of occurrence, its duration, its irreversibility, its geographic scope, its magnitude, and the number of people affected. 1 In terms of the magnitude of air quality impacts, any action predicted to increase the concentration of a criteria air pollutant to a level that would exceed the concentrations defined by the NAAQS (see Table 15-1) would be deemed to have a potential significant adverse impact. In addition, in order to maintain concentrations lower than the NAAQS in attainment areas, or to ensure that concentrations will not be significantly increased in non-attainment areas, threshold levels have been defined for certain pollutants; any action predicted to increase the concentrations of these pollutants above the thresholds would be deemed to have a potential significant adverse impact, even in cases where violations of the NAAQS are not predicted. DE MINIMIS CRITERIA REGARDING CO IMPACTS New York City has developed de minimis criteria to assess the significance of the increase in CO concentrations that would result from the impact of proposed projects or actions on mobile sources, as set forth in the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. These criteria set the minimum change in CO concentration that defines a significant environmental impact. Significant increases of CO concentrations in New York City are defined
1

CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17, section 400, June 2012; and State Environmental Quality Review Regulations, 6 NYCRR 617.7

15-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

as: (1) an increase of 0.5 ppm or more in the maximum 8-hour average CO concentration at a location where the predicted No-Action 8-hour concentration is equal to or between 8 and 9 ppm; or (2) an increase of more than half the difference between baseline (i.e., No-Action) concentrations and the 8-hour standard, when No-Action concentrations are below 8.0 ppm. PM2.5 INTERIM GUIDANCE CRITERIA NYSDEC has published a policy to provide interim direction for evaluating PM2.5 impacts 2. This policy applies only to facilities applying for permits or major permit modifications under SEQRA that emit 15 tons of PM10 or more annually. The policy states that such a project will be deemed to have a potentially significant adverse impact if the projects maximum impacts are predicted to increase PM2.5 concentrations by more than 0.3 g/m3 averaged annually or more than 5 g/m3 on a 24-hour basis. Projects that exceed either the annual or 24-hour threshold will be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the severity of the impacts, to evaluate alternatives, and to employ reasonable and necessary mitigation measures to minimize the PM2.5 impacts of the source to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, New York City uses interim guidance criteria for evaluating the potential PM2.5 impacts for projects subject to CEQR. The interim guidance criteria currently employed for determination of potential significant adverse PM2.5 impacts under CEQR are as follows: 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration increments that are predicted to be greater than 5 g/m3 at a discrete receptor location would be considered a significant adverse impact on air quality under operational conditions (i.e., a permanent condition predicted to exist for many years regardless of the frequency of occurrence); 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration increments that are predicted to be greater than 2 g/m3 but no greater than 5 g/m3 would be considered a significant adverse impact on air quality based on the magnitude, frequency, duration, location, and size of the area of the predicted concentrations; Annual average PM2.5 concentration increments that are predicted to be greater than 0.1 g/m3 at ground level on a neighborhood scale (i.e., the annual increase in concentration representing the average over an area of approximately 1 square kilometer, centered on the location where the maximum ground-level impact is predicted for stationary sources; or at a distance from a roadway corridor similar to the minimum distance defined for locating neighborhood scale monitoring stations); or Annual average PM2.5 concentration increments that are predicted to be greater than 0.3 g/m3 at a discrete receptor location (elevated or ground level). Actions under CEQR predicted to increase PM2.5 concentrations by more than the above interim guidance criteria will be considered to have a potential significant adverse impact. The CEQR Technical Manual recommends that actions subject to CEQR that fail the interim guidance criteria prepare an EIS and examine potential measures to reduce or eliminate such potential significant adverse impacts. The proposed projects annual emissions of PM10 are estimated to be well below the 15-ton-peryear threshold under NYSDECs PM2.5 policy guidance. The above city and NYSDEC interim guidance criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of predicted impacts of the
2

CP33/Assessing and Mitigating Impacts of Fine Particulate Emissions, NYSDEC 12/29/2003.

15-8

Chapter 15: Air Quality

proposed project on PM2.5 concentrations and determine the need to minimize particulate matter emissions from the proposed project.

D. METHODOLOGY
MOBILE SOURCES The prediction of vehicle-generated emissions and their dispersion in an urban environment incorporates meteorological phenomena, traffic conditions, and physical configuration. Air pollutant dispersion models mathematically simulate how traffic, meteorology, and physical configuration combine to affect pollutant concentrations. The mathematical expressions and formulations contained in the various models attempt to describe an extremely complex physical phenomenon as closely as possible. However, because all models contain simplifications and approximations of actual conditions and interactions, and since it is necessary to predict the reasonable worst-case condition, most dispersion analyses predict conservatively high concentrations of pollutants, particularly under adverse meteorological conditions. The mobile source analyses for the proposed project employ a model approved by EPA that has been widely used for evaluating air quality impacts of projects in New York City, other parts of New York State, and throughout the country. The modeling approach includes a series of conservative assumptions relating to meteorology, traffic, and background concentration levels resulting in a conservatively high estimate of expected pollutant concentrations that could ensue from the proposed project. The assumptions used in the PM analysis were based on the latest PM2.5 interim guidance developed by NYCDEP. VEHICLE EMISSIONS Engine Emissions Vehicular CO and PM engine emission factors are computed using the EPA mobile source emissions model, MOBILE6.2 3 . This emissions model is capable of calculating engine emissions factors for various vehicle types, based on the fuel type (gasoline, diesel, or natural gas), meteorological conditions, vehicle speeds, vehicle age, roadway types, number of starts per day, engine soak time, and various other factors that influence emissions, such as inspection maintenance programs. The inputs and use of MOBILE6.2 incorporate the most current guidance available from NYSDEC and NYCDEP. Vehicle classification data were based on field studies. Appropriate credits were used to accurately reflect the inspection and maintenance program. The inspection and maintenance programs require inspections of automobiles and light trucks to determine if pollutant emissions from each vehicle exhaust system are lower than emission standards. Vehicles failing the emissions test must undergo maintenance and pass a repeat test to be registered in New York State. All taxis were assumed to be in hot stabilized mode (i.e., excluding any start emissions). The general categories of vehicle types for specific roadways were further categorized into subcategories based on their relative breakdown within the fleet.

EPA, Users Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, EPA420R-03-010, August 2003.

15-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

An ambient temperature of 43 degrees Fahrenheit is used. The use of this temperature is recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual for the Borough of Queens and is consistent with current NYCDEP guidance. Road Dust The contribution of re-entrained road dust to PM10 concentrations, as presented in the PM10 SIP, is considered to be significant; therefore, the PM10 estimates include both exhaust and road dust. In accordance with the PM2.5 interim guidance criteria methodology, PM2.5 emission rates are determined with fugitive road dust to account for their impacts in local microscale analyses. However, fugitive road dust is not included in the neighborhood scale PM2.5 microscale analyses since NYCDEP considers it to have an insignificant contribution on that scale. Road dust emissions factors are calculated according to the latest procedure delineated by EPA 4 and the CEQR Technical Manual. Traffic Data Traffic data for the mobile source analysis were derived from existing traffic counts, projected future growth in traffic, and other information developed as part of the traffic analysis for the proposed project (see Chapter 14, Transportation). Traffic data for the future without and with the proposed project were employed in the respective air quality modeling scenarios. The weekday morning (7:30 AM to 8:30 AM), midday (11:30 AM to 12:30 PM), and evening (4:15 PM to 5:15 PM) peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed. For particulate matter, off-peak traffic volumes in the future with and without the proposed project were determined by adjusting the peak period volumes by the 24-hour distributions of actual vehicle counts collected at appropriate locations. Dispersion Model for Microscale Analyses Maximum CO concentrations adjacent to the analysis sites resulting from vehicular emissions were predicted using the CAL3QHC model Version 2.0. 5 The CAL3QHC model employs a Gaussian (normal distribution) dispersion assumption and includes an algorithm for estimating vehicular queue lengths at signalized intersections. CAL3QHC predicts emissions and dispersion of CO from idling and moving vehicles. The queuing algorithm includes site-specific traffic parameters, such as signal timing and delay calculations (from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual traffic forecasting model), saturation flow rate, vehicle arrival type, and signal actuation (i.e., pre-timed or actuated signal) characteristics to accurately predict the number of idling vehicles. To determine motor vehicle generated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations on sidewalks near the project site, the CAL3QHCR model was applied. This is a refined version of the CAL3QHC model Version 2.0. 6 The CAL3QHCR model employs a Gaussian dispersion assumption and
4

EPA, Compilations of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Ch. 13.2.1, NC, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42, January 2011. 5 EPA, Users Guide to CAL3QHC, A Modeling Methodology for Predicted Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections, Office of Air Quality, Planning Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-92-006. 6 EPA, Users Guide to CAL3QHC, A Modeling Methodology for Predicted Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections, Office of Air Quality, Planning Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-92-006.

15-10

Chapter 15: Air Quality

includes an algorithm for estimating vehicular queue lengths at signalized intersections. CAL3QHCR predicts emissions and dispersion of PM2.5 from idling and moving vehicles. The queuing algorithm includes site-specific traffic parameters, such as signal timing and delay calculations (from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual traffic forecasting model), saturation flow rate, vehicle arrival type, and signal actuation (i.e., pre-timed or actuated signal) characteristics to predict the number of idling vehicles. The CAL3QHCR model can utilize hourly traffic and meteorological data, and is therefore appropriate for calculating 24-hour and annual average concentrations. Meteorology In general, the transport and concentration of pollutants from vehicular sources are influenced by three principal meteorological factors: wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability. Wind direction influences the direction in which pollutants are dispersed, and atmospheric stability accounts for the effects of vertical mixing in the atmosphere. These factors, therefore, influence the concentration at a particular prediction location (receptor). In applying the CAL3QHC model, the wind angle was varied to determine the wind direction resulting in the maximum concentrations at each receptor. Following the EPA guidelines, 7 CAL3QHC computations were performed using a wind speed of 1 meter per second, and the neutral stability class D. The 8-hour average CO concentrations were estimated by multiplying the predicted 1hour average CO concentrations by a factor of 0.70 to account for persistence of meteorological conditions and fluctuations in traffic volumes. A surface roughness of 3.21 meters was chosen, consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual. At each receptor location, concentrations were calculated for all wind directions, and the highest predicted concentration was reported, regardless of frequency of occurrence. These assumptions ensured that worst-case meteorology was used to estimate impacts. Using the CAL3QHCR model, hourly concentrations were predicted based on hourly traffic data and five years (2006-2010) of monitored hourly meteorological data. The data consist of surface data collected at LaGuardia Airport and upper air data collected at Brookhaven, New York, which are the nearest National Weather Surface data collection sites. All hours were modeled, and the highest resulting concentration for each averaging period is presented. Analysis Year The microscale analyses were performed for analysis years 2018, the first full year of operation for Phase 1, and 2038, the year by which the full build out of the proposed project would be complete. The analyses were performed both without the proposed project (the No-Action condition) and with the proposed project (the With Action condition). Background Concentrations Background concentrations are those pollutant concentrations originating from distant sources that are not directly included in the modeling analysis, which directly accounts for vehicular emissions on the streets within 1,000 feet and in the line of sight of the analysis site. Background concentrations are added to modeling results to obtain total pollutant concentrations at an analysis site. The 1-hour and 8-hour CO background concentrations used in this analysis, which were based on the second-highest concentrations recorded at the NYSDEC Queens College 2
7

Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Publication EPA-454/R-92-005.

15-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

monitoring station from 2007 to 2011, were 3.4 ppm and 2.0 ppm, respectively. The monitoring station at Queens College is the closest monitoring station to the project site that has available recorded data over a recent 5-year period. The PM10 24-hour background concentration of 44 g/m3 was based on the second-highest concentration, measured over the most recent three-year period for which complete data are available (20092011). The nearest NYSDEC monitoring site, at P.S. 19, was used. PM2.5 impacts are assessed on an incremental basis and compared with the PM2.5 interim guidance criteria. Therefore, a background concentration for PM2.5 is not included. Analysis Sites Two intersections were selected for microscale analysis (see Table 15-2). These sites were selected because they are the locations in the study area with the highest level of projectgenerated traffic and, therefore, where the greatest air quality impacts and maximum changes in concentrations would be expected. The potential impact from vehicle emissions of CO, PM10 and PM2.5 was analyzed for each of these intersections.

Table 15-2 Mobile Source Analysis Sites

Analysis Site 1 2 Location 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street Peak Periods Analyzed AM, Midday, and PM AM, Midday, and PM

Receptor Placement Multiple receptors (i.e., precise locations at which concentrations are predicted) were modeled at each of the selected sites; receptors were placed along the approach and departure links at spaced intervals. Receptors were placed at sidewalk or roadside locations near intersections with continuous public access and at elevated residential locations. Receptors in the analysis model for predicting annual average neighborhood-scale PM2.5 concentrations were placed at a distance of 15 meters from the nearest moving lane at each analysis location, based on the CEQR Technical Manual procedure for neighborhood-scale corridor PM2.5 modeling. PARKING GARAGE The proposed project is anticipated to include up to approximately 500 parking spaces, with 250 spaces in Phase 1 and another 250 spaces provided in Full Build, and they are assumed to be below grade in mechanically ventilated garages. Emissions from vehicles using the proposed garages could potentially affect ambient levels of CO in the immediate vicinity of the ventilation outlets. Projected parking facility capacity and the peak hour arrivals and departures were used to identify the parking garage most likely to result in impacts on local air quality. Currently, there are no mechanical designs for these proposed parking garages. Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that each of the proposed garages analyzed (one for each phase) would be vented through a single outlet at a height of approximately 10 feet. Representative receptor locations on the proposed buildings were also modeled. The vent face was modeled to directly discharge above the sidewalk, and receptors were placed along the sidewalks on both sides of the street (both near the vent and across the street) at a pedestrian height of six feet and at distances of seven feet and 44 feet from the vent to account for receptors near the vent and for receptors on

15-12

Chapter 15: Air Quality

the opposite side of a street. The vent was also analyzed assuming a sensitive receptor located at a height of six feet above the vent. The analysis of emissions from the outlet vents and their dispersion was performed using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. The CO concentrations were determined for the time periods when overall garage usage would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of vehicles would exit the facility. Departing vehicles were assumed to be operating in a cold-start mode, emitting higher levels of CO than arriving vehicles. Traffic data for the parking garage analysis were based on analyses described in Chapter 14, Transportation. Emissions from vehicles entering, parking, and exiting the garages were estimated using the EPA MOBILE6.2 mobile source emission model and an ambient temperature of 43F, as referenced in the CEQR Technical Manual. For all arriving and departing vehicles, an average speed of 5 miles per hour was conservatively assumed for travel within the parking garages. In addition, all departing vehicles were assumed to idle for 1 minute before proceeding to the exit. The concentration of CO within the garages was calculated assuming a minimum ventilation rate, based on New York City Building Code requirements of 1 cubic foot per minute of fresh air per gross square foot of garage area. To determine compliance with the NAAQS, CO concentrations were predicted for the maximum 8-hour and 1-hour averaging periods. To determine pollutant concentrations, the outlet vents were analyzed as virtual point sources using the methodology in EPAs Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, AP-26. This methodology estimates CO concentrations at various distances from an outlet vent by assuming that the concentration in the garage is equal to the concentration leaving the vent, and determining the appropriate initial horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients at the vent faces. A persistence factor of 0.70 was used to convert the calculated 1-hour average maximum concentrations to 8-hour averages, accounting for meteorological variability over the average 8hour period. Background CO concentrations and concentrations from on-street traffic were added to the parking garage modeling results to obtain the total ambient CO levels. STATIONARY SOURCES INTRODUCTION An analysis was performed to evaluate potential impacts associated with the proposed projects stationary emission sources. Since building specific design information is not yet available, for the purpose of this air quality analysis, it is conservatively assumed that natural gas-fired combustion equipment would be used to provide building heat and hot water and to provide a portion of campus electrical energy needs. The reasonable worst-case development scenario assumes that one or more central utility plants, including a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, would be constructed, as well as boiler plants at each of the buildings shown in Figure 1-7 of Chapter 1, Project Description. Central Utility PlantCombined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant The proposed project is assumed to include two central utility plants that would provide a portion of campus electrical energy needs. The analyzed plant(s) would have a maximum potential capacity of approximately 535 Kilowatts (KW) for Phase 1 (2018 analysis year) and 1,005 KW for Phase 2 (2038 analysis year) with a combined total of 1,540 KW for the Full Build. These are reasonably conservative maximum worst case estimates which do not account for renewable sources of energy, including potential applications of geothermal and photovoltaic panels. It was assumed that the plant(s) could be powered by natural gas-fired combustion 15-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

turbines or microturbines, gas-fired reciprocating engines, or fuel cells. For the purpose of this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that the central utility plant would include a CHP plant that would use either natural gas-fired combustion turbines or natural gas-fired reciprocating engines with a maximum heat input rating of 5.9 million British Thermal Units per hour (mmBtu/hr) for Phase 1 and 11.1 mmBtu/hr for Phase 2. Boiler Systems The proposed project would include natural gas-fired boiler systems to provide heat and hot water for campus buildings. The analysis assumed that each of the buildings in Phase 1 and Phase 2 would have individual boiler installations to provide heat and hot water except for the academic building to be constructed in Phase 1, which would have a domestic hot water boiler only. The space heating demand for this academic building would be met by electric heat pumps. Emergency Generators Emergency diesel-fueled generators would be installed in individual buildings to serve in the event of the loss of utility electrical power. The emergency generators would be tested periodically for a short period to ensure its availability and reliability in the event of a sudden loss in utility electrical power. These would not be utilized in a peak load shaving program, 8 minimizing the use of these generators during non-emergency periods. Emergency generators are exempt from NYSDEC air permitting requirements, but would require a permit or registration issued by NYCDEP, depending on the generator heat input capacity. The emergency generators would be required to meet EPAs interim Tier 4 regulations, which include stringent limits on emissions of regulated pollutants. The emergency generators would be installed and operated in accordance with NYCDEP requirements, as well as other applicable codes and standards. Potential air quality impacts from the emergency generators would be insignificant, since these would be used only for testing purposes on a periodic basis for limited durations outside of an actual emergency use. Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario Phase 1 (Analysis Year 2018) Phase 1 would include construction of an academic building, a corporate co-location building, a residential building, an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities, and a central utility plant. The analysis assumed that the CHP plant stack would be directed to the top of the adjacent residential building to avoid potential significant impacts on nearby campus buildings. The Phase 1 buildings would have individual boiler installations that would exhaust through a stack located on the top of the roof of each of these buildings. Full Build (Analysis Year 2038) Phase 2 would include construction of five additional buildings: one academic building, two corporate co-location buildings, and two mixed-use buildings one containing a mix of academic space at the base of a residential tower, and the second containing corporate co-location uses at the base with a residential tower above. To support this development, the proposed project could include an additional central utility plant to meet the increased electric needs of the full build out campus. A reasonable worst case scenario was modeled for the CHP plants in the Full Build which
8

The term peak load shaving refers to the use of customer-operated (non-utility) generators to produce electricity at the request of the local electrical utility in order to reduce the electrical demand during peak demand periods, particularly during the summer period.

15-14

Chapter 15: Air Quality

assumed that the first CHP plant would remain the same as modeled in Phase 1 and the additional CHP plant would be located on the south end of the project site to support the energy needs of buildings constructed in Phase 2. Since residential buildings are anticipated to be taller than other buildings on the project site, the second CHP plant exhaust would be directed to the top of the Phase 2 residential/mixed-use building located at the south end of the project site. For the boiler systems, the analysis assumed that the Phase 2 buildings would have individual boiler installations for the heat and hot water demands which would exhaust through individual stacks located on the top of the roof of each of these buildings. The analysis assumed that the exhaust stack for the academic space at the base of the residential building would be directed to the top of the residential building to avoid potential significant impacts on nearby campus buildings. Emission Estimates and Stack Parameters For the CHP plants, PM emission rates were developed using EPAs Compilations of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) 9 , based on the higher emission factors referenced for combustion turbines and reciprocating engines. Emission rates for NOx were based on EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements. The analysis assumed that the CHP plant would use either natural gas-fired combustion turbines or natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and the higher of the estimated emission rates from these two technologies was modeled to determine potential worst-case impacts. Stack parameters and emission rates for the CHP plant are summarized in Table 15-3.

Table 15-3 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Potential CHP Plants
Stack Parameters Stack height (ft) Stack Inside Diameter (ft) Stack Exit Velocity (ft/s) Stack Exhaust Temperature (F) NOx PM10 PM2.5 Combustion Turbine Phase 1 Phase 2 323(2) 295(3) 1.2 1.8 60 60 872 853 Emission Rate (g/s) (1) 0.1546 0.2913 0.0049 0.0092 0.0049 0.0092 Reciprocating Engine Phase 1 Phase 2 323(2) 295(3) 1.2 1.8 60 60 872 853 0.1987 0.0074 0.0074 0.3744 0.0139 0.0139

Notes: (1) The analysis assumed that the CHP plant would either use combustion turbines or reciprocating engines to model the worst case scenario. (2) The analysis assumed a 3-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building. (3) The analysis assumed a 15-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building.

For the boiler plants, NOx and PM emission rates were estimated based on emission factors from AP42 Tables 1.4-1 and 1.4-2. For the natural gas-fired boiler systems that would serve Phase 1 buildings, NOx and PM emission rates were estimated using peak monthly and annual heat input determined from energy modeling performed for the anticipated Phase 1 development. Short-term and annual heat inputs for Phase 2 buildings were estimated based on building size and building type in comparison to the Phase 1 energy modeling data. Stack parameters and emission rates for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildings are presented in Tables 15-4 and 15-5, respectively.
9

EPA, Compilations of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42. Table 3.1-2a for combustion turbines and Table 3.2-2 for reciprocating engines

15-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 15-4 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Potential Boiler Systems in Phase 1*
Stack Parameters Phase 1 Corporate Residential Academic Co-location Building 3 Building 1 Building 2 335,000 150,000 150,000 330(4) 63(2) 77(2) 2.0 1.0 1.0 19.5 25.6 25.6 300 300 300 Maximum Emission Rate (g/s) (3) 0.1379 0.0037 0.0346 0.0206 0.0014 0.0025 0.0105 0.0003 0.0026 0.0105 0.0003 0.0026 0.0016 0.0001 0.0002 Executive Education Center Building 4 170,000 164(2) 1.0 25.6 300 0.0445 0.0110 0.0034 0.0034 0.0008

Building size (gsf) Stack height (ft) Stack Inside Diameter (ft)(1) Stack Exit Velocity (ft/s) (1) Stack Exhaust Temperature (F) (1) NOx (1-hour) (3) NOx (Annual) PM10 (24-hour) (3) PM2.5 (24-hour) (3) PM2.5 (Annual)

Notes: * Figure 15-1 shows the proposed buildings and their associated numbers used in the air quality discussion. (1) The stack diameter, exhaust velocity, and exhaust temperature are based on a survey of New York City building boilers of similar size. (2) The analysis assumed a 3-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building. (3) Estimated emissions during the peak month; emissions for other months were determined based on the estimated energy usage from energy modeling. (4) The analysis assumed a 10-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building.

Table 15-5 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Potential Boiler Systems in Phase 2*
Stack Parameters Residential
Building size (gsf) Stack height (ft) Stack Inside Diameter (ft)(1) Stack Exit Velocity (ft/s) (1) Exhaust Temperature (F) (1) NOx (1-hour) (4) NOx (Annual) PM10 (24-hour) (4) PM2.5 (24-hour) (4) PM2.5 (Annual) Building 8 211,900 245(3) 1.5 23.7 300 0.0873 0.0117 0.0066 0.0066 0.0009

Phase 2 Academic
Building 6 154,000 104(2) 1 25.6 300 0.0355 0.0026 0.0027 0.0027 0.0002

Corporate Co-location
Building 10 140,000 97.5(3) 1 25.6 300 0.0323 0.0023 0.0025 0.0025 0.0002 Building 7 185,000 104(2) 1 25.6 300 0.0427 0.0031 0.0032 0.0032 0.0002

Building 12 Building 9 363,100(7) 266,000 295(5) 2386) 2 1 19.5 25.6 300 300 Maximum Emission Rate (g/s) 0.1495 0.0613 0.0200 0.0045 0.0114 0.0047 0.0114 0.0047 0.0015 0.0003

Notes: * Figure 15-1 shows the proposed buildings and their associated numbers used in the air quality discussion. (1) The stack diameter, exhaust velocity, and exhaust temperature are based on a survey of New York City building boilers of similar size. (2) The analysis assumed a 3-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building. (3) The analysis assumed a 10-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building. (4) Estimated emissions during the peak month; emissions for other months were determined based on the estimated energy usage from energy modeling. (5) The analysis assumed a 15-foot-tall stack on the roof of the proposed building. (6) The analysis assumed that exhaust would be directed to the roof of the adjacent residential building through a 3-foottall stack on the roof of the proposed building. (7) The building size (gsf) also includes the 75,000 gsf of the Corporate Co-location adjacent to Residential building 12.

15-16

3.7.13

EAST RIVER

WEST LOOP ROAD THE PORCH

GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL GARDEN PERENNIAL GARDEN CAMPUS LAWN ACADEMIC RESIDENTIAL CORPORATE CO-LOCATION ACADEMIC

STREET

6
ENTRY COURT CAMPUS PLAZA CAMPUS GARDEN

12 10

EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER

NORTH LOOP ROAD

Cornell NYC Tech

SOUTH LOOP ROAD PERENNIAL GARDEN THE STREET

11

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT CORPORATE CO-LOCATION CORPORATE CO-LOCATION

RESIDENTIAL ACADEMIC

7
CAMPUS LAWN

RESIDENTIAL

8 9

RESIDENTIAL GARDEN EAST LOOP ROAD

EAST RIVER

40

100 FEET

SCALE

Air Quality Building Nomenclature

Figure 15-1

Chapter 15: Air Quality

This analysis also accounts for the fact that heating equipment is not employed on a continuous basis year-round. The analysis used refined assumptions for energy consumption to better reflect a reasonable worst-case operating scenario. The methodology for this analysis was developed to address specific parameters of the proposed project, acting in consultation with DEP. The details of the analysis are described below. During the peak heating period in the winter, heating equipment is operated at the highest levels, at lower levels during the spring and fall, with little or no usage in the summer (cooling would be provided by electric powered HVAC equipment). The second tier analysis was performed based on examination of the monthly energy consumption developed using energy modeling10 and data specific to the Cornell NYC Tech Phase 1 buildings. The monthly energy consumption is highest for January. Therefore, for January, the emission rates estimated based on the peak monthly energy modeling data were used since they are representative of peak heating and hot water system utilization. Then, using January as a baseline, the daily heating emission rates for the other months were estimated, based on the ratio of monthly energy demand of each month to the January monthly demand. For the Phase 2 buildings, the energy modeling data was used based on the energy load for three modeled buildings types: residential, Executive Education Center, and corporate co-location (Phase 2 academic buildings were modeled using the Phase 1 corporate co-location energy consumption estimates). Energy consumption was determined based on the type of development, gross square footage and modeled energy consumption per square foot of development. The emission rates for each month were then input into the AERMOD model to determine maximum predicted pollutant incremental concentrations for Phase 1 and the Full Build. Dispersion Modeling The air quality modeling analysis was performed using the EPA-approved AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a state-of-the-art dispersion model, applicable to rural and urban areas, flat and complex terrain, surface and elevated releases, and multiple sources (including point, area, and volume sources). AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates current concepts about flow and dispersion in complex terrain, including updated treatments of the boundary layer theory, understanding of turbulence and dispersion, and includes handling of terrain interactions. The AERMOD model calculates pollutant concentrations from one or more points (e.g., exhaust stacks) based on hourly meteorological data, and has the capability of calculating pollutant concentrations at locations when the plume from the exhaust stack is affected by the aerodynamic wakes and eddies (downwash) produced by nearby structures. The analyses of potential impacts from exhaust stacks were made assuming stack tip downwash, urban dispersion and surface roughness length, with and without building downwash, and elimination of calms. The AERMOD model also incorporates the algorithms from the PRIME model, which is designed to predict impacts in the cavity region (i.e., the area around a structure which under certain conditions may affect an exhaust plume, causing a portion of the plume to become entrained in a recirculation region). The Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) program for the PRIME model (BPIPRM) was used to determine the projected building dimensions modeling

10

Anticipated Electric and Gas Loads for Cornell NYC Tech Campus memo, dated June 4, 2012 (based on energy modeling performed by AKRF).

15-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

with the building downwash algorithm enabled. The modeling of downwash from sources accounts for all obstructions within a radius equal to five obstruction heights of the stack. The analysis was performed both with and without downwash in order to assess the worst-case impacts at elevated receptors close to the height of the sources, which would occur without downwash, as well as the worst-case impacts at lower elevations and ground level, which would occur with downwash. Methodology for Estimating 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations 1-Hour average NO2 concentration increments from the proposed project were estimated using AERMOD models Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) module to analyze chemical transformation within the model. The PVMRM module incorporates hourly background ozone concentrations to estimate NOx transformation within the source plume. Ozone concentrations were taken from the NYSDEC Queens College monitoring station, which is the nearest ozone monitoring station and had complete five years (2007-2011) of hourly data available. An initial NO2 to NOx ratio of 10 percent 11 at the source exhaust stack was used for the boilers and 20 percent for the CHP which is considered representative for these source types. Total 1-hour NO2 concentrations were determined following methodologies that are accepted by the EPA as appropriate and conservative. The methodology used to determine the compliance of total 1-hour NO2 concentrations from the proposed sources with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 12 was based on adding the monitored background to modeled concentrations, as follows: hourly modeled concentrations from the sources were first added to the seasonal hourly background monitored concentrations; then the highest combined daily 1-hour NO2 concentration was determined at each receptor location and the 98th percentile daily 1-hour maximum concentration for each modeled year was calculated within the AERMOD model; finally the 98th percentile concentrations were averaged over the last five years. This refined approach is recognized as being conservative by EPA and the city. Meteorological Data The meteorological data set consisted of five consecutive years of meteorological data: surface data collected at LaGuardia Airport (20072011) and concurrent upper air data collected at Brookhaven, New York. The meteorological data provide hour-by-hour wind speeds and directions, stability states, and temperature inversion elevation over the 5-year period. These data were processed using the EPA AERMET program to develop data in a format that can be readily processed by the AERMOD model. The land uses around the site where meteorological surface data were available were classified using categories defined in digital United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps to determine surface parameters used by the AERMET program.

11

MACTEC for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Evaluation of Bias in AERMODPVMRM, June 2005 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/pvmrm_bias_eval.pdf; San Joaquin Valley, Recommended In-stack NO2/NOx Ratios, http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/ http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/ AirQualityMonitoring.htm#modeling_guidance 12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/Additional_Clarifications_AppendixW_HourlyNO2-NAAQS_FINAL_03-01-2011.pdf

15-18

Chapter 15: Air Quality

Sensitive Receptors and Receptor Placement Based on a review of land use maps and other information, a collection of sensitive receptors were identified within a half mile of the project site. Receptors within this area could potentially be affected by the proposed buildings stationary sources. The receptors identified include residential developments, schools, and open spaces. The receptors located in the surrounding area of the proposed project are presented in Table 15-6. A comprehensive receptor network (i.e., locations with continuous public access) was developed for the modeling analysis. Discrete receptors were analyzed, including locations on the proposed project sites and other nearby buildings, at operable windows, air intakes, and at publicly accessible ground-level locations. The model also included ground-level receptor grid in order to address more distant locations and to identify the highest ground-level impact. Background Concentrations To estimate the maximum expected pollutant concentration at a given receptor, the predicted impact must be added to a background value that accounts for existing pollutant concentrations from other sources that are not directly accounted for in the model. Annual average NO2 background concentration of 43.3 g/m3 was used from the nearest NYSDEC monitoring site, QCII, based on the second-highest concentration measured over the most recent five-year period (20072011). The 1-hour NO2 background concentration is not presented here since the AERMOD model determines the total 98th percentile 1-hour NO2 concentration at each receptor. For the PM10 24-hour averaging period, background concentration of 44 g/m3 was used from the nearest NYSDEC monitoring site, P.S. 19, based on the second-highest concentration measured over the most recent three-year period for which complete data are available (20092011). PM2.5 impacts are assessed on an incremental basis and compared with the PM2.5 interim guidance criteria. Therefore, a background concentration for PM2.5 is not used.

E. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Representative criteria pollutant concentrations measured in recent years at NYSDEC air quality monitoring stations nearest to the proposed project site are presented in Table 15-7. The values presented are consistent with the NAAQS format. For example, the 8-hour ozone concentration shown is the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations. The concentrations were obtained from the 2011 New York State Ambient Air Quality Report, the most recent report available. As shown in Table 15-7, the recently monitored levels did not exceed the NAAQS.

15-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 15-6 Sensitive Receptor Sites

Receptor Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Location 405-425 Main St Apartment Buildings Firefighters Field South Point Park 455-475 Main St Apartment Buildings Rivercross 531 Main St Eastwood 510-580 Main St Good Shepherd Community Center Roosevelt Island Senior Center Peter Detmold Park Chabad Preschool Beekman Pl Montessori School of NY Inc Cathedral High School Art and Design High School (M630) 419 East 58th Street Renanim Manhattan Preschool Manhattan Early Learning Center PS 183 Queensbridge Park Queensbridge Houses Western Queens Nursery School

Table 15-7 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data

Pollutant CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NO2 Location Queens College 2, Queens Queens College 2, Queens1 P.S. 19, Manhattan P.S. 19, Manhattan Queens College 2, Queens2 Units ppm g/m3 g/m3 g/m3 g/m3 Averaging Period 8-hour 1-hour 3-hour 1-hour 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 1-hour 3-month 8-hour Concentration 1.4 1.9 77.7 79.8 40 11.9 27 40.7 126.9 0.019 0.072 NAAQS 9 35 1,300 196 150 15 35 100 188 0.15 0.075

Lead J.H.S. 126, Brooklyn g/m3 Ozone CCNY, Manhattan ppm Notes: (1) The 1-hour value is based on a three-year average (2009-2011) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hr and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard. (2) The 1-hour value is based on a three-year average (2009-2011) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations. Source: NYSDEC, New York State Ambient Air Quality Report (2009-2011).

MODELED CO CONCENTRATIONS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As noted previously, receptors were placed at multiple sidewalk locations next to the intersections selected for the analysis. The receptor with the highest predicted CO concentrations was used to represent these intersection sites for the existing conditions. CO concentrations were calculated for each receptor location, at each intersection, for each peak period analyzed.

15-20

Chapter 15: Air Quality

Table 15-8 shows the maximum modeled existing (2011) CO 8-hour average concentrations at the receptor sites for the peak period when those concentrations are greatest. (No 1-hour values are shown since predicted values are much lower than the 1-hour standard of 35 ppm.) At all receptor sites, the maximum predicted 8-hour average concentrations are well below the national standard of 9 ppm.

Table 15-8 Modeled Existing (2011) 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations (ppm)

Receptor Site Location 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street Note: 8-hour standard (NAAQS) is 9 ppm. Time Period PM PM 8-Hour Concentration 2.6 3.3

F. THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR MOBILE SOURCES Carbon Monoxide CO concentrations without the proposed project were determined for the 2018 Phase 1 analysis year using the methodology previously described. Table 15-9 shows future maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentrations, including background concentrations, at the analyzed intersections in 2018 without the proposed project. The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations at any receptor location for each of the time periods analyzed.

Table 15-9 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations Without the Proposed Project (ppm)
Receptor Site Location 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street Note: 8-hour standard (NAAQS) is 9 ppm. Time Period PM PM 8-Hour Concentration 2.6 3.3

As shown in Table 15-9, 2018 CO concentrations without the proposed project are predicted to be well below the 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm. Particulate Matter PM10 concentrations without the proposed project were determined for the 2018 analysis year using the methodology previously described. Table 15-10 presents the future maximum predicted PM10 24-hour concentrations, including background concentrations, at the analyzed intersections in 2018 without the proposed project. The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations for the receptor locations.

15-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 15-10 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations Without the Proposed Project (g/m3)
Receptor Site 1 2 Note: NAAQS24Location 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street
3

Concentration 53.5 65.9

STATIONARY SOURCES Without the proposed project, it is assumed there would be no new buildings constructed by 2018 on the project site, and the hospital campus on the project site is expected to be vacant. Therefore, there would be no stationary sources of emissions. 2038 ANALYSIS YEAR MOBILE SOURCES Carbon Monoxide CO concentrations without the proposed project were determined for the 2038 analysis year, the year by which the full build out is expected to be completed, using the methodology previously described. Table 15-11 shows future maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentrations, including background concentrations, at the analyzed intersections in 2038 without the proposed project. The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations at any receptor location for each of the time periods analyzed.

Table 15-11 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations Without the Proposed Project (ppm)
Receptor Site 1 2 Note: Location 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street Time Period AM/PM AM/PM 8-Hour Concentration 2.6 3.6

8-hour standard (NAAQS) is 9 ppm.

As shown in Table 15-11, 2038 CO concentrations without the proposed project are predicted to be well below the 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm. Particulate Matter PM10 concentrations without the proposed project were determined for the 2038 analysis year using the methodology previously described. Table 15-12 presents the future maximum predicted PM10 24-hour concentrations, including background concentrations, at the analyzed intersections in 2038 without the proposed project. The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations for the receptor locations.

15-22

Chapter 15: Air Quality

PM10
Receptor Site 1 2 Note: NAAQS24-

Table 15-12 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average Concentrations Without the Proposed Project (g/m3)
Concentration 55.1 71.0

Location 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street

3

STATIONARY SOURCES The project site is not expected to change in the No-Action condition between 2018 and 2038. Without the proposed project, it is assumed there would be no new buildings constructed by 2018 on the project site, and the hospital campus on the project site is expected to be vacant. Therefore, there would be no stationary sources of emissions.

G. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) MOBILE SOURCES Carbon Monoxide CO concentrations with the proposed project were determined for the 2018 analysis year using the methodology previously described. Table 15-13 shows the future maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentrations with and without the proposed project at the intersections analyzed. (No 1-hour values are shown, since no exceedances of the NAAQS would occur and the de minimis criteria are only applicable to 8-hour concentrations; therefore, the 8-hour values are the most critical for impact assessment.) The values shown represent the highest predicted concentrations for any of the receptors analyzed and include the 8-hour CO ambient background concentration.

Table 15-13 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations With and Without the Proposed Project (ppm)
Receptor Site 1 2 Notes: Location Time Period 36th Avenue at PM Vernon Boulevard Astoria Boulevard at PM 21st Street 8-hour standard (NAAQS) is 9 ppm. 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) Without With the De the Project Project Increment Minimis 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.8

The results indicate that the proposed project would not result in any violations of the 8-hour CO standard. In addition, the increments in 8-hour average CO concentrations are small and consequently would not exceed the de minimis CO criteria. (The de minimis criteria are described above in Section C, Air Quality Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks.)

15-23

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Particulate Matter Using the methodology previously described, PM10 concentrations with and without the proposed project were determined for the 2018 analysis year. The values shown in Table 15-14 are the highest predicted concentrations for all receptors analyzed and include the PM10 ambient background concentration. The results indicate that the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would not result in PM10 concentrations that would exceed the NAAQS.

PM10

Table 15-14 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average Concentrations With and Without the Proposed Project (g/m3)
Without the With the Project Project 53.5 54.5 65.9 66.3 3 , for a 24-hour average.

Receptor Site Location 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street Note: The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10

Future maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentration increments were calculated so that they could be compared to the interim guidance criteria that would determine the potential significance of any impacts from the proposed project. Based on this analysis, the maximum predicted localized 24-hour average and neighborhood-scale annual average incremental PM2.5 concentrations are presented in Tables 15-15 and 15-16, respectively. PM2.5 concentrations without the proposed project are not presented, since impacts are assessed on an incremental basis.

Future (2018) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM2.5

Table 15-15 Increments (g/m3)

Receptor Site Location Increment 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.3 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street 0.1 3 3 Note: PM2.5 interim guidance criteria24-hour average, 2 g/m (5 g/m not-to-exceed value).

Table 15-16 Future (2018) Maximum Predicted Annual Average PM2.5 Increments (g/m3)
Receptor Site Location 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street 3 Note: PM2.5 interim guidance criteriaannual (neighborhood scale), 0.1 g/m . Increment 0.004 0.001

The results show that the annual and daily (24-hour) PM2.5 increments are predicted to be well below the interim guidance criteria. Therefore, there would be no potential for significant adverse impacts on air quality from vehicle trips generated by the proposed project for the 2018 analysis year. PARKING GARAGE The CO levels from the parking garage associated with Phase 1 of the proposed project, which is expected to include up to 250 parking spaces, were predicted using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. Based on the projected parking demand developed for the 15-24

Chapter 15: Air Quality

proposed project, the number of vehicles entering and exiting the garages would be greatest during the weekday PM (4:15 PM to 5:15 PM) peak hour. To account for emissions from local on-street traffic, the With Action weekday PM peak hour traffic along East Road was included in the analysis. The CEQR Technical Manual methodology was used to calculate concentrations. The maximum predicted CO concentration from a single garage, with ambient background, and on-street traffic levels would be 5.0 ppm for the 1-hour period, and 2.7 ppm for the 8-hour period at the building receptor. The maximum 1- and 8-hour contributions from the parking garage alone would be 1.6 ppm and 0.7 ppm, respectively. The maximum 1- and 8-hour contributions from on-street traffic would be 0.05 ppm for the 1-hour period, and 0.04 ppm for the 8-hour period. The values are the highest predicted concentrations for any time period analyzed. These maximum predicted CO levels are below the applicable CO standards and CEQR CO de minimis criteria. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts from the proposed projects parking garages are expected. STATIONARY SOURCES An AERMOD modeling analysis was performed to determine potential NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 impacts from the exhaust stack for the CHP plant and boiler systems associated with the proposed projects Phase 1 development. Maximum predicted concentrations of NO2 and PM10 were added to the design ambient background concentration and compared with the NAAQS, while incremental concentrations of PM2.5 were compared with the Citys interim guidance criteria. CHP Plant The analysis assumed that the CHP plant would exhaust through the top of the adjacent residential building to avoid potential significant adverse impacts on the nearby campus buildings (no potential off-site significant adverse impacts were identified). Maximum modeled concentrations of NO2 and PM10 are presented in Table 15-17, along with the relevant background concentrations, the total potential concentrations and the applicable NAAQS. The modeled concentrations presented below are the maximum of the combustion turbine and the reciprocating engines.

Table 15-17 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 CHP Plant (in g/m3)
Pollutant NO2 Averaging Period (1) 1-hour (2) Annual 24-hour Modeled Concentration -2.52 0.81 Background Concentration -43.3 44 Total Concentration 146.85 45.82 44.81 NAAQS 188 100 150

PM10 Notes: (1) The 1-Hour NO2 concentration presented here is the maximum of the total 98th percentile 1-Hour NO2
(2)

concentration predicted at any receptor using seasonal-hourly background concentrations. NO2 annual impacts were estimated using NO2 /NOx ratio of 0.75 as per EPA guidance.

The maximum concentrations were predicted at elevated receptors on other campus buildings. As shown in Table 15-17, the maximum potential increase in concentrations associated with the proposed projects CHP plant, when added to background concentrations for PM10 and NO2, would be less than the NAAQS.

15-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

PM2.5 incremental concentrations were also evaluated. As shown in Table 15-18, the maximum 24-hour incremental impact at any location would be less than the applicable interim guidance 3 3 criteria of . On an annual basis, the projected PM2.5 impacts would be less 3 than the . Therefore, the proposed projects CHP plant would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality, either at on campus buildings or at off-site receptor locations.

Table 15-18 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 CHP Plant (in g/m3)
Pollutant PM2.5 Averaging Period 24-hour Annual Maximum Increment 0.81 0.13 Incremental Threshold 2/5 0.3

Notes: PM2.5 interim guidance criteria24-hour average, 2 g/m3 (5 g/m3 not-to-exceed value) and annual average, 0.3 g/m3 not-to-exceed value.

To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings, the Phase 1 CHP Plant would have to meet certain measures, as follows: Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be directed to the roof of the adjacent residential building and have a minimum exhaust height of at least 323 feet above grade. Boiler Systems Maximum predicted concentrations of NO2 and PM10 from the Phase 1 boiler installations are presented in Table 15-19.

Table 15-19 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 Boiler Systems (in g/m3)
Pollutant NO2 PM10 Notes:
(1) (2)

Averaging Period 1-hour Annual 24-hour

Modeled Concentration -2.78 3.11

Background Concentration -43.3 44

Total Concentration 167.2 46.1 47.11

NAAQS 188 100 150

The 1-Hour NO2 concentration presented represents the maximum of the total 98th percentile 1-Hour NO2 concentration predicted at any receptor using seasonal-hourly background concentrations. NO2 annual impacts were estimated using NO2 /NOx ratio of 0.75 as per EPA guidance.

The maximum concentrations were predicted at elevated receptors on the residential campus building (no potential off-site significant adverse impacts were identified). As shown in Table 15-19, the maximum potential increase in concentrations associated with the proposed projects boiler systems in Phase 1, when added to background concentrations for PM10 and NO2, would be less than the NAAQS. PM2.5 incremental concentrations were also evaluated. As shown in Table 15-20, the PM2.5 24hour average and annual average incremental concentrations would not exceed the applicable interim guidance criterion of 5 g/m3 and 0.3 g/m3, at any location, respectively.

15-26

Chapter 15: Air Quality

Maximum Modeled PM2.5

Pollutant PM2.5 Notes:
(1)

Table 15-20 Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential Phase 1 Boiler Systems (in g/m3)
Maximum Increment 3.11 0.15 Incremental Threshold 2/5 0.3

Averaging Period (1) 24-hour Annual

24-hour PM2.5 interim guidance criterion, > 2 g/m3 (5 g/m3 not-to-exceed value), depending on the magnitude, frequency, duration, location, and size of the area of the predicted concentrations.

The air quality analysis also evaluated impacts with the 24-hour average interim guidance criterion of 2 g/m3 for discrete receptor locations on the proposed campus buildings. The assessment examined the magnitude, duration, frequency, and extent of the increments at locations where exposure above the 2 g/m3 threshold averaged over a 24-hour period could occur. The receptor location with the maximum continual 24-hour exposure was predicted on the proposed residential building at a height of approximately 166 feet above grade. At this location, the maximum 24-hour PM2.5 incremental concentration from the proposed project was predicted to be 3.11 g/m3, at a maximum annual frequency of four times per year, and at an average frequency of less than two times per year, over five years. On the same floor, there were locations with incremental concentrations exceeding 2 g/m3 on the north and west facades of the building. At these receptors, 24-hour incremental concentrations from the proposed project were predicted to exceed 2 g/m3 at a maximum frequency ranging from 1 to 5 times per year, with an average frequency of less than 2 times per year. One other floor on this building was found to have a location with incremental concentration exceeding 2 g/m3, on the north west corner, at a height of 176 feet above grade. At this receptor, 24-hour incremental concentrations from the proposed project was predicted to exceed 2 g/m3 at a maximum frequency of 1 time per year, with an average frequency of less than once per year. Overall, the magnitude, extent, and frequency of concentrations above 2.0 g/m3, due to the proposed projects stationary source of emissions in Phase 1, are very low. To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings or off-site receptor locations, the project would have to meet certain measures, as follows: Corporate Co-location Building Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be located at least 203 feet away from any operable windows or air intakes on buildings of a greater height. Executive Education Center Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be located at least 154 feet from any operable windows or air intakes on buildings of a greater height. Residential Building Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be located 10 feet above the tallest roof of the building. The pollutant concentrations predicted from the residential building and the academic building are well below the NAAQS and PM2.5 applicable criteria and therefore, do not require any specific measures regarding the placement of the exhaust stack on the roof of these buildings.

15-27

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) MOBILE SOURCES Carbon Monoxide CO concentrations with the proposed project were determined for the 2038 analysis year using the methodology previously described. Table 15-21 shows the future maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentrations with and without the proposed project at the intersections analyzed. (No 1-hour values are shown, since no exceedances of the NAAQS would occur and the de minimis criteria are only applicable to 8-hour concentrations; therefore, the 8-hour values are the most critical for impact assessment.) The values shown represent the highest predicted concentrations for any of the receptors analyzed and include the 8-hour CO ambient background concentration. The results indicate that the proposed project would not result in any violations of the 8-hour CO standard. In addition, the increments in 8-hour average CO concentrations are small and consequently would not exceed the de minimis CO criteria. (The de minimis criteria are described above in Section C, Air Quality Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks.)

Table 15-21 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations With and Without the Proposed Project (ppm)
Receptor Site 1 2 Notes: Location 36th Avenue at PM Vernon Boulevard Astoria Boulevard at PM 21st Street 8-hour standard (NAAQS) is 9 ppm. Time Period Without the Project 2.6 3.6 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) With the Project Increment 2.8 3.7 0.2 0.1 De Minimis 3.2 2.7

Particulate Matter Using the methodology previously described, PM10 concentrations with and without the proposed project were determined for the 2038 analysis year. The values shown in Table 15-22 are the highest predicted concentrations for all receptors analyzed and include the PM10 ambient background concentration. The results indicate that the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would not result in PM10 concentrations that would exceed the NAAQS.

PM10

Table 15-22 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average Concentrations With and Without the Proposed Project (g/m3)
Without the Project With the Project 55.1 56.5 71.0 71.7 3 , for a 24-hour average.

Receptor Site Location 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street Note: The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10

Future maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentration increments were calculated so that they could be compared to the interim guidance criteria that would determine the potential significance of any impacts from the proposed project. Based on this analysis, the maximum predicted localized 24-hour average and neighborhood-scale annual average incremental PM2.5 concentrations are

15-28

Chapter 15: Air Quality

presented in Tables 15-23 and 15-24, respectively. PM2.5 concentrations without the proposed project are not presented, since impacts are assessed on an incremental basis.

Table 15-23 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Increments (g/m3)
Receptor Site Location Increment 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 0.4 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street 0.2 3 3 Note: PM2.5 interim guidance criteria24-hour average, 2 g/m (5 g/m not-to-exceed value).

Table 15-24 Future (2038) Maximum Predicted Annual Average PM2.5 Increments (g/m3)
Receptor Site Location 1 36th Avenue at Vernon Boulevard 2 Astoria Boulevard at 21st Street 3 Note: PM2.5 interim guidance criteriaannual (neighborhood scale), 0.1 g/m . Increment 0.008 0.002

The results show that the annual and daily (24-hour) PM2.5 increments are predicted to be well below the interim guidance criteria. Therefore, there would be no potential for significant adverse impacts on air quality from vehicle trips generated by the proposed project for the 2038 analysis year. PARKING GARAGE The CO levels from the parking garage associated with the full build out of the proposed project were predicted for 2038 using the methodology set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual. Based on the projected parking demand developed for the proposed project, which is expected to include up to 500 parking spaces, the number of vehicles entering and exiting the garages would be greatest during the weekday PM (4:15 PM to 5:15 PM) peak hour. To account for emissions from local on-street traffic, the With Action weekday PM peak hour traffic along East Road was included in the analysis. The CEQR Technical Manual methodology was used to calculate concentrations. The maximum predicted CO concentration from a single garage, with ambient background, and on-street traffic levels would be 7.1 ppm for the 1-hour period, and 3.1 ppm for the 8-hour period at the building receptor. The maximum 1- and 8-hour contributions from the parking garage alone would be 3.7 ppm and 1.1 ppm, respectively. The maximum 1- and 8-hour contributions from on-street traffic would be 0.06 ppm for the 1-hour period, and 0.04 ppm for the 8-hour period. The values are the highest predicted concentrations for any time period analyzed. These maximum predicted CO levels are below the applicable CO standards and CEQR CO de minimis criteria. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts from the proposed projects parking garages are expected. STATIONARY SOURCES An AERMOD modeling analysis was performed to determine potential NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 impacts from the exhaust stack for the CHP plant and boiler systems associated with the proposed projects Full Build development.

15-29

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

CHP Plant The analysis assumed that the full build would have two CHP plants, one located at the north end of the project site as analyzed in Phase 1 (see Tables 15-17 and 15-18) and a second one located at the south end that could be constructed in Phase 2. The second CHP at the south end of the site was assumed to exhaust through the top of the adjacent residential building (residential building 12) to avoid potential significant impacts on the nearby campus buildings (no potential off-site significant adverse impacts were identified). Maximum modeled concentrations of NO2 and PM10 are presented in Table 15-25, along with the relevant background concentrations, the total potential concentrations, and the applicable NAAQS. The modeled concentrations presented below are the maximum of the combustion turbine and the reciprocating engines.

Table 15-25 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential CHP Plants in the Full Build (in g/m3)
Pollutant NO2 PM10 Notes:
(1)

Averaging Period (1) 1-hour (2) Annual 24-hour

Modeled Concentration -3.13 2.04

Background Concentration -43.3 44

Total Concentration 157.6 46.4 46.0

NAAQS 188 100 150

The 1-Hour NO2 concentration presented represents the maximum of the total 98th percentile 1-Hour NO2 concentration predicted at any receptor using seasonal-hourly background concentrations. (2) NO2 annual impacts were estimated using NO2/NOx ratio of 0.75 as per EPA guidance.

The maximum concentrations were predicted at elevated receptors on the neighboring residential campus building. As shown in Table 15-25, the maximum potential increase in concentrations associated with the proposed projects CHP plant, when added to background concentrations for PM10 and NO2, would be less than the NAAQS. PM2.5 incremental concentrations were also evaluated. As shown in Table 15-26, the maximum 24-hour incremental impact at any location would be less than the applicable interim guidance 3 criteria of . On an annual basis, the projected PM2.5 impacts would be less than the 3 .

Table 15-26 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentrations from the Proposed Projects Potential CHP Plants in the Full Build (in g/m3)
Pollutant PM2.5 Notes:
(1) PM2.5 interim guidance criteria24-hour average, 2 g/m3 (5 g/m3 not-to-exceed value) and annual average, 0.3 g/m3 not-to-exceed value.

Averaging Period 24-hour Annual

Maximum Increment 2.03 0.20

Incremental Threshold 2/5 0.3

The air quality analysis also evaluated impacts with the 24-hour average interim guidance criterion of 2 g/m3 for discrete receptor locations on the proposed campus buildings. The assessment examined the magnitude, duration, frequency, and extent of the increments at locations where exposure above the 2 g/m3 threshold averaged over a 24-hour period could 15-30

Chapter 15: Air Quality

occur. The receptor location with the maximum continual 24-hour exposure was predicted on the proposed Phase 2 residential/mixed-use building (known as Residential Building 12) at a height of approximately 274 feet above grade. At this location, the maximum 24-hour PM2.5 incremental concentration from the proposed project was predicted to be 2.03 g/m3, at a maximum annual frequency of one time per year, and at an average frequency of less than once per year, over five years. Overall, the magnitude, extent, and frequency of concentrations above 2.0 g/m3 due to the proposed projects Phase 2 CHP plant are very low. Therefore, the proposed projects CHP plant would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality, either on campus buildings or off-site receptor locations. To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings, the CHP plant to be constructed during Phase 2 would have to meet certain measures, as follows: Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be directed to the roof of the adjacent residential building and the exhaust stack(s) must be 15 feet above the tallest roof of the building. Boiler Systems Maximum predicted pollutant concentrations of NO2 and PM10 from the boiler installations in the Full Build are presented in Table 15-27.

Table 15-27 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from the Projects Boiler Systems in the Full Build (in g/m3)
Pollutant NO2 PM10 Notes:
(1) (2)

Averaging Period (1) 1-hour (2) Annual 24-hour

Modeled Concentration -3.65 3.11

Background Concentration -43.3 44

Total Concentration 173.9 46.9 47.11

NAAQS 188 100 150

The 1-Hour NO2 concentration presented represents the maximum of the total 98th percentile 1-Hour NO2 concentration predicted at any receptor using seasonal-hourly background concentrations. NO2 annual impacts were estimated using NO2 /NOx ratio of 0.75 as per EPA guidance.

The maximum concentrations were predicted at elevated receptors on the residential campus building (no potential off-site significant adverse impacts were identified). As shown in Table 15-27 the maximum potential increase in concentrations associated with the proposed projects boiler systems in the Full Build, when added to background concentrations for PM10 and NO2, would be less than the NAAQS. PM2.5 incremental concentrations were also evaluated. As shown in Table 15-28, the PM2.5 24hour average and annual average incremental concentrations would not exceed the applicable interim guidance criterion of 5 g/m3 and 0.3 g/m3, at any location, respectively.

15-31

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Maximum Modeled PM2.5

Pollutant PM2.5 Notes:
(1)

Table 15-28 Concentrations from the Projects Boiler Systems (in g/m3)
Incremental Threshold 2/5 0.3

Averaging Period (1) 24-hour Annual

Maximum Increment 3.11 0.20

24-hour PM2.5 interim guidance criterion, > 2 g/m3 (5 g/m3 not-to-exceed value), depending on the magnitude, frequency, duration, location, and size of the area of the predicted concentrations.

The air quality analysis also evaluated impacts with the 24-hour average interim guidance criterion of 2 g/m3 for discrete receptor locations on the proposed campus buildings. The assessment examined the magnitude, duration, frequency, and extent of the increments at locations where exposure above the 2 g/m3 threshold averaged over a 24-hour period could occur. The receptor location with the maximum continual 24-hour exposure was predicted on the proposed Phase 1 residential building (335,000 gsf) (known was Residential Building 3) as presented earlier under Phase 1 results. The maximum concentration and frequency of occurrence remains the same in the full build as in phase 1 which is 3.11 g/m3, at a maximum annual frequency of four times per year, and at an average frequency of less than two times per year, over five years. Six locations on the proposed Phase 2 Residential/Mixed-use Building (363,100 gsf) (known as Residential Building 12) also had incremental concentrations exceeding 2 g/m3 on the east and south faades at heights 256 feet and 274 feet, as well as at two locations on the west faade of the Phase 2 Residential Building ( 211,900 gsf) (known as Residential Building 8), at height of 106 feet. At these receptors, 24-hour incremental concentrations from the proposed project were predicted to exceed 2 g/m3 at a maximum frequency of 1 to four times per year, with an average frequency of less than once per year. Overall, the magnitude, extent, and frequency of concentrations above 2.0 g/m3 are very low. To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings, the project would have to meet certain measures as follows: Residential Building 8 ( 211,900 gsf) Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be located 10 feet above the tallest roof of the building and at least 163 feet away from any operable windows or air intakes on buildings of a greater height. Residential Building 12 ( 363,100 gsf) Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be located 15 feet above the tallest roof of the building. Corporate Co-location Building 10 (140,000 gsf) Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be located 10 feet above the tallest roof of the building and at least 179 feet away from any operable windows or air intakes on buildings of a greater height. Academic Building 9 ( 266,000 gsf) Fossil fuel-fired exhaust stack(s) must be directed to the roof of the adjacent residential building and located at least 168 feet away from any operable windows or air intakes on buildings of a greater height. 15-32

Chapter 15: Air Quality

H. CONCLUSIONS
MOBILE SOURCES The maximum predicted pollutant concentrations and concentration increments from mobile sources in Phase 1 and the Full Build of the proposed project would be below the applicable air quality impact criteria. Concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) due to project-generated traffic at intersections in the study area would not result in any violations of NAAQS. It was also determined that CO impacts from mobile sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed CEQR de minimis criteria, while incremental increases in fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would not exceed the citys current interim guidance criteria. Emissions due to the proposed projects parking garage were found to result in no significant adverse air quality impacts. STATIONARY SOURCES Based on detailed stationary source analyses, no potential for significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from the potential CHP Plants associated with the Phase 1 and Full Build development. To ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on nearby campus buildings, the project would have to meet certain measures on the placement of fossil fuel-fired exhaust stacks. For potential fossil fuel fired boiler systems, specific measures are proposed to ensure that boiler systems would not have significant adverse impacts. With these restrictions in place, no significant adverse air quality impacts are predicted from the proposed projects stationary sources. Prior to final design of Phase 1 buildings and during design of Phase 2, Cornell will consult with NYCDEP to determine the correct placement and height of stacks for buildings that may have undergone design or other changes; the lead agency will work with Cornell to ensure the appropriate commitments are stated in transactional documents (e.g., the ground lease between Cornell University and the City of New York).

15-33

Chapter 16: A. INTRODUCTION

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

As discussed in the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere are changing the global climate, resulting in wide-ranging effects on the environment, including rising sea levels, increases in temperature, and changes in precipitation levels. Although this is occurring on a global scale, the environmental effects of climate change are also likely to be felt at the local level. Through PlaNYC, the city has established sustainability initiatives and goals for greatly reducing GHG emissions and adapting to climate change in the city. The goal to reduce citywide GHG emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 was codified by Local Law 22 of 2008, known as the New York City Climate Protection Act (the GHG reduction goal). 1 The city is also engaged in several initiatives to assess potential local effects of global climate change and develop strategies to make existing and proposed infrastructure and development citywide more resilient to the effects of climate change. The CEQR Technical Manual recommends that a project resulting in 350,000 square feet of development or more and other energy-intense projects quantify project-related GHG emissions and assess the projects consistency with the citywide GHG reduction goal. The proposed Cornell NYC Tech project would result in the development of approximately 790,000 gross square feet (gsf) by 2018, the analysis year for Phase 1, and a total of approximately 2.13 million gsf by 2038, the analysis year for Full Build. Accordingly, a GHG consistency assessment is provided. The GHG emissions that would be generated as a result of the proposed projectand measures that would be implemented to limit those emissionsare presented in this chapter, along with an assessment of the proposed projects consistency with the citywide GHG reduction goal. The chapter also identifies measures that would be taken to increase the resilience of the proposed project to the potential effects of climate change. The proposed project would be consistent with the citywide GHG reduction goal and would incorporated measures that would make the project resilient to the projected effects of climate change.

B. POLICY, REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND BENCHMARKS FOR REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS

Countries around the world have undertaken efforts to reduce emissions by implementing both global and local measures that address energy consumption and production, land use, and other sectors. In a step toward the development of national climate change regulation, the U.S. has committed to reducing emissions to 17 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83 percent

Administrative Code of the City of New York, 24-803.

16-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

lower than 2005 levels by 2050 (pending legislation) via the Copenhagen Accord.2 Without legislation focused on this goal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and has already begun issuing regulations. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and USEPA have established GHG emissions standards for vehicles that will reduce vehicular GHG emissions over time. There are also regional, state, and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions. In 2009, Governor David Paterson issued Executive Order No. 24, establishing a goal of reducing GHG emissions in New York State by 80 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050, and creating a Climate Action Council tasked with preparing a climate action plan outlining the policies required to attain the GHG reduction goal (that effort is currently under way3). New York State also has regulations to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from power plants, as part of the commitment to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multistate agreement to reduce the amount of CO2 from power plants. Many local governments worldwide, including New York City, are participating in the Cities for Climate Protection campaign and have committed to adopting policies and implementing quantifiable measures to reduce local GHG emissions, improve air quality, and enhance urban livability and sustainability. New York Citys long-term sustainability program, PlaNYC 2030, includes GHG emissions reduction goals and identifies specific initiatives that can result in emission reductions and initiatives targeted at adaptation to climate change impacts. As mentioned, the PlaNYC 2030 goal to reduce citywide GHG emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 was codified by Local Law 22 of 2008. Projects that require a GHG assessment under CEQR are evaluated with this goal as the benchmark. A number of benchmarks for energy efficiency and green building design have also been developed. For example, the LEED system is a benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings that includes energy efficiency components. USEPAs Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote the construction of new energy efficient buildings, facilities, and homes and the purchase of energy efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, lighting, home electronics, and building envelopes.

C. METHODOLOGY
Although the contribution of any single project to climate change is infinitesimal, the combined GHG emissions from all human activity are believed to have a severe adverse impact on global climate. While the increments of criteria pollutants and toxic air emissions are assessed in the context of health-based standards and local impacts, there are no established thresholds for assessing the significance of a projects contribution to climate change. As required by the CEQR Technical Manual, this chapter presents the total GHG emissions potentially associated with the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project and identifies the measures that would be implemented and measures that are still under consideration to limit the emissions.

Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, letter to Mr. Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC, January 28, 2010. http://www.nyclimatechange.us/

16-2

Chapter 16: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

The analysis of GHG emissions that would be generated by the proposed project is based on the methodology presented in the CEQR Technical Manual. Emissions of GHGs associated with the proposed project have been quantified and include the following: Off-site emissions associated with on-site use of electricity, On-site emissions from heat and hot water systems and production of electricity, and Emissions from vehicle use attributable to the proposed project GHG emissions that would result from construction of the proposed project are discussed as well. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN GHGs are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. This property causes the general warming of the Earths atmosphere, or the greenhouse effect. The CEQR Technical Manual lists six GHGs that could potentially be included in the scope of an EIS: CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). This analysis focuses on CO2, N2O, and methane. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 emissions are associated with industrial processes and would not be emitted in significant amounts from the proposed project. To present a complete inventory of all GHGs, component emissions are added together and presented as CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissionsa unit representing the quantity of each GHG weighted by its effectiveness using CO2 as a reference. This is achieved by multiplying the quantity of each GHG emitted by a factor called global warming potential (GWP). GWPs account for the lifetime and the radiative forcing of each chemical over a period of 100 years (e.g., CO2 has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than SF6, and therefore has a much lower GWP). The GWPs for the main GHGs discussed here are presented in Table 16-1.

Table 16-1 Global Warming Potential (GWP) for Major GHGs

Greenhouse Gas
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Source:

100-year Horizon GWP

1 21 310 140 to 11,700 6,500 to 9,200 23,900

IPCC, Climate Change 1995Second Assessment Report.

CO2 is the primary pollutant of concern from anthropogenic sources. Although not the GHG with the strongest effect per molecule, CO2 is by far the most abundant and, therefore, the most influential GHG. CO2 is emitted from any combustion process (both natural and anthropogenic), from some industrial processes such as the manufacture of cement, mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products, from volcanic eruptions, and from the decay of organic matter. CO2 is removed (sequestered) from the lower atmosphere by natural

16-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

processes such as photosynthesis and uptake by the oceans. CO2 is included in any analysis of GHG emissions. Methane and nitrous oxide also play an important role since the removal processes for these compounds are limited and they have a relatively high impact on global climate change as compared to an equal quantity of CO2. These compounds are emitted during combustion of fuels, in vehicles, heating systems, and power plants, and are therefore included in the analysis. BUILDING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use for the proposed project were estimated using projections of energy consumption developed using energy modeling and data specific to the Cornell NYC Tech project. The emissions were estimated using an emission factor of 696.1 pounds of CO2e per megawatt-hour for grid electricity in New York City (as referenced in the 2011 inventory of GHG emissions for New York City) 4 and 53.2 kg per million Btu for natural gas combustion, from CEQR Technical Manual Table 18-2. For quantifying the potential benefits of on-site electricity generation with microturbines, the non-baseload emission factors from eGRID2012 were used. 5 The use of non-baseload factors for quantifying the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects is consistent with EPA guidance.5 The energy consumption data include some energy efficient design measures aimed at achieving LEED Silver certification, at a minimum. However, since not all detailed energy efficiency measures could be accounted for at this time, this estimate may be conservatively high. A summary of the projected energy consumption for the proposed project is presented in Table 16-2, assuming no electricity generation on-site.

Table 16-2 Annual Building Energy Consumption

Use Academic Corporate Co-location Residential Executive Education Center Central Utility Plant Total Phase 1 Electricity Natural Gas (MWh/year) (MMBTU/year) 3,656 975 2,133 1,189 3,650 13,082 2,196 7,814 427 238 12,062 23,298 Full Build Electricity Natural Gas (MWh/year) (MMBTU/year) 11,334 5,970 10,667 5,947 9,733 34,885 2,196 7,814 853 476 34,783 55,092

The proposed projects total combined energy intensity would be 81,542 Btu per square foot, which is substantially lower than the average intensities in New York City. 6 These efficiencies result from building design. Operational building emissions were also quantified assuming that at least 20 percent of the needed electricity would be generated on-site. Emissions from the use of additional natural gas that would be required, as discussed in Chapter 13, Energy, were accounted for.
4

Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mayors Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, PlaNYC2030, September 2011. USEPA, eGRID2012 Version 1, April 2012. CEQR Technical Manual Table 15-1.

5 6

16-4

Chapter 16: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS The number of annual weekday motorized vehicle trips by mode (cars, taxis, trucks) that would be generated by the proposed project was calculated using the transportation planning assumptions developed for the analysis presented in Chapter 14, Transportation. The assumptions used in the calculation include average daily weekday person trips and delivery trips, the percentage of vehicle trips by mode, and the average vehicle occupancy. Travel distances for locations other than Manhattan shown in Table 18-4 and Table 18-5 of the CEQR Technical Manual were used in the calculations of annual vehicle miles traveled by cars and taxis. The average one-way truck trip was assumed to be 38 miles, as per the CEQR Technical Manual. Table 18-6 of the CEQR Technical Manual was used to determine the percentage of vehicle miles traveled by road type and the mobile GHG emissions calculator was used to obtain an estimate of car, taxi, and truck GHG emissions attributable to the proposed project. USEPA estimates that the well-to-pump GHG emissions of gasoline and diesel are approximately 22 percent of the tailpipe emissions. 7 Although upstream emissions (emissions associated with production, processing, and transportation) of all fuels can be substantial and are important to consider when comparing the emissions associated with the consumption of different fuels, as per the CEQR Technical Manual guidance, the well-to-pump emissions are not considered in the analysis for the proposed project. The projected annual vehicle miles traveled, forming the basis for the GHG emissions calculations from mobile sources, are presented in Table 16-3.

Table 16-3 Estimated Total Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled for the Proposed Project
Phase 1 Passenger Road Type Vehicle Local 461,149 Arterial 945,355 Interstate/Expressway 899,240 Total 2,305,743 Taxi 134,246 275,204 261,779 671,228 Truck 208,681 427,797 406,929 1,043,407 Passenger Vehicle 1,208,642 2,477,717 2,356,853 6,043,212 Full Build Taxi 192,755 395,147 375,872 963,773 Truck 551,358 1,130,284 1,075,148 2,756,789

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Emissions associated with construction have not been estimated explicitly for the proposed project, but other similar analyses have shown that construction emissions (both direct and emissions embedded in the production of materials, including on-site construction equipment, delivery trucks, and upstream emissions from the production of steel, rebar, aluminum, and cement used for construction) would be equivalent to the total emissions from the operation of the buildings over approximately 3 to 10 years. EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT The proposed project would not change the citys solid waste management system. The proposed project would be built to LEED Silver certification specifications, which contain provisions regarding recyclables and construction waste management. Therefore, as per the CEQR
7

Environmental Protection Agency, MOVES2004 Energy and Emission Inputs, Draft Report, EPA420-P05-003, March 2005.

16-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Technical Manual, the GHG emissions from solid waste generation, transportation, treatment, and disposal are not quantified.

D. PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A summary of total annual GHG emissions by emission source type is presented in this section for Phase 1 and Full Build. The emissions are shown for a baseline scenario, in which all of the electricity for the campus is assumed to be supplied by the grid. The benefits of on-site electricity generation are quantified and discussed. 2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) Projected GHG emissions from Phase 1 are presented in Table 16-4 in metric tons of CO2e. Without the on-site production of electricity, the proposed project would emit 7,962 metric tons of CO2e per year in Phase 1, or approximately 10 kilograms (kg) of CO2e per gsf of development. On-site electricity generation using microturbines would reduce the total emissions from operational electricity and natural gas use shown in Table 16-4 by approximately 3 percent, not accounting for the benefits associated with the reduction in transmission and distribution losses. Grid losses in the region are estimated at 5.82 percent of the generated electricity. 8 The use of electricity generated using on-site solar panels would further reduce GHG emissions. With or without on-site electricity generation, the GHG emission intensity from the proposed project would be substantially lower than the emission intensity for comparable projects. 9

Table 16-4 GHG Emissions, Phase 1 (2018) (Metric Tons CO2e)

Scenarios With all Electricity from the Grid Sources: Cornell and AKRF, Inc. Emissions from Operational Electricity Use 3,808 Emissions from Operational Natural Gas Use 1,239 Mobile Source Emissions 2,914 Total Emissions 7,962

2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) Projected GHG emissions from Full Build are presented in Table 16-5 in metric tons of CO2e.

Table 16-5 GHG Emissions, Full Build (2038) (Metric Tons CO2e)
Scenarios With all Electricity from the Grid Sources: Cornell and AKRF, Inc. Emissions from Operational Electricity Use 10,982 Emissions from Operational Natural Gas Use 2,931 Mobile Source Emissions 6,140 Total Emissions 20,053

8 9

USEPA, eGRID2012 Version 1, April 2012. American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, GHG Reports. Scopes 1 + 2 gross emissions per 1,000 square feet for similar universities in the region, including SUNY Stony Brook, New York University, University of Connecticut, and University of Pennsylvania.

16-6

Chapter 16: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Without the on-site production of electricity, the proposed project would emit 20,053 metric tons of CO2e per year in Full Build, or approximately 9 kg of CO2e per gsf of development. On-site electricity generation using microturbines would reduce the total emissions from operational electricity and natural gas use presented in Table 16-5 by more than 3 percent. Additional reductions in GHG emissions would be achieved through electricity generated on-site using solar energy. With or without on-site electricity generation, the GHG emission intensity from the proposed project would be substantially lower than the emission intensity for comparable projects. 10 Cornell has agreed to achieve, at a minimum, the energy efficiency level required for LEED Silver certification under the New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System. To attain LEED certification under current LEED requirements, the proposed project buildings would need to exceed energy efficiency required by code by at least 10 percent. The proposed project building design would be aimed at attaining an energy efficiency of 30 percent better than the ASHRAE 90.1 standard, which is well above the minimum, LEED requirement. Furthermore, the Phase 1 academic building would be designed to an even higher level of energy efficiency, representing the approximate limit of readily-available technology to limit loads, a better building envelope, better controls, and geothermal heat pumps providing all heating and cooling needs, except for a small gas-fired hot water unit. Cornell NYC Tech would develop and operate the proposed project in a manner that maximizes energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation. These energy measures would ensure that Cornell NYC Techs operations consume less fossil-fuel derived energy than comparable New York City institutions. The energy conservation and other sustainable measures to be incorporated in the proposed project design, and the proposed on-site generation systems are described in the following section.

E. ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT WOULD REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS

The proposed project would include many sustainable design features that would lower GHG emissions. These features are discussed in this section, assessing the consistency of the proposed project with the GHG reduction goal as outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual. Cornell is committed to addressing environmental and sustainability issues on its Cornell NYC Tech campus. As a signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, Cornell University has a Climate Action Plan to reduce GHG emissions from its Ithaca campus to net zero by 2050. The proposed Phase 1 academic building would also be designed as a net zero energy building, while the design for all proposed buildings would attain LEED Silver certification, at a minimum. The features and other measures currently under consideration that would address GHG emissions are discussed in this section. BUILD EFFICIENT BUILDINGS Cornell has committed to achieving at least LEED Silver certification for each building constructed as part of the proposed project. LEED certification requires building energy efficiency that results in energy expenditure at least 10 percent lower than the baseline building
10

American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, GHG Reports. Scopes 1 + 2 gross emissions per 1,000 square feet for similar universities in the region, including SUNY Stony Brook, New York University, University of Connecticut, and University of Pennsylvania.

16-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

designed to meet minimum code requirements. As mentioned above, Cornell plans to exceed this minimum energy efficiency requirement for LEED and design buildings to be 30 percent more energy efficient than buildings meeting the ASHRAE 90.1 standard.11 Some energy efficiency measures were included in the energy modeling and are reflected in the results presented above; however, additional efficiency may be achieved due to sustainable project elements not yet designed and additional measures still under consideration. To attain the LEED certification, the designs for the proposed project will include: Energy efficient building envelopes to reduce cooling/heating requirements High-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or generators Green roofs or rooftop gardens, that would provide shade and remove heat from the air through evapotranspiration, reducing the building energy needs and providing other environmental benefits Features to optimize interior daylighting and minimize heat loss and solar gain (e.g., window glazing, superinsulation, building orientation) Motion sensors, lighting control, and climate control Efficient, directed exterior lighting A commitment to conduct third party building commissioning to ensure energy performance Building orientation that minimizes energy use Water conserving fixtures that exceed building code requirements Low impact development for stormwater design Water efficient landscaping Other measures likely to be part of the design include high-albedo roofing materials except on roofs with solar panels or green roofs, peak shaving or load shifting strategies, subject to acceptable life-cycle cost evaluation, efficient lighting and elevators, and Energy Star appliances, gray water reuse and/or collection and reuse of rainwater, and other sustainable design features. USE CLEAN POWER Cornell has also set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. This means that the campus collectively would generate enough renewable electricity to offset the cumulative electrical power, heating, and cooling energy use of the Phase 1 academic building on an annual basis. The systems that are being considered to generate energy on-site are briefly described below: A below-grade closed-loop geothermal well field would be developed to serve the academic building. Approximately 140 geothermal wells may be constructed during Phase 1. These wells would likely meet the cooling demand for the academic building. A feasibility study is underway to determine whether other heat rejection means (such as cooling towers) could be used to reduce the peak cooling needs and to determine the actual geothermal well capacity

11

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 Energy Standards for Buildings, is the guidance standard used by LEED to define energy standards for rating.

16-8

Chapter 16: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

from drill data. Cornell may expand the geothermal system as practical for the Full Build, depending on the success of the Phase 1 system. The utility plants would provide space for in-coming utility services and may also include equipment to supply power, chilled water, and heat to portions of the campus. As the campus develops, it may also evolve to contain (in this structure or added facilities) distributed energy generation units that would operate on natural gas (fuel cells, micro-turbines, or novel enginegenerators) to support the campus energy demand while reducing fossil fuel needs (and thus reducing the campus carbon footprint). An array of photovoltaic (PV) panels would be constructed above the roof of the academic building; PV panels may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building. PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures as needed to achieve the renewable electricity goals of the campus. ENHANCE AND USE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION The proposed project strongly supports the citys transit-oriented development and sustainable transportation objective. The proposed project would be designed to support walking and bicycling. Much of the population served by the proposed project would both live and work on campus, minimizing the need for vehicle commutes and the associated GHG emissions. Mass transit options would include the F subway line, the Q102 bus, the Roosevelt Island Red Bus, and the Tramway. The proposed project will also consider the following actions for inclusion: Develop multi-use paths to and through the proposed site. Develop a parking management program to minimize parking requirements, such as parking cash-out, parking charges, preferential carpool or vanpool parking, and limiting parking available to employees. Develop and implement a marketing/information program that includes posting and distribution of ride sharing transit information. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex-time. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Implement roadway improvements to improve traffic flow. Implement traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. An additional measure that may be further investigated is the provision of charging stations for electric vehicles. REDUCE CONSTRUCTION OPERATION EMISSIONS Construction would include a diesel emissions reduction program including diesel particulate filters for large construction engines and other measures (see Chapter 20, Construction). These measures would reduce particulate matter emissions; while particulate matter is not included in the list of standard greenhouse gasses (Kyoto gases), recent studies have shown that black carbona constituent of particulate mattermay play an important role in climate change.

16-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

USE BUILDING MATERIALS WITH LOW CARBON INTENSITY The following would be included to minimize GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of construction materials: Building materials with recycled content. Building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region. Efforts to divert construction waste from landfill. In addition, building materials and products that are not contaminated would be reused to the extent practicable. Wood that is locally produced and/or certified in accordance with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the Forestry Stewardship Councils Principles and Criteria would likely be used. The use of cement replacements (slag, fly-ash, silica fume, calcined clay, interground limestone) would also be likely.

F. ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Currently, standards and a framework for analysis of the effects of climate change on a proposed project are not included in CEQR. However, because a portion of the proposed site is located within the current 500-year floodplain and the likely future 100-year floodplain, the DEIS does consider potential effects of global climate change on the proposed project. In New York City, the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) has prepared a set of climate change projections for the New York City region and has suggested approaches to create an effective adaptation program for critical infrastructure. 12 The NPCC includes leading climatologists, sea-level rise specialists, adaptation experts, and engineers, as well as representatives from the insurance and legal sectors. The NPCC projects that sea levels are likely to increase by 12 to 23 inches by the end of the century, with possible increase up to 55 inches in the event of rapid ice melt. The New York City Green Code Task force has also recommended strategies for addressing climate change resilience in buildings and for improving stormwater management. 13 Some of the recommendations call for further study, while others could serve as the basis for revisions to building code requirements. Notably, one recommendation was to develop flood maps that reflect projected sea-level rise and increases in coastal flooding through 2080 and to require new developments within the projected future 100-year floodplain to meet the same standards as buildings in the current 100-year flood zone. The city is currently working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) using the recently acquired detailed Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. As stated above, standards and a framework for analysis of the effects of climate change on a proposed project currently are not included in the CEQR Technical Manual. While qualitative guidance on addressing the effect of climate change is in the process of being developed at the national, state, and local levels, no specific requirements for development projects are available at this time. Cornell is voluntarily evaluating and implementing measures that would make the proposed project resilient to the projected effects of climate change. In addition, climate change considerations may be incorporated into

12

New York City Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, May 2010. New York City Green Codes Task Force, Recommendations to New York City Building Code, February 2010.

13

16-10

Chapter 16: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

state and local laws prior to the construction of the proposed project, and any future development would be constructed to meet or exceed the codes in effect at the time of construction. RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE The current FEMA 100-year floodplain is the only regulatory standard relating to elevation of new development. As stated above, since a portion of the proposed site is located within the current 500year floodplain and likely within the future 100-year floodplain, climate change considerations and measures that would be implemented to increase climate resilience are discussed. On the eastern and western sides of the study area, the current 100-year floodplain (i.e., the area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year) reaches beyond the seawall and covers portions of West Road and East Road. The project site, however, is almost entirely outside of the 100-year floodplain zone. The 500-year floodplain zone (i.e., the area with a 0.2 percent chance of flooding each year) extends into the project site towards its midpoint where the elevation is lowest (see Figure 9-2). The FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFE) maps 14 indicate that the eastern and western portions of the project site are within the Advisory 1% Base Flood Elevation (i.e., 100 year flood elevation, 13 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88, which converts to 14.1 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD29] and 16.4 feet Belmont Island Datum15), and much of the project sites center is below the Advisory 0.2%. Base Flood Elevation (i.e., 500-year flood elevation). The ABFE for the 100-year flood elevation is approximately 4 feet higher than the currently applicable 100-year flood elevation at the western and eastern edges of the study area. The project proposes to set the minimum building finished floor elevation (FFE) for the main entry level to 17.4 feet, referenced to the Belmont Island Datum, used for Roosevelt Island (basement and service entries could be lower). 16 In select locations where existing elevations are higher, Cornell is considering FFE of 21 feet, referenced to the Belmont Island Datum. By designing the FFE to be at least one to five feet above the ABFE 100-year flood elevation, the project would be resilient to sea level rise within the likely range of rise projected by the NPCC by end of century. It is important to note that these elevation recommendations are based on preliminary considerations and that the final elevations may not conform to these elevations, since the elevations currently anticipated exceed code requirements. The factors contributing to ongoing decision making regarding where to set the projects FFE hinges on the New York City Department of Buildings requirement of being above the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation and further review of studies of the effect of climate change and storm surge. If the recommended elevations were implemented, sensitive uses and critical infrastructure would be more resilient to the likely future 1-in-100 flood levels when accounting for this potential additional flood elevation. In addition, any potentially hazardous materials, such as fuels would be stored in areas that would not be subject to flooding with the projected effects of climate change.

14

The FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) for the portion of New York City that includes the project site was released for review on February 25, 2013. Belmont Island Datum is the datum used for Roosevelt Island. Philip Habib & Associates, Memorandum, Cornell NYC Considerations for Determination of First Floor Elevation, March 7, 2012.

15 16

16-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

G. CONCLUSIONS
The building energy use and vehicle use associated with the proposed project would result in up to approximately 8 thousand metric tons of CO2e emissions per year in Phase 1 and up to approximately 20 thousand metric tons of CO2e in Full Build. The GHG emissions intensity of 9 to 10 kg CO2e per gsf, would be substantially lower than the emissions intensity for similar uses.17 The proposed project would result in the development of a high-technology, sustainable campus that is energy efficient and uses low-carbon and renewable power sources, which would further reduce the emissions from the proposed project, quoted above. The proposed site would be walkable and supportive of transit and non-motorized commuting and would strive to minimize GHG emissions from construction activity and emissions associated with the production and transport of construction materials. The proposed projects design includes many features aimed at reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions, and would be consistent with the citys citywide GHG reduction goal. By designing the FFE to be at least one to five feet above the ABFE 100-year flood elevation, the project would be resilient to sea level rise within the likely range of rise projected by the NPCC by end of century.

17

American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, GHG Reports. Scopes 1 + 2 gross emissions per 1,000 square feet for similar universities in the region, including SUNY Stony Brook, New York University, University of Connecticut, and University of Pennsylvania.

16-12

Chapter 17:

Noise

A. INTRODUCTION
The project site is located on Roosevelt Island in the East River, which has relatively low noise levels due to its limited roadway network and distance from Manhattan and Queens. While the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge and aircraft traffic overhead contribute to noise levels, it is a moderately quiet area, with predominantly residential and open space land uses. The noise analysis presented in this chapter focuses on the traffic-generated changes in noise that would result from the operation of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project once construction is complete, the levels of window/wall attenuation that would be necessary at project buildings to achieve acceptable interior noise levels, the acceptability of ambient noise levels in the publicly accessible open spaces on the project site, and noise generated by the project buildings (e.g., mechanical). Noise effects during construction of the proposed project are analyzed and discussed separately in Chapter 20, Construction. As detailed in this chapter, traffic generated by the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant increases in noise levels. To meet City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual (June 2012) interior noise level requirements, the analysis recommends up to 28 A-weighted decibels (dBA) of building attenuation for some project buildings. Noise levels in the newly created open spaces would be greater than the 55 dBA L10(1) level described in the CEQR Technical Manual, but would be comparable to other parks in New York City. Mechanical equipment associated with project buildings would be designed to meet all applicable noise regulations, and would therefore not have the potential to create a significant noise impact.

B. ACOUSTICAL FUNDAMENTALS
Sound is a fluctuation in air pressure. Sound pressure levels are measured in units called decibels (dB). The particular character of the sound that we hear (a whistle compared with a French horn, for example) is determined by the speed, or frequency, at which the air pressure fluctuates, or oscillates. Frequency defines the oscillation of sound pressure in terms of cycles per second. One cycle per second is known as 1 Hertz (Hz). People can hear over a relatively limited range of sound frequencies, generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz, and the human ear does not perceive all frequencies equally well. High frequencies (e.g., a whistle) are more easily discernable and therefore more intrusive than many of the lower frequencies (e.g., the lower notes on the French horn). A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA) In order to establish a uniform noise measurement that simulates peoples perception of loudness and annoyance, the decibel measurement is weighted to account for those frequencies most audible to the human ear. This is known as the A-weighted sound level, or dBA, and it is the

17-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

descriptor of noise levels most often used for community noise. As shown in Table 17-1, the threshold of human hearing is defined as 0 dBA; very quiet conditions (as in a library, for example) are approximately 40 dBA; levels between 50 dBA and 70 dBA define the range of noise levels generated by normal daily activity; levels above 70 dBA would be considered noisy, and then loud, intrusive, and deafening as the scale approaches 130 dBA.

Table 17-1 Common Noise Levels

Sound Source (dBA) Military jet, air raid siren 130 Amplified rock music 110 Jet takeoff at 500 meters 100 Freight train at 30 meters 95 Train horn at 30 meters 90 Heavy truck at 15 meters 8090 Busy city street, loud shout 80 Busy traffic intersection 7080 Highway traffic at 15 meters, train 70 Predominantly industrial area 60 Light car traffic at 15 meters, city or commercial areas, or 5060 residential areas close to industry Background noise in an office 50 Suburban areas with medium-density transportation 4050 Public library 40 Soft whisper at 5 meters 30 Threshold of hearing 0 Note: A 10 dBA increase in level appears to double the loudness, and a 10 dBA decrease halves the apparent loudness. Sources: Cowan, James P. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1994. Egan, M. David, Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS The average ability of an individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented (see Table 17-2). Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most listeners, whereas 10 dBA changes are normally perceived as doublings (or halvings) of noise levels. These guidelines permit direct estimation of an individuals probable perception of changes in noise levels.

Table 17-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels

Change (dBA) Human Perception of Sound 2-3 Barely perceptible 5 Readily noticeable 10 A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 A dramatic change 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, June 1973.

17-2

Chapter 17: Noise

SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS Because the sound pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment and very few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise over extended periods have been developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over a specific time period as if it had been a steady, unchanging sound. For this condition, a descriptor called the equivalent sound level, Leq, can be computed. Leq is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and time period (e.g., 1 hour, denoted by Leq(1), or 24 hours, denoted as Leq(24)), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. Statistical sound level descriptors such as L1, L10, L50, L90, and Lx , are used to indicate noise levels that are exceeded 1, 10, 50, 90 and x percent of the time, respectively. The relationship between Leq and levels of exceedance is worth noting. Because Leq is defined in energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is not simply related to the levels of exceedance. If the noise fluctuates very little, Leq will approximate L50 or the median level. If the noise fluctuates broadly, the Leq will be approximately equal to the L10 value. If extreme fluctuations are present, the Leq will exceed L90 or the background level by 10 or more decibels. Thus the relationship between Leq and the levels of exceedance will depend on the character of the noise. In community noise measurements, it has been observed that the Leq is generally between L10 and L50. For the analysis presented in this chapter, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. Leq(1) is the noise descriptor recommended by the CEQR Technical Manual for vehicular traffic noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels. L10(1) is the noise descriptor used in the CEQR noise exposure standards for vehicular traffic noise. Hourly statistical noise levels (particularly L10 and Leq levels) were used to characterize the relevant noise sources and their relative importance at each receptor location.

C. NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has set external noise exposure standards; these standards are shown in Table 17-3. Noise exposure is classified into four categories: acceptable, marginally acceptable, marginally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. NEW YORK CEQR NOISE CRITERIA The CEQR Technical Manual defines attenuation requirements for buildings based on exterior noise level (see Table 17-4, Required Attenuation Values to Achieve Acceptable Interior Noise Levels). Recommended noise attenuation values for buildings are designed to maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or lower for residential, hotel, and academic uses and 50 dBA or lower for commercial uses. These attenuation values are determined based on exterior L10(1) noise levels.

17-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 17-3 Noise Exposure Guidelines For Use in City Environmental Impact Review1
Time Period Acceptable General External Exposure L10 55 dBA L10 7 AM to 10 PM 10 PM to 7 AM L10 L10 55 dBA 60 dBA ---------65 dBA 55 dBA Marginally Acceptable General External Exposure Marginally Unacceptable General External Exposure Clearly Unacceptable General External Exposure Airport3 Exposure Airport3 Exposure Airport3 Exposure Airport3 Exposure ---------- Ldn 75 dBA ----------

Receptor Type 1. Outdoor area requiring serenity and quiet2 2. Hospital, Nursing Home 3. Residence, residential hotel or motel

---------- 60 < Ldn

6. Industrial, public areas only4 Note 4 Notes: (i) In addition, any new activity shall not increase the ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more; 1 Measurements and projections of noise exposures are to be made at appropriate heights above site boundaries as given by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards; all values are for the worst hour in the time period. 2 Tracts of land where serenity and quiet are extraordinarily important and serve an important public need and where the preservation of these qualities is essential for the area to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks or open spaces dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. Examples are grounds for ambulatory hospital patients and patients and residents of sanitariums and old-age homes. 3 One may use the FAA-approved Ldn contours supplied by the Port Authority, or the noise contours may be computed from the federally approved INM Computer Model using flight data supplied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 4 External Noise Exposure standards for industrial areas of sounds produced by industrial operations other than operating motor vehicles or other transportation facilities are spelled out in the New York City Zoning Resolution, Sections 42-20 and 42-21. The referenced standards apply to M1, M2, and M3 manufacturing districts and to adjoining residence districts (performance standards are octave band standards). Source: New York City Department of Environmental Protection (adopted policy 1983).

Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM) Note 4

Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM) Note 4

Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM) Note 4

(1) 65 < Ldn

4. School, museum, library, court, house of worship, transient hotel or motel, public meeting room, auditorium, out-patient public health facility 5. Commercial or office

---------- Ldn

Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM)

55 < L10 65 dBA 65 < L10 70 dBA 55 < L10 70 dBA Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM)

65 < L10 80 dBA 70 < L10 80 dBA 70 < L10 80 dBA Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM)

L10 > 80 dBA Ldn 70 dBA, (II) 70 L10 > 80 dBA L10 > 80 dBA Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM) Same as Residential Day (7 AM-10 PM) Note 4

Table 17-4 Required Attenuation Values to Achieve Acceptable Interior Noise Levels
Marginally Unacceptable Noise Level With Proposed Project 70 < L10 73 73 < L10 76 76 < L10 78 78 < L10 80 Clearly Unacceptable 80 < L10

(I) (II) (III) (IV) AttenuationA 28 dB(A) 31 dB(A) 33 dB(A) 35 dB(A) 36 + (L10 80 )B dB(A) Note: A The above composite window-wall attenuation values are for residential, hotel, and academic uses. Commercial office spaces and meeting rooms would be 5 dB(A) less in each category. All the above categories require a closed window situation and hence an alternate means of ventilation. B Required attenuation values increase by 1 dB(A) increments for L10 values greater than 80 dBA. Source: New York City Department of Environmental Protection

17-4

65 dBA ----------

Chapter 17: Noise

IMPACT DEFINITION As recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual, this study uses the following criteria to define a significant adverse noise impact: Whether the project would result in an increase of 5 dBA or more in With Action Leq(1) noise levels at sensitive receptors (including residences, play areas, parks, schools, libraries, and houses of worship) over those calculated for the No-Action condition, if the No-Action levels are less than 60 dBA Leq(1) and the analysis period is not a nighttime period. Whether the project would result in an increase of 4 dBA or more in With Action Leq(1) noise levels at sensitive receptors over those calculated for the No-Action condition, if the NoAction levels are 61 dBA Leq(1) and the analysis period is not a nighttime period. Whether the project would result in an increase of 3 dBA or more in With Action Leq(1) noise levels at sensitive receptors over those calculated for the No-Action condition, if the NoAction levels are greater than 62 dBA Leq(1) and the analysis period is not a nighttime period. Whether the project would result in an increase of 3 dBA or more in With Action Leq(1) noise levels at sensitive receptors over those calculated for the No-Action condition, if the analysis period is a nighttime period (defined by the CEQR Technical Manual criteria as being between 10 PM and 7 AM).

D. NOISE PREDICTION METHODOLOGY

STUDY AREA The study area for the noise analysis includes the project site and its immediately surrounding areas on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island. The study area also includes locations along roadways leading to and from the project site. Specifically, the mobile source screening analysis includes all of the intersections analyzed in the traffic studies presented in Chapter 14, Transportation, both on the Island and in Queens, while the more detailed mobile source noise analysis focused on roadways on the Island closer to the project site that would have more potential to be affected by project generated traffic. Locations on Roosevelt Island north of the Roosevelt Island Bridge were not included in the study area because all vehicular traffic traveling to and from the project site would enter and leave the Island via that bridge and travel only on Main Street and West Road between the project site and the bridge. The building attenuation analysis focuses on the project site itself. BASELINE NOISE MONITORING (EXISTING CONDITIONS) SELECTION OF NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Noise monitoring locations (i.e., receptor sites) were selected to obtain baseline noise measurements, as follows: Locations of noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, churches, schools) on the anticipated traffic routes that project-generated traffic would use to travel to and from the project site. Locations adjacent to and on the project site to determine the appropriate level of building attenuation required to satisfy CEQR interior noise level criteria and to compare noise levels at the proposed projects newly created open spaces with CEQR guidelines.

17-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

A total of eight receptor sites were selected (see Figure 17-1). Table 17-5 lists the location of each noise receptor site, the existing and proposed land use at that receptor site, and the analysis or analyses with which each site is associated.

Table 17-5 Noise Receptor Locations

Receptor 1 Location North Loop Road between East and West Loop Roads (elevated, 3rd story rooftop)
East Loop Road between North Loop Road and South Loop Road

Associated Land Use Future Academic Future Residential Open Space / Future Academic / Future Residential Open Space / Future Academic / Future Residential Future Academic / Future Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential / School

Purpose Building Attenuation Analysis Building Attenuation Analysis Impact Assessment Future Open Space Analysis Building Attenuation Analysis Impact Assessment Building Attenuation Analysis Impact Assessment Impact Assessment Impact Assessment Impact Assessment

(waterfront promenade) 3 4 5 6 7 8
South Loop Road between East and West Loop Roads North Loop Road between East and West Loop Roads West Road north of Tramway Plaza West Road north of Subway Station Main Street north of Tramway Plaza Main Street south of Roosevelt Island Bridge

The receptor sites include representative noise-sensitive locations, principally locations with residential, open space, and institutional land uses, and locations where maximum project impacts would be expected. At other locations, particularly locations outside the study area, project-generated traffic would be less and/or would constitute a small portion of the existing and/or No-Action traffic volumes, and consequently would not have the potential to result in a significant increase in noise levels. SELECTION OF ANALYSIS TIME PERIODS Three weekday time periodsAM (7 to 9 AM), midday (Noon to 2 PM), and PM (4 to 6 PM) were selected for analysis since these are the time periods when the proposed project would be expected to have maximum traffic generation and/or the maximum potential for significant adverse noise impacts based on the traffic studies presented in Chapter 14, Transportation. NOISE MONITORING Existing noise levels were determined at the receptor sites for each analysis time period, by performing field measurements. At receptor sites 2 through 8, 20-minute noise measurements were made for three weekday time periods to determine existing noise levels. At receptor 1, noise levels were measured continuously between 7:40 AM and 7 PM. Measurements were taken on October 25, 2011; June 12, 2012; June 13, 2012; and June 14, 2012. Measurements were performed using Brel & Kjr Sound Level Meters (SLMs) Type 2260, Brel & Kjr Sound Level Calibrators Type 4231, and Brel & Kjr -inch microphones Type 4189. The Brel & Kjr meters are Type 1 Sound Level Meters. The SLMs had factory 17-6

10.9.12

RIVERCROSS BUILDINGS

ROOSEVELT LANDING

BLACKWELL HOUSE

RIVER WALK SUBWAY STATION

LS

6
12.4

STEAM PLANT
5 7

TRAM STATION

VP VP VP

VP VP

VPVP VP VP VP

QUEENSB

GE ORO BRID

4 1

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

2 3
0 200 400 FEET

Noise Receptor Elevated Noise Receptor

SCALE

Noise Receptor Location

Cornell NYC Tech

N
Figure 17-1

Chapter 17: Noise

calibration dates within one year of the dates of the measurements. The instruments were mounted on a tripod at a height of 5 feet above the ground, except for site 1. The meters were calibrated before and after readings using Brel & Kjr Type 4231 sound level calibrators with the appropriate adaptors. The data were digitally recorded by the SLMs and displayed at the end of the measurement period in units of dBA. Measured quantities included Leq, L1, L10, L50, and L90. Windscreens were used during all sound measurements except for calibration. All measurement procedures were based on the guidelines listed in ANSI Standard S1.13-2005. During the noise measurements, meteorological data was also noted, with wind speeds not exceeding 12 mph, humidity not exceeding 80 percent, no precipitation, and temperatures between -10 degrees Celsius and 50 degrees Celsius. RESULTS OF BASELINE NOISE MONITORING At all of the receptor sites in the study area, the dominant operational noise sources were observed to be vehicular traffic on adjacent and nearby streets and roadways, along with vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge. Noise from the FDR Drive also contributed to measured noise levels. Noise from other sources, such as nearby industrial or institutional uses, are limited and do not contribute significantly to local ambient noise levels. Details of the baseline measurements are provided in Section E Existing Conditions, below. DETERMINATION OF FUTURE NOISE LEVELS Future noise levels were calculated using either a proportional modeling technique or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5. The proportional modeling technique was used as a screening tool to estimate changes in noise levels. At locations where proportional modeling screening indicated the potential for significant adverse noise impacts, the TNM was used to obtain more detailed results. Both the proportional modeling screening technique and the TNM are analysis methodologies recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual. Specifically, future noise levels at the receptor locations were determined as follows: Using the results of the traffic studies presented in Chapter 14, Transportation, a screening analysis was performed using the proportional model to identify locations with the potential to experience a significant increase in noise levels between the No-Action and With Action conditions in each analysis year (i.e., 2018 and 2038). At locations where the screening analysis indicated the potential for a significant increase in noise levels during any of the analysis years, existing traffic noise levels were calculated for each analysis time period using the TNM and traffic data for existing conditions. At these locations, the calculated TNM existing traffic noise level for each analysis time period was logarithmically subtracted from the measured existing noise level. The difference between the two reflects the contribution of noise sources other than traffic on Roosevelt Island to the existing noise levels at these sites, primarily noise generated by traffic on the Queensboro Bridge. This contribution from the Queensboro Bridge was assumed to remain constant in the No-Action and With Action conditions. Future noise levels were then calculated for the No-Action and With Action scenarios using TNM for each of these receptor sites during each analysis time period. The TNM-calculated traffic noise levels were combined with the previously calculated noise contribution from the Queensboro Bridge to determine the future noise level in each scenario.

17-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Future noise levels calculated using proportional modeling or TNM were compared to CEQR noise impact criteria. PROPORTIONAL MODELING Proportional modeling was used to determine locations which had the potential for having significant noise impacts and to quantify the magnitude of those potential impacts. Using this technique, the prediction of future noise levels, where traffic is the dominant noise source, is based on a calculation using measured existing noise levels and predicted changes in traffic volumes to determine No Action and future with the proposed project (With Action) levels. Vehicular traffic volumes are converted into Noise Passenger Car Equivalent (Noise PCE) values, for which one medium-duty truck (having a gross weight between 9,900 and 26,400 pounds) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 13 cars, one heavy-duty truck (having a gross weight of more than 26,400 pounds) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 47 cars, and one bus (vehicles designed to carry more than nine passengers) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 18 cars. Future noise levels are calculated using the following equation: FB NL - FNA NL = 10 * log10 (FB PCE / FNB PCE) where: FB NL = Future With Action Noise Level FNA NL = Future No Action Noise Level FB PCE = Future With Action PCEs FNA PCE = Future No Action PCEs Sound levels are measured in decibels and therefore increase logarithmically with sound source strength. In this case, the sound source is traffic volumes measured in Noise PCEs. For example, assume that traffic is the dominant noise source at a particular location. If the existing traffic volume on a street is 100 Noise PCE and if the future traffic volume were increased by 50 Noise PCE to a total of 150 Noise PCE, the noise level would increase by 1.8 dBA. Similarly, if the future traffic were increased by 100 Noise PCE, or doubled to a total of 200 Noise PCE, the noise level would increase by 3.0 dBA. TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL (TNM) The TNM is a computerized model developed for the FHWA that calculates the noise contribution of each roadway segment to a given noise receptor. The noise from each vehicle type is determined as a function of the reference energy-mean emission level, corrected for vehicle volume, speed, roadway grade, roadway segment length, and source-receptor distance. Further considerations reflected in the modeling of the propagation path included identifying any shielding provided by rows of buildings, and analyzing the effects of any intervening noise barriers. The TNM was used for sites where the proportional modeling screening technique showed the potential for significant adverse noise impacts. DETERMINATION OF BUILDING ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS The level of building attenuation to satisfy CEQR Technical Manual requirements was determined for the proposed projects buildings using measured noise levels or projected noise levels calculated using either the proportional model or the TNM approach described above. 17-8

Chapter 17: Noise

DETERMINATION OF NOISE LEVELS IN PROJECT CREATED OPEN SPACES Noise levels were predicted for project-generated open spaces using either the proportional model or the TNM approach described above and compared to levels recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT The buildings mechanical systems (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems) would be designed to meet all applicable noise regulations (i.e., Subchapter 5, 24-227 of the New York City Noise Control Code addressing circulation devices and the New York City Department of Buildings and Mechanical Codes) to avoid producing levels that would result in any significant increase in ambient noise levels; therefore, the proposed projects building mechanical systems are not discussed further in this chapter.

E. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 17-6 summarizes the results of the baseline measurements for the Weekday AM, midday, and PM analysis hours at receptor sites 2 through 8. Table 17-7 summarizes the results of the baseline measurements at receptor site 1 between 7:40 AM and 7 PM. At receptor sites 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the dominant noise source was traffic on the immediately adjacent roadways along with contribution from traffic on the Queensboro Bridge. At receptor sites 1 and 4, the dominant noise source was traffic on the Queensboro Bridge. In general, noise levels are moderate and reflect the level of vehicular activity on the adjacent streets and the Queensboro Bridge.

Table 17-6 Existing Noise Levels at Noise Receptor Sites 2 through 8 (in dBA)
Time Leq L1 L10 L50 L90 AM 63.1 72.5 64.5 58.3 56.5 2 Weekday MD 62.4 71.5 62.9 60.9 59.5 PM 59.3 70.0 59.9 56.0 55.0 AM 63.4 72.8 66.2 59.8 57.8 South Loop Road between 3 MD 62.2 72.4 62.1 59.0 57.4 Weekday East and West Loop Roads PM 60.0 71.8 60.3 55.2 54.1 AM 66.8 76.9 67.4 65.0 63.8 North Loop Road between 4 MD 69.1 73.4 70.3 68.8 67.5 Weekday East and West Loop Roads PM 65.5 74.1 65.7 63.6 62.6 AM 64.8 72.9 66.3 63.1 61.6 West Road north of Tramway 5 MD 65.5 70.2 66.6 65.0 64.1 Weekday Plaza PM 65.1 72.3 66.2 64.1 63.1 AM 64.3 74.4 65.4 62.7 61.3 West Road north of Subway 6 MD 66.6 77.7 65.9 62.9 62.0 Weekday Station PM 63.9 74.4 65.4 61.6 60.4 AM 64.7 70.6 66.3 64.1 62.5 Main Street north of Tramway 7 Weekday MD 66.5 70.5 67.6 66.1 64.9 Plaza PM 63.1 69.4 64.6 62.1 60.6 AM 70.5 81.8 72.9 65.4 59.5 Main Street south of 8 MD 71.3 81.4 71.7 63.3 58.3 Weekday Roosevelt Island Bridge PM 69.4 80.3 72.1 66.2 61.5 Notes: Field measurements were performed by AKRF, Inc. on October 25, 2011, June 12, June 13, and June 14, 2012. Refer to Figure 17-1 for noise monitoring locations. Site Measurement Location East Loop Road between North Loop Road and South Loop Road Day

17-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 17-7 Existing Noise Levels at Receptor 1

dBA Start Time Leq L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) L(min) 7:40 AM 69.7 80.8 71.5 65.8 64.8 64.0 8:00 AM 67.7 79.0 67.9 65.3 64.3 62.8 9:00 AM 65.8 73.5 66.6 64.9 63.9 62.4 10:00 AM 67.0 73.2 68.2 66.5 65.2 62.5 11:00 AM 68.5 72.1 69.7 68.3 66.7 64.3 12:00 PM 69.3 76.7 70.2 68.5 67.2 65.3 1:00 PM 69.1 74.9 70.0 68.5 67.3 65.2 2:00 PM 68.9 76.0 69.2 67.9 66.8 64.9 3:00 PM 67.6 74.4 68.3 66.9 65.5 63.1 4:00 PM 66.3 75.0 66.4 64.8 63.7 61.1 5:00 PM 65.7 76.1 65.6 63.2 62.2 60.5 6:00 PM 65.5 70.8 66.5 65.0 63.8 61.2 Notes: Field measurements were performed by AKRF, Inc. on October 25, 2011. Refer to Figure 17-1 for noise monitoring locations. L(max) 84.3 84.0 80.1 80.3 82.4 82.4 83.8 89.7 85.9 84.1 84.0 81.5

In terms of CEQR noise exposure guidelines (shown in Table 17-3), during the hour with the highest measured noise levels, existing noise levels at receptor 2 are in the acceptable category, exiting noise levels at receptors 3, 5, 6, and 7 are in the marginally acceptable category, and existing noise levels at receptors 1, 4, and 8 are in the marginally unacceptable category. These categories are based on the measured L10 values.

F. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR Using the methodology previously described, future noise levels in the 2018 No-Action condition were calculated for the three analysis periods. Table 17-8 shows the calculated noise levels. Comparing 2018 No-Action noise levels with existing noise levels, the changes in Leq(1) noise level would be between 0.0 and -3.2 dBA. Noise levels would be expected to decrease as compared to the existing conditions at almost all receptor locations due to the decrease in traffic on roadways on Roosevelt Island associated with the closing of Goldwater Hospital. As noted above, noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future conditions. In terms of CEQR noise exposure guidelines, during the hour with the highest measured noise levels, 2018 No-Action noise levels at site 2 would remain in the acceptable category, 2018 No-Action noise levels at sites 3, 5, 6, and 7 would remain in the marginally acceptable category, and 2018 No-Action noise levels at sites 1, 4, and 8 would remain in the marginally unacceptable category.

17-10

Chapter 17: Noise

Table 17-8 2018 No-Action Noise Levels (in dBA)

Noise Receptor 1 Site 2
2

Day Weekday

3
2

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Time AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

Existing Leq(1) 63.1 62.4 59.3 63.4 62.2 60.0 64.8 65.5 65.1 64.3 66.6 63.9 64.7 66.5 63.1 70.5 71.3 69.4

2018 No2018 NoAction Action Leq(1) Change L10(1) 62.2 -0.9 63.6 62.1 -0.3 62.6 56.1 -3.2 56.7 63.4 0.0 66.2 62.2 0.0 62.1 60.0 0.0 60.3 64.4 -0.4 65.9 65.3 -0.2 66.4 64.4 -0.7 65.5 64.0 -0.3 65.1 66.5 -0.1 65.8 63.2 -0.7 64.7 62.4 -2.3 64.0 65.9 -0.6 67.0 61.1 -2.0 62.6 69.3 -1.2 71.7 70.8 -0.5 71.2 67.4 -2.0 70.1

Notes: 1 Noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future condition. They are therefore not shown in the calculation results. 2 Noise levels at these receptor sites were calculated using TNM because the proportional modeling screening analysis showed the potential for impact at these locations.

2038 ANALYSIS YEAR Using the methodology previously described, future noise levels in the 2038 No-Action condition were calculated for the three analysis periods. Table 17-9 shows the calculated noise levels. Comparing future 2038 No-Action noise levels with existing noise levels, the changes in Leq(1) noise level would be between 0.0 and -3.2 dBA. Noise levels would be expected to decrease as compared to the existing conditions at almost all receptor locations due to the decrease in traffic on roadways on Roosevelt Island associated with the closing of Goldwater Hospital. As noted above, noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future conditions. In terms of CEQR noise exposure guidelines, during the hour with the highest measured noise levels, 2038 No-Action noise levels at receptor 2 would remain in the acceptable category, 2038 No-Action noise levels at receptors 3, 5, 6, and 7 would remain in the marginally acceptable category, and 2038 No-Action noise levels at receptors 1, 4, and 8 would remain in the marginally unacceptable category.

17-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 17-9 2038 No-Action Noise Levels (in dBA)

Noise Receptor 1 Site 2
2

Day Weekday

3
2

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Time AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

Existing Leq(1) 63.1 62.4 59.3 63.4 62.2 60.0 64.8 65.5 65.1 64.3 66.6 63.9 64.7 66.5 63.1 70.5 71.3 69.4

2038 No2038 NoAction Action Leq(1) Change L10(1) 62.3 -0.8 63.7 62.1 -0.3 62.6 56.1 -3.2 56.7 63.4 0.0 66.2 62.2 0.0 62.1 60.0 0.0 60.3 64.5 -0.3 66.0 65.4 -0.1 66.5 64.4 -0.7 65.5 64.1 -0.2 65.2 66.6 0.0 65.9 63.2 -0.7 64.7 62.9 -1.8 64.5 66.2 -0.3 67.3 61.4 -1.7 62.9 69.7 -0.8 72.1 71.1 -0.2 71.5 67.8 -1.6 70.5

Notes: 1 Noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future condition. They are therefore not shown in the calculation results. 2 Noise levels at these receptor sites were calculated using TNM because the proportional modeling screening analysis showed the potential for impact at these locations.

G. THE FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2018 ANALYSIS YEAR (PHASE 1) Using the methodology previously described, noise levels in the 2018 With Action condition were calculated for the three analysis periods. Table 17-10 shows the calculated noise levels. Comparing future 2018 With Action noise levels with future 2018 No-Action noise levels, the changes in Leq(1) noise level would be between 0.0 and 1.8 dBA. Increases of this magnitude would be imperceptible, and based upon CEQR Technical Manual impact criteria (as described above under Impact Definition) would not be significant. As noted above, noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future conditions. In terms of CEQR Technical Manual noise exposure guidelines, during the hour with the highest measured noise levels, 2018 With Action noise levels at receptor 2 would remain in the acceptable category, 2018 With Action noise levels at receptors 3, 5, 6, and 7 would remain in the marginally acceptable category, and 2018 With Action noise levels at receptors 1, 4, and 8 would remain in the marginally unacceptable category. 17-12

Chapter 17: Noise

Table 17-10 Phase 1 (2018) With Action Noise Levels (in dBA)
Noise Receptor 1 Site 2
2

Day Weekday

3
2

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Weekday

Time AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM

2018 No- 2018 With 2018 With Action Action Action Change Leq(1) Leq(1) L10(1) 62.2 62.7 0.5 64.1 62.1 62.6 0.5 63.1 56.1 56.6 0.5 57.2 63.4 63.4 0.0 66.2 62.2 62.2 0.0 62.1 60.0 60.0 0.0 60.3 64.4 64.8 0.4 66.3 65.3 65.9 0.6 64.4 64.6 0.2 65.7 63.9 64.3 0.4 65.4 66.5 66.8 0.3 66.1 63.2 63.4 0.2 64.9 62.4 63.6 1.2 65.2 65.9 67.4 1.5 68.5 61.1 62.0 0.9 63.5 69.3 70.1 0.8 72.5 70.8 72.1 1.3 72.5 67.4 68.4 1.0 71.1

Notes: 1 Noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future condition. They are therefore not shown in the calculation results. 2 Noise levels at these receptor sites were calculated using TNM because the proportional modeling screening analysis showed the potential for impact at these locations.

2038 ANALYSIS YEAR (FULL BUILD) Using the methodology previously described, noise levels in the 2038 With Action condition were calculated for the three analysis periods. Table 17-11 shows the calculated noise levels. Comparing future 2038 With Action noise levels with future 2038 No-Action noise levels, the changes in Leq(1) noise level would be between 0.0 and 2.6 dBA. Increases of this magnitude would be barely perceptible, and based upon CEQR Technical Manual impact criteria (as described above under Impact Definition) would not be significant. As noted above, noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future conditions. In terms of CEQR noise exposure guidelines, during the hour with the highest measured noise levels, 2038 With Action noise levels at receptor 2 would remain in the acceptable category, 2038 With Action noise levels at receptors 3, 5, 6, and 7 would remain in the marginally acceptable category, and 2038 With Action noise levels at receptors 1, 4, and 8 would remain in the marginally unacceptable category. Consequently, the proposed project would not have the potential to result in any significant adverse noise impacts as a result of increased traffic traveling to and from the project site. 17-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 17-11 Full Build (2038) With Action Noise Levels (in dBA)
Noise Receptor 1 Site 2
2

3
2

2038 No- 2038 With 2038 With Action Action Action Day Time Leq(1) Leq(1) Change L10(1) AM 62.3 63.2 0.9 59.9 Weekday MD 62.1 63.2 1.1 62.0 PM 56.1 57.6 1.5 56.8 AM 63.4 63.4 0.0 66.2 Weekday MD 62.2 62.2 0.0 62.1 PM 60.0 60.0 0.0 60.3 AM 64.5 65.4 0.9 66.2 Weekday MD 65.4 66.4 1.0 66.7 PM 64.4 65.2 0.8 63.7 AM 64.1 64.9 0.8 65.9 Weekday MD 66.6 67.2 0.6 65.7 PM 63.2 64.0 0.8 62.8 AM 62.9 65.5 2.6 66.6 Weekday MD 66.2 68.8 2.6 69.7 PM 61.4 63.1 1.7 64.2 AM 69.7 71.3 1.6 73.4 Weekday MD 71.1 73.5 2.4 73.6 PM 67.8 69.8 2.0 72.1

Notes: 1 Noise levels at sites 1 and 4, which were used solely for the building attenuation analysis, are dominated by the Queensboro Bridge, and would consequently not be expected to change in the future condition. They are therefore not shown in the calculation results. 2 Noise levels at these receptor sites were calculated using TNM because the proportional modeling screening analysis showed the potential for impact at these locations.

H. BUILDING ATTENUATION FOR PROJECT BUILDINGS

As discussed in section C, Noise Standards and Criteria, the CEQR Technical Manual recommends an analysis of the effect of introducing a sensitive use, such as a residential building, into an urban environment. As shown in Table 17-4 earlier in this chapter, the CEQR Technical Manual has set noise attenuation values for new buildings based on exterior noise levels. Recommended noise attenuation values for residential, Executive Education Center (i.e., hotel), and academic buildings are designed to maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA L10(1) (50 dBA L10(1) for commercial uses) or lower and are determined based on exterior L10(1) noise levels. Table 17-12 shows the highest calculated or measured L10(1) noise levels (for any time period) at proposed buildings within the project site and the minimum amount of building attenuation that would be required to achieve acceptable interior noise levels at each location. The measured or calculated L10(1) noise levels are based on measurements or calculations at receptor sites 1 through 4, which are located adjacent to the project site. At buildings not listed in Table 17-12, the projected exterior L10(1) noise levels are below the range that requires specific levels of building attenuation according to CEQR criteria.

17-14

Chapter 17: Noise

Table 17-12 Minimum Required Building Attenuation at Project Buildings

Building Phase 1 Residential Building Phase 1 Executive Education Center (Hotel) Phase 1 Academic Building Applicable Noise Receptor Site(s) 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 Maximum L10(1) (dBA)2 71.5 71.5 71.5 Required Building Attenuation (dBA)1 28 on north, northwest and northeast facades 28 on north, northwest and northeast facades 28 on north, northwest and northeast facades

Notes: 1 Required attenuation values shown are for residential and academic uses. Commercial uses would require 5 dBA less attenuation. 2 These facades having incident L10 values of 70 dBA or less would not require specific window/wall attenuation measures.

The attenuation of a composite structure is a function of the attenuation provided by each of its component parts and how much of the area is made up of each part. Normally, a building faade is composed of the wall, glazing, and any vents or louvers for HVAC/air conditioning units in various ratios of area. The proposed design for all project buildings includes the use of wellsealed double-glazed windows and air conditioning units. The proposed buildings faades, including these elements, would be designed to provide a composite Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating greater than or equal to the attenuation requirements listed in Table 17-12 and provide an interior L10(1) level not in excess of 45 dBA for residential, hotel, or academic uses or 50 dBA for commercial uses. The OITC classification is defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM E1332-90 [Reapproved 2003]) and provides a single-number rating that is used for designing a building faade including walls, doors, glazing, and combinations thereof. The OITC rating is designed to evaluate building elements by their ability to reduce the overall loudness of ground and air transportation noise. By adhering to these design requirements, the proposed buildings would provide sufficient attenuation to achieve the CEQR interior noise level guideline of 45 dBA L10 for residential uses and 50 dBA L10 for commercial uses.

I. NOISE LEVELS AT OPEN SPACE AREAS

Noise levels within the new open space areas created on-site as part of the proposed project would be as high as 66.2 dBA L10(1) in the 2018 and 2038 With Action conditions as well as the existing and No-Action conditions, according to measured and calculated values at receptor sites 2 and 3. These levels would exceed the 55 dBA L10(1) noise level recommended for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet by the CEQR Technical Manual noise exposure guidelines (see Table 17-3). However, while the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline is a worthwhile goal for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet, due to the level of activity present at most New York City open space areas and parks (except for areas far away from traffic and other typical urban activities) this relatively low noise level is often not achieved. For example, existing noise levels at the waterfront promenade and South Point Park are already above the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline due to noise from vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge and on the FDR Drive. To achieve noise levels that would meet the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline, measures would need to be implemented to control noise from the Queensboro Bridge; the implementation of barriers on the bridge would not be possible because of the bridges landmarked status. Noise levels within the new open spaces would be comparable to noise levels at public areas elsewhere on Roosevelt Island and would be comparable to or less than noise levels in a number of open space areas located adjacent to heavily trafficked 17-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

roadways, including Brooklyn Bridge Park, Prospect Park, Fort Greene Park, and other urban open space areas.

J. CONCLUSIONS
As detailed in this chapter, traffic generated by the proposed project would not be expected to result in any significant increases in noise levels in either analysis year at any nearby sensitive receptors. To meet CEQR interior noise level requirements, the analysis recommends up to 28 dBA of building attenuation for certain project buildings (the Phase 1 academic building, the Phase 1 residential building, and the Executive Education Center [hotel]). Noise levels in the newly created open spaces would be greater than the 55 dBA L10(1) recommended by CEQR criteria, but would be comparable to other parks on Roosevelt Island and elsewhere in New York City. Mechanical equipment associated with project buildings would be designed to meet all applicable noise regulations, and would therefore not have the potential to result in a significant noise impact.

17-16

Chapter 18:

Public Health

The June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual defines as its goal with respect to public health to determine whether adverse impacts on public health may occur as a result of a proposed project, and if so, to identify measures to mitigate such effects. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a public health analysis is not necessary when no significant unmitigated adverse impact is found in other CEQR analysis areas, such as air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, or noise. If an unmitigated significant adverse impact is identified in one of these analysis areas, the lead agency may determine that a public health assessment is warranted for that specific technical area. As described in the relevant analyses of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the Cornell NYC Tech project would not result in significant unmitigated adverse impacts in any of the technical areas related to public health. However, as discussed in Chapter 20, Construction, the proposed project would, at times, result in temporary unmitigated significant adverse noise impacts during construction. Therefore, this chapter examines the potential effects of construction-period noise impacts on public health. As described in Chapter 17, Noise, according to the CEQR Technical Manual, a significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the one-hour equivalent noise level (Leq(1)) of between 3 and 5 decibels A-weighted (dBA), depending upon the noise level without the proposed project. The CEQR noise thresholds are based on quality of life considerations and not on public health considerations. In terms of public health, significance is not determined based upon the incremental change in noise level, but is based principally upon the magnitude of the noise level and duration of exposure. Cornell would implement a noise mitigation plan as required under the New York City Noise Code: this plan would outline measures that would include a variety of source and path controls. Even with these measures, the analysis presented in Chapter 20 shows that during the construction period, significant adverse noise impacts would occur as follows: During construction of Phase 1, impacts would occur at open spaces along Main Street due to autos and trucks passing along these routes to and from the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM).1 During construction of Phase 2, impacts would occur at the Roosevelt Island promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site and at South Point Park; these impacts would occur due to construction activities occurring on site.
1

As discussed in Chapter 20, the residential and public school buildings along Main Street all have doubleglazed windows and a means of alternate ventilation (i.e., air conditioning), and would be expected to achieve between 25 and 35 dBA of attenuation. Consequently, these buildings would be expected to experience interior L10(1) values less than 45 dBA during the construction period, which would be considered acceptable according to CEQR criteria, and would therefore not be expected to experience a significant impact.

18-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

For the open spaces that would experience exceedances (i.e., open space areas along Main Street during Phase 1 and the promenade and South Point Park adjacent to the project site during Phase 2), there are no feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to eliminate the significant noise impacts at these locations. Because people would be able to use a variety of other open spaces on Roosevelt Island during the periods of construction during which there would be noise exceedances, these exceedances are not expected to result in a public health impact. Overall, noise exceedances during the construction period would not result in significant adverse health impacts.

18-2

Chapter 19:

Neighborhood Character

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter considers the impacts of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project on neighborhood character. According to the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, neighborhood character is an amalgam of various elements that give neighborhoods their distinct personality. These elements may include a neighborhoods land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise. Not all of these elements affect neighborhood character in all cases; a neighborhood usually draws its distinctive character from a few defining elements. This analysis considers the impacts of the proposed project on the neighborhood character of the project site and the surrounding area, and relies on the analyses of the components of neighborhood character (i.e., land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise) as analyzed elsewhere in the environmental impact statement (EIS). As detailed in this chapter, the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project would substantially transform the character of project site and its relation to the larger area; however, these changes would not be considered adverse. Instead, the proposed project would add new activity, vibrancy, and vitality that would be compatible with the defining characteristics of the primary and secondary study areas neighborhood character.

B. METHODOLOGY
An analysis of neighborhood character begins by determining whether a proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts in any technical area (land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise) or if a project would result in a combination of moderate effects to several elements that could cumulatively impact neighborhood character. If the answer is yes, a preliminary assessment is undertaken; the preliminary assessment first identifies the defining features of the neighborhood, and then assesses whether the project has the potential to impact these defining features, either through the potential for significant adverse impacts or a combination of moderate effects. If the preliminary assessment concludes that a proposed project has the potential to affect defining features of a neighborhood, a detailed assessment of neighborhood character is undertaken. The detailed assessment uses information from the preliminary assessment as a baseline and the future No-Action and future With-Action conditions are then projected and compared to determine whether a project would result in a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character. This assessment considers the incremental changes associated with the proposed project, compared to the No Action condition, for the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, in each relevant technical area.

19-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

As described in the relevant chapters of this EIS, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts in the areas of land use, zoning, and public policy; socioeconomic conditions; open space; shadows; urban design; or noise. However, the proposed project would result in potential significant adverse impacts in the areas of historic and cultural resources and transportation. Therefore, a preliminary assessment of neighborhood character impacts from the proposed project is provided below. The preliminary assessment describes the defining features of the neighborhood and then assesses the potential for the proposed project to impact these defining features. The preliminary assessment is followed by a detailed assessment which considers whether the proposed project would result in significant adverse neighborhood character impacts. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER COMPONENTS As discussed above, the components of neighborhood character include land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise. STUDY AREAS According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the study area for neighborhood character should be consistent with the study areas in the relevant technical areas, and may be modified, as appropriate, either to include any additional areas that may be affected by the project or to exclude areas that would clearly not be affected by the project. The project site and rezoning area are located south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, which acts as a physical divider between the southern portion of Roosevelt Island and the remainder of the Island. Accordingly, this chapter analyses two study areas: a primary study area that contains the area south of the Queensboro Bridge, including the project site, rezoning area, Sportspark, South Point Park, and Four Freedoms Park; and a secondary study area that contains the remainder of Roosevelt Island north of the Queensboro Bridge. IMPACT ASSESSMENT According to the CEQR Technical Manual, neighborhood character impacts are rare and it would be under unusual circumstances that, in the absence of an impact in any of the relevant technical areas, a combination of moderate effects to the neighborhood would result in an impact to neighborhood character. Moreover, a significant impact identified in one of the technical areas that contribute to a neighborhoods character is not automatically equivalent to a significant impact on neighborhood character. Rather, it serves as an indication that neighborhood character may be significantly affected.

C. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
DEFINING FEATURES PRIMARY STUDY AREA The character of the primary study area is primarily defined by institutional uses, open space and recreational resources, and the physical setting on the waterfront, with sweeping views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens. Pedestrian activity in the primary study area is concentrated near the entrances to Sportspark and Goldwater Hospital, as well as the adjacent open space 19-2

Chapter 19: Neighborhood Character

resources, including the waterfront promenades, Four Freedoms Park, and South Point Park. Vehicular traffic is light in this area, and is primarily related to the hospital. The northern boundary of the primary study area is the Queensboro Bridge, a towering structure that limits views to the secondary study area and bifurcates the Island. Underneath and south of the bridge is Sportspark, a major recreational amenity for Island residents. South of Sportpark is the Goldwater Hospital, a defining and physically dominant component of the area that was built in 1939. The hospital is a historic resource (State and National Register [S/NR]-eligible) with a weathered appearance. On the west side of the hospital complex, there are lawns and trees; by contrast, the east side of the hospital complex is primarily paved and contains few trees. South of the hospital, South Point Park is a passive natural area that contains two historic resources: the stabilized ruin of the Smallpox Hospital, a Gothic structure built in 1865; and Strecker Laboratory, which was built in 1892 and today houses subway electrical infrastructure. South of South Point Park is Four Freedoms Park, which features a memorial to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as well as a seawall and a lawn. On the east and west sides of the primary study area north of South Point Park, along the waterfront, are promenades that extend into the secondary study area. SECONDARY STUDY AREA The character of the secondary study area contains many of the same elements as the primary study area, including substantial open space and recreational resources and a unique physical setting on the waterfront, with expansive views. However, whereas institutional uses predominate in the primary study area, the secondary study area is primarily residential in character, with ancillary retail and community facility uses. The northernmost portion of the area is institutional, as Coler Hospital is a prominent use in that area. The residential uses in the secondary study area are generally characterized by mid- and highrise apartment buildings. The original residential core of the Island consists of the four high rise residential complexes that were completed by 1976: Island House, Eastwood, Rivercross, and Westview. They are located in the middle of the Island, oriented towards Main Street, the primary thoroughfare on the Island, with neighborhood retail uses at the street level. More recent residential development includes Southtown, located south of the residential core, and Manhattan Park and the Octagon, located to the north of the residential core. In addition to residential and local retail uses in contemporary glass and masonry towers, Southtown contains passive open space areas and major transportation centers, including the Roosevelt Island Tram station and the Roosevelt Island subway station. The Octagon, the shortest of the residential buildings on the Island, contains residential wings that extend from the namesake historical building, in an area surrounded on most sides by open space. North of the Octagon is the Coler Hospital facility, which is similar in character to Goldwater Hospital. Community facilities are common in the study area, including schools, day care centers, and places of worship. As noted above, the Island contains substantial open space resources, including the promenades that extend along the eastern and western waterfronts. Other notable open space resources in the secondary study area include Firefighter Field, the Southtown Commons, Blackwell Park, Capobianco Field, Northtown Plaza, Ecological Park, Octagon Park, and Lighthouse Park. Overall, as described in more detail in Chapter 5, Open Space, Roosevelt Island contains more than 40 acres of publicly accessible passive and active open space, in addition to private lawns and landscaping that are part of the residential developments.

19-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Due to the physical limits to accessing the Island, its transportation facilities are important neighborhood features. The Roosevelt Island subway station, located on Main Street in the Southtown development, is a major center of activity. The subway station is in close proximity to the Roosevelt Island aerial tramway, which is located adjacent to the north side of the Queensboro Bridge, on Main Street. The tram connects Roosevelt Island to Second Avenue and East 59th Street in Manhattan, and has become a recognizable symbol of the Island. The only vehicular access to the Island is from the Roosevelt Island Bridge to Queens. On the north side of the Roosevelt Island Bridge is a Gristedes grocery store that is below a large 1,500-space multi-level parking garage called Motorgate. Motorgate was built pursuant to the original master plan for Roosevelt Island, which called for consolidation of parking facilities in one location, in order to create a pedestrian-oriented environment on the Island. The Island contains six historic resources that are distinct from the Islands characteristic modernist architecture. Most of the resources are small in scalesouth of the project site, the Smallpox Hospital and Strecker Memorial Laboratory, and north of the project site, the Blackwell House, the Chapel of the Good Shepherd, and the lighthouse at the northernmost tip of the Islandwith the exception of the Queensboro Bridge, which is a towering structure that bifurcates the Island. Overall, Roosevelt Island is a unique community that is shaped in part by its physical separation from Manhattan and Queens. The physical setting of the Island provides for sweeping scenic views, which are accessible to the public through a network of open spaces, most notably the waterfront promenades. The secondary study area is residential in character, and also contains supporting retail and community facility uses that are typically in the ground floors of high-rise apartment buildings. These defining features contribute to a distinctive neighborhood character. POTENTIAL TO AFFECT THE DEFINING FEATURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD Development of the first phase of the proposed project, consisting of 790,000 gross square foot (gsf), would be completed and operational in 2018. That development would be preceded by demolition of Goldwater Hospital. By 2038, the proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the project site with a 2.13 million gsf academic-oriented mixed-use development, including 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space (see Chapter 1, Project Description). The proposed project would have the potential to affect the defining features of the neighborhood as follows: Land Use. The proposed project would replace the vacant Goldwater Hospital complex with a sizable new academically focused mixed-use campus development that would include academic, corporate co-location, Executive Education Center, and residential uses. Socioeconomic Conditions. The proposed project would introduce a new population to a site that would be vacant in the No Action condition. Open Space. The proposed project would introduce a new academic and worker population that would use open space developed as part of the project and existing open spaces within Roosevelt Island. Shadows. The proposed project would replace a lower-scale vacant hospital complex with taller buildings of varying heights.

19-4

Chapter 19: Neighborhood Character

Historic and Cultural Resources. The proposed project would replace the State and National Register-Eligible Goldwater Hospital complex with new buildings and open space. Urban Design and Visual Resources. The proposed project would replace the Goldwater Hospital complex with new buildings and open space. Transportation. The proposed project would introduce a new population that would increase activityboth pedestrian and vehicularat the project site and in the surrounding neighborhood. Noise. The proposed project would increase vehicular activity at the project site and would thereby potentially result in increased noise levels and in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted above, the primary study area is defined by institutional uses, open space and recreational resources, and the physical setting on the waterfront, with sweeping views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens. Similarly, the secondary study area is defined by its primarily residential character, open space and recreational resources, and waterfront setting. As detailed in other sections of this EIS, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, shadows, urban design and visual resources, and noise. The proposed project would result in a significant adverse impact to historic resources due to the demolition of Goldwater Hospital, which could affect the neighborhood character of the primary and secondary study areas. The proposed project would also result in potential significant adverse transportation impacts, which could affect the neighborhood character of the primary and secondary study areas. As the proposed project could affect contributing elements of the character of the area, a detailed assessment of neighborhood character is warranted and is presented in the next section.

D. DETAILED ASSESSMENT
As per the CEQR Technical Manual, a detailed assessment of neighborhood character builds upon the preliminary assessment to project future No-Action and With-Action conditions, in order to determine whether the proposed project would result in significant adverse neighborhood character impacts. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT In the No-Action condition, the project site is assumed to be occupied by a vacant hospital complex for both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, patients and services currently housed in Goldwater Hospital will be relocated elsewhere independently of, and prior to, the proposed project. No redevelopment or reuse of the hospital site is currently anticipated in the No-Action condition. The land use conditions of the primary study area would change due to the removal of an active institutional use. Left vacant, the hospital complex could detract from the natural setting of the primary study area, and could therefore reduce the desirability and usability of the neighborhoods open space resources. In the secondary study area, 540 new residential units are expected to be built in Southtown by the 2018 analysis year. This new development is expected to be consistent with the existing neighborhood character of the secondary study area. The new buildings are expected to be similar in style and character to the existing Southtown development but taller at 21-, 25-, and 29 stories, and would represent the fulfillment of RIOCs master plan for the secondary study

19-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

area. The development would reinforce the residential character of the area and would not be expected to affect the other defining features of the neighborhood. No additional changes that would impact neighborhood character are currently anticipated between 2018 and 2038. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT As discussed above under Preliminary Assessment, the proposed project would affect contributing elements of the primary and secondary study areas defining characteristics. This section analyzes the probable impacts of the proposed project on these defining characteristics with regard to each relevant technical area for the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY Primary Study Area While the proposed project would alter the land use composition of the project site by the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, the changes would not be considered adverse pursuant to the CEQR Technical Manual. Compared to the No Action condition, the proposed project would improve neighborhood character by replacing vacant buildings and vacant land with a vibrant mixed-use academic-oriented development. The proposed project would create a lively north-south pedestrian spine, improve the pedestrian experience on the project site, and maintain pedestrian access to the waterfront, a defining characteristic of the area. The proposed 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space that would be built by 2038 would provide an important amenity to residents and users of the Cornell NYC Tech campus, as well as the larger Roosevelt Island population. As existing open space and recreational resources are a defining element of the primary study area, this new open space would be compatible with surrounding uses and would be consistent with existing neighborhood character. While some aspects of the primary study area would remain substantially the same after completion of Phase 1 and full build out in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, including substantial open space and recreational resources and a unique physical setting on the waterfront, with expansive views, the overall character would be dramatically altered due to the replacement of an institutional use, the Goldwater Hospital facility (which would be vacant in the No-Action condition) with the Cornell NYC Tech campuss mix of academic, corporate colocation, Executive Education Center, and residential uses. Secondary Study Area The proposed project is not expected to result in significant changes to the neighborhood character of the secondary study area in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. The Queensboro Bridge acts as a physical barrier that would inhibit the proposed project from substantially altering the well established character of the area north of the bridge. While street-level activity in the secondary study area would change due to the additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project, the additional street-level activity would be concentrated in areas of existing activity, such as Main Street and the area adjacent to the subway station, and would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. This additional activity could positively affect the character of the secondary study area by supporting a greater range of local businesses and organizations and further animating street life. Overall, the land

19-6

Chapter 19: Neighborhood Character

use changes associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse neighborhood character impacts in either 2018 or 2038. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Primary Study Area In the No-Action condition, the project site is assumed to be occupied by a vacant hospital complex in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. As the proposed project would develop a vacant site, it would not directly displace any businesses, institutions, or residents. As the primary study area is not expected to contain any residents or businesses in the No Action condition, there would be no indirect significant adverse impacts from the proposed project in this area from Phase 1 or the full build out of the proposed project. The proposed project would change the socioeconomic character of the primary study area by adding new residents, academic activities, and businesses. This new socioeconomic activity would be expected to improve neighborhood character by contributing to the vibrancy and vitality of the primary study area in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. Secondary Study Area The proposed project would introduce new University-affiliated residents to the primary and secondary study areas in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. As discussed in Chapter 3, Socioeconomic Conditions, these on-campus residential units would have minimal indirect effects in the secondary study area. The off-campus academic population could seek new housing opportunities in the secondary study area or to a greater extent within a reasonable commuting distance of the campus. These households, whether new to the market or representing households already in New York City, would participate in the private residential marketplace and would be dispersed over a larger area than just the secondary study area. Since the income profile of the academic and worker population is not expected to exceed that of the average household income of the study area, it is not expected that potential new demand would change the market profile such that it would result in indirect residential displacement. Therefore, the population introduced by both Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant adverse indirect residential displacement impacts. The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts due to indirect business displacement. The proposed project would introduce a substantial amount of new economic activity to the study area, and it also is expected to add economic variety and vitality to complement the growing residential population in the secondary study area after completion of Phase 1 and full build. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on specific industries. Both Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would not directly displace any businesses, nor would it have substantial adverse effects on business conditions in any industry or any category of business within or outside the study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character due to socioeconomic conditions in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year.

19-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

OPEN SPACE The primary and secondary study areas open spaces are a defining element of neighborhood character. The new resident and worker populations that would be introduced by Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would place additional demands on these open spaces. As discussed in Chapter 5, Open Space, while the ratio of open space per 1,000 non-residents (i.e., workers and students who live off-site) would decline in the With Action condition, this ratio would continue to well exceed the citys median community district open space ratio in the Full Build condition. As the proposed project would not result in a 5 percent decrease in an open space ratio in an area currently below the citys median community district open space ratio of 1.5, the changes in these ratios would not result in a significant adverse impact. The active open space ratio per 1,000 residents would decrease by greater than 5 percent, and this ratio would be below DCP planning guidelines. However, the study area would continue to be well-served by open space overall and as discussed in Chapter 5, Open Space, the proposed project would require less active open space than a typical residential development project due to its relatively high daytime population and low proportion of school-aged children. Furthermore, the full build out of the proposed project would also provide a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publiclyaccessible open space. This new open space would be in keeping with the character of the primary and secondary study areas, and would become an important neighborhood resource for residents of the Cornell NYC Tech campus and all of Roosevelt Island. Due to these factors, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to neighborhood character due to open space resources in 2018 and 2038. SHADOWS With Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project, the waterfront promenade to the east and west of the project site would receive incremental shadows in all seasons; the outdoor basketball court associated with Sportpark north of the project site would receive incremental shadows in all seasons; South Point Park would receive brief incremental shadows in the late spring and summer, and Firefighter Field would receive brief incremental shadows on the winter analysis day only. These incremental shadows would not result in significant adverse shadow impacts on any of these resources, and would not adversely affect neighborhood character. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Primary Study Area The demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex, which is eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, would result in a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource, but would not have a significant adverse effect on neighborhood character. As described above under Section C, Preliminary Assessment, the existing defining features of the primary study area are the institutional uses, open spaces, and waterfront setting. Whereas the hospital is a defining and physically dominant feature of the primary study area under existing conditions, in the No Action condition, the hospital complex would be vacant, would detract from the physical setting of the project site, and would not contribute positively to neighborhood character in either analysis year. The demolition of the hospital and its replacement with Phase 1 and the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus would have beneficial land use effects on the primary study area. Due to these factors, although the demolition of the hospital complex would result in a significant adverse impact to this 19-8

Chapter 19: Neighborhood Character

architectural resource, it would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. While the redevelopment of the project site with 9 new tall buildings and landscaping elements at full build would alter the settings of the three architectural resources in the primary study area, the Strecker Memorial Laboratory and the Steam Plant would continue to be located in a varied context that typifies the study areas neighborhood character. In addition, the setting and views to the Queensboro Bridge would change with the redevelopment of the project site, however views of the bridge would not be fully obstructed and many prominent views to the bridge would remain available in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. Further, with the proposed project the three architectural resources in the primary study area would continue to be located in an area characterized by structures of different scales, architectural styles, and from different construction periods on Roosevelt Island. Therefore, these changes would not result in any significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character in the primary study area in either 2018 or 2038. Secondary Study Area The effect of the adverse impact related to the demolition of the vacant Goldwater Hospital complex would generally be limited to the visitors and residents experience in the primary study area, and would not resonate through the secondary study area. Neither the proposed Phase 1 development nor the full build out of the proposed project on the project site would adversely affect architectural resources on the remainder of Roosevelt Island, as the Queensboro Bridge acts as a physical and visual barrier between the primary and secondary study areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character due to historic and cultural resources in either 2018 or 2038. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES Primary Study Area Compared to the No-Action condition, the With Action visual appearance and thus the pedestrian experience of the development sites would change considerably with the Phase 1 development and with the full build out of the proposed project; however, as described in Chapter 8, Urban Design and Visual Resources, the changes associated with both Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would not meet the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for a significant adverse urban design impact. Rather, instead of a complex of vacant hospital buildings, the pedestrian would experience new, taller buildings with active ground-floor uses, including campus-related retail. New open spaces would visually enhance the experience of walking around the project sites. Greater levels of pedestrian activity generated by the proposed uses on the sites would be self-reinforcing, making the project area more inviting and appealing to visit, which would be beneficial to the character of the neighborhood. With the development of the proposed buildings, the height and bulk of structures on the project site would change substantially with the Phase 1 development and with the full build out of the proposed project. While considerable, this change is not anticipated to be significantly adverse. The total FAR that could be developed on site would not change from the No-Action condition, and the proposed development would comply with the bulk, height, lot coverage, and setback regulations of the proposed special district. Furthermore, as described below, the proposed development on the project site would be generally consistent with development on the north side of the Island. The proposed site plan for the full build out of the proposed project would not 19-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

create strong streetwalls along the loop road except near the northern academic building, which is consistent with existing character of the area. In both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, views of the East River, Manhattan, and Queens would still be available from numerous vantage points within the project site and rezoning area in the With Action condition. Furthermore, the special district would require that a visual corridor of at least 50 feet be established through the project site that could provide views to both the Manhattan and Queens waterfronts. Therefore, both Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would be appropriate for the project sites physical setting, which is a defining component of the character of the area. Overall, the proposed project would enhance the pedestrians experience of the project site and improve the urban design of the project site by replacing vacant buildings and vacant land with new active, mixed-use development by the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, which would be beneficial to the character of the neighborhood. Secondary Study Area The proposed project would have only minor urban design effects to the secondary study area in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years, and would not adversely affect the neighborhood character. The proposed open spaces associated with both Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would visually enhance the experience of walking around the study area, and would help to integrate the new campus with the rest of the Island. The majority of the buildings to be developed on the project site by 2018 and 2038 would be consistent with the taller buildings on the north side of the Island, which are generally towers on large, irregular sites within a landscaped setting. At approximately 320 feet in height, the proposed residential building would be taller than any of the buildings that would exist on the Island in the No-Action condition; however, it would be slightly lower than the height of the two Queensboro Bridge towers on the Island, which are approximately 350 feet tall. The location of the tallest building at the northern edge of the site is intended to link this residential tower to those on the north side of the Island, and to minimize the potential shadowing and wind effects of the structure on the remainder of the proposed buildings and open spaces. While the context of on-Island views from north and south of the project site would change notably by 2018 and 2038 with the new development, these views are anticipated to be an improvement over the views in the No-Action condition, which would include vacant buildings on the project site. Existing view corridors and views to visual resources along the limited onIsland streets would not be obstructed by Phase 1 or the full build out of the proposed project, except for some views of the Queensboro Bridge; however, the bridge would remain highly visible throughout the rest of the study area. The waterfront promenade would continue to provide the most expansive views to on- and off-Island resources. The context of the limited views to the visual resources on the north side of the Island is not anticipated to change considerably. While Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would result in substantial changes to the urban design of the project site and views to visual resources, these changes would not result in a significant adverse impact related to urban design and visual resources, and would not adversely impact neighborhood character. TRANSPORTATION As discussed in Chapter 14, Transportation, and Chapter 22, Mitigation, in the With Action condition, by 2038, two intersections on Roosevelt Island would experience significant adverse 19-10

Chapter 19: Neighborhood Character

traffic impactsWest Road and Main Street and the Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street. Mitigation measures, including the installation of new traffic signals at both locations, have been identified and have been determined to be feasible. . While the proposed mitigation measures, if implemented, would be noticeable, they would not affect neighborhood character on Roosevelt Island. Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse traffic impacts on Roosevelt Island. The proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to eastbound and westbound Q102 bus service, during the AM and peak periods in both the 2018 and 2038 analysis years. As discussed in Chapter 22, this impact could be mitigated by adding additional peak period bus service by 2018 and 2038. NYCT routinely monitors changes in bus ridership and makes the necessary service adjustments where warranted. Since the bus route is not a defining feature of the neighborhood, this transportation impact would not result in a significant adverse impact to neighborhood character. Significant adverse pedestrian impacts are anticipated in the With Action condition in 2038 at two locations along West Road (the east sidewalk between Road 5 and the subway station and the east sidewalk between the tram station west bus stop and the Queensboro Bridge). Measures to mitigate this impact would include sidewalk widening. The pedestrian impacts would not be considered significant adverse neighborhood character impacts since such impacts would not change the defining features of the primary study area (i.e., the institutional uses, open spaces, and waterfront setting). Phase 1 of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse pedestrian impacts. In general, while both Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would increase levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity on Roosevelt Island, this increased activity would not result in a significant adverse effect on neighborhood character on Roosevelt Island. NOISE As described in Chapter 17, Noise, while noise levels in the study area would increase in the With Action condition in the 2018 and 2038 analysis years as compared to the No-Action conditiondue to increased trafficthe magnitude of the increases would be imperceptible or barely perceptible to most listeners and below the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for a significant adverse noise impact. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact on neighborhood character with respect to noise in either 2018 or 2038.

E. CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the proposed project would result in a positive effect on the neighborhood character in the primary and secondary study areas with the completion of Phase 1 and full build out of the proposed project. Instead of a vacant hospital complex, the primary and secondary study areas would benefit from a new active, mixed-use academic oriented development, with a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space by 2038. This development would be in keeping with the defining characteristics of the neighborhood character of the primary and secondary study areas. By contrast, in the No Action condition, the vacant hospital complex could detract from the natural setting and open space resources of the study areas, which are defining neighborhood character features. Changes associated with Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project with regard to land use, zoning, and public policy; shadows; socioeconomic

19-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

conditions; open space; urban design and visual resources; and noise are not expected to adversely affect neighborhood character. With regard to historic and cultural resources, although the demolition of the hospital campus would result in a significant adverse impact to historic resources, it would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. Absent the proposed project, the hospital complex would be vacant, would detract from the physical setting of the project site, and would not contribute positively to neighborhood character in either analysis year. The demolition of the hospital and its replacement with Phase 1 and the full build out of the Cornell NYC Tech campus would have beneficial land use effects on the primary study area. Therefore, demolition of the hospital complex would not be considered a significant adverse neighborhood character impact. With regard to transportation, the proposed project would increase levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity on Roosevelt Island. While some significant adverse impacts (traffic, bus, and sidewalk) would require mitigation, the increased activity from the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on neighborhood character on Roosevelt Island in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. Overall, the combined effect of changes to the defining elements would not create a significant adverse impact on neighborhood character in either the 2018 or 2038 analysis year. The major physical changes from the proposed project would occur only on the project site, which is physically separated from the secondary study area by the Queensboro Bridge. Within the primary study area, the neighborhood character would benefit from the 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space that would be provided on the project site by 2038, which would support a defining characteristic of the area. While the development on the project site by 2018 and 2038 would noticeably change the character of the area, these changes would not be considered adverse. Instead, Phase 1 and the full build out of the proposed project would add new activity, vibrancy, and vitality that would be compatible with the defining characteristics of the primary and secondary study areas neighborhood character.

19-12

Chapter 20: A. INTRODUCTION

Construction

This chapter summarizes the preliminary construction scenario for the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project and considers the potential for adverse impacts during construction. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, Cornell is seeking a number of discretionary approvals to support and allow for the development of an applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island (the proposed project). The first phase of the Cornell NYC Tech project is expected to be constructed and completed by 2017. During Phase 1, the existing Goldwater Memorial Hospital buildings would be demolished and an academic building, a corporate colocation building, a residential building, an Executive Education Center with hotel and conference facilities, and publicly-accessible open space would be constructed on the northern portion of the project site. In addition, a central utility plant that serves the campus may also be constructed. The remainder of construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2037 and would occur on the central and southern portion of the project site. This construction would include another academic building, two corporate co-location buildings, a mixed-use building containing academic and residential uses, a mixed-use building that comprises corporate co-location space at its base with a residential tower rising above, publicly-accessible open space, and possibly another central utility plant. For each of the technical areas presented below, appropriate construction analysis years are selected to represent reasonable worst-case conditions relevant to that technical area, which can occur at different times for different analyses. For example, the noisiest part of the construction may not be at the same time as the heaviest construction traffic. Therefore, the analysis periods may differ for different analysis areas. Where appropriate, the analysis accounts for the effects of elements of the proposed project that would be completed and operational during the selected construction analysis years. While the anticipated construction durations have been developed with an experienced New York City construction manager, the discussion is only illustrative as specific means and methods will be chosen at the time of construction, and the sequencing and timing of individual buildings is subject to change. The construction durations are conservatively chosen to serve as the basis of the analyses in this chapter and are representative of the reasonable worst-case for potential impacts. The preliminary schedule represents a compressed and conservative potential timeline for construction, which shows overlapping construction activities and simultaneously operating construction equipment. Thus, the analysis captures the cumulative nature of construction impacts, which would result in the greatest impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. This chapter describes the city, state, and federal regulations and policies that govern construction, the expected construction schedule, and the construction methods to be used. This section establishes the framework used for the assessment of potential impacts from construction. The construction timelinedetermined by the timing of the various major construction stages associated with constructing a buildingsuch as excavation and foundation,

20-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

superstructure, and interiors and finishesis described. The types of equipment are discussed, and the number of workers and truck deliveries is estimated. Following the discussion of construction techniques, the chapter discusses potential impacts with regard to transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, historic resources, hazardous materials, natural resources, open space, socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character. The analysis concludes that the proposed project would result in significant adverse construction impacts related to transportation and to noise on open space. The results of the construction analyses for each technical area are discussed in more detail below.

B. GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT

The following describes construction oversight by government agencies, which involves a number of city, state, and federal agencies. Table 20-1 shows the main agencies involved in construction oversight and the agencies areas of responsibilities. Primary responsibilities lie with the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), which ensures that the construction meets the requirements of the Building Code and that the buildings are structurally, electrically, and mechanically safe. In addition, DOB enforces safety regulations to protect both the workers and the public. The areas of oversight include installation and operation of the equipment, such as cranes and lifts, sidewalk sheds, and safety netting and scaffolding. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) enforces the Noise Code, reviews and approves any needed Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP), and regulates water disposal into the sewer system, the removal of tanks and asbestos abatement. The City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY) has regulatory and enforcement oversight over storage, transport, and disposal of asbestos waste. The Fire Department of New York City (FDNY) has primary oversight for compliance with the Fire Code and for the installation of tanks containing flammable materials. The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) reviews and approves any traffic lane and sidewalk closures. The New York City Transit (NYCT) is responsible for subway access and, if necessary, bus stop relocations. NYCT also regulates vibrations that might affect the subway system. The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is responsible for the oversight, enforcement, and permitting of the replacement of street trees that are lost due to construction. Section 5-102 et. seq. of the Laws of the City of New York requires a permit to remove any trees and the replacement of the trees as determined by calculating the size, condition, species and location rating of the tree proposed for removal. The New York State Department of Labor (DOL) licenses asbestos workers. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulates disposal of hazardous materials, and construction and operation of bulk petroleum and chemical storage tanks. On the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has wide ranging authority over environmental matters, including air emissions, noise, hazardous materials, and the use of poisons. Much of the responsibility is delegated to the state level. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets standards for work site safety and the construction equipment.

20-2

Chapter 20: Construction

Table 20-1 Construction Oversight in New York City

Areas of Responsibility New York City Department of Buildings Primary oversight for Building Code and site safety Noise, hazardous materials, RAPs/CHASPs, dewatering, Department of Environmental Protection tanks, asbestos abatement City of New York Department of Sanitation Storage, transport, and disposal of asbestos waste Fire Department Compliance with Fire Code, tanks Department of Transportation Lane and sidewalk closures New York City Transit Subway access, bus stop relocation Department of Parks and Recreation Street trees New York State Department of Labor Asbestos workers Department of Environmental Conservation Hazardous materials and tanks United States Environmental Protection Agency Air emissions, noise, hazardous materials, poisons Occupational Safety and Health Administration Worker safety Agency

C. CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND SCHEDULE

While the methods and means described below have been developed with Tishman Construction Corporation, the discussion is preliminary and other means and methods may be chosen at the time of construction. The construction durations are conservatively chosen to serve as the basis of the analyses in this chapter and are representative of the reasonable worst-case for potential impacts. The preliminary schedule represents a compressed and conservative potential timeline for construction, which shows overlapping construction activities and simultaneously operating construction equipment. Thus, the analysis captures the cumulative nature of construction impacts, which would result in the greatest impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. The construction of the proposed project is analyzed in two overall phases, which generally represent demolition of the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings and construction on the northern portion of the project site (Phase 1) followed by construction on the southern portion of the project site (Phase 2). The anticipated construction schedule is shown on Figures 20-1 and 20-2 and Table 20-2 and reflects the sequencing of construction events as currently contemplated. Phase 1 construction is assumed to start in the beginning of 2014 and would be completed by the end of 2017. In Phase 1, the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings would be demolished and four buildingsan academic building, a corporate co-location building, a residential building, and an Executive Education Centerwould be constructed on the northern portion of the project site. Various civil activities including utility upgrades, grading and leveling, photovoltaic (PV) panel installation, geothermal well system construction, and landscaping would also occur during Phase 1. In addition, it is assumed that a central utility plant would be constructed near the northern edge of the site. Phase 2 is expected to commence in mid-2024 and continue through the end of 2037 in two separate development segments2024 to 2028 (Phase 2A) and 2034 to 2037 (Phase 2B). In Phase 2, a total of five buildingsan academic building, two corporate co-location buildings, a mixed-use building containing academic and residential uses, and a mixed-use building

20-3

10.9.12

YEAR Phase
1Q
MAR MAR MAR MAY MAY MAY NOV NOV AUG AUG APR APR APR JUN JUN JUN OCT DEC OCT DEC JAN SEP JAN SEP JAN FEB JUL FEB JUL FEB JUL

2014
2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q
AUG

2015

2016
4Q
NOV OCT DEC SEP JAN

2017
1Q
FEB

2Q

3Q

4Q

MAR

MAY

NOV

AUG

APR

JUN

OCT

EXISTING GOLDWATER HOSPITAL BUILDINGS t
*OUFSJPS
%FNPMJUJPO t
"CBUFNFOU t
%FNPMJUJPO GENERAL CIVIL WORK t
t
t
t
t
ACADEMIC BUILDING t
t
t
t
CORPORATE CO-LOCATION BUILDING t
t
t
t
GRADUATE / FACULTY / STAFF HOUSING t
t
t
t
EXECUTIVE EDUCATION CENTER t
t
t
t
CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT t
t
t
t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO 4VQFSTUSVDUVSF &YUFSJPS
'BDBEF *OUFSJPST
'JOJTIJOH
BOE
$PNNJTTJPOJOH &YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO 4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
$PODSFUF
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF *OUFSJPST
'JOJTIJOH
BOE
$PNNJTTJPOJOH &YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO 4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
$PODSFUF
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF *OUFSJPST
'JOJTIJOH
BOE
$PNNJTTJPOJOH &YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO 4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
4UFFM
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF *OUFSJPST
'JOJTIJOH
BOE
$PNNJTTJPOJOH &YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO 4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
4UFFM
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF *OUFSJPST
'JOJTIJOH
BOE
$PNNJTTJPOJOH 6UJMJUJFT Grading 1IPUPWPMUBJD
17

1BOFMT (FPUIFSNBM
8FMMT -BOETDBQJOH

Cornell NYC Tech

Anticipated Construction Schedule (Phase 1)

Figure 20-1

DEC

SEP

JUL

3.7.13

YEAR Phase
MAR MAR MAY MAY MAY AUG NOV AUG NOV AUG APR APR APR JUN OCT DEC JUN OCT DEC JUN OCT SEP JAN SEP JAN SEP JUL FEB JUL FEB JUL

2024 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q
NOV

2025

2026 4Q
DEC JAN

2027 1Q
MAR APR FEB

2028 2Q
MAY

3Q

4Q

1Q

GENERAL CIVIL WORK t
Utilities t
(SBEJOH
BOE
-FWFMJOH t
-BOETDBQJOH ACADEMIC BUILDING t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO t
4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
4UFFM
t
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF t
*OUFSJPST
'JOJTIFT

$PNNJTTJPOJOH MIXED-USE BUILDING (CORPORATE CO-LOCATION RESIDENTIAL) t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO t
4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
$PODSFUF
t
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF t
*OUFSJPST
'JOJTIFT

$PNNJTTJPOJOH CORPORATE CO-LOCATION BUILDING t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO t
4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
4UFFM
t
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF t
*OUFSJPST
'JOJTIFT

$PNNJTTJPOJOH CENTRAL UTLITY PLANT t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO t
4VQFSTUSVDUVSF t
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF t
.&1
&RVJQNFOU
BOE
%JTUSJCVUJPO
$PNNJTTJPOJOH

YEAR Phase
MAY AUG APR JUN OCT SEP JUL

2034 2Q 3Q 4Q
NOV DEC JAN

2035 1Q
MAR APR FEB

2036 2Q
MAY JUN JUL

2037 3Q
AUG OCT SEP

2038 4Q
NOV DEC JAN

1Q
MAR APR FEB

2Q
MAY JUN JUL

3Q
AUG OCT SEP

4Q
NOV DEC JAN

1Q
MAR APR FEB

2Q
MAY

3Q

4Q

1Q

GENERAL CIVIL WORK t
Utilities t
(SBEJOH
BOE
-FWFMJOH t
-BOETDBQJOH MIXED-USE BUILDING (ACADEMIC AND RESIDENTIAL) t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO t
4VQFSTUSVDUVSF t
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF t
*OUFSJPST
'JOJTIFT

$PNNJTTJPOJOH CORPORATE CO-LOCATION BUILDING t
&YDBWBUJPO

'PVOEBUJPO t
4VQFSTUSVDUVSF
4UFFM
t
&YUFSJPS
'BDBEF t
*OUFSJPST
'JOJTIFT

$PNNJTTJPOJOH

Anticipated Construction Schedule (Phase 2)

Cornell NYC Tech

Figure 20-2

MAR

AUG

NOV

JUN

OCT

DEC

SEP

JAN

JUL

FEB

MAR

AUG

NOV

JUN

OCT

DEC

SEP

JAN

JUL

FEB

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 20-2 Anticipated Construction Schedule

Building Phase 1 Demolition of Goldwater Hospital Buildings Civil Activities (including utilities, grading, photovoltaic panels, geothermal wells, and landscaping) Academic Building Corporate Co-location Building Residential Building Executive Education Center Central Utility Plant (North) Phase 2 Civil Activities (including utilities, grading, and landscaping) Central Utility Plant (South) Academic Building Mixed-Use Building (Corporate Co-location Residential) Corporate Co-location Building Civil Activities (including utilities, grading, and landscaping) Mixed-Use Building (Academic and Residential) Corporate Co-location Building Source: Tishman Construction Corporation. Start Month January 2014 June 2014 June 2014 August 2014 November 2014 January 2015 June 2014 June 2024 June 2024 June 2024 August 2024 April 2025 June 2034 June 2034 February 2035 Finish Month December 2014 June 2017 September 2017 October 2017 August 2017 November 2017 August 2017 July 2027 January 2027 July 2027 July 2027 March 2028 July 2037 July 2037 December 2037 Approximate duration (months) 12 37 40 39 34 35 39 38 32 38 36 36 38 38 35

that comprises corporate co-location space at its base with a residential tower rising above would be constructed on the central and southern portion of the project site. In addition, various civil activities including utility upgrades, grading, and landscaping would occur during Phase 2. A second central utility plant may also be constructed at the southern edge of the site. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have an approximately seven-year gap between Phase 1 construction and Phase 2A construction, and a six year gap between Phase 2A construction and Phase 2B construction. These pauses in construction are based on Cornells current expectations on programming, enrollment, and funding for the proposed project. For each of the technical areas, appropriate construction analysis years are selected to represent reasonable worst-case conditions relevant to that technical area, which can occur at different times for different analyses. For example, the noisiest part of the construction may not be at the same time as the heaviest construction traffic. Therefore, the analysis periods may differ for different analysis areas. Where appropriate, the analysis accounts for the effects of elements of the proposed project that would be completed and operational during the selected construction analysis years.

D. CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION
OVERVIEW Construction of large-scale buildings in New York City typically follows a general pattern. The first task is construction startup, which involves the siting of work trailers, installation of temporary power and communication lines, and the erection of site perimeter fencing. At the Cornell NYC Tech site where there are existing buildings, any potential hazardous materials (such as asbestos), are abated, and the buildings are then demolished with some of the materials 20-4

Chapter 20: Construction

(such as concrete, block, and brick) either recycled or crushed on-site to be reused as fill and the debris taken to a licensed disposal facility. Excavation of the soils is next along with the construction of the foundations. When the below-grade construction is completed, construction of the core and shell of the new buildings begins. The core is the central part of the building and is the main part of the structural system. It contains the elevators and the mechanical systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). The shell is the outside of the building. As the core and floor decks of the building are being erected, installation of the mechanical and electrical internal networks would start. As the building progresses upward, the exterior cladding is placed, and the interior fit out begins. During the busiest time of building construction, the upper core and structure is being built while mechanical/electrical connections, exterior cladding, and interior finishing are progressing on lower floors. Since the construction approach and procedures for each building would be similar, general construction procedures are described followed by the major construction tasks (construction startup, abatement and demolition, civil activities, excavation and foundation, superstructure, exterior cladding, and interiors finishes and commissioning). GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES Cornell would have a field representative throughout the entire construction period. The representative would serve as the contact point for the community and local leaders, and would be available to resolve concerns or problems that arise during the construction process. New York City maintains a 24-hour-a-day telephone hotline (311) so that concerns can be registered with the city. Once demolition activities begin, a security staff would be on the specific construction site 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. HOURS OF WORK For the proposed project, construction is expected to take place Monday through Friday and with minimal weather make-up work on Saturdays. Certain exceptions to these schedules are discussed separately below. In accordance with New York City laws and regulations, construction work would generally begin at 7:00 AM on weekdays, with most workers arriving to prepare work areas between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM. Normally weekday work would end by 3:30 PM, but it can be expected that to meet the construction schedule or to complete certain construction tasks, the workday would be extended beyond normal work hours on occasions. The work could include such tasks as completing the drilling of piles, finishing a concrete pour for a floor deck, or completing the bolting of a steel frame erected that day. The extended workday would generally last until about 6:00 PM and would not include all construction workers on-site, but just those involved in the specific task requiring additional work time. Weekend work would not be regularly scheduled, but could occur to make up for weather delays or other unforeseen circumstances. In such cases, appropriate work permits from DOB would be obtained. Similar to an extended workday, the numbers of workers and pieces of equipment in operation would be limited to those needed to complete the particular task at hand. For extended weekday and weekend work, the level of activity would be reduced from the normal workday. The typical weekend workday would be on Saturday from 9:00 AM with worker arrival and site preparation to 5:00 PM for site cleanup. Some tasks may have to be continuous, and the work could extend to more than a typical 8-hour day. For example, in certain situations, concrete must be poured continuously to form one structure without joints. An example of this is pouring concrete for foundations, which would be poured in sections. This type of concrete pour can require over 12 hours to complete. In addition, 20-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

a noise mitigation plan pursuant to New York City Code would be developed and implemented to minimize intrusive noise affecting nearby sensitive receptors. A copy of the noise mitigation plan would be kept on-site for compliance review by NYCDEP and DOB. DELIVERIES AND ACCESS Roosevelt Island is served by the Roosevelt Island Bridge, which has a 36-ton-gross vehicle weight restriction. Therefore, as in other construction projects on Roosevelt Island, all trucks used for construction of the proposed project would meet this weight requirement. At limited times during construction, if a large piece of construction equipment (i.e., tower crane) could not be transported over the Roosevelt Island Bridge due to the weight restriction, the equipment would be transported via barges. At the time the DEIS was published, Cornell had begun assessing the feasibility of barging as an alternative to truck material deliveries, but had not identified a practical and feasible method of barging . Since publication of the DEIS, Cornell has identified two barging techniques that are now under consideration. The potential use of barging during the construction period is assessed below in Section G, Barging Alternative to Truck Material Deliveries. Access to the construction site would be controlled for the proposed project. The work areas would be fenced off, and limited access points for workers and trucks would be provided. Private worker vehicles would not be allowed into the construction area. Security staff would be on the site as needed, and all persons and trucks would have to pass through security points. Workers or trucks without a need to be on the site would not be allowed entry. After work hours, the gates would be closed and locked. Security guards would patrol the construction sites after work hours and over the weekends to prevent unauthorized access and ensure public safety. Material deliveries to the site would be regimented and scheduled. Because of the level of construction activity involved for the proposed project, unscheduled or haphazard deliveries would not be allowed. For example, during excavation, each delivery truck would be assigned a specific block of time during which it must arrive on the site. If a truck is late for its turn, it would be accommodated if possible, but if not, the truck would be assigned to a later time. A similar regimen would be instituted for concrete deliveries, but the schedule would be stricter. If a truck is late, it would be accommodated if possible, but if on-time concrete trucks are in line, the late truck would not be allowed on-site. Because construction documents specify a short period of time within which concrete must be poured (typically 90 minutes), the load would be rejected if this time limit is exceeded. During the finishing of the building interiors, individual deliveries would be scheduled to the maximum extent practicable. Studs for the partitions, drywall, electrical wiring, mechanical piping, ductwork, and other mechanical equipment are some of the materials that must be delivered and moved within each building. The available time for subcontractors use of the hoists would be tightly scheduled. Each trade, such as the drywall subcontractor, would be assigned a specific time to have its materials delivered and hoisted into the building. If the delivery truck arrives outside its assigned time slot, it would be accommodated if possible without disrupting the schedule of other deliveries. LANE CLOSURES AND CONFIGURATION CHANGES, SIDEWALK CLOSURES As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, a one-way loop road encircles the project site with traffic flow in a clockwise direction (i.e., southbound on East Loop Road and northbound on West Loop Road). North Loop Road and South Loop Road border the site to the north and south, respectively. To the east of the project site, East Loop Road continues as East Main Street 20-6

Chapter 20: Construction

then Main Street from its southern perimeter to a triangle located north of the Roosevelt Island subway station. To the west of the project site, West Loop Road continues as West Main Street then West Road between the same limits and intersects with Main Street. Because the roadways surrounding the project site would serve low traffic volumes with the closing of Goldwater Hospital, there is expected to be substantial flexibility in on-site staging and site access. During the course of construction, it is likely that the traffic lane on East Road would be closed for a period of approximately one year to allow for the demolition of the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings and roadway improvements. In addition, West Loop Road traffic lanes would be temporarily reconfigured from one-way northbound to two-way northbound-southbound during the East Loop Road closure to maintain vehicular access to the south of the project site, including South Point Park and Four Freedoms Park. This work would be coordinated with and approved by the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) and/or NYCDOT. Turnaround areas would also be provided to facilitate bus service. After substantial demolition, sub-surface utility work, and road widening work has been completed, the current roadway flow would be expected to be restored. Temporary lane closures may be required throughout the construction project and would take place in accordance with RIOC and/or NYCDOT-approved maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) plans and would be managed by on-site flag-persons and barricades for protection. During the course of construction, sidewalks may also be closed or protected for varying periods of time. This work would be coordinated with and approved by RIOC and/or NYCDOT. Pedestrian access at the waterfront promenades along the East River would remain open at all times during the entire construction period. RODENT CONTROL Construction contracts would include provisions for a rodent (mouse and rat) control program. Before the start of construction, the contractor would survey and bait the appropriate areas and provide for proper site sanitation. During the construction the contractor would carry out a maintenance program, as necessary. Signage would be posted, and coordination would be maintained with appropriate public agencies. Only EPA- and NYSDEC-registered rodenticides would be permitted, and the contractor would be required to perform rodent control programs in a manner that avoids hazards to persons, domestic animals, and non-target wildlife. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION TASKS CONSTRUCTION STARTUP TASKS Construction startup work prepares a site for construction. The project site would be first fenced off, with mostly chain-link fencing to minimize interference with the persons passing by the site. Separate gates for workers and for trucks would be established. Field offices for the construction engineers and managers would be hauled to the site and installed. In addition, portable toilets, dumpsters for trash, and water and fuel tankers would be brought to the site and installed. Temporary utilities would be connected to the construction field. During the startup period, permanent utility connections may be made, but utility connections may be made almost any time during the construction sequence. Construction startup tasks would also involve site cleanup and vegetation and tree removal activities. For the proposed project, construction startup tasks are estimated to average 10 to 20 workers on site, and usually about 10 truck deliveries per day. The task would be completed within a few months.

20-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

INTERIOR DEMOLITION, ABATEMENT, AND STRUCTURAL DEMOLITION Development of the project would require the demolition of the existing Goldwater Memorial Hospital complex. First, any economically salvageable materials would be removed. Then the interior finishes of the buildings would be demolished to expose the asbestos and hazardous materials for the abatement process. As the interiors are being demolished, the existing elevators and other vertical transportation shafts would be used to move debris to ground level. For the interior demolition, equipment would include small front end loaders and bull dozers to move the debris to the vertical shafts. The majority of the actual deconstruction would be done using hand tools. Interior demolition would have approximately 60 workers on site and typically 10 truckloads of debris removed per day. The interior demolition activities would first commence in the northernmost buildings - Buildings C, D, and F, and the southernmost building - Building J (See Figure 1-2 for location of the existing hospital buildings) and subsequently in Buildings B and E and finally in Building A. This task would take about five months to complete for all of the hospital buildings. Next, these buildings would be abated of asbestos and any other hazardous materials within the existing buildings and structures. A 1992 asbestos survey indicated the presence of asbestoscontaining materials (ACM) in the buildings. According to hospital representatives, limited ACM abatement has occurred since the survey as part of routine repairs and renovations. The ACM must be removed by a DOL-licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to structural demolition. Asbestos abatement is strictly regulated by NYCDEP, DOL, EPA, and OSHA to protect the health and safety of construction workers and nearby residents and workers. Depending on the extent and type of ACM, these agencies would be notified of the asbestos removal project and may inspect the abatement site to ensure that work is being performed in accordance with applicable regulations, including the new February 2, 2011 NYCDEP regulations. These regulations specify abatement methods, including wet removal of ACM that minimize asbestos fibers from becoming airborne, and containment measures. The areas of the building with ACM would be isolated from the surrounding area with a containment system and a decontamination system. The types of these systems would depend on the type and quantity of ACM, and may include hard barriers, isolation barriers, critical barriers, and caution tape. Specially trained and certified workers, wearing personal protective equipment, would remove the ACM and place them in bags or containers lined with plastic sheeting for disposal at an asbestos-permitted landfill. Depending on the extent and type of ACM, an independent third-party air-monitoring firm would collect air samples before, during, and after the asbestos abatement. These samples would be analyzed in a laboratory to ensure that regulated fiber levels are not exceeded. After the abatement is completed and the work areas have passed a visual inspection and monitoring, if applicable, the structural demolition work would begin. Depending on the amount of ACM to be removed, about 60 workers and two trucks per day are expected to be needed for abatement, and this task is expected to last about six months. Based on the buildings age, lead-based paint may be present. Any activities with the potential to disturb lead-based paint would be performed in accordance with the applicable OSHA regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62Lead Exposure in Construction). When conducting demolition (unlike lead abatement work), lead-based paint is generally not stripped from surfaces. Structures are disassembled or broken apart with most paint still intact. Dust control measures (spraying with water) would be used. The lead content of any resulting dust is therefore expected to be low. Work zone air monitoring for lead may be performed during certain activities with a high potential for releasing airborne lead-containing particulates in the immediate work zone, such as manual demolition of walls with lead paint or cutting of steel with lead-containing

20-8

Chapter 20: Construction

coatings. Such monitoring would be performed to ensure that workers performing these activities are properly protected against lead exposure. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were historically used in transformers (as a dielectric fluid), some underground high-voltage electric lines, hydraulically operated machinery, and fluorescent lighting ballasts. Suspected PCB-containing equipment (such as fluorescent light ballasts) that would be disturbed would be evaluated prior to disturbance. Unless labeling or test data indicate that the suspected PCB-containing equipment does not contain PCBs, it would be assumed to contain PCBs and removed and disposed of at properly licensed facilities in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Once the hospital buildings are abated of asbestos and any other hazardous materials, structural demolition would commence. When structures on the roof are being razed, enclosed chutes would be used to move the debris to the ground level. Because of the structural properties of the existing hospital buildings, large excavators may be needed to demolish most of the buildings. Front-end loaders would be used on the ground floor to load materials into dump trucks. The demolition debris would be sorted prior to being disposed at landfills to maximize recycling opportunities. About 40 to 50 workers are expected to be on-site, and typically 5 to 10 truckloads of debris would be removed per day. The structural demolition task is expected to last about 10 months. CIVIL ACTIVITIES The construction of the proposed project would include various civil activities, including utility upgrades, grading, PV panel installation, geothermal well system construction, and landscaping. Each day, approximately 40 to 70 workers and 10 to 15 trucks would be required for this task. Utilities All utilities that may be present on site and that may be affected by construction activities would be relocated in accordance with all applicable New York City regulations. The proposed buildings would receive some combination of electric and gas service via the Con Edison distribution system. However, PV panels, a geothermal well system, and two central energy utility plants are being considered to reduce energy consumption since Cornell has committed to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification for all project buildings. Utility work would also include the installation of utility connections to the proposed buildings and sub-surface offsite water and sewer line work. Grading Grading would be required for both construction phases to bring part of the project site to the desired elevation level. Site grading would be undertaken using cut and fill techniques and would seek to reuse as much material on-site as possible. All the fill material would be buried beneath the necessary level of cover. During Phase 1 construction, stockpiling is expected to be on the southern portion of the site. During Phase 2 construction, no stockpiling is expected as all of the excavated materials would be trucked from the project site. Equipment used during grading would include graders, loaders, and compactors. PV Panels PV panels would be installed above the roof of the academic building; the panels may also extend over a portion of the central spine (creating a canopy), and possibly continue over the roof of the corporate co-location building. PV panels may also be integrated into the landscape to form

20-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

pavilions, covered rest areas, and similar ground-mounted structures. The equipment used for the installation of the PV panels would include various hand tools. Geothermal Wells Consistent with the net zero energy goals for the Phase 1 academic building, a below-grade closedloop geothermal well field may be developed to serve the academic building. Approximately 140 geothermal wells may be constructed during Phase 1. These wells would provide heating and cooling for the academic building. Cornell may expand the geothermal system as practical for the full build, depending on the success of the Phase 1 system. Each geothermal well would take approximately three days to complete: one day for site set-up, one day for drilling and concurrent data collection, and one day to insert and grout the closed loop piping. The equipment used for each well would include a drill rig and a grout mixer/pump. Landscaping During construction of the publicly accessible open spaces, top soil may be imported for installation of the grassy areas and landscaping. Concrete sidewalks would be poured, and street furniture, such as benches and tables, would be installed. Dump trucks would bring the soil to the site for spreading. Trees and shrubs would be planted. For the active recreation areas, the ground surfaces would be installed, followed by the appropriate amenities. The majority of this work would be done by hand. EXCAVATION AND FOUNDATION A spread footing foundations system is expected to be used for the project buildings. In this type of foundation system, concrete column footings would be used to accommodate the concentrated load placed on them and support the structure above. These concrete footings would be reinforced with rebar as they are traditionally done. The project buildings would be founded on rocks. Large excavators would be used for the task of excavation. The soil would be loaded onto dump trucks for transport to a licensed disposal facility or for reuse on a construction site that needs fill. The dump trucks would be loaded in the excavation itself, and a ramp would be built to the street level. Next, the concrete footings would be erected and subsequently the basement floors would be installed. The excavation/foundation task would involve the use of excavators, cranes, bull dozers, drill rigs, and various hand tools. The installation of the footings and basements would require concrete trucks, concrete pumps, vibrators, and compressors. During the excavation and foundation task, about 25 to 35 workers would be on-site per day for each building. In addition, approximately two to three trucks would enter and leave the project site per day for each building. As described above, since stockpiling is expected in Phase 1, there would also be trucks on-site stockpiling materials during this construction phase. Stockpiling is not expected during Phase 2 construction. Below-Grade Hazardous Materials All construction subsurface soil disturbances would be performed in accordance with an NYCDEP-approved RAP and CHASP. The RAP would provide for the appropriate handling, stockpiling, testing, transportation, and disposal of excavated materials, as well as any unexpectedly encountered tanks, in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. The CHASP would ensure that all subsurface disturbances are done in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment.

20-10

Chapter 20: Construction

Dewatering The excavated area would not be water proof until the slab-on-grade is built. In addition, rain and snow could collect in the excavation, and that water would have to be removed. Temporary erosion and sediment controls during construction may include settling ponds and approved filtration systems, some of which could become integrated into permanent site features. The decanted water would then be discharged into the New York City sewer system. The settled sediments, spent filters, and removed materials would be transported to a licensed disposal area. Discharge in the sewer system is governed by NYCDEP regulations. NYCDEP has a formal procedure for issuing a Letter of Approval to discharge into the New York City sewer system. The authorization is issued by the NYCDEP Borough office if the discharge is less than 10,000 gallons per day; an additional approval by the Division of Connections & Permitting is needed if the discharge is more than 10,000 gallons per day. All chemical and physical testing of the water has to be done by a laboratory that is certified by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). The design of the pretreatment system has to be signed by a New York State Professional Engineer or Registered Architect. NYCDEP regulations specify the maximum pollutants concentration limits for water discharged into New York City sewers. NYCDEP can also impose project-specific limits, depending on the location of the project and contamination that has been found in nearby areas. SUPERSTRUCTURE The cores of each project building create the buildings framework (beams and columns) and floor decks. For the proposed project, the superstructure would either consist of reinforced concrete or be constructed of steel. Construction of the interior structure, or core, of the proposed buildings would include elevator shafts; vertical risers for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; electrical and mechanical equipment rooms; core stairs; and restroom areas. Core construction would begin when the podium over the foundation is completed and would continue through the interior construction and finishing stage. Superstructure activities would require the use of cranes, derricks, delivery trucks, forklifts, or loaders, and other heavy equipment such as tower cranes or crawler cranes, concrete pumps, welding machines, rebar benders and cutters, and compressors. Temporary construction elevators (hoists) would also be constructed for the delivery of materials and vertical movement of workers during this stage. Cranes would be used to lift structural components, faade elements, large construction equipment, and other large materials. Smaller construction materials and debris generated during this stage of construction would generally be moved with hoists. During peak construction, the number of workers would be about 30 to 80 per day for each building, depending on the size of the proposed building. Anywhere from 15 to 20 trucks per day would deliver materials to each building. EXTERIOR FAADE As the superstructure advances upward above ground, installation of the vertical mechanical systems would commence. After the superstructure is 5 to 10 floors above street grade, the exterior faade would be installed on the lower floors. Exterior construction would overlap with the superstructure task. The exterior faade would arrive on trucks and be lifted into place for attachment by cranes. Each day, approximately 15 workers and two to five trucks would be required for the exterior construction of each building.

20-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

INTERIORS, FINISHING, AND COMMISSIONING This stage would include the construction of interior partitions, installation of lighting fixtures, and interior finishes (flooring, painting, etc.), and mechanical and electrical work. This activity would employ the greatest number of construction workers: with about 140 to 160 workers per day for each building. In addition, about 10 trucks per day per building would arrive and leave the construction site. Equipment used during interior construction would include exterior hoists, pneumatic equipment, delivery trucks, and a variety of small hand-held tools. Cranes may be used to lift mechanical equipment onto the roof of the building. While the greatest number of construction workers would be on-site during this stage of construction, this is the quietest because most of the construction activities would occur within the buildings.

E. NUMBER OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND MATERIAL DELIVERIES

Construction is labor intensive, and the number of workers varies with the general construction task and the size of the building. Likewise, material deliveries generate many truck trips, and the number also varies. Table 20-3 shows the estimated numbers of workers and deliveries to the project area by calendar quarter for all construction. These represent the average number of daily workers and trucks within each quarter. The average number of workers would be about 523 per day during Phase 1 and 311 per day during Phase 2. The average number of trucks would be 37 per day during Phase 1 and 21 per day during Phase 2.

Table 20-3 Average Number of Daily Workers and Trucks by Quarter

Year Quarter Workers Trucks Year Quarter Workers Trucks Year Quarter Workers Trucks Year Quarter Workers Trucks 1st 133 10 2014 2nd 3rd 186 201 13 15 2024 2nd 3rd 72 131 15 20 2028 2nd 3rd 4th 209 19 1st 279 25 Phase 1 2015 2nd 3rd 4th 379 689 839 67 34 65 Phase 2 2025 2nd 3rd 4th 352 435 455 35 22 30 1st 770 66 2016 2nd 3rd 781 808 59 49 2026 2nd 3rd 508 481 25 18 4th 867 37 1st 840 31 2017 2nd 3rd 644 215 29 3 2027 2nd 3rd 377 207 22 11 4th 133 5

1st

4th 147 22 4th

1st 207 21

1st 494 27

4th 516 28

1st 465 29

4th 149 11

1st 104 10 1st

2034 2nd 3rd 38 71 15 20

4th 119 20

1st 137 23

2035 2nd 3rd 319 360 29 26

4th 349 22

1st 460 21

2036 2nd 3rd 4th 529 452 467 16 18 24 Phase 1 Average Peak 523 867 37 67

1st 477 24

2037 2nd 3rd 4th 402 224 129 21 13 9 Phase 2 Average Peak 311 529 21 35

Notes: Sources:

Construction would begin In the first quarter of 2014. Tishman Construction Corporation

F. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Similar to many large development projects in New York City, construction can be disruptive to the surrounding area for periods of time. The following analyses describe potential construction 20-12

Chapter 20: Construction

impacts with respect to transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, historic resources, hazardous materials, natural resources, open space, socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character. TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC Construction activities would generate construction worker and truck traffic. Based on the construction sequencing and worker/truck projections presented above, detailed trip generation estimates were developed to identify the construction-related peak hour trip-making activities. These estimates were then used as the basis for assessing the potential transportation-related impacts during construction. For Phase 1 construction, the projected peak construction traffic would be greater than the full build-out of the proposed project would generate, albeit during different peak hours. Therefore, a detailed analysis of traffic operations during Phase 1 construction was prepared for several key study area intersections (seven in total) to identify the potential construction-related significant adverse traffic impacts. During Phase 2 construction, peak activities generated by construction workers and truck deliveries would be substantially lower in comparison to those during Phase 1 construction. However, the combination of the Phase 2 construction with the new trips generated by the operational uses of the completed Phase 1 and partially completed Phase 2 components may also create a potential for significant adverse traffic impacts during Phase 2 construction. Because the cumulative trip-making during Phase 2 construction would be less than projected for the full build-out of the proposed project, the potential impacts during this construction phase were addressed qualitatively. As presented below, the detailed analysis of traffic operations during Phase 1 construction concluded that there would be a potential for significant adverse traffic impacts at four of the seven analyzed intersections. Two of these impacted intersections could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by NYCDOT; practical mitigation measures could not be determined at this time for the other two impacted intersections. The recommended mitigation measures would be consistent with those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. An analysis of Phase 2 construction efforts determined that the cumulative trips generated under the Phase 2 construction scenario would be less than the operational full build-out of the project in 2038. As a result, the anticipated construction impacts would be within the envelope of traffic impacts identified for the 2038 With Action condition in Chapter 14, Transportation, and can be similarly addressed with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 21, Mitigation, to mitigate the projected significant adverse traffic impacts. Where operational impacts have been deemed unmitigatable, they may also be unmitigatable during Phase 2 construction. Construction Trip Generation Average daily construction worker and truck activities by quarter were projected for the entire construction period. Phase 1 construction is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2014. Phase 2 construction would start several years after the completion of Phase 1 in mid-2024 and be completed by the late 2037. Phase 1 and Phase 2 worker and truck trip projections were refined to account for worker modal splits and vehicle occupancy, arrival and departure

20-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

distribution, and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors for construction truck traffic. 1 These estimates are presented in Tables 20-4 and 20-5.

Table 20-4 Phase 1 Construction Trip Generation

Vehicle PCEs (Autos + Trucks) 6 AM - 7 AM 7 AM - 8 AM 8 AM -9 AM 9 AM -10 AM 10 AM - 11 AM 11 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 1 PM 1 PM - 2 PM 2 PM - 3 PM 3 PM - 4 PM 4 PM - 5 PM 5 PM 6 PM Daily Total 1Q 65 17 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 57 10 0 172 2014 2Q 3Q 86 96 26 28 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 4 4 0 9 5 78 80 13 15 0 0 236 260 4Q 103 29 8 8 8 4 8 4 9 87 16 0 284 1Q 134 40 12 12 12 8 8 4 11 114 21 0 376 2015 2016 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 186 342 397 374 370 369 380 365 50 96 111 104 101 100 102 95 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 24 24 24 24 20 12 12 12 28 24 28 24 20 16 12 12 12 12 8 8 12 4 4 17 29 33 31 31 28 30 29 158 286 345 318 322 329 352 341 29 51 62 57 58 60 64 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 952 1,092 1,028 1,010 998 1,008 956 2017 2Q 3Q 283 86 76 21 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 8 0 20 5 259 86 48 16 0 0 754 214 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Daily Workforce and Truck Deliveries Peak Phase 1 construction traffic is expected to take place from the third quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of the 2017 with little fluctuation in volumes. For a reasonable worst-case analysis of potential transportation-related impacts during construction, the daily workforce and truck trip projections during this period were used as the basis for estimating peak hour construction trips. It is expected that construction activities would generate the highest amount of daily traffic in the fourth quarter of 2015, with an estimated average of 839 workers and 65 truck deliveries per day (see Appendix 20 for details). After the completion and occupancy of the Phase 1 buildings, Phase 2 construction of the remaining site is expected to commence in mid-2024 and continue through the end of 2037 in two separate development segments2024 to 2028 (Phase 2A) and 2034 to 2037 (Phase 2B). In Phase 2A, the highest amount of daily traffic would occur during the fourth quarter of 2026, with 516 daily workers and 28 daily truck deliveries, while in Phase 2B, the highest amount of daily traffic would occur during the fourth quarter of 2036, with 529 daily workers and 24 daily truck deliveries. These estimates of construction activities are further discussed below. Construction Worker Modal Splits and Vehicle Occupancy Based on the 2000 Census data on the construction and excavation industry for tracts in Astoria, Long Island City, and Roosevelt Island, approximately 58 percent of the construction workers would be expected to travel to the site by private autos at an average occupancy of 1.17 persons per vehicle. The remaining 42 percent would use public transportation.

The traffic analysis assumed that each truck has a PCE of 2.0.

20-14

Chapter 20: Construction

Table 20-5 Phase 2 Construction Trip Generation

Vehicle PCEs (Autos + Trucks) 6 AM - 7 AM 7 AM - 8 AM 8 AM -9 AM 9 AM -10 AM 10 AM - 11 AM 11 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 1 PM 1 PM - 2 PM 2 PM - 3 PM 3 PM - 4 PM 4 PM - 5 PM 5 PM - 6 PM Daily Total Vehicle PCEs (Autos + Trucks) 6 AM - 7 AM 7 AM - 8 AM 8 AM -9 AM 9 AM -10 AM 10 AM - 11 AM 11 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 1 PM 1 PM - 2 PM 2 PM - 3 PM 3 PM - 4 PM 4 PM - 5 PM 5 PM - 6 PM Daily Total 6 AM - 7 AM 7 AM - 8 AM 8 AM -9 AM 9 AM -10 AM 10 AM - 11 AM 11 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 1 PM 1 PM - 2 PM 2 PM - 3 PM 3 PM - 4 PM 4 PM - 5 PM 5 PM - 6 PM Daily Total 2024 1Q 2Q 45 15 8 8 8 4 4 0 2 33 5 0 132 3Q 72 21 8 8 8 8 8 4 7 56 10 0 210 4Q 82 27 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 62 11 0 234 4Q 1Q 102 33 8 8 8 8 8 4 9 86 16 0 290 2025 2Q 163 47 8 8 8 8 8 4 13 143 26 0 436 3Q 209 59 16 16 16 12 12 4 15 181 32 0 572 4Q 213 57 12 12 12 12 12 4 15 189 34 0 572 1Q 224 61 12 12 12 12 12 4 12 200 37 0 598 2026 2Q 226 62 12 12 12 12 12 0 13 206 37 0 604 3Q 210 56 8 8 8 8 8 0 12 194 36 0 548 4Q 233 63 12 12 12 12 12 4 17 209 38 0 624 1Q 213 58 12 12 12 12 12 8 16 189 34 0 578 2027 2Q 174 45 8 8 8 8 8 8 13 154 28 0 462 3Q 94 25 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 86 16 0 250 4Q 71 19 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 63 11 0 192

1Q 54 14 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 46 7 0 144

2028 2Q 3Q

No construction activities projected for 2029 to 2033

31 12 8 8 8 4 4 0 1 19 3 0 98

48 15 8 8 8 8 8 4 6 32 5 0 150

67 20 8 8 8 8 8 4 7 51 9 0 198

78 22 8 8 8 8 8 8 11 58 11 0 228

154 44 12 12 12 12 12 8 12 130 24 0 432

170 48 12 12 12 8 8 4 13 146 27 0 460

162 43 8 8 8 8 8 8 13 142 26 0 434

202 54 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 186 35 0 540

195 53 8 8 8 8 4 0 11 183 34 0 512

206 54 8 8 8 8 8 0 12 190 34 0 536

234 60 8 8 8 8 12 8 21 214 39 0 620

213 55 8 8 8 8 12 8 20 193 35 0 568

179 48 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 163 30 0 482

101 26 4 4 4 4 8 4 10 93 16 0 274

59 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 51 10 0 164

Peak Hour Construction Worker Vehicle and Truck Trips According to Cornell, site activities would mostly take place during the construction shift of 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM. While construction truck trips would be made throughout the day (with more trips made during the early morning), most trucks would remain in the area for short durations and construction workers would typically commute during the hours before and after the work shift. For analysis purposes, each worker vehicle was assumed to arrive in the morning and depart in the afternoon or early evening, whereas each truck delivery was assumed to result in two truck trips during the same hour (one in and one out). Furthermore, in accordance

20-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

with the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, the traffic analysis assumed that each truck has a PCE of 2.0. The estimated daily vehicle trips were distributed throughout the workday based on projected work shift allocations and conventional arrival/departure patterns of construction workers and trucks. For construction workers, the majority (approximately 80 percent) of the arrival and departure trips would take place during the hour before and after each shift. For construction trucks, deliveries would occur throughout the day when the construction site is active. Construction truck deliveries typically peak during the early morning (approximately 25 percent), overlapping with construction worker arrival traffic. The peak construction hourly trip projections for Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction are summarized in Tables 20-6, 20-7A (Phase 2A), and 20-7B (Phase 2B).

Table 20-6 Phase 1 Peak Construction Vehicle Trip Projections

Hour 6 AM - 7 AM 7 AM - 8 AM 8 AM - 9 AM 9 AM - 10 AM 10 AM - 11 AM 11 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 1 PM 1 PM - 2 PM 2 PM - 3 PM 3 PM - 4 PM 4 PM - 5 PM Auto Trips Truck Trips Total Regular Shift Regular Shift Vehicle Trips PCE Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Weekday (4th Quarter of 2015) 333 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 333 62 333 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 333 62 16 7 7 7 7 6 6 3 3 3 0 16 7 7 7 7 6 6 3 3 3 0 32 14 14 14 14 12 12 6 6 6 0 349 90 7 7 7 6 6 3 3 3 0 16 7 7 7 7 6 6 3 24 336 62 365 97 14 14 14 12 12 6 27 339 62 365 97 14 14 14 12 12 6 6 6 0 32 14 14 14 14 12 12 6 27 339 62 397 111 28 28 28 24 24 12 33 345 62

Daily Total 416 416 832 65 65 130 481 481 962 546 546 1,092 Notes: Hourly construction worker and truck trips were derived from an estimated quarterly average number of construction workers and truck deliveries per day, with each truck delivery resulting in two daily trips (arrival and departure). Construction peak hours are shaded in this table.

Table 20-7A Phase 2A Peak Construction Vehicle Trip Projections

Auto Trips Truck Trips Total Regular Shift Regular Shift Vehicle Trips PCE Trips Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Weekday (4th Quarter of 2026) 6 AM - 7 AM 205 0 205 7 7 14 212 7 219 219 14 233 7 AM - 8 AM 51 0 51 3 3 6 54 3 57 57 6 63 8 AM - 9 AM 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 12 9 AM - 10 AM 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 12 10 AM - 11 AM 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 12 11 AM - 12 PM 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 12 12 PM - 1 PM 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 12 1 PM - 2 PM 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 PM - 3 PM 0 13 13 1 1 2 1 14 15 2 15 17 3 PM - 4 PM 0 205 205 1 1 2 1 206 207 2 207 209 4 PM - 5 PM 0 38 38 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 38 38 Daily Total 256 256 512 28 28 56 284 284 568 312 312 624 Note: Hourly construction worker and truck trips were derived from an estimated quarterly average number of construction workers and truck deliveries per day, with each truck delivery resulting in two daily trips (arrival and departure).

20-16

Chapter 20: Construction

Table 20-7B Phase 2B Peak Construction Vehicle Trip Projections

Auto Trips Truck Trips Total Regular Shift Regular Shift Vehicle Trips PCE Trips Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Weekday (4th Quarter of 2036) 6 AM - 7 AM 210 0 210 6 6 12 216 6 222 222 12 234 7 AM - 8 AM 52 0 52 2 2 4 54 2 56 56 4 60 8 AM - 9 AM 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 9 AM - 10 AM 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 10 AM - 11 AM 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 11 AM - 12 PM 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 12 PM - 1 PM 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 12 1 PM - 2 PM 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 2 PM - 3 PM 0 13 13 2 2 4 2 15 17 4 17 21 3 PM - 4 PM 0 210 210 1 1 2 1 211 212 2 212 214 4 PM - 5 PM 0 39 39 0 0 0 0 39 39 0 39 39 Daily Total 262 262 524 24 24 48 286 286 572 310 310 620 Note: Hourly construction worker and truck trips were derived from an estimated quarterly average number of construction workers and truck deliveries per day, with each truck delivery resulting in two daily trips (arrival and departure).

The maximum Phase 1 construction activities would result in 397 PCEs between 6 and 7 AM and 345 PCEs between 3 and 4 PM on weekdays in the fourth quarter of 2015. Phase 2 construction activities would result in 233 PCEs between 6 and 7 AM and 209 PCEs between 3 and 4 PM in the fourth quarter of 2026 (Phase 2A) and 234 PCEs between 6 and 7 AM and 214 PCEs between 3 and 4 PM in the fourth quarter of 2036 (Phase 2B). Since the projected construction peak hour traffic volumes during Phase 1 construction would be greater than the incremental peak hour traffic associated with the build-out of the proposed project, a detailed analysis of the construction peak hours of 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM was prepared to identify the potential traffic impacts during Phase 1 construction. Since the traffic contribution from the Phase 2 construction activities would be less than those projected for Phase 1 construction, the cumulative effects of these activities together with those generated by the completed Phase 1 components of the proposed project would also need to be considered, as further described below. Phase 1 Construction Traffic Capacity Analysis Seven study area intersections were selected for analysis of peak Phase 1 construction (fourth quarter of 2015). The operations at these intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) version 5.5, which is based on the methodologies presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). A discussion of the analysis methodology can be found in Chapter 14, Transportation. Future without Construction of the Proposed Project Since, as described earlier, the peak Phase 1 construction period would be relatively flat between 2015 and 2017 and extend almost until the completion of the Phase 1 development in 2018, traffic volumes from the 2018 No Action condition were used as the baseline for the detailed Phase 1 construction traffic analysis. This analysis approach is conservative because it assumes all background traffic growth and No Action projects through 2018 would be added to the roadway network by 2015 to 2017, including both Southtown construction traffic and traffic from Southtowns residential units on Roosevelt Island. According to projections, Southtown construction would generate 95 auto trips and 8 truck trips during the 6-7 AM morning construction peak hour and 95 auto trips and 2 truck trips during the 3-4 PM afternoon

20-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

construction peak hour. It is assumed that on-site parking for up to 30 autos would be provided at Southtown, and the remainder of construction workers would park at the Motorgate garage. Based on the Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) traffic volume data collected to determine existing conditions (see Chapter 14, Transportation), overall background traffic volumes during the 6-7 AM construction peak hour are approximately 36 percent lower than the 7:308:30 AM peak hour analyzed for Phase 1 and Phase 2 conditions, and overall traffic volumes during the 3-4 PM construction peak hour are about 6 percent higher than the 4:30-5:30 PM peak hour; therefore, 2018 No Action traffic volumes were decreased for the 6-7 AM construction peak hour and increased for the 3-4 PM construction peak hour proportionate to the differences stated above and layered with Southtown construction traffic to create the 6-7 AM and 3-4 PM No Action construction peak hour traffic volumes (see Appendix 20). The intersections of East/West Main Street at Main Street, West Road at Main Street, Main Street at the Roosevelt Avenue Bridge, Vernon Boulevard at 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge, 36th Avenue at 21st Street, Broadway at 21st Street, and Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue at 21st Street were analyzed for potential construction traffic impacts. For the Phase 1 No Action construction condition, all seven intersections during the 6-7 AM construction peak hour and four of the seven intersections in the 3-4 PM construction peak hour would operate at an overall acceptable level of service. In the 3-4 PM period, Vernon Boulevard at 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge, Broadway at 21st Street and Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue at 21st Street would operate at overall unacceptable LOS E. Of the 29 traffic movements analyzed during the AM and PM construction peak hours, one movement would operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., mid-LOS D or worse) during the AM construction peak hour and eight movements would operate at unacceptable levels of service in the PM construction peak hour. A detailed summary of the No Action construction peak hour analysis results is provided in Table 20-8. Future with Construction of the Proposed Project According to projections presented above (see Table 20-6), peak Phase 1 construction activities would generate 333 autos and 32 trucks during the 6-7 AM construction peak hour (trip assignment presented in Appendix 20) and 333 autos and 6 trucks during the 3-4 PM construction peak hour (trip assignment presented in Appendix 20). It is expected that on-site parking for up to 100 autos would be provided at the Cornell project site, and the remainder of construction workers traveling by car would park at the Motorgate garage. Construction trucks would follow NYCDOT-designated truck routes, including the RFK Bridge, Queensboro Bridge, Queens-Midtown Tunnel, 21st Street, Broadway, and Vernon Boulevard, to travel to the project site and would then use 36th Avenue and Main Street to access the construction site. The overall projected 6-7 AM and 3-4 PM construction peak hour traffic volumes are also presented in Appendix 20. An analysis of the seven construction study area intersections showed that the intersection of Vernon Boulevard at 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge would be significantly impacted during both the 67 AM and 3-4 PM construction peak hours and that the intersections of 36th Avenue at 21st Street, Broadway at 21st Street, and Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue at 21st Street would be significantly impacted only during the 3-4 PM construction peak hour. Significant impacts at 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge at Vernon Boulevard (AM construction peak hour only), 36th Avenue and 21st Street, and Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue at 21st Street could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by

20-18

Chapter 20: Construction

Table 20-8 Phase 1 No Action Construction Traffic Levels of Service

Intersection App East/West Main Street and Main Street West Road EB LT 7.1 A LT 7.5 Main Road SB LR 7.1 A LR 7.2 Overall Intersection 7.1 A 7.3 West Road and Main Street West Road EB LR 8.5 A LR 9.5 West Road (south of island) EB LR 10.4 B LR 10.8 Main Street NB LT 8.8 A LT 10.6 SB TR 8.6 A TR 9.1 Overall Intersection 8.9 A 10.1 Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street Roosevelt Isl. Bridge Ramp WB LR 10.4 B LR 11.6 Main Street NB T 9.2 A T 9.8 R 8.8 A R 10.4 SB LT 9.8 A LT 15.6 Overall Intersection 9.8 A 12.9 Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue/Vernon Boulevard Roosevelt Island Bridge EB L 0.19 11.8 B L 0.54 15.4 TR 0.38 13.6 B TR 0.79 20.1 36th Avenue WB LTR 0.31 12.8 B LTR 0.33 13.6 Vernon Boulevard NB LTR 0.62 14.3 B LTR 1.20+ 138.3 SB LTR 0.61 14.1 B LTR 0.90 29.8 Overall Intersection 0.50 13.7 B 1.03 59.6 36th Avenue and 21st Street 36th Avenue EB LTR 0.41 34.5 C LTR 0.80 42.9 WB LTR 0.59 36.4 D LTR 0.87 51.9 21st Street NB LTR 0.21 10.9 B LTR 0.97 30.3 SB LTR 0.65 15.6 B LTR 0.75 19.7 Overall Intersection 0.63 19.3 B 0.93 30.3 Broadway and 21st Street Broadway EB LTR 0.53 41.6 D LTR 1.20+ 145.1 WB LTR 0.49 39.6 D LTR 1.20+ 167.1 21st Street NB LTR 0.30 13.5 B LTR 0.98 35.8 SB LTR 0.63 17.3 B LTR 0.74 21.4 Overall intersection 0.60 20.6 C 1.07 55.0 Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street Astoria Boulevard EB L 0.50 45.5 D L 0.50 42.9 TR 0.53 44.1 D TR 0.82 50.9 WB L 0.63 42.0 D L 0.93 70.0 TR 0.48 38.9 D TR 0.73 49.3 21st Street NB LTR 0.43 25.7 C LTR 1.14 96.8 SB LTR 0.72 28.3 C LTR 0.96 42.3 Overall Intersection 0.65 33.7 C 1.01 64.1 Notes: Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. Overall intersection V/C ratio is the critical lane groups V/C ratio. Construction 6-7 AM Peak Hour Lane Delay Group V/C Ratio (SPV) LOS Construction 3-4 PM Peak Hour Lane Delay Group V/C Ratio (SPV) LOS A A A A B B A B B A B C B B C B F C E D D C B C F F D C E D D E D F D E

NYCDOT. Mitigation identified for 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge at Vernon Boulevard could only partially mitigate impacts during the PM construction peak hour. The recommended mitigation measures would be similar to those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. Tables 20-9 and 20-10 summarize the capacity analysis results and 20-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

mitigation recommendations for the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours, respectively. A discussion of these results for each of the impacted intersections is provided below. Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue and Vernon BoulevardImpacts on the northbound Vernon Boulevard shared left-turn/through/right-turn movement would occur during the AM and PM construction peak hours and impacts on the eastbound Roosevelt Island Bridge shared through/right-turn movement would occur during the PM construction peak hour. These impacts could be fully mitigated for only the AM construction peak hour and partially mitigated for the PM construction peak hour by modifying the signal timing. 36th Avenue and 21st StreetImpacts on the eastbound 36th Avenue shared leftturn/through/right-turn movement and on the westbound 36th Avenue shared leftturn/through/right-turn movement would occur during the PM peak hour and could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing, shifting the eastbound approach centerline six feet to the north and restriping the approach from one 25-foot wide travel lane to one 11-foot wide exclusive left-turn lane and one 20-foot wide shared through/right-turn lane with parking for a distance of 200 feet back from the intersection and shifting the westbound approach centerline six feet to the south and restriping the approach from one 25-foot wide travel lane to one 11-foot wide exclusive left-turn lane and one 20-foot wide shared through/right-turn lane with parking for a distance of 125 feet back from the intersection. Broadway and 21st StreetImpacts on the eastbound Broadway shared leftturn/through/right-turn movement, the westbound Broadway shared left-turn/through/rightturn movement, and on the northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn movement would occur during the PM peak hour. These impacts could be fully mitigated by modifying the signal timing during the PM peak hour.

20-20

Chapter 20: Construction

Table 20-9 Phase 1 No Action, With Action, Mitigated Conditions Construction AM Peak Hour Traffic Levels of Service
Intersection Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction No Action Condition With Action Condition Mitigated Condition Lane V/C Delay Lane V/C Delay Lane V/C Delay App Group Ratio (SPV) LOS Group Ratio (SPV) LOS Group Ratio (SPV) LOS
7.1 7.1 7.1 8.5 10.4 8.8 8.6 8.9 10.4 9.2 8.8 9.8 9.8 A A A A B A A A B A A A A B B B B B B C D LT LR LR LR LT TR LR T R LT L TR LTR LTR LTR LTR LTR 0.28 0.40 0.57 1.14 0.75 0.85 0.44 0.75 7.4 8.6 8.5 9.6 11.7 9.2 10.6 10.3 14.3 9.7 10.1 10.5 12.5 13.2 13.9 16.7 82.9 17.2 34.9 35.1 40.0 A A A A B A B B B A B B B B B B F* B C D D L TR LTR LTR LTR L TR L TR 0.31 0.44 0.62 1.02 0.70 0.84 0.20 0.34 0.17 0.69 15.1 15.7 19.4 35.0 14.0 21.5 31.8 33.3 30.5 38.4 B B B D B C C C C D

Recommended Mitigation Measures

East/West Main Street and Main Street West Road EB LT Main Road SB LR Overall Intersection West Road and Main Street West Road West Road (south of island) Main Street Overall Intersection EB EB NB SB LR LR LT TR -

Mitigation not required.

Mitigation not required.

Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street Roosevelt Isl. Bridge Ramp WB LR Main Street NB T R SB LT Overall Intersection -

Mitigation not required.

Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue/Vernon Boulevard Roosevelt Island Bridge EB L 0.19 11.8 TR 0.38 13.6 36th Avenue WB LTR 0.31 12.8 Vernon Boulevard NB LTR 0.62 14.3 SB LTR 0.61 14.1 Overall Intersection 0.50 13.7 36th Avenue and 21st Street 36th Avenue EB WB LTR LTR 0.41 0.59 34.5 36.4 -

-Modify signal timing: shift 2 s green time from EB/WB phase to NB/SB phase [EB/WB green time shifts from 25 s to 23 s; NB/SB green time shifts from 25 s to 27 s].

21st Street

NB

LTR

0.21

10.9

LTR

0.21

10.9

LTR

0.21

10.9

SB

LTR

0.65

15.6

LTR

0.74

17.2

LTR

0.74

17.2

Overall Intersection Broadway and 21st Street Broadway EB WB 21st Street Overall intersection NB SB

LTR LTR LTR LTR -

0.63 0.53 0.49 0.30 0.63 0.60

19.3 41.6 39.6 13.5 17.3 20.6

B D D B B C

LTR LTR LTR LTR -

0.74 0.54 0.60 0.30 0.69 0.66

21.4 41.9 41.9 13.5 18.4 21.6

C D D B B C

0.72

20.8

Mitigation not required. -Shift centerline 6 ft to the north and restripe EB approach from one 25-ft travel lane to 11-ft exclusive leftturn lane, one 20-ft shared throughright lane with parking for 200 ft. -Shift centerline 6 ft to the south and restripe WB approach from one 25-ft travel lane to 11-ft exclusive left-turn lane, one 20-ft shared through-right lane with parking for 125 ft. Mitigation analysis reflects improvements needed for the construction PM peak hour.

Mitigation not required.

20-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 20-9 (Contd) Phase 1 No Action, With Action, Mitigated Conditions Construction AM Peak Hour Traffic Levels of Service
Intersection Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction No Action Condition With Action Condition Mitigated Condition Lane V/C Delay Lane V/C Delay Lane V/C Delay App Group Ratio (SPV) LOS Group Ratio (SPV) LOS Group Ratio (SPV) LOS
L 0.50 45.5 D L 0.50 45.5 D Mitigation not required. -Restripe the NB approach from one 11-ft shared left-through lane and one 20-ft shared through-right lane with parking to one 11-ft shared left-through lane, one 10-ft travel lane, and one 10-ft parking lane which would serve as a right turn lane during the weekday PM peak period. -Shift centerline 2 ft to the east and restripe SB approach from one 11-ft shared left-through lane and one 19-ft shared through-right lane with parking to one 11-ft shared leftthrough lane, one 10-ft travel lane, and one 11-ft parking lane which would serve as a right turn lane during the weekday PM peak period. Mitigation analysis reflects improvements needed for the construction PM peak hour.

Recommended Mitigation Measures

Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street Astoria Boulevard EB L 0.50 45.5 D

TR

0.53

44.1

TR

0.54

44.3

TR

0.54

44.3

WB

0.63

42.0

0.63

42.0

0.63

42.0

TR

0.48

38.9

TR

0.50

39.2

TR

0.50

39.2

21st Street

NB

LTR

0.43

25.7

LTR

0.44

25.8

LTR

0.45

26.0

SB Overall Intersection

LTR -

0.72 0.65

28.3 33.7

C C

LTR -

0.80 0.69

30.0 34.3

C C

LTR -

0.80 0.69

30.0 34.4

C C

Notes: Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. Overall intersection V/C ratio is the critical lane groups V/C ratio. * indicates significant adverse impact.

20-22

Chapter 20: Construction

Table 20-10 Phase 1 No Action, With Action, Mitigated Conditions Construction PM Peak Hour Traffic Levels of Service
Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction No Action Condition With Action Condition Mitigated Condition Lane V/C Delay Lane V/C Delay Lane V/C Delay App Group Ratio (SPV) LOS Group Ratio (SPV) LOS Group Ratio (SPV) LOS
0.54 0.79 0.33 1.20+ 0.90 1.03 0.80 0.87 0.97 0.75 7.5 7.2 7.3 9.5 10.8 10.6 9.1 10.1 11.6 9.8 10.4 15.6 12.9 15.4 20.1 13.6 138.3 29.8 59.6 42.9 51.9 30.3 19.7 A A A A B B A B B A B C B B C B F C E D D C B LT LR LR LR LT TR LR T R LT L TR LTR LTR LTR LTR LTR LTR LTR 0.70 1.20+ 0.49 1.20+ 0.90 1.20+ 1.20+ 0.92 0.97 0.75 7.5 7.4 7.4 12.9 10.9 12.0 10.1 11.8 12.3 9.8 12.6 16.6 13.9 18.8 176.9 18.1 143.1 29.9 106.5 359.2 58.8 30.3 19.7 A A A B B B B B B A B C B B F* B F* C F F* E* C B L TR LTR LTR LTR L TR L TR LTR LTR 0.66 1.20+ 0.47 1.20+ 0.82 1.20+ 0.87 0.80 0.39 0.68 0.97 0.75 23.9 162.0 22.9 126.6 28.9 97.9 50.9 42.2 36.0 40.9 30.3 19.7 C F C F C F D D D D C B -Shift centerline 6 ft to the north and restripe EB approach from one 25-ft travel lane to 11-ft exclusive leftturn lane, one 20-ft shared throughright lane with parking for 200 ft. -Shift centerline 6 ft to the south and restripe WB approach from one 25-ft travel lane to 11-ft exclusive left-turn lane, one 20-ft shared through-right lane with parking for 125 ft. Modify signal timing: shift 2 s green time from the LPI phase to the EB/WB phase and shift 2 s green time from the LPI phase to the NB/SB phase [EB/WB green time shifts from 31 s to 33 s; NB/SB green time shifts from 69 s to 71 s; LPI phase shifts from 10 s to 6 s]. Partially Mitigated -Modify the cycle length from 60 s to 90 s. EB/WB green time is 39 s; NB/SB green time is 41 s; each phase has 3 s of amber and 2 s of red time. Mitigation not required. Mitigation not required. Mitigation not required.

Intersection

Recommended Mitigation Measures

East/West Main Street and Main Street West Road EB LT Main Road SB LR Overall Intersection West Road and Main Street West Road West Road (south of island) Main Street Overall Intersection EB EB NB SB LR LR LT TR -

Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street Roosevelt Isl. Bridge Ramp WB LR Main Street NB SB Overall Intersection Roosevelt Island Bridge 36th Avenue Vernon Boulevard Overall Intersection 36th Avenue and 21st Street 36th Avenue EB WB 21st Street NB SB LTR LTR LTR LTR EB WB NB SB T R LT L TR LTR LTR LTR -

Roosevelt Island Bridge/36th Avenue/Vernon Boulevard

Overall Intersection Broadway and 21st Street Broadway EB WB 21st Street Overall intersection NB SB

LTR LTR LTR LTR -

0.93 1.20+ 1.20+ 0.98 0.74 1.07

30.3 145.1 167.1 35.8 21.4 55.0

C F F D C E

LTR LTR LTR LTR -

1.20+ 1.20+ 1.20+ 1.04 0.75 1.13

79.0 188.2 177.4 53.2 21.5 69.5

E F* F* D* C E

LTR LTR LTR LTR -

0.93 1.20+ 1.16 1.01 0.72 1.08

30.3 145.4 119.1 42.4 19.7 53.9

C F F D B D

20-23

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 20-10, contd Phase 1 No Action, With Action, Mitigated Conditions Construction PM Peak Hour Traffic Levels of Service
Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st Street Astoria Boulevard EB L 0.50 42.9 D TR WB 21st Street L TR NB SB LTR LTR 0.82 0.93 0.73 1.14 0.96 50.9 70.0 49.3 96.8 42.3 D E D F D L TR L TR LTR LTR 0.50 0.87 0.93 0.73 1.20+ 1.00 42.9 54.0 70.0 49.3 133.6 49.8 D D E D F* D* L TR L TR LT R LT R 0.50 0.87 0.93 0.73 0.83 0.48 0.75 0.27 42.9 54.0 70.0 49.3 30.2 24.0 29.7 21.7 D D E D C C C C -Prohibit parking along the NB approach for 100 ft from the intersection and for the SB approach for 100 ft from the intersection for the weekday PM peak period. -Restripe the NB approach from one 11-ft shared left-through lane and one 20-ft shared through-right lane with parking to one 11-ft shared left-through lane, one 10-ft travel lane, and one 10-ft parking lane which would serve as a right turn lane during the weekday PM peak period. -Shift centerline 2 ft to the east and restripe SB approach from one 11-ft shared left-through lane and one 19-ft shared through-right lane with parking to one 11-ft shared leftthrough lane, one 10-ft travel lane, and one 11-ft parking lane which would serve as a right turn lane during the weekday PM peak period.

Overall Intersection

1.01

64.1

1.06

79.9

0.86

38.3

Notes: Control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. Overall intersection V/C ratio is the critical lane groups V/C ratio. * indicates significant adverse impact.

20-24

Chapter 20: Construction

Astoria Boulevard/27th Avenue/Newtown Avenue and 21st StreetImpacts on the northbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn movement and the southbound 21st Street shared left-turn/through/right-turn movement would occur during the PM peak hour and could be mitigated with the following measures: Prohibit parking along the northbound approach for the distance of 100 feet (a loss of approximately three parking spaces) and along southbound approach for a distance of 100 feet from the intersection (a loss of approximately four parking spaces) during the weekday PM peak period, Restripe the northbound approach from one 11-foot wide shared left-turn/through lane and one 20-foot wide shared through/right-turn lane with parking to one 11-foot wide shared left-turn/through lane, one 10-foot travel lane, and one 10-foot wide parking lane which would serve as a right turn lane during the weekday PM peak period, and Shift the southbound approach centerline two feet to the east and restripe the approach from one 11-foot wide shared left-turn/through lane and one 19-foot wide shared through/rightturn lane with parking to one 11-foot wide shared left-turn/through lane, one 10-foot wide travel lane, and one 11-foot wide parking lane which would serve as a right turn lane during the weekday PM peak period. Comparison of Cumulative Operational and Construction Traffic During Phase 2 construction, completed Phase 1 and Phase 2 components of the proposed project would generate incremental traffic to the area in addition to the activities anticipated to be generated by Phase 2 construction. As described above, peak Phase 2 construction is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2026 (Phase 2A) and the fourth quarter of 2036 (Phase 2B). A comparison of the projected traffic levels generated at the project site during peak Phase 2 construction and those upon full build-out of the proposed project in 2038 was developed and summarized in Table 20-11. As shown, the cumulative operational and construction traffic during peak Phase 2 construction would be of lower magnitudes than what the overall project would generate when completed in 2038. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts during peak Phase 2 construction would be within the envelope of significant adverse traffic impacts identified for the 2038 With Action condition in Chapter 14, Transportation.

20-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 20-11 Comparison of Weekday Vehicle Trip GenerationConstruction and Operational

Incremental Construction Trips in PCEs (Q4 2026) In Out Total 219 57 6 6 2 0 14 6 6 6 207 38 233 63 12 12 209 38 Peak Construction in 2026 Incremental Operational Trips from Completed Projects in PCEs In Out Total 3 15 92 90 21 71 2 8 51 70 42 108 5 23 143 160 63 179 2038 Full Build-Out Incremental Operational Trips in PCEs In Out Total 4 39 262 161 27 116 3 13 90 141 67 288 7 52 352 302 94 404

Time 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM* 12-1 PM* 3-4 PM 4-5 PM*

In 222 72 98 96 23 71

Total PCEs Out Total 16 14 57 76 249 146 238 86 155 172 272 217

Time 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM* 12-1 PM* 3-4 PM 4-5 PM* Notes:

Incremental Construction Trips in PCEs (Q4 2036) In Out Total 222 56 4 6 2 0 12 4 4 6 212 39 234 60 8 12 214 39

Peak Construction in 2036 Incremental Operational Trips from Completed Projects in PCEs In Out Total 5 19 166 125 22 95 3 14 73 105 44 189 8 33 239 230 66 284

In 227 75 170 131 24 95

Total PCEs Out Total 15 18 77 111 256 228 242 93 247 242 280 323

2038 Full Build-Out Incremental Operational Trips in PCEs In Out Total 4 39 262 161 27 116 3 13 90 141 67 288 7 52 352 302 94 404

Peak hours of operational traffic were determined to be 7:30-8:30 AM, 11:30-12:30 PM, and 4:15-5:15 PM. Traffic volumes summarized for the 8-9 AM, 12-1 PM, and 4-5 PM account for a conservative overlap of construction-related traffic during these hours and operational trips during the operational analysis peak hours. PCEs = passenger car equivalents where 1 truck trip equals 2 PCEs.

The construction and operational traffic increments summarized above provide an indication that peak hour traffic conditions during peak construction in 2026 and 2036 would be worse than those described for the 2018 Phase 1 completion but more favorable than those described for the 2038 full build-out. As detailed in Chapter 21, Mitigation, mitigation measures would be implemented at eight intersections to mitigate the 2018 operational traffic impacts. While the slightly higher traffic levels during peak construction in 2026 and 2036 could result in additional impacts beyond those identified for the 2018 Phase 1 With Action condition, the required mitigation measures are expected to be part of those presented for the 2038 full build-out of the proposed project. These mitigation measures could be implemented at the discretion of NYCDOT during construction of Phase 2. Curb Lane Closures and Staging Because the project site is not situated near sensitive land uses and the surrounding roadways would serve low traffic volumes with the removal of Goldwater Hospital, there is expected to be substantial flexibility in on-site staging and site access. During the course of construction, it is likely that the traffic lane on East Loop Road would be closed for a period of approximately one year to allow for the demolition of the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings and roadway improvements. In addition, West Loop Road traffic lanes would be temporarily reconfigured from one-way northbound to two-way northbound-southbound during the East Loop Road closure to maintain vehicular access to the south of the project site, including South Point Park and the future Four Freedoms Park. This work would be coordinated with and approved by 20-26

Chapter 20: Construction

RIOC and/or NYCDOT. Turnaround areas would also be provided to facilitate bus service. After substantial demolition has been completed, the current roadway flow would be expected to be restored. Temporary lane closures may be required throughout the construction project and would take place in accordance with RIOC and/or NYCDOT-approved maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) plans and would be managed by on-site flag-persons. PARKING Independent of the Cornell NYC Tech project, up to 30 spaces are expected to be provided onsite during construction for Southtown construction workers; the remaining Southtown construction workers who would drive plus overnight parking demand from the completed towers would be accommodated at the Motorgate garage. During Phase 1 construction of the proposed project, Cornell construction workers would generate an estimated maximum daily parking demand for up to 430 spaces (fourth quarter of 2016). It is assumed that up to 100 parking spaces would be provided on-site. Since only shortterm parking is available on-street, the remaining 330 spaces would be accommodated at the Motorgate garage, if no other parking resources are available. Under these conditions and assumptions, the Cornell Phase 1 construction worker parking demand would be fully accommodated either on-site or at the Motorgate garage. Cornell has committed to fund the costs of snow removal on the upper deck of the Motorgate garage in the event that construction worker parking requires that the upper deck of the garage be opened during winter months. During Phase 2A and Phase 2B construction of the proposed project, Cornell construction workers would generate an estimated maximum daily parking demand of up to approximately 255 and 260 spaces (fourth quarters of 2026 and 2036, respectively). As with Phase 1 construction, up to 100 parking spaces are expected to be provided on-site, with the remaining parking demand accommodated at the Motorgate garage. TRANSIT The project site is served by the F line at the Roosevelt Island Station, the Tramway, and two bus routes (Q102 and RIOC Red Bus). Approximately 42 percent of construction workers were projected to travel to the project site via public transit. Most of these trips would be made via the F subway line during hours outside of the typical commuter peak periods. While some workers are expected to be provided parking on-site, most traveling by auto would be directed to park at the Motorgate garage, many of whom would travel between this parking location and the project site via the Red Bus. During peak Phase 1 construction (maximum of approximately 870 average daily construction workers, as shown in Appendix 20), the 42-percent travel-by-transit distribution would represent approximately 364 daily workers traveling by transit. With 80 percent of these workers arriving or departing during the construction peak hours, the total estimated numbers of peak hour transit trips would be approximately 292 (42 bus, 250 subway). Since these incremental construction transit trips would occur during hours outside of the typical commuter peak periods where the background volumes are much lower, there would not be a potential for significant adverse transit impacts attributable to the projected construction worker transit trips during construction. However, because the Motorgate garage is approximately a 20-minute walk from the project site, most of the construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would be expected to rely on the Red Bus for travel to/from the project site. As a result, during off-peak hours when the Red Bus operates at lower frequencies, there is a potential for a line-haul impact on the Red Bus that would warrant an increase in its service during off-peak hours. Based on the current capacity and 20-27

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

service frequencies of the Red Bus, approximately 60 to 70 percent of the total construction workers could be accommodated by the Red Bus during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours. To fully accommodate the projected construction worker demand, three additional buses would need to be added to the Red Bus route during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours. After the completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island subway station would incur increases in passengers generated by the completed uses. However, the total subway trips would be fewer than the full build-out for which no potential for significant adverse impacts was identified. Therefore, Phase 2 construction would also not result in any significant adverse subway impacts. For buses, although the Phase 1 build out would result in a significant adverse bus line-haul impact during the PM peak period (5-6 PM), total bus trips generated by the Phase 1 and Phase 2A population and the construction workers during the construction PM peak period (3-4 PM) would not exceed 50 bus trips and therefore would not be expected to result in a significant adverse bus line-haul impact. However, the significant adverse bus line-haul impact identified for the Q102 due to increase in demand from the completed buildings would also be expected to occur during this time. And similar to Phase 1 construction, construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would generate additional demand for Red Bus service. But because the projected number of construction workers during Phase 2 construction would be substantially fewer than those in Phase 1 construction, the existing Red Bus service is expected to be adequate to fully accommodate construction worker travel between the Motorgate garage and the project site. PEDESTRIANS During Phase 1 construction, with a maximum of 867 average daily construction workers, as shown in Appendix 20, there would be up to approximately 694 workers arriving or departing during the construction peak hours via various modes of transportation. These pedestrian trips would primarily be concentrated during the peak hours (6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM) outside of the commuter peak periods and would be distributed among numerous pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks, corner reservoirs, and crosswalks) in the area. Accordingly, there would not be a potential for significant adverse pedestrian impacts attributable to the projected construction worker pedestrian trips. During Phase 2 construction, the projected construction-related pedestrian trips would similarly not result in any significant adverse pedestrian impacts. However, impacts identified for the proposed projects 2038 full build-out may occur with the completion of the first few Phase 2 buildings, which may warrant the earlier implementation of the recommended sidewalk widening described in Chapter 21, Mitigation. AIR QUALITY Emissions from on-site construction equipment and on-road construction-related vehicles, as well as dust generating activities, have the potential to affect air quality. In general, much of the heavy equipment used in construction has diesel-powered engines and produces relatively high levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). Gasoline engines produce relatively high levels of carbon monoxide (CO). Fugitive dust generated by construction activities is composed of particulate matter. As a result, the primary air pollutants of concern for construction activities include nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) and less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and CO. 20-28

Chapter 20: Construction

The CEQR Technical Manual lists several factors for consideration in determining whether a detailed on-site and/or off-site construction impact assessment for air quality is appropriate. For on-site assessment, these factors include the duration of construction tasks, the intensity of construction activities, the location of nearby sensitive receptors (such as residences), and emissions control measures. For off-site assessment, the factors include the need for a detailed transportation analysis and if the construction vehicle increments would exceed the applicable CEQR Technical Manual screening levels (170 auto trips and 23 trucks at peak hour). All of these factors have been taken into consideration in the construction air quality preliminary assessment undertaken for this project. ON-SITE SOURCES Duration In terms of air pollutant emissions, the most intense construction activities are demolition, excavation and foundation work, and superstructure construction, where a number of large nonroad diesel engines would be employed. Demolition of the existing hospital buildings is expected to take 12 months (the year 2014) to complete and would occur only in Phase 1. Depending on the size of the building, excavation and foundation work for each of the proposed buildings during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction would take approximately 8 to 10 months to complete, with the superstructure activities lasting between 4 and 10 months per building. Although exterior faade work, interiors, finishing, and commissioning would continue after superstructure work is complete, those efforts would result in very few emissions since the heavy duty diesel equipment associated with excavation and concrete work would no longer be needed on-site. The equipment that would be operating in these later tasks would be mostly small, and would be dispersed vertically throughout the building, resulting in very low concentration increments in adjacent areas. Overall, although the construction of each of the proposed buildings would take approximately 36 to 40 months to complete, the most intense construction activities in terms of air pollutant emissions would last for only a portion of this duration, taking anywhere from 12 to 20 months. Accounting for the overlapping of construction activities, the demolition, excavation and foundation, and superstructure work would last for a combined 27 months out of the 46- month construction period for Phase 1. Overall, although the complexity of the proposed project requires a somewhat longer duration of construction overall, the emissions intensity over the duration of construction would be lower (see below). Intensity During the demolition, excavation and foundation, and superstructure work, a handful of large non-road diesel engines would operate throughout the construction site. The only engine expected to be located in a single location for a long period of time is the tower crane. The tower crane may be used instead of crawler cranes during the construction of the taller project buildings (buildings that would be taller than 10 stories). Given the elevation of the tower crane engine, its location relative to nearby sensitive elevated locations where the nearest existing residential building located more than 600 feet away north of the project site, and the emissions controls, the tower crane would not result in substantial concentration increments. Other engines would generally move throughout the site, although a concrete pump would be located in one location during concrete pours. Based on the sizes of the proposed project buildings and the nature of the construction work involved, construction activities for the proposed project would not be considered out of the ordinary in terms of intensity, and in fact, emissions would be lower due to the emission control measures that would be implemented during construction of the proposed project (See Emission Control Measures, below). In addition, at limited times during 20-29

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

construction, if a large piece of construction equipment (i.e., tower crane) could not be transported over the Roosevelt Island Bridge due to the weight restriction, the equipment would be transported via barges. The barges would be used for transport only and would not operate after arriving at the project site. Therefore, emissions associated with barges during the construction of the proposed project are minimal. Location of Nearby Sensitive Receptors The project site is south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge (Queensboro Bridge) and not within a Central Business District or along a major thoroughfare, and generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses, with the nearest existing residential building located more than 600 feet away north of the project site. The nearest sensitive locations are South Point Park, located to the south of the project site, and the waterfront promenades along the east river, located to the east and west of the project site. Phase 1 construction activities would occur primarily in the northern portion of the project site and away from South Point Park and the waterfront promenades. During Phase 2 construction, given the size of the project site and space available, most of the heavy diesel engines, deliveries, and intense activities, such as concrete pumping, would take place away from South Point Park and the waterfront promenades to the extent practicable. Construction activities during Phase 2 may occur near the completed Phase 1 project buildings and the associated publicly accessible open spaces. However, Phase 2 construction would be gradual, with activities taking place from 2024 to 2028 and 2034 to 2037 In addition, given the size of the project site and the space available, most of the heavy diesel engines, deliveries, and intense activities such as concrete pumping would take place away from the Phase 1 completed buildings and the associated publicly accessible open space locations to the extent practicable. Combined Operational and Construction Air Quality As described in Chapter 15, Air Quality, the air quality increments and concentrations resulting from Phase 1 operational mobile sources would be well below the applicable NAAQS and interim guidance criteria. In addition, the peak construction trips would occur during the 6-7 AM morning peak hour and the 3-4 PM afternoon peak hour, outside of the Phase 1 operational peak traffic hours and the typical commuter peak hours (8-9 AM and 5-6 PM). Therefore, the combined effects of construction and operational mobiles sources associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. As described in Chapter 15, Air Quality, the air quality increments and concentrations resulting from the operation of the potential Phase 1 combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant would also be well below the applicable NAAQS and interim guidance criteria. Furthermore, the potential Phase 1 CHP would be located at the north end of the project site whereas Phase 2 construction activities would occur at the middle and at the south end of the project site. Therefore, the combined effects of construction and operational stationary sources associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Emission Control Measures To ensure that the construction of the proposed project results in the lowest practicable diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, the project would implement an emissions reduction program for all construction activities, consisting of the following components: Diesel Equipment Reduction. Construction of the proposed project would minimize the use of diesel engines and use electric engines, to the extent practicable. The applicant would apply for a grid power connection early on so as to ensure the availability of grid power,

20-30

Chapter 20: Construction

reducing the need for on-site generators, and require the use of electric engines in lieu of diesel where practicable. Clean Fuel. Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) would be used exclusively for all diesel engines throughout the construction sites. Best Available Tailpipe Reduction Technologies. Nonroad diesel engines with a power rating of 50 horsepower (hp) or greater and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under longterm contract with the project) including but not limited to concrete mixing and pumping trucks, would utilize the best available tailpipe (BAT) technology for reducing DPM emissions. Diesel particle filters (DPFs) have been identified as being the tailpipe technology currently proven to have the highest reduction capability. Construction contracts would specify that all diesel nonroad engines rated at 50 hp or greater would utilize DPFs, either installed on the engine by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or a retrofit DPF verified by the EPA or the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and may include active DPFs, 2 if necessary; or other technology proven to reduce DPM by a similar level as the retrofit DPF verified by the EPA or CARB. This measure is expected to reduce site-wide tailpipe PM emissions by approximately 90 percent or more. Utilization of Newer Equipment. USEPAs Tier 1 through 4 standards for nonroad engines regulate the emission of criteria pollutants from new engines, including PM, CO, NOx, and hydrocarbons (HC). All nonroad construction equipment in the proposed project with a power rating of 50 hp or greater would meet at least the Tier 3 emissions standard. Tier 3 NOx emissions range from 40 to 60 percent lower than Tier 1 emissions and considerably lower than uncontrolled engines. All nonroad engines in the project rated less than 50 hp would meet at least the Tier 2 emissions standard Dust Control. Strict fugitive dust control plans would be required as part of contract specifications. For example, stabilized truck exit areas would be established for washing off the wheels of all trucks that exit the construction site. Truck routes within the sites would be either watered as needed or, in cases where such routes would remain in the same place for an extended duration, the routes would be stabilized, covered with gravel, or temporarily paved to avoid the re-suspension of dust. All trucks hauling loose material would be equipped with tight fitting tailgates and their loads securely covered prior to leaving the sites. Chutes would be used for material drops during demolition. An on-site vehicular speed limit of 5 mph would be imposed. Water sprays would be used for all excavation, demolition, and transfer of spoils to ensure that materials are dampened as necessary to avoid the suspension of dust into the air. Loose materials would be watered, stabilized with a biodegradable suppressing agent, or covered. In addition, all necessary measures would be implemented to ensure that the New York City Air Pollution Control Code regulating construction-related dust emissions is followed. Source Location. In order to reduce the resulting concentration increments, large emissions sources and activities such as concrete trucks and pumps would be located away from
2

There are two types of DPFs currently in use: passive and active. Most DPFs currently in use are the passive type, which means that the heat from the exhaust is used to regenerate (burn off) the PM to eliminate the buildup of PM in the filter. Some engines do not maintain temperatures high enough for passive regeneration. In such cases, active DPFs can be used (i.e., DPFs that are heated either by an electrical connection from the engine, by plugging in during periods of inactivity, or by removal of the filter for external regeneration).

20-31

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

residential buildings, academic locations, and publicly accessible open spaces to the extent practicable and feasible. Idle Restriction. In addition to adhering to the local law restricting unnecessary idling on roadways, on-site vehicle idle time will also be restricted to three minutes for all equipment and vehicles that are not using their engines to operate a loading, unloading, or processing device (e.g., concrete mixing trucks) or otherwise required for the proper operation of the engine. Therefore, based on analysis of all of the factors affecting construction emissions, on-site construction activities due to construction of the project would not result in any significant adverse impact on air quality. OFF-SITE SOURCES The maximum hourly traffic generated by construction of the proposed project would exceed the CEQR Technical Manual applicable CO and PM screening levels. Therefore, a quantified assessment of the potential impacts on air quality from traffic generated by the construction of the proposed project was conducted. The general methodology and the applicable standards and interim guidance criteria for mobile source modeling presented in Chapter 15, Air Quality, was followed for intersection modeling during the construction period. The CAL3QHC model was used to perform mobile source CO computations, while CAL3QHCR, a refined version of the CAL3QHC model, was used to determine motor vehicle generated PM concentrations. Based on the predicted traffic conditions, the traffic scenario for the fourth quarter of 2015 was determined to demonstrate the highest overall volumes of construction-related vehicles. Therefore, this period would represent the highest potential for air quality impacts. Sites for mobile source analysis were selected based on the construction model scenario and truck trip assignments analyzed for the assessment of traffic impacts during construction. The sites were chosen with the objective of capturing the highest construction-related concentration increment, the highest expected increments at locations where background concentrations were predicted to be high in the No Action condition, and the proximity of sensitive receptor locations. Based on these criteria, two intersections were selected for CO and PM modeling, as presented in Table 20-12.

Table 20-12 Mobile Source Analysis Sites

Analysis Site 1 2 Intersection Vernon Boulevard and 36th Avenue Main Street and East Road/West Road

Mobile Source AssessmentCO CO concentrations during the construction of the proposed project were determined using the methodology previously described in Chapter 15, Air Quality. In addition, for the intersection of Main Street and East Road/West Road, additional receptor locations were placed on residential buildings near this intersection. Table 20-13 shows the future maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentration with the proposed project at the analysis intersections studied. (No 1-hour values are shown, since no exceedances of the NAAQS would occur and the de minimis criteria are only applicable to 8-hour concentrations; therefore, the 8-hour values are the most critical for impact assessment.) The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations for the time periods analyzed. In addition, the incremental increases in 8-hour average CO concentrations are very small, and consequently would not result in a violation of the CEQR Technical Manual de minimis CO

20-32

Chapter 20: Construction

criteria. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not result in any significant CO air quality impacts due to mobile sources.

Table 20-13 Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations

No Action 8With Action 8Hour Hour Concentration Concentration Analysi NAAQS s Site Location (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) 1 Vernon Boulevard and 36th Avenue 2.6 3.0 9 2 Main Street and East Road/West Road 2.1 2.2 9 Note: An adjusted ambient background concentration of 1.8 ppm is included in the No Action values presented above.

Mobile Source AssessmentPM Concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 from mobile sources during the construction of the proposed project were also determined at the intersections of Vernon Boulevard and 36th Avenue, and Main Street and East Road/West Road. Table 20-14 shows the future maximum predicted 24hour average PM10 concentrations. The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations for all locations analyzed and include the ambient background concentrations. The results indicate that the construction of the proposed project would not result in any violations of the PM10 standard or any significant adverse impacts on air quality. Future maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentration increments were calculated so that they could be compared to the interim guidance criteria that would determine the potential significance of any impacts from the construction of the proposed project. Based on this analysis, the maximum predicted localized 24-hour average and neighborhood-scale annual average incremental PM2.5 concentrations are presented in Tables 20-15 and 20-16, respectively. The results show that the annual and daily (24-hour) PM2.5 increments are predicted to be well below the interim guidance criteria and, therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not result in significant PM2.5 impacts at the analyzed receptor locations.

Table 20-14 Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations

With Action 24No Action 24Hour Hour Concentration Concentration Analysis NAAQS (g/m3) Site Location (g/m3) (g/m3) 1 Vernon Boulevard and 36th Avenue 54.5 55.1 150 2 Main Street and East Road/West Road 51.9 52.7 150 3 Note: An adjusted ambient background concentration of 44 g/m is included in the No Action values presented above.

Table 20-15 Maximum Predicted 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations

No Action 24With Action Hour 24-Hour Concentration Concentration Increment Analysis 3 Site Location (g/m ) (g/m3) (g/m3) 1 Vernon Boulevard and 36th Avenue 2.7 2.9 0.2 2 Main Street and East Road/West Road 2.0 2.2 0.070.2 Note: PM2.5 interim guidance criteria24-hour average, 2 g/m3 (5 g/m3 not-to-exceed value). Interim Guidance Threshold (g/m3) 5/2 5/2

20-33

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 20-16 Maximum Predicted Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations

No Action 24With Action Hour 24-Hour Concentration Concentration Analysi s Site Location (g/m3) (g/m3) 1 Vernon Boulevard and 36th Avenue 0.038 0.041 2 Main Street and East Road/West Road 0.013 0.014 Note: PM2.5 interim guidance criteriaannual (neighborhood scale) 0.1 g/m3. Increment (g/m3) 0.003 0.001 Interim Guidance Threshold (g/m3) 0.1 0.1

NOISE AND VIBRATION NOISE Introduction Impacts on community noise levels during construction of the proposed project could result from noise from construction equipment operation and from construction and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the construction site. Noise and vibration levels at a given location are dependent on the kind and number of pieces of construction equipment being operated, the acoustical utilization factor of the equipment (i.e., the percentage of time a piece of equipment is operating at full power), the distance from the construction site, and any shielding effects (from structures such as buildings, walls, or barriers). Noise levels caused by construction activities vary widely and depend on the phase of construction and the location of the construction relative to receptor locations. The most significant construction noise sources are expected to be the movements of trucks to and from the project site, as well as impact equipment such as excavators with ram hoes, drill rigs, rock drills, tower cranes, and paving breakers. Noise from construction activities and some construction equipment is regulated by the New York City Noise Control Code and by EPA. The New York City Noise Control Code, as amended December 2005 and effective July 1, 2007, requires the adoption and implementation of a noise mitigation plan for each construction site, limits construction (absent special circumstances as described below) to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and sets noise limits for certain specific pieces of construction equipment. Construction activities occurring after hours (weekdays between 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and on weekends) may be authorized in the following circumstances: (1) emergency conditions; (2) public safety; (3) construction projects by or on behalf of city agencies; (4) construction activities with minimal noise impacts; and (5) where there is a claim of undue hardship resulting from unique site characteristics, unforeseen conditions, scheduling conflicts, and/or financial considerations. EPA requirements mandate that certain classifications of construction equipment meet specified noise emissions standards. Construction Noise Impact Criteria The CEQR Technical Manual states that significant noise impacts due to construction would occur only at sensitive receptors that would be subjected to high construction noise levels for an extensive period of time. This has been interpreted to mean that such impacts would occur only at sensitive receptors where the activity with the potential to create high noise levels (the intensity) would occur continuously for approximately two years or longer (the duration). The CEQR Technical Manual states that the impact criteria for vehicular sources, using the No Action noise level as the baseline, should be used for assessing construction impacts. As 20-34

Chapter 20: Construction

recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual, this study uses the following criteria to define a significant adverse noise impact from mobile and on-site construction activities: If the No-Action noise level is less than 60 dB(A) Leq(1), a 5 dB(A) Leq(1) or greater increase would be considered significant. If the No-Action noise level is between 60 dB(A) Leq(1) and 62 dB(A) Leq(1), a resultant Leq(1) of 65 dB(A) or greater would be considered a significant increase. If the No-Action noise level is equal to or greater than 62 dB(A) Leq(1), or if the analysis period is a nighttime period (defined in the CEQR criteria as being between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM), the incremental significant impact threshold would be 3 dB(A) Leq(1). Noise Analysis Fundamentals Construction activities for the proposed project would be expected to result in increased noise levels as a result of: (1) the operation of construction equipment on-site; and (2) the movement of construction-related vehicles (i.e., worker trips, and material and equipment trips) on the roadways to and from the project site. The effect of each of these noise sources was evaluated. Noise from the operation of construction equipment on-site at a specific receptor location near a construction site is generally calculated by computing the sum of the noise produced by all pieces of equipment operating at the construction site. For each piece of equipment, the noise level at a receptor site is a function of: The noise emission level of the equipment; A usage factor, which accounts for the percentage of time the equipment is operating at full power; The distance between the piece of equipment and the receptor; Topography and ground effects; and Shielding. Similarly, noise levels due to construction-related traffic are a function of: The noise emission levels of the type of vehicle (e.g., auto, light-duty truck, heavy-duty truck, bus, etc.); Volume of vehicular traffic on each roadway segment; Vehicular speed; The distance between the roadway and the receptor; Topography and ground effects; and Shielding. For the Phase 1 noise analysis, noise generated by construction-related traffic was calculated using the Federal Highway Administrations Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM). The TNM is a computerized model developed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that takes into account various factors due to traffic flow, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix (i.e., percentage of autos, light duty trucks, heavy duty trucks, buses, etc.), sources/receptor geometry, and shielding (including barriers and terrain, ground attenuation, etc.). It is the model recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual for traffic noise analysis.

20-35

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Location of Nearby Sensitive Receptors As discussed above in Air Quality, the nearest sensitive locations are South Point Park, located to the south of the project site, and the waterfront promenades along the east river, located to the east and west of the project site. These open space areas would be the closest sensitive receptors to the on-site construction activity associated with the proposed project. The next closest sensitive receptors are the existing residential buildings north of the project site near the Tram station, which are located at least 600 feet from the project site; it is expected that these receptors would be shielded from noise at the project site by the Sportspark building and Queensboro Bridge structure. Several residential and open space areas and one public school building are located along Main Street between the Roosevelt Island Bridge and the project site, which is the route that trucks are expected to use to access the project site during the construction period. These residences, school, and open spaces also constitute sensitive receptor sites and are referred to in the following sections as the truck route receptors. In addition, the completed Phase 1 project buildings and the associated publicly accessible open spaces would be sensitive receptors during Phase 2 construction. Existing weekday daytime noise levels adjacent to the project site and the expected truck routes to and from the site, as described in Chapter 17, Noise, range from the mid 60s to low 70s of dBA depending on the specific location and the level of traffic on adjacent roadways. Noise Reduction Measures Construction of the proposed project would be required to follow the requirements of the New York City Noise Control Code (New York City Noise Code) for construction noise control measures. Specific noise control measures would be described in a noise mitigation plan required under the New York City Noise Code. These measures would include a variety of source and path controls. In terms of source controls (i.e., reducing noise levels at the source or during the most sensitive time periods), the following measures would be implemented in accordance with the New York City Noise Code: Equipment that meets the sound level standards specified in Subchapter 5 of the New York City Noise Control Code would be used from the start of construction. Table 20-17 shows the noise levels for typical construction equipment and the mandated noise levels for the equipment that would be used for construction of the proposed project. As early in the construction period as logistics will allow, diesel- or gas-powered equipment would be replaced with electrical-powered equipment such as welders, water pumps, bench saws, and table saws (i.e., early electrification) to the extent feasible and practicable. Where feasible and practical, construction sites would be configured to minimize back-up alarm noise. In addition, all trucks would not be allowed to idle more than three minutes at the construction site based upon New York City Local Law. Contractors and subcontractors would be required to properly maintain their equipment and mufflers. In terms of path controls (e.g., placement of equipment, implementation of barriers or enclosures between equipment and sensitive receptors), the following measures for construction would be implemented to the extent feasible and practical:

20-36

Chapter 20: Construction

Where logistics allow, noisy equipment, such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete trucks, and delivery trucks, would be located away from and shielded from sensitive receptor locations. Once building foundations are completed, delivery trucks would operate behind a construction fence, where possible; Noise barriers would be utilized to provide shielding (e.g., the construction sites would have a minimum 8-foot barrier and, where logistics allow, truck deliveries would take place behind these barriers once building foundations are completed); and Path noise control measures (i.e., portable noise barriers, panels, enclosures, and acoustical tents, where feasible) would be used for certain dominant noise equipment to the extent feasible and practical (i.e., asphalt pavers, drill rigs, excavators with ram hoe, and hoists). These barriers are conservatively assumed to offer only a 10 dBA reduction in noise levels for each piece of equipment to which they are applied, as shown in Table 20-17. The details for construction of portable noise barriers, enclosures, tents, etc. are based upon NYCDEP Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation. Previous construction noise analyses have shown that construction with measures such as these usually results in noise levels in the mid-70s of dBA within approximately 100 feet from the construction site. 2018 Analysis Year (Phase 1) The construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project would be expected to last a total of 40 months with the most noise-intensive construction occurring during demolition, excavation and foundation (D/E/F) work. As discussed above, the analysis looks first at the intensity of noise levels during construction, then assesses the potential duration of those noise levels, and finally makes a determination of the potential for impact. Intensity of Construction Noise The waterfront promenade locations immediately across East Road and West Road adjacent to the project site where Phase 1 construction would occur represent the locations most likely to experience increased noise levels resulting from the operation of stationary construction equipment. With the construction noise control measures described, noise levels at these locations during construction would be approximately in the mid to high 70s of dBA at 50 to 100 feet from the construction site boundary. Such levels would be expected to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. Therefore, the promenade is discussed further in the following section Duration of Construction Noise. At South Point Park, approximately 100 feet south of the majority of the construction work during Phase 1, noise levels due to construction would be approximately in the mid to high 50s of dBA, which would not be expected to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. Therefore, South Point Park is not discussed further. At sensitive receptors north of the project site, which would be located at least 600 feet from the project site and would be shielded by the Sportspark building and Queensboro Bridge structure, noise levels due to construction would be approximately in the high 40s of dBA, which would not be expected to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. Therefore, these sensitive receptors are not discussed further.

20-37

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Table 20-17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels (dBA)

Equipment List Asphalt Paver Asphalt Roller Backhoe/Loader Compressors Concrete Pump Concrete Trucks Cranes Cranes (Tower Cranes) Delivery Trucks Drill Rigs Dump Trucks Excavator Excavator with Ram Hoe Fuel Truck Generators Hoist Impact Wrenches Jackhammer Mortar Mixer Pile Driver Power Trowel Powder Actuated Device Pump (Spray On Fire Proof) Pump (Water) Rebar Bender Rivet Buster Rock Drill Saw (Chain Saw) Saw (Concrete Saw) Saw (Masonry Bench) Saw (Circular & Cut off) Saw (Table Saw) Sledge Hammers Street Cleaner Tractor Trailer Vibratory Plate Compactor Welding Machines NYCDEP and FTA Typical Noise Level at 50 feet1 85 85 80 80 82 85 85 85 84 84 84 85 90 84 82 85 85 85 80 101 85 85 82 77 80 85 85 85 90 85 76 76 85 80 84 80 73 Mandated Noise Level at 50 feet2 Under Subchapter 5 of the NYC Noise Control Code 85 74 77 67 79 79 77 85 79 84 79 77 90 79 68 80 85 82 63 95 85 85 76 76 80 85 85 75 85 76 76 76 85 80 79 80 73 Noise Level with Path Controls at 50 feet3 75

75 74

80

70 75 72 734 75 75

75 75 75

75

Notes: 1 Sources: Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation, Chapter 28, Department of Environmental Protection of New York City, 2007. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006. 2 Mandated noise levels are achieved by using quieter equipment, better engine mufflers, and refinements in fan design and improved hydraulic systems. 3 Path controls include portable noise barriers, enclosures, acoustical panels, and curtains, whichever feasible and practical. 4 Based on information from noise bellow system manufacturer.

At the truck route receptors along Main Street and West Road on Roosevelt Island, which would serve as the primary routes for traffic accessing the project site during construction and therefore represent the locations most likely to experience increased noise levels resulting from the construction trucks, Leq(1) noise levels during the peak hour of construction traffic (6 to 7 AM) were calculated to range from 56.4 dBA to 74.8 dBA (See Appendix 20 for the detailed construction traffic noise analysis results) with noise level increments resulting from

20-38

Chapter 20: Construction

construction traffic up to 6.2 dBA.. Such levels would be expected to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. Therefore, these truck route receptors are discussed further in the following section, Duration of Construction Noise. Duration of Construction Noise The noisiest construction activities of Phase 1 construction would include the demolition, excavation and foundation work; this work is expected to last approximately 21 months. Consequently, exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria that would occur at the adjacent waterfront promenades during the noisiest work would not be expected to occur continuously for 24 months. Therefore, while the noise level increases may be perceptible and intrusive, they would not be considered long-term or significant according to CEQR criteria. Therefore, the promenade is not discussed further. Construction and worker trips to and from the project site would be expected to occur at levels sufficient to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria at the truck route receptors throughout the construction of Phase 1. Consequently, exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria that would occur at these sensitive receptors would be considered significant according to CEQR criteria. Phase 1 Construction Noise Impacts No significant adverse noise impacts would result from construction noise at the project site at the waterfront promenade locations, South Point Park, or at sensitive receptors north of the project site. At the truck route receptors along Main Street and West Road between the Roosevelt Island Bridge and the Project Site, significant construction noise impacts would be expected to occur due to trucks passing along these routes to and from the project site and workers traveling to the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM). These residential buildings all have double-glazed windows and a means of alternate ventilation (i.e., air conditioning), and would be expected to achieve between 25 and 35 dBA of attenuation. Consequently, these buildings would be expected to experience interior L10(1) values less than 45 dBA during the construction period, which would be considered acceptable according to CEQR criteria, and would therefore not be expected to experience a significant impact. The open space areas along Main Street would experience exceedances; since there would be no attenuation measures, these exceedances, based on the intensity and duration, would be considered significant adverse impacts. 2038 Analysis Year (Full Build) The construction of Phase 2 of the proposed project would commence in mid-2024 and continue through the end of 2037 in in two separate development segments2024 to 2028 and 2034 to 2037. This would involve construction of the remaining five buildings of the proposed project, as well as the remainder of the project-generated publicly accessible open space. Intensity of Construction Noise At the open space receptor locations immediately adjacent to the project site, including the waterfront promenade locations immediately across East Road and West Road adjacent to the project site and South Point Park, which represent the locations most likely to experience increased noise levels resulting from the operation of stationary construction equipment, with the construction noise control measures described, noise levels during construction would be similar to those during the Phase 1 construction, approximately in the mid to high 70s of dBA at 50 to 100 feet from the construction site boundary. Such levels would be expected to result in 20-39

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. Therefore, the promenade and South Point Park are discussed further in the following section Duration of Construction Noise. These exceedances would be expected to occur throughout the more intense phases of construction such as excavation and foundation work. Sensitive receptors north of the project site would be shielded by the Sportspark building and Queensboro Bridge structure, and noise levels due to on-site construction would be approximately in the mid to high 40s of dBA, which would not be expected to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. Therefore, these receptors are not discussed further. At receptors along Main Street and West Road on Roosevelt Island, noise levels during the peak hour of construction traffic (6 to 7 AM) would be less than those predicted for Phase 1 construction. This would be because less construction activity occurs simultaneously during Phase 2 than during Phase 1, which results in fewer construction trucks and construction worker trips. It is expected that construction of Phase 2 would generate less traffic than the operational condition of the Full Build as analyzed in Chapter 17, Noise. Significant noise impacts were not projected to occur as a result of the operational condition of the Full Build, and consequently, construction of the Full Build would also not be expected to result in exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria due to mobile sources. Therefore, these receptors are not discussed further. Duration of Construction Noise The noisiest construction activities of the Phase 2 construction, which include excavation and foundation work, would have the potential to last longer than 24 continuous months. Consequently, exceedances of the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria that would occur at the adjacent open space receptor locations (the promenade and South Point Park) during the noisiest work would have the potential to last longer than 24 continuous months, and be considered significant according to CEQR criteria. Project-Related Sensitive Receptors As discussed above, the buildings completed in Phase 1 of the proposed project would be newly completed sensitive receptors during construction of the remainder of the project. The residential and hotel portions of Phase 1 of the proposed project would be constructed to provide between at least 28 dBA of window/wall attenuation, which would result in interior noise levels at these receptor locations that would be considered acceptable according to CEQR criteria throughout most of the construction period. While these buildings may experience interior noise levels that exceed the CEQR recommended 45 dBA interior L10 value for residential uses at some limited times during the construction period, such exceedances would be of very limited duration and as a result of the requirements of the NYC Noise Control Code, would not occur during the nighttime hours, which are the most sensitive for residential and hotel uses. As in the existing and No-Action conditions, during construction of Phase 2 of the proposed project, publicly accessible open space areas that would be created as part of Phase 1 of the proposed project would be expected to experience L10(1) noise levels that exceed the 55 dBA L10(1) noise level recommended for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet by the CEQR Technical Manual noise exposure guidelines. There are no practical and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline within the open space areas. Although noise levels in these new public space areas would be above the 55 dBA L10(1) 20-40

Chapter 20: Construction

guideline noise level, they would be comparable to noise levels at public areas elsewhere on Roosevelt Island and would be comparable to or less than noise levels in a number of open space areas located adjacent to heavily trafficked roadways, including Brooklyn Bridge Park, Prospect Park, Fort Greene Park, and other urban open space areas. The 55 dBA L10(1) guideline is a worthwhile goal for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet. However, due to the level of activity present at most New York City open space areas and parks (except for areas far away from traffic and other typical urban activities) this relatively low noise level is often not achieved. Combined Operational and Construction Noise As described in Chapter 17, Noise, the noise-level increments resulting from operation of Phase 1 of the proposed project was calculated to be less than 2.0 dBA at nearby noise receptors. Such small increments would not substantially increase noise associated with construction as described above, and consequently the combined effects of construction and operational noise associated with the proposed project would not result in any additional significant adverse impacts beyond what was described above. Phase 2 Construction Noise Impacts Significant construction noise impacts due to the operation of on-site construction equipment would be expected to occur at the waterfront promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site and at South Point Park. These locations would be expected to experience noise levels in the mid to high 70s of dBA for over 24 months. There is no feasible and practicable mitigation that would be effective in eliminating this projected construction noise impact. No significant adverse noise impacts would result from construction noise (either noise on-site or from mobile sources) at the residential receptors north of the project site, at the truck route receptors, or at the Phase 1 buildings. VIBRATION Introduction Construction activities have the potential to result in vibration levels that may in turn result in structural or architectural damage, and/or annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities. In general, vibratory levels at a receiver are a function of the source strength (which in turn is dependent upon the construction equipment and methods utilized), the distance between the equipment and the receiver, the characteristics of the transmitting medium, and the receiver building construction. Construction equipment operation causes ground vibrations which spread through the ground and decrease in strength with distance. Vehicular traffic, even in locations close to major roadways, typically does not result in perceptible vibration levels unless there are discontinuities in the roadway surface. With the exception of the case of fragile and possibly historically significant structures or buildings, construction activities generally do not reach the levels that can cause architectural or structural damage, but can achieve levels that may be perceptible and annoying in buildings very close to a construction site. An assessment has been prepared to quantify potential vibration impacts of construction activities on structures and residences near the project site. Construction Vibration Criteria For purposes of assessing potential structural or architectural damage, the determination of a significant impact is based on the vibration impact criterion used by LPC of a peak particle

20-41

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

velocity (PPV) of 0.50 inches/second. For non-fragile buildings, vibration levels below 0.60 inches/second would not be expected to result in any structural or architectural damage. For purposes of evaluating potential annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities, vibration levels greater than 65 VdB would have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts if they were to occur for a prolonged period of time. Construction Vibration Analysis Results The potential for structural or architectural damage due to vibration from project construction was considered for the Queensboro Bridge. As a known architectural resource, this structure would require the application of the more stringent vibration criteria described above for such (the LPC criteria of 0.50 inches/second PPV). However, as a result of the distance between the bridge and the construction site, vibration levels at this structure, as well as other less-sensitive nearby structures, would not be expected to exceed the 0.50 inches/second PPV limit. In terms of potential vibration levels that would be perceptible and annoying, the two pieces of equipment that would have the most potential for producing levels which exceed the 65 VdB limit are pile drivers and vibratory rollers. They would produce perceptible vibration levels (i.e., vibration levels exceeding 65 VdB) at receptor locations within a distance of approximately 600 feet (i.e., the open spaces nearest the project sitethe promenades and South Point Park). However, while the vibration may be perceptible and even intrusive, the operation would only occur for limited periods of time at a particular location and therefore would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Any blasting that may occur would be expected to produce vibrations less perceptible than those from the operation of the two pieces of equipment cited above. In no case are significant adverse impacts from vibrations expected to occur. OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES As discussed in Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, the demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Cornell has consulted with OPRHP and LPC regarding appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. These measures would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). These measures are described in Chapter 22, Mitigation. No architectural resources are located within 90 feet of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to result in inadvertent construction-related impacts to any architectural resources in the study area. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS As discussed in Chapter 10, Hazardous Materials, studies of the project site indicate that existing buildings may contain hazardous materials such as ACM and lead-based paint. Soil that would be disturbed by the proposed project includes urban fill materials with elevated concentrations of certain metals and Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs). Demolition and excavation activities could disturb these hazardous materials and potentially increase pathways for human or environmental exposure. Impacts would be avoided by implementing the following measures:

20-42

Chapter 20: Construction

A RAP and associated CHASP were prepared and submitted to NYCDEP and were approved by NYCDEP in a letter dated November 8, 2012 (see Appendix 10). The RAP addresses requirements for items such as: installation of two feet of clean fill as a site cap in unpaved areas; soil reuse criteria; soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures should additional petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring requirements including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). Unless information exists to indicate that suspect ACM do not contain asbestos, prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey would be completed and all ACM that would be disturbed by these activities would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any renovation/demolition activities with the potential to disturb lead-based paint would be performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62Lead Exposure in Construction). Unless labeling or laboratory testing data indicates that suspect PCB-containing electrical equipment (including underground transformers) and fluorescent lighting fixtures do not contain PCBs, and that fluorescent lights do not contain mercury, disposal would be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. With the implementation of these measures, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would result from construction activities in the project area. NATURAL RESOURCES Groundwater The RAP would address requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation, dust control, dewatering procedures, procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks, and contingency measures should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. Implementation of the RAP and CHASP described above would ensure that the proposed project would not result in adverse impact on groundwater quality. Floodplain No areas of 100-year floodplain occur within the project site. The 500-year floodplain zone extends into the project site towards its midpoint where the elevation is lowest. The 500-year floodplain zone within and adjacent to the study area is affected by coastal flooding and would not be affected by construction or regrading/filling. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not increase the potential for public and private losses due to flood damage, or increase the exposure of public utilities to flood hazards. Aquatic Resources and Wetlands No in-water construction activities would occur with the proposed project. Soil disturbing activities associated with Phase 1 activities would be conducted in accordance with the

20-43

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-10-001). Erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction activities would be specified in the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). With the implementation of these measures, stormwater discharged to the East River through the existing stormwater outfalls (18 outfalls on the west and 19 on the east sides of the Island currently receive runoff from the project site) during construction of Phase 1 and full build of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands along the shoreline of Roosevelt Island or to the water quality or aquatic biota of the East River. Groundwater recovered during dewatering operations that may be required as part of Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction activities would be discharged to the East River through the existing stormwater outfall in accordance with NYSDEC SPDES permitting requirements and would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota, or NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands. Terrestrial Ecological Communities and Vegetation As described in detail in Chapter 9, Natural Resources, the ecological communities present within the project site would be characterized by Edinger et al. (2002) as terrestrial cultural communities that include mowed lawn with trees, mowed roadside/pathway, paved road, and urban structure exterior. A total of 132 trees comprising 26 species are found within the project site, with pin oak being the most abundant tree species. Construction of Phase 1 would result in the clearing of most of the trees and other vegetation within the project site due to grading activities required for the placement of 2 feet of clean fill material. At present, it is estimated that approximately 90 of the 132 trees on site would require removal. The loss of these trees and the existing terrestrial cultural ecological communities within the project site, which are common to the New York metropolitan area, would not result in significant adverse impacts to vegetation resources within the region. Measures would be taken to protect the health and condition of trees on site that would not require removal. During Phase 2 construction, some of the vegetation planted during Phase 1 would be removed. The loss of vegetation within these planted areas would not adversely affect local tree and plant populations. Wildlife Potential impacts to wildlife from construction activities for the project generally include noise and visual disturbances. Demolition of the existing buildings on site and construction of the proposed Phase 1 buildings would generate extensive noise and anthropogenic activity. However, impacts to wildlife would be minimal because wildlife in the surrounding area consists of urban-adapted, highly disturbance-tolerant species, as described in Chapter 9, Natural Resources. The species of wildlife in the area are ubiquitous throughout the city and commonly inhabit areas with extensive levels of human disturbance and degraded habitat conditions. Human activity and disturbance levels within the project site are presently quite high due to the operation of the hospital, active roadways, and overall urban setting. Wildlife occurring in the area would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the noise and other anthropogenic disturbances generated by project construction. However, during Phase 1construction, wildlife individuals using the limited habitats present on the project site would be expected to move to nearby suitable habitat during demolition of the hospital, tree removal and other land disturbing activities. Phase 2 construction would have the potential to result in a similar displacement of some wildlife individuals due to the increased activity, noise, or loss of vegetation during construction. As extreme generalists, the individuals of these species that

20-44

Chapter 20: Construction

would be displaced would not be expected to have difficulty identifying and relocating to suitable habitat nearby. Similar habitat conditions (mowed lawn with trees, artificial structures, etc.) are present throughout Roosevelt Island and abundant throughout the city. Any such displacement of wildlife from the project site during Phase 1 or Phase 2 would not represent a significant or permanent impact to these species at the individual or population level. Local shelters and other organizations will be consulted to develop measures for the humane removal of feral cats existing on the project site prior to construction. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species and Significant Habitat Areas The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is the only federally or state-listed terrestrial species that is considered to have the potential to occur in the study area. However, the project site lacks suitable nesting locations for peregrine falcons, and the occurrence of peregrine falcons in the area would be limited to migrants briefly passing through or individuals from nest sites elsewhere in the city. Therefore, construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project would not eliminate or degrade nesting habitat for the species. Hunting opportunities in the project area for migrant peregrine falcons or individuals from nests elsewhere in the city would be unaffected by construction of the proposed project. The federally and state-listed species that have the potential to occur in the East River in the vicinity of the project site would only occur in the vicinity of the Roosevelt Island shoreline near the project site as occasional transients. As discussed under Aquatic Resources and Wetlands, construction of Phase 1 and full build of the proposed project would not adversely affect water quality or habitat conditions in the East River, and would therefore have no direct or indirect effects on any individuals of these species potentially occurring in the East River or essential fish habitat. OPEN SPACE Construction of the proposed project would occur in close proximity to South Point Park, an open space resource located immediately south of the Goldwater Memorial Hospital Site and immediately north of Four Freedoms Park site, and the waterfront promenade, a walkway for pedestrians that extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island north of South Point Park. Both open spaces are expected to remain open during the entire construction period, and access to these open spaces would be maintained. Construction activities would be conducted with the care mandated by the close proximity of several open spaces to the proposed project. Dust control measuresincluding watering of exposed areas and dust covers for truckswould be implemented to ensure compliance with the New York City Air Pollution Control Code, which regulates construction-related dust emissions. At limited times over the course of the entire construction period, construction activities such as structural demolition, excavation, and foundations may generate noise that could impair the enjoyment of nearby open space users. Although construction fences around the project site may shield the open spaces from construction activities, as described above in Noise, elevated noise levels are predicted to occur for two or more consecutive years at open space receptors immediately adjacent to the project site during Phase 2 construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts on open spaces. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on socioeconomic conditions. Construction of the proposed project would not 20-45

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

block or restrict access to any facilities in the area or affect the operations of any nearby businesses, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site. Lane closures are not expected to occur in front of entrances to any existing or planned retail businesses, and construction activities would not obstruct major thoroughfares used by customers or businesses. Utility service would be maintained to all businesses. Overall, construction of the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on surrounding businesses. Construction would create direct benefits resulting from expenditures on labor, materials, and services, and indirect benefits created by expenditures by material suppliers, construction workers, and other employees involved in the construction activity. Construction also would contribute to increased tax revenues for the city and state, including those from personal income taxes. COMMUNITY FACILITIES No community facilities are located near the construction site. Construction workers would not place any burden on public schools and would have minimal, if any, demands on libraries, child care facilities, and health care facilities. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site, and would not materially affect emergency response times. New York Police Department (NYPD) and FDNY emergency services and response times would not be materially affected due to the geographic distribution of the police and fire facilities and their respective coverage areas. LAND USE AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Construction activities would affect land use on the project site but would not alter surrounding land uses. As is typical with construction projects, during periods of peak construction activity there would be some disruption, predominantly noise, to the nearby area. There would be construction trucks and construction workers coming to the site. There would also be noise, sometimes intrusive, from construction work as well as trucks and other vehicles backing up, loading, and unloading. These disruptions would have minimal effects on land uses within the study area, particularly as most construction activities would take place within the project site, which is located south of Queensboro Bridge and not within a Central Business District or along a major thoroughfare, and generally located at some distance away from most sensitive uses except for South Point Park and the waterfront promenade. Nevertheless, throughout the construction period, measures would be implemented to control noise, vibration, and dust on construction sites, including the erection of construction fencing and in some areas fencing incorporating sound-reducing measures. Construction activity associated with the proposed project would be localized and would not alter the character of the larger neighborhoods surrounding the project site.

G. BARGING ALTERNATIVE TO TRUCK MATERIAL DELIVERIES 3

INTRODUCTION The analysis of construction-period effects presented above in this chapter represents a reasonable worst-case construction scenario in which all materials are delivered to and removed from the Cornell NYC Tech project site by truck. However, Cornell is considering alternatives
3

This section, Section G, is new to the FEIS.

20-46

Chapter 20: Construction

to this truck-based approach and is exploring the feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 1 construction period. The feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 2 construction period would be explored when details on the Phase 2 construction components become more defined. Working with Tishman Construction Corporation, Cornell examined a number of different barging techniques, taking into account the types of materials that could be barged, the quantities of those materials, the infrastructure needed to support each type of barge, and the proximity of related harbor facilities within the New York harbor. This section presents two barging techniques now under consideration and provides an assessment of the potential for barging to result in significant adverse impacts. Cornell has committed to further explore the feasibility of employing barges during the construction period. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL BARGING OPERATIONS Based on Cornells investigation to date, two barging techniques have been identified for further considerationthe Harbor Barge and the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge. Additional actions/approvals for use of the either (or both) barging techniques are as follows: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. U.S. Coast Guard approval of marine activity. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) authorization under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law. OPRHP and LPC approval under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for work in the area of the Roosevelt Island seawall.4 Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation authorization of Cornells application for the USACE and NYSDEC authorizations and RIOCs granting of a license for Cornell to undertake barging activities on RIOC property. In addition, use of barges would have to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, through the New York State Department of States Coastal Management Program and approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans (i.e., the Citys Waterfront Revitalization Program). The barging operations are described further in this section. As noted in the discussion below, use of barging (either technique) would require some closure of a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site. Cornell is committed to maintaining accessboth pedestrian and vehicularto South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park at all times during construction of the proposed project. HARBOR BARGE With the Harbor Barge technique, a harbor barge could be used for the removal of bulk materials from the project site, such as gravel, soil, and demolition materials. In addition, the harbor barge could be used for delivery of bulk materials to the site, such as soils and gravel. This barge technique would be predominantly employed for approximately the first year of Phase 1
4

The seawall has not been formally evaluated to determine whether it meets the National and State Register of Historic Places (S/NR) eligibility criteria as an architectural resource.

20-47

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

construction when demolition materials would be removed from the project site. It is anticipated that with use of the Harbor Barge, a portion of the site/civil work previously projected to occur over the course of Phase 1 construction would instead be concentrated in the earlier portion of Phase 1. Under this option, a spud or jack-up crane barge would be installed on the east side of Roosevelt Island adjacent to the project site. One or two transport barges or scows would be docked and secured to the crane barge, acting as a temporary dock, periodically throughout this time, and demolition byproducts would be delivered and placed onto the transport barge or into the scow by way of the barge-mounted crane. The spud or jack-up crane barge would be located just off the seawall in water of sufficient depth to obviate any need for dredging. If a spud barge is used, spuds would be drilled and socketed into bedrock; the barge would be permanently moored, floating up and down on the spuds. If a jack-up barge is selected, the spuds would be lowered to the bottom with the crane barge lifted (jacked-up) and supported in a fixed position. A gangway would be provided for workmen to access the crane barge; this gangway would bridge over the existing seawall so no excavation would be required. To reduce the amount of time each barge is in place, it is possible that Cornell may stockpile material on site for several weeks or months before removal by barge. Bulk material would be stockpiled on land and covered and protected to prevent dispersion. The materials quantities being stockpiled would range from 10,000 to 20,000 cubic yards per day. Barges are not expected to remain moored and tied up to the crane barge longer than one to two weeks at any one time. During those periods when barges are being loaded, a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade on the east shoreline would be closed to allow the transfer of material. Public access to the east promenade would be closed during daytime work hours when this transfer would occur. It is estimated that one to two transport barges would be required per day during the pickup periods, with activity distributed throughout the day. ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF BARGE The Roll-On/Roll-Off Facility (or Floatbridge Facility) could be used for the delivery of materials typically loaded on trucks, such as structural steel; cladding materials; materials for interior work (partition systems; mechanical, electric and plumbing materials; finishes; furniture, fixtures, and equipment [FF&E]); and sitework materials (e.g., planters, pavers, trees, sod, solar panels, among other materials). Under this option, a temporary pile-supported platform, bridge, barge spuds, and breasting/mooring dolphins would be constructed on the east side of Roosevelt Island and would remain in place for the duration of Phase 1 construction. The platform is anticipated to be trapezoidal in shape and approximately 65 feet long flaring out from about 35 feet on the north to approximately 75 feet on the south. The platform would span across the existing seawall and into the channel, supported on approximately twenty 18- to 24-inch steel pipe piles socketed into rock. The platform would also extend 10 to 15 feet into the island to avoid loading the waterfront seawall or embankment at the edge. 5 The bridge would span between the platform

The platform could be built using precast concrete pile caps and planks; this would minimize the use of over-water formwork and also speed up the construction time. Alternatively, a steel floor beam and pile cap frame could be used along with a heavy timber deck to form the platform superstructure.

20-48

Chapter 20: Construction

and the spud barge. 6 A clear width of 20 feet would provide two 10-foot-wide lanes or a single lane for extra-wide vehicles as necessary. The spud moored floating barge supporting the bridge would be held in place by four 24- to 30inch steel pipe piles socketed into bedrock in the river bottom. It is currently contemplated that the barge would be approximately 140 feet long with a 39 feet beam and set at a draft of 7 feet. This barge would be equipped with a heavy-duty adjustable ramp on the barge deck at its southern end to allow passage of traffic to and from a transfer barge. Berthing and mooring monopiles socketed into rock would be provided for the barges or carfloats delivering trucks to the facility. Trucks arriving on barges or carfloats would access the project site via the ramp and platform. The barge or carfloat would arrive at the facility and be moored against the breasting dolphins and locked into the spud barge. The ramp on the spud barge would be adjusted to match the delivery barge/carfloat and the trucks driven across the barge, up the bridge and onto the platform. Trucks would be marshaled across the loop road by flag persons. A similar operation in reverse would be used for trucks leaving the island. Construction of the platform, bridge, barge spuds and mooring/breasting dolphins would likely involve the use of construction barges with barge mounted cranes and a vibratory pile driver and a down-the-hole hammer or other drilling equipment to socket the piles. The deck and bridge would be erected by floating and land based cranes and equipment. It is estimated that construction of the platform, bridge, spud piles, mooring and breasting dolphins and installation of the barge would require six to nine months. At completion of Phase 1 construction, the platform and ramp would likely be demolished, again using barge-mounted and land based equipment. It is anticipated that piles and spuds would be cut below the mudline. Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Facility would require that a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade on the east shoreline be closed for the duration of Phase 1 construction. Approximately 200 to 300 feet of the roadway would be closed to allow staging and queuing of trucks and other construction equipment using the facility. It is estimated that approximately 5 to 10 barges would arrive at the site each day with activity distributed throughout the day. ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF HARBOR BARGE AND ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF BARGE This assessment focuses on the potential for construction-period impacts in those analyses areas that could be affected by the change in construction transport technique. The following sections follow the same outline as the assessment above and focus on transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, hazardous materials, natural resources, historic and cultural resources, and open space. Neither barging option would result in conclusions different than the truck-based approach in the areas of socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character.

The bridge is anticipated to consist of a 60-foot-long steel pony truss or steel multi-stringer bridge and would either be fabricated off site and delivered as a unit or be erected on site.

20-49

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

HARBOR BARGE Transportation With the truck-based approach analyzed above, it was projected that for Phase 1 construction, there would be an average of about 37 trucks per day, with a peak of 67 in the third quarter of 2015 (see Table 20-3). Use of the Harbor Barge technique would result in an estimated reduction of between 20 and 25 percent of overall trucks trips over the Phase 1 construction period. Because much of the site civil work that was projected to occur over the course of Phase 1 could be concentrated in the earlier portion of Phase 1, use of the Harbor Barge would result in a reduction of the average daily truck number and would result in a reduction of the peak number as well. While this barging technique would result in a reduction of construction truck traffic on Main Street, it is not expected to materially change the conclusions made in the detailed construction traffic analysis in this chapter. Because use of the Harbor Barge technique would affect truck trips and not construction worker trips, there would be no change to the conclusions presented above as they relate to parking, transit, and pedestrians. Air Quality Use of the Harbor Barge technique would result in a reduction of overall truck trips. Therefore, similar to the conclusions of the air quality mobile source analysis presented above, there would be no significant adverse construction impacts from mobile source emissions. Since air quality concentrations predicted at receptors immediately adjacent to the construction site are primarily a result of machinery assessed as on-site stationary sources, a reduction in truck trips would have minimal effects on the air quality concentrations predicted at these receptors. Noise and Vibration Use of the Harbor Barge would result in some localized increases in noise levels from barge operations that could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities (i.e., along the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site). These localized noise increases would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on the Roosevelt Island promenade since this barge technique would be used predominantly in the first year of Phase 1 construction and would not be in use continuously during this time. As described above, use of the Harbor Barge technique would result in up to a 25 percent reduction in truck trips during construction of Phase 1. The reduction in truck trips would not notably affect the amount of noise generated at receptors immediately adjacent to the project site, where noise levels during construction are primarily a result of on-site equipment, but it could slightly decrease the magnitude of noise level increases at receptors on the Island along the truck routes to the project site. Consequently, with use of the Harbor Barge technique, the magnitudes and durations of construction noise impacts at some receptors on the Island along truck routes to and from the project site is anticipated to slightly decrease as compared to those described above. Natural Resources Potential impacts to natural resources from use of the Harbor Barge technique include temporary water quality effects resulting from resuspension of East River bottom sediment during pile installation, permanent loss of benthic macroinevertebrates and temporary loss of benthic habitat within the footprint of the piles, and temporary shading of aquatic habitat in the East River from the barges. Water depth in the area in which the barges would be located is greater than 6 feet at 20-50

Chapter 20: Construction

Mean Low Water (MLW), and as such, there would be no potential impacts to NYSDEC littoral zone tidal wetlands. As described above, use of the Harbor Barge technique would involve the use of a spud or jackup crane barge and one or two transport barges or scows to remove bulk materials from the project site during construction of Phase 1. No dredging would be required. The spud barge would be supported by 24 to 48 inch diameter spuds that would be installed using a vibratory hammer to drive the spud to rock then a rock socket drilled down through the pile. Alternatively, casings may be driven to rock using a vibratory hammer and sockets drilled into rock, then the spuds lowered into the hole and concreted into the socket. Piles would be cut below the mud line following the completion of Phase 1 construction. Pile installation and barge activity would have the potential to resuspend sediment in the immediate vicinity of the work, but any such increases in turbidity would be minor, short-term, and highly localized and would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality or aquatic biota. The use of a collar during rock socket drilling would minimize the potential for discharge of soil, drillings, bentonite concrete or other drilling byproducts to the East River. As recommended by NOAA (2008) 7 for reducing the potential adverse impacts to marine fisheries habitat and fish due to pile driving, the proposed project would only drive spuds and piles using a vibratory hammer. Therefore, the installation of spuds or piles would not result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota, including threatened or endangered sea turtles and sturgeon that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site as occasional transient individuals. Implementation of a Pollution Prevention Plan would minimize the potential for discharge of other materials to the East River during use of the Harbor Barge technique. The small amount of river bottom occupied by the piles would represent temporary and negligible reductions in benthic habitat that would not have significant adverse impacts to benthic fauna or fish foraging within this portion of the East River. The anticipated crane barge and transport scows or barges (typical size range of 58 to 60 feet wide by 140 to 150 feet long, and 40 to 50 feet wide and up to 150 feet long, respectively) would permit some light to reach the water and mudline under them and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota due to shading of aquatic habitat while the barges are in place. Therefore, use of the Harbor Barge technique would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality or aquatic biota of the East River, including threatened or endangered aquatic species (i.e., sea turtles and sturgeon). Historic and Cultural Resources The Roosevelt Island seawall within the project site has not been formally evaluated to determine whether it meets the National and State Register of Historic Places (S/NR) eligibility criteria as an architectural resource; nor has the potential for the seawall and immediately adjacent areas to possess archaeological sensitivity been formally assessed. However, no permanent direct impacts to the physical fabric of the seawall or the upland area adjacent to it are anticipated with the use of the Harbor Barge technique. Therefore, no adverse effects to the seawall or any potentially archaeologically sensitive areas associated with the seawall (if any such resources should exist) are anticipated as a result of the use of the Harbor Barge technique. If the technique is advanced, further consultation with OPRHP and LPC would be undertaken to
7

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2008. Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNE-209, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

20-51

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

determine the S/NR-eligibility of the seawall, and if necessary, appropriate measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with OPRHP and LPC to protect the seawall from inadvertent construction-period activities. Open Space As discussed above, during those periods when barges are being loaded, a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade on the east shoreline would be closed. While this would be a direct effect on open space, it would not be considered a significant adverse impact since it would be temporary and since only a small portion of the Roosevelt Island promenade would be affected. Access to South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park would be provided by the Roosevelt Island promenade on the west side of the island, as well as the loop road to the west of the project site. ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF BARGE Transportation With the truck-based approach analyzed above, it was projected that for Phase 1 construction, there would be an average of about 37 trucks per day, with a peak of 67 in the third quarter of 2015 (see Table 20-3). Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique could result in an estimated reduction of between 25 and 35 percent of overall trucks trips. Therefore, use of the RollOn/Roll-Off Barge technique would result in a reduction of the average daily truck number and a reduction of the peak number as well. While this barging technique would result in a notable reduction of construction truck traffic on Main Street, it is not expected to materially change the conclusions of the detailed construction traffic analysis in this chapter. Because the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge Option would affect truck trips and not construction worker trips, there would be no change to the conclusions presented above as they relate to parking, transit, and pedestrians. Air Quality Use Of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique would result in a reduction of overall truck trips on Main Street. Therefore, similar to the conclusions of the air quality mobile source analysis presented above, there would be no significant adverse construction impacts from mobile source emissions. Since air quality concentrations predicted at receptors immediately adjacent to the construction site are primarily a result of machinery assessed as on-site stationary sources, a reduction in truck trips would have minimal effects on the air quality concentrations predicted at these receptors. Noise and Vibration Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique would result in some localized increases in noise levels from barge operations that could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities (i.e., along the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site) for approximately three years. These localized noise increases may result in significant noise impacts during Phase 1 construction on the east river promenade. As described above, use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique would result in up to a 35 percent reduction in truck trips throughout construction. This would not notably affect the levels of noise generated at receptors immediately adjacent to the project site, where noise levels during construction are primarily a result of on-site equipment, but it could affect noise levels at receptors on the Island along the truck routes to the project site. Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off 20-52

Chapter 20: Construction

Barge technique would be expected to decrease the magnitude of noise level increases at these truck route receptors as compared to the predicted noise level increases presented above. At some receptors, it is expected that there would still be a significant noise level increase, although of lesser magnitude. Consequently, with use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique, the magnitudes and durations of construction noise impacts at some receptors on the Island along truck routes to and from the project site would decrease as compared to those described above. Natural Resources The Roll-On/Roll-Off Facility would be used for the delivery of structural steel and other construction materials, and consist of a temporary pile-supported platform, bridge, spudded barge, and mooring dolphins, also located along the east side of the project site for the duration of the Phase I construction. As discussed above under the Harbor Barge option, piles would be installed and there would be overwater coverage of aquatic habitat. Sediment resuspension during installation of piles using a vibratory hammer followed by rock drilling, as described under the Harbor Barge option, followed by cutting of piles at the completion of Phase 1 construction would be minor, temporary, and localized and would not result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources. Similarly, the river bottom that would be occupied by the piles required for the Roll-On/Roll-Off scenario would represent a temporary and negligible loss of benthic habitat that would not have significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota. The approximately 40-foot wide moored barges, and the high level platform would be expected to permit some light to reach the aquatic habitat below the barges and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota due to shading. Historic and Cultural Resources As discussed above, the Roosevelt Island seawall within the project site has not been formally evaluated to determine whether it meets the S/NR eligibility criteria as an architectural resource; nor has the potential for the seawall and immediately adjacent areas to possess archaeological sensitivity been formally assessed. However, no permanent direct impacts to the physical fabric of the seawall or the fast land adjacent to it are anticipated during construction of the RollOn/Roll-Off Facility. Therefore, no adverse effects to the seawall or any potentially archaeologically sensitive areas associated with the seawall (if any such resources should exist) are anticipated as a result of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Facility. If the Roll-On/Roll-Off Facility approach is advanced, further consultation with OPRHP and LPC would be undertaken to determine the S/NR-eligibility of the feature, and if necessary, appropriate measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with OPRHP and LPC to protect the seawall from inadvertent construction-period activities. Open Space As discussed above, with this option, a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade on the east shoreline would be closed for the duration of Phase 1 construction. While this would be a direct effect on open space, it would not be a significant adverse impact since it would be temporary and since it would affect a limited area of the much larger Roosevelt Island promenade. Access to South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park would be provided by the Roosevelt Island promenade on the west side of the island as well as the loop road.

20-53

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

COMBINED USE OF THE HARBOR BARGE AND ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF BARGE If Cornell were to use both the Harbor Barge and the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge techniques during construction, it is estimated that there would be a total reduction in overall truck trips of between 45 and 55 percent over the duration of Phase 1 construction. The duration and magnitude of noise level increases at these receptors would be further decreased, although significant noise level increases would still be expected to occur at some of these receptors. Use of both techniques would also result in localized increases in noise levels from barge operations that could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities (i.e., along the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site) for approximately three years. These localized noise increases may result in significant noise impacts during Phase 1 construction on the east river promenade.

H. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis concludes that the proposed project would result in significant adverse construction impacts related to transportation and noise on open space. TRANSPORTATION During Phase 1 construction of the proposed project, significant adverse impacts are expected to result for traffic and transit conditions. During Phase 2 construction, significant adverse impacts are expected to result for traffic, transit, and pedestrian conditions. These findings are summarized below. TRAFFIC The maximum Phase 1 construction activities would result in 397 passenger car equivalents (PCEs) between 6 and 7 AM and 345 PCEs between 3 and 4 PM on weekdays in the fourth quarter of 2015. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the construction peak hours of 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM was conducted at seven key study locations to identify potential traffic impacts during Phase 1 construction. According to these analyses, significant adverse traffic impacts are projected to occur during Phase 1 construction at four of the seven study locations analyzed. Three of these impacted locations could be mitigated using standard mitigation measures typically implemented by NYCDOT while impacts at the one location would be partially mitigated.. The mitigation measures would be similar to those proposed to mitigate the intersection impacts associated with the projects build-out and occupancy. For Phase 2 construction, the cumulative operational and construction traffic would be of lower magnitudes than what the overall project would generate when completed in 2038. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts during peak Phase 2 construction would be within the envelope of significant adverse traffic impacts identified for the 2038 With Action condition in Chapter 14, Transportation, and mitigatable and unmitigatable impacts identified in Chapter 22, Mitigation would apply to Phase 2 construction conditions as well. The required mitigation measures for those locations that could be mitigated are expected to be part of those presented for the 2038 full build-out of the proposed project. These mitigation measures could be implemented at the discretion of RIOC and/or NYCDOT during construction of Phase 2. PARKING With approximately 100 parking spaces expected to be allocated on-site and assuming the use of the available parking at the Motorgate garage, or that other parking resources are provided, the 20-54

Chapter 20: Construction

projected construction worker parking demand during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction is expected to be fully accommodated at one of these parking locations. Cornell has committed to pay for the costs of snow removal on the upper deck of the Motorgate garage in the event that construction worker parking requires that the upper deck of the garage be opened during winter months. TRANSIT Transit trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse subway and Q102 bus line-haul impacts during Phase 1 construction. However, because most construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would rely on the Red Bus for travel to/from the project site, during off-peak hours when the Red Bus operates at comparatively lower frequencies, there is a potential for a significant adverse line-haul impact on the Red Bus that would warrant an increase in its service during off-peak hours (three additional buses during the 6 to 7 AM and 3 to 4 PM construction peak hours). After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the Roosevelt Island subway station and bus routes would experience increases in passengers generated by the completed uses. However, during the commuter peak periods, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker trips with those generated by the completion of Phase 1 and/or Phase 2A would be less than the total projected for the operational Phase 2 full build-out condition. As a result, Phase 2 construction efforts would not result in any significant adverse subway impacts. And although Phase 2 construction workers parking at the Motorgate garage would also generate additional demand for Red Bus service, the existing Red Bus service is expected to be adequate in fully accommodating construction worker travel between the Motorgate garage and the project site. However, because the Q102 bus route would be significantly impacted by the projected increase in demand from the completed Phase 1 buildings, this impact would also occur during Phase 2 construction. PEDESTRIANS Pedestrian trips generated by construction workers are not expected to result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts during Phase 1 construction. After the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2A components of the proposed project, the combination of the Phase 2 construction worker pedestrian trips with those generated by the completed Phase 1 and Phase 2A buildings during the commuter peak hours may result in similar significant adverse pedestrian impacts as those discussed in Chapter 14, Transportation, and may warrant the earlier implementation of the recommended sidewalk widening described in Chapter 21, Mitigation. AIR QUALITY No significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected at any sensitive receptor locations due to the on-site construction activities of the proposed project. To ensure that the construction of the proposed project would result in the lowest practicable diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, the project would implement an emissions reduction program for all construction activities, including: diesel equipment reduction; clean fuel; best available tailpipe reduction technologies; utilization of newer equipment; source location; dust control; and idle restriction. The project site is generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses, with the nearest existing residential building located more than 600 feet north of the project site. The nearest sensitive locations are South Point Park, located to the south of the project site, and the waterfront promenades along the east river, located to the east and west of the project site. In addition, construction activities induced by the proposed project during Phase 2 may occur near 20-55

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

the completed Phase 1 project buildings and the associated open spaces. Given the size of the project site and space available, most of the heavy diesel engines, deliveries, and intense activities such as concrete pumping would take place away from South Point Park, the waterfront promenades, and the Phase 1 completed buildings and the associated open space locations to the extent practicable. A detailed analysis of the off-site emissions determined that the CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations would be below their corresponding NAAQS and interim guidance criteria. Therefore, no significant adverse air quality impacts are expected from off-site construction sources. NOISE AND VIBRATION NOISE The proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise on open space. Construction on the proposed development sites would include noise control measures as required by the New York City Noise Control Code, including both path and source controls. Even with these measures, the results of detailed construction analyses indicate that the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise, as follows: During construction of Phase 1, the open space areas along Main Street would experience exceedances due to trucks and workers travelling on Main Street to and from the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM); During construction of Phase 2, South Point Park and the waterfront promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site would experience noise levels in the mid to high 70s of dBA for over 24 months. These exceedances would be due to the operation of on-site construction equipment. VIBRATION Development pursuant to the proposed actions is not expected to result in significant adverse construction impacts with respect to vibration. Use of construction equipment that would have the most potential to exceed the 65 VdB criterion within a distance of 600 feet of sensitive receptor locations (e.g., equipment used during pile driving) would be perceptible and annoying. Therefore, for limited time periods, perceptible vibration levels may be experienced by occupants and visitors to all of the buildings and locations on and immediately adjacent to the construction sites. However, the operations which would result in these perceptible vibration levels would only occur for finite periods of time at any particular location and, therefore, the resulting vibration levels, while perceptible, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would demolish the Goldwater Hospital complex, which would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. Cornell has consulted with OPRHP and LPC regarding appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. These measures would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP,

20-56

Chapter 20: Construction

LPC, and the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). These measures are described in Chapter 22, Mitigation. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Studies of the project site indicate that existing buildings may contain hazardous materials such as ACM and lead-based paint. Soil that would be disturbed by the proposed project includes urban fill materials with elevated concentrations of certain metals and SVOCs. Demolition and excavation activities could disturb these hazardous materials and potentially increase pathways for human or environmental exposure. To reduce the potential for human or environmental exposure to known or unexpectedly encountered contamination during the construction of the proposed project, a RAP and an associated CHASP were prepared and submitted to NYCDEP and were approved by NYCDEP. The RAP and CHASP would be implemented during project construction. The RAP addresses requirements for items such as soil stockpiling, soil disposal and transportation; dust control; dewatering procedures; quality assurance; procedures for the closure and removal of the known petroleum storage tanks; and contingency measures, should petroleum storage tanks or contamination be unexpectedly encountered. The CHASP identifies potential hazards that may be encountered during construction and specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that subsurface disturbance is performed in a manner protective of workers, the community, and the environment (such as personal protective equipment, air monitoring including community air monitoring, and emergency response procedures). In addition, during construction of the proposed project, regulatory requirements pertaining to ACM, lead-based paint, PCBs and chemical use and storage would be followed. With these measures in place, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would occur as a result of the proposed project. NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resources within and around the project site are highly limited, and construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 are not considered to have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to those resources. Groundwater within the project site is not potable and soil levels of some compounds are elevated; construction of the proposed project would not be expected to have adverse impacts to groundwater quality or result in human or environmental exposure to contaminants. Re-grading and filling of the small area of 500-year floodplain within the project site during Phase 1 and the Phase 2 would not increase local flood risk. No in-water construction activities would occur during Phase 1 or Phase 2, and soil disturbing activities associated with Phase 1 activities would be conducted in accordance with the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. As such, no direct or indirect impacts to water quality, littoral zone tidal wetland, aquatic biota, or other aquatic resources of the East River (including state or federally protected species and Essential Fish Habitat) would occur as a result of Phase 1 or Phase 2 construction. Construction would require the disturbance of ecological communities present on site and the removal of certain trees that are of locally common and abundant species. Wildlife occurring in the area is composed of urban-adapted, disturbancetolerant generalists that would not be affected by construction noise. Some wildlife would be temporarily displaced from the site during project construction, but would be expected to easily locate temporary alternative habitat nearby and return to the project site upon completion. Threatened or endangered species have low potential to occur within the project site or offshore, and would not be significantly impacted by the minimal and temporary land disturbance that would occur during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction.

20-57

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

OPEN SPACE Construction of the proposed project would occur in close proximity to South Point Park, an open space resource located immediately south of the Goldwater Hospital site and immediately north of Four Freedoms Park, and the waterfront promenade, a walkway for pedestrians that extends along the east and west sides of Roosevelt Island north of South Point Park. Both open spaces are expected to remain open during the entire construction period, and access to these open spaces would be maintained. Construction activities would be conducted with the care mandated by the close proximity of several open spaces to the proposed project. Dust control measuresincluding watering of exposed areas and dust covers for truckswould be implemented to ensure compliance with the New York City Air Pollution Control Code, which regulates construction-related dust emissions. At limited times over the course of the entire construction period, construction activities such as structural demolition, excavation, and foundations may generate noise that could impair the enjoyment of nearby open space users. Although construction fences around the project site may shield the open spaces from construction activities, as described above in noise, elevated noise levels are predicted to occur for two or more consecutive years at open space receptors immediately adjacent to the project site during Phase 2 construction. In addition, impacts are projected to occur on open spaces along Main Street during Phase 1 construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in significant adverse noise impacts on open spaces, as described above under Noise. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on socioeconomic conditions. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area or affect the operations of any nearby businesses, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site. Lane closures are not expected to occur in front of entrances to any existing or planned retail businesses, and construction activities would not obstruct major thoroughfares used by customers or businesses. Utility service would be maintained to all businesses. Overall, construction of the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on surrounding businesses. COMMUNITY FACILITIES No community facilities are located near the construction site. Construction workers would not place any burden on public schools and would have minimal, if any, demands on libraries, child care facilities, and health care facilities. Construction of the proposed project would not block or restrict access to any facilities in the area, including Sportspark, which is located north of the project site, and would not materially affect emergency response times. New York Police Department (NYPD) and FDNY emergency services and response times would not be materially affected due to the geographic distribution of the police and fire facilities and their respective coverage areas. LAND USE AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Construction activities would affect land use on the project site but would not alter surrounding land uses. As is typical with construction projects, during periods of peak construction activity there would be some disruption, predominantly noise, to the nearby area. There would be construction trucks and construction workers coming to the site. There would also be noise, sometimes intrusive, from construction work as well as trucks and other vehicles backing up, loading, and unloading. These disruptions would have minimal effects on land uses within the study area, particularly as most construction activities would take place within the project site, 20-58

Chapter 20: Construction

which is located south of the Queensboro Bridge and not within a Central Business District or along a major thoroughfare, and generally located at some distance away from sensitive uses. Nevertheless, throughout the construction period, measures would be implemented to control noise, vibration, and dust on construction sites, including the erection of construction fencing and in some areas fencing incorporating sound-reducing measures. Construction activity associated with the proposed project would be localized and would not alter the character of the larger neighborhoods surrounding the project site. BARGING ALTERNATIVE TO TRUCK MATERIAL DELIVERIES The EIS analysis of construction-period effects represents a reasonable worst-case construction scenario in which all materials are delivered to and removed from the Cornell NYC Tech project site by truck. However, Cornell is considering alternatives to this truck-based approach and is exploring the feasibility of employing barges during the Phase 1 construction period. Two barging techniques are under considerationa Harbor Barge and a Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge. The Harbor Barge could be used for the removal of bulk materials from the project site, such as gravel, soil, and demolition materials, and for the delivery of bulk materials. The Roll-On/RollOff Barge could be used for the delivery of materials typically loaded on trucks, such as structural steel; cladding materials; materials for interior work (partition systems; mechanical, electric and plumbing materials; finishes; furniture, fixtures, and equipment [FF&E]); and sitework materials (e.g., planters, pavers, trees, sod, solar panels, among other materials). Additional actions/approvals would be required for use of either barging technique and would include actions from USACE, the U.S. Coast Guard, NYSDEC, OPRHP and LPC, and RIOC. In addition, use of barges would have to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, through the New York State Department of States Coastal Management Program and approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans (i.e., the Citys Waterfront Revitalization Program). Use of barging (either technique) would require some closure of a segment of the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site. Cornell is committed to maintaining accessboth pedestrian and vehicularto South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park at all times during construction of the proposed project. Use of the Harbor Barge technique would result in an estimated reduction of between 20 and 25 percent of overall trucks trips over the Phase 1 construction period. Use of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge technique could result in an estimated reduction of between 25 and 35 percent of overall trucks trips. Therefore, use of either technique would result in a reduction of the average daily truck number and would result in a reduction of the peak number as well. While use of barging technique would result in a reduction of construction truck traffic on Main Street, it is not expected to materially change the conclusions of the detailed construction traffic or air quality analyses. Use of either barging technique would result in some localized increases in noise levels from barge operations that could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities (i.e., along the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the site). For the Harbor Barge, these localized noise increases would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on the Roosevelt Island promenade since this barge technique would be used predominantly in the first year of Phase 1 construction and would not be in use continuously during this time. For the Roll-On/Roll-Off Barge, localized increases in noise levels could potentially exceed CEQR noise impact criteria at open space locations near the barge activities for approximately three years. These localized noise increases may result in 20-59

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

significant noise impacts during Phase 1 construction on the Roosevelt Island promenade to the east of the project site. Neither barging option would be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on natural resources. Neither barging option would result in conclusions different than the truck-based approach in the areas of socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character.

20-60

Chapter 21:

Alternatives

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents and analyzes alternatives to the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project. As described in the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, alternatives selected for consideration in an environmental impact statement (EIS) are generally those which are feasible and have the potential to reduce, eliminate, or avoid adverse impacts of a proposed action while meeting some or all of the goals and objectives of the action. This chapter considers in detail the following two alternatives to the proposed project: A No Action Alternative, which is mandated by CEQR and SEQRA, and is intended to provide the lead and involved agencies with an assessment of the expected environmental impacts of no action on their part; A No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impact Alternative, which considers development that would not result in any identified significant, unmitigated adverse impacts. In the case of the Cornell NYC Tech project, this alternative considers three variations: 1) whether the proposed projects significant adverse impact on the Goldwater Hospital complex could be avoided; 2) whether the proposed projects significant adverse transportation impacts (traffic) could be avoided; and 3) whether the projects construction-period impacts could be avoided. As detailed in this chapter, neither the No Action nor the No Unmitigated Significant Adverse Impact Alternative would meet the goals and objectives of the city or Cornell University for the proposed project.

B. APPLIED SCIENCES NYC

As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the City of New York launched its Applied Sciences NYC initiative in 2010 after working with a range of New York Citys business leaders, academics, community groups, and entrepreneurs to identify ambitious, achievable initiatives that the city could undertake to attain local economic growth. From that process, an unmet demand within New York City for top-flight engineers and applied scientists was identified. The purpose of the Applied Sciences competition in New York City was to provide an opportunity for one or more leading academic institution(s) to build world-class applied sciences and engineering facilities in New York City thereby maintaining and increasing New York Citys global competitiveness, diversifying the citys economy, driving economic growth, and creating jobs for New Yorkers. In connection with the new campus, the city indicated its willingness to provide city-owned land in addition to a significant capital contribution in site infrastructure. In 2011, the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a university, institution, or consortium to develop and 21-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

operate a new (or expanded) campus in the city. The city selected Cornell University, in conjunction with its academic partner the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, to develop the Applied Sciences NYC project at the Goldwater Hospital site on Roosevelt the Cornell NYC Tech project. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to focus on research and graduate degrees in the applied sciences and fields of study related to the technology sector. A defining aspect of the new campuss graduate-level academic programs is the close tie to business and entrepreneurship that will be woven throughout the curriculum. Research will be focused on technology in application areas that have commercial potential in New York City markets. Specifically, New York Citys technology sector and information-driven economy serves as the impetus for the development of many consumer-oriented companies focused specifically on technology to meet end users needs, including some of NYCs core industries: media, advertising, finance, healthcare, real estate, construction, and design. The Cornell NYC Tech campus will be centered on flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs instead of traditional academic departments. This model will serve as a focal point for accelerating existing sectors of NYCs economy and driving the formation of new technology businesses through close ties to customers and core industry knowledge.

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION The No Action Alternative assumes that the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project is not developed. There would be no new applied sciences and engineering campus and associated open space, and the loop road would not be reconstructed. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the Goldwater Hospital complex located on the project site would be vacant since the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) will vacate the site and relocate patients and services elsewhere. NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the Goldwater North project, which includes the closure and relocation of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). As described in the Environmental Assessment Statement prepared for the Goldwater North project, the existing Goldwater Hospital facility is at the end of its useful life without major renovations. Further, because of the age and design of the building, it can never be fully compliant with nursing facility environmental codes, nor can it ever be an optimal environment for specialty hospital (long-term acute care hospital) patients. NYCHHC will transfer operations from the project site to other sites including the former North General Hospital facility, located at 1879 Madison Avenue in Harlem, and the Coler Memorial Hospital campus. This alternative essentially reflects conditions described as the Future Without the Proposed Project in Chapters 2 through 19. The analysis that follows compares conditions under the No Action Alternative to conditions with the proposed project in the 2038 analysis year. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTIONS The effects of the No Action Alternative in comparison to those of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project are summarized below.

21-2

Chapter 21: Alternatives

LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY Like the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, or public policy. No changes to zoning would occur with the No Action Alternative and the site would continue to be zoned R7-2. The project site would contain a vacant hospital complex and vacant land. Unlike the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not improve land use conditions in the study are by creating a vibrant new mixed-use campus that would be compatible with nearby uses. Under the No Action Alternative, the opportunity to provide roadway improvements, new publicly accessible open space, and economic development would not be realized. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not achieve the goals of the citys Applied Sciences NYC initiative. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Like the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in any significant adverse impacts to socioeconomic conditions in the study area. The following summarizes the potential socioeconomic effects of the No Action Alternative as compared to those of the proposed project for the five issues of socioeconomic concern specified in the CEQR Technical Manual. Direct Residential Displacement Neither the proposed project nor the No Action Alternative would result in significant adverse impacts due to direct residential displacement in the study area. Direct Business Displacement The No Action Alternative would result in direct business displacement at the site by closing Goldwater Hospital; however, this would not be an adverse impact. As stated above, NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the closure and relocation of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M) and will relocate its patients and services. The proposed project would not result in any direct business displacement. Indirect Residential Displacement While the No Action Alternative would not introduce new residential dwelling units or a population that could substantially affect residential real estate market conditions in the study area, neither the proposed project nor the No Action Alternative would result in significant adverse impacts due to indirect residential displacement. Indirect Business Displacement Similar to the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not introduce new economic activities that would substantially alter existing economic patterns in the study area. However, since the project site would be unoccupied in the No Action Alternative, this alternative could result in some negative effects on area businesses since there would be fewer people making use of businesses on Roosevelt Island. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not add economic variety and vitality to complement the growing residential population on the Island. Adverse Effects on Specific Industries Similar to the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on specific industries. While the closure of the Goldwater Hospital would affect this health care facility at the project site, it would not adversely affect the health care industry in New York City. Similarly, the proposed project would not directly displace any businesses or 21-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

have substantial adverse effects on business conditions in any industry or any category of business within or outside the study area. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Neither the No Action Alternative nor the proposed project would have significant adverse direct or indirect impacts on community facilities. 1 The No Action Alternative would not add new residences for campus leadership and faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students, and would therefore not create increased demand for various community facilities, including public schools and libraries. OPEN SPACE Neither the No Action Alternative nor the proposed project would have significant adverse impacts on open space. Since the project site would be vacant in the No Action Alternative, this alternative would reduce the demand for area open spaces compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not provide for the notable open space improvements associated with the proposed project. SHADOWS Neither the No Action Alternative nor the proposed project would have significant adverse shadows impacts. Since the Goldwater Hospital complex is expected to remain in place, but vacant, in the No Action Alternative, shadows would remain unchanged from existing conditions. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES As described above, in the No Action Alternative, the Goldwater Hospital complex, which is eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR-eligible), would remain intact. Compared to the proposed project which would demolish the hospital complex resulting in a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource, with the No Action Alternative, this architectural resource would not be demolished. Therefore, the No Action Alternative, unlike the proposed project, would not result in any significant adverse impacts to this architectural resource. The No Action Alternative, like the proposed project, would not result in any significant adverse physical or contextual impacts to architectural resources in the study area. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES With this alternative, the projects new academic campus would not be added to the urban design fabric of Roosevelt Island. Under the No Action Alternative, the Goldwater Hospital complex would be vacant. This alternative would not introduce new buildings with active ground-floor uses, including retail, and new open spaces that provide places to rest and play and that visually enhance the experience of walking around the project site. The No Action Alternative would result in less
1

The CEQR Technical Manual defines community facilities as public or publicly funded facilities, including schools, health care, day care, libraries, and fire and police protection services.

21-4

Chapter 21: Alternatives

pedestrian activity in the area and the Goldwater Hospital site would be a less inviting and appealing place than with the proposed project. The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes in views of the site from farther distances since the hospital complex would remain in place. With the proposed project, onviews from north and south of the project site would change considerably and from the more distant off- views, it is anticipated that the campus would appear more consistent with the development on the north side of the . NATURAL RESOURCES Like the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to natural resources. Under the No Action Alternative, trees would not be removed from the site as they would with the proposed project. However, the loss of these trees and the existing ecological communities within the project site, which are common to the New York metropolitan area, would not result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Like the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to hazardous materials. Under the No Action Alternative, during the closure of the existing hospital and following vacating the buildings, applicable legal requirements would need to be followed, including but not limited to disposal of chemicals or other wastes, NYSDEC regulations relating to removal of unused petroleum tanks along with any associated contaminated soil, and proper management of asbestos-containing materials. WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE While the No Action Alternative would generate less demand on New York Citys water supply and sanitary sewage treatment systems than the proposed project, neither the proposed project nor the No Action Alternative would result in any significant adverse impacts on the citys water supply, wastewater or stormwater conveyance and treatment infrastructure. SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES While the No Action Alternative would generate less demand on New York Citys solid waste services and sanitation services, neither the proposed project nor the No Action Alternative would result in any significant adverse impacts to these services. ENERGY While the No Action Alternative would generate less demand for energy than the proposed project, neither the proposed project nor the No Action Alternative would result in any significant adverse impacts to energy. Unlike the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in the development of new green energy sources, including photovoltaic panels and geothermal wells. TRANSPORTATION The No Action Alternative would not result in any of the travel demand associated with the proposed project and consequently would not result in significant adverse impacts to transportation. The proposed project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at a 21-5

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

number of intersections. Some of these impacts could be mitigated with readily implementable traffic improvement measures, including signal timing and phasing changes, new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping, while some could be unmitigatable, which would not occur with the No Action Alternative. The proposed project would also result in significant adverse impacts to bus linehaul levels for the Q102 bus and the Red Bus; these impacts could be mitigated by improving service frequencies, subject to fiscal and operational constraints of the responsible agencies. In addition, the proposed project would result in significant adverse pedestrian impacts at two locations on West Road; these impacts could be mitigated by widening the sidewalk. AIR QUALITY Like the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts from mobile source emissions. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS As a vacant hospital complex, the No Action Alternative would have minimal energy use and vehicle use, and would therefore result in very little carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions per year. However, the No Action Alternative would not capitalize on the reuse of a vacant site located near transit. The proposed project would include many features aimed at reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions, and would be consistent with the citys citywide GHG reduction goal. NOISE Like the proposed project, the No Action Alternative would not result in significant adverse noise impacts. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The No Action Alternative, with its vacant hospital complex, could detract from the natural setting and open space resources of the study areas, which are defining neighborhood character features. This alternative would forgo the benefits to neighborhood character that would be realized with the proposed project, which would introduce a new active, mixed-use academic oriented development, with a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, and improvements to the loop road. CONSTRUCTION As there would be no new construction at the project site, the No Action Alternative would not result in the proposed projects disruptions due to construction, nor would it result in the proposed projects temporary significant adverse traffic, transit, and pedestrian impacts and noise impacts on open space. PUBLIC HEALTH The No Action Alternative, like the proposed project, would not result in any significant adverse public health impacts associated with construction or operation of the new development on the project site.

21-6

Chapter 21: Alternatives

D. NO UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ALTERNATIVE

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The demolition of Goldwater Hospital complex would represent a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. As described in Chapter 22, Mitigation, certain measures would be taken to mitigate the impact. However, these measures would achieve only a partial mitigation and a significant adverse impact would still occur. Preservation of the building complex and its reuse was explored but was found to not be feasible (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, for an assessment of alternatives for adaptively reusing the existing buildings). Consequently, there is no prudent and feasible alternative that would successfully meet the goals and objectives of the project, Cornell University, and the City of the New York, while still preserving the existing hospital complex as a way of avoiding the significant adverse impact on the historic architectural resource. TRANSPORTATION As discussed in Chapter 23, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, the proposed project would result in unmitigatable significant adverse traffic impacts in the 2038 analysis year (one partially mitigated intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, and two unmitigated intersections in the AM, midday and PM peak hours). To avoid these impacts, development at the project site would need to be significantly reduced in size to a development smaller than the Phase 1 development. Such limited development would not meet the long-term goals and objectives of the proposed project of building a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City with flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs that would accelerate existing sectors of NYCs economy. CONSTRUCTION As discussed in Chapter 23, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, construction of the project is projected to result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impacts, as follows: Traffic. One intersection would be partially mitigated during the PM peak hour. Noise on Open Spaces. - During construction of Phase 1, the open space areas along Main Street would experience noise level increments resulting from construction traffic up to 6.2 dBA and would therefore experience exceedances due to trucks and workers travelling on Main Street to and from the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM); - During construction of Phase 2, South Point Park and the waterfront promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site would experience noise levels in the mid to high 70s of dBA for over 24 months. These exceedances would be due to the operation of on-site construction equipment.

21-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

For noise, there are no practical and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce construction noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline 2 within any of the open space areas. In addition, no feasible alternative has been identified to avoid the Phase 1 construction noise level exceedances at open spaces along Main Street or to avoid the noise level increases at the promenade and South Point Park. Even accounting for the types of measures incorporated into the proposed project to reduce construction noise, any development comparable in scale to the proposed project (i.e., that would involve demolition of the Goldwater Hospital campus, multi-year construction at any one location, and the construction of multi-story buildings) would have the potential to result in unmitigated significant adverse construction noise impacts at these open spaces. As discussed in Chapter 22, Mitigation, and Chapter 23, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, existing noise levels at the waterfront promenade and South Point Park are already above the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline due to noise from vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge and on the FDR Drive. To achieve noise levels that would meet the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline, measures would need to be implemented to control noise from the Queensboro Bridge; the implementation of barriers on the bridge would not be practicable, in part because of the bridges landmarked status.

E. CONCLUSIONS
For each alternative, the principal conclusions of the analysis in this chapter are as follows: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Consideration of the No Action Alternative is intended to provide the lead and involved agencies with an assessment of the expected environmental impacts of no action on their part. The No Action Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented (i.e., none of the discretionary approvals proposed as part of the proposed project would be adopted), and that the Goldwater Hospital complex would be vacant. The significant adverse impacts anticipated for the proposed projectin the areas of historic resources, transportation, and construction-period traffic, transit, pedestrians, and noise on open spacewould not occur with the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with the City of New Yorks Applied Sciences NYC initiative since it would not realize the benefits of bringing a leading academic institution to build a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. The No Action Alternative would not achieve the Applied Sciences NYC initiatives overarching goal of maintaining and increasing New York Citys global competitiveness, diversifying the citys economy, driving economic growth, and creating jobs for New Yorkers. This alternative would not provide a new campus for Cornell that will encourage close collaboration between graduatelevel academic programs and business and entrepreneurship. The Cornell NYC Tech project at this location would be centered on flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs instead of traditional academic departments. This model will serve as a focal point for accelerating existing sectors of NYCs economy and driving the formation of new technology businesses through close ties to customers and core industry knowledge. The No Action Alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project.

The CEQR Technical Manual recommends a 55 dBA L10(1) noise level for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet (Table 17-3).

21-8

Chapter 21: Alternatives

NO UNMITIGATED SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ALTERNATIVE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Preservation of the hospital complex and its reuse for the Cornell NYC Tech project was explored but was found to not be feasible. Consequently, there is no feasible alternative that would successfully meet the goals and objectives of Cornell University and the City of the New York, while still preserving the existing hospital complex as a way of avoiding the significant impact on this historic architectural resource. TRANSPORTATION To avoid the operational period traffic impacts, development at the site would need to be significantly reduced and would need to be limited to just Phase 1 development. Such limited development would not meet the long-term goals and objectives of the proposed project of building a world-class applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City with flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs that would accelerate existing sectors of NYCs economy. CONSTRUCTION For the traffic impacts, there would be one partially mitigated impact in the construction PM peak hour. For noise, no feasible alternative has been identified to avoid the Phase 1 construction noise level exceedances at open spaces along Main Street or to avoid the construction noise level increases at the promenade and South Point Park. Even accounting for the types of measures incorporated into the proposed project to reduce construction noise, any development comparable in scale to the proposed project (i.e., that would involve demolition of the Goldwater Hospital campus, multi-year construction at any one location, and the construction of multi-story buildings) would have the potential to result in unmitigated significant adverse construction noise impacts at these open spaces. As discussed in Chapter 22, Mitigation, and Chapter 23, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, existing noise levels at the waterfront promenade and South Point Park are already above the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline due to noise from vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge. To achieve noise levels that would meet the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline, measures would need to be implemented to control noise from the Queensboro Bridge and the FDR Drive; the implementation of barriers on the bridge would not be practicable in part because of the bridges landmarked status.

21-9

Chapter 23:

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

A. INTRODUCTION
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the following two criteria: There are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impact; and There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed actions that would meet the purpose and need for the actions, eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse impacts. As described in Chapter 22, Mitigation, a number of the potential impacts identified for the proposed project could be mitigated. However, as described below, in some cases, impacts from the proposed project would not be fully mitigated.

B. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

As discussed in Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, the demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would constitute a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. As described in Chapter 22, Mitigation, measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). An alternatives analysis was prepared in consideration of the potential to retain and reuse all or portions of the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the Cornell NYC Tech project. The analysis concluded that it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project, Cornell University, and the City of the New York while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, for an assessment of alternatives for reusing the existing buildings). Consequently, there is no feasible alternative that would avoid a significant adverse impact on this architectural resource. In a letter dated September 19, 2012 commenting on the alternatives analysis, OPRHP concluded that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives at this time to demolition of these historic buildings. LPC concurred with OPRHPs comments in a letter dated September 25, 2012. Therefore, because it is not possible to meet the goals and objectives of the project while avoiding adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex, measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex would be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC as set forth in an LOR among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. transportation

23-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

TRAFFIC As discussed in Chapter 14, Transportation, and Chapter 22, Mitigation, the proposed project would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at locations within the traffic study area. All of the locations that would be significantly impacted under the Phase 1 2018 With Action condition and most of the locations that would be significantly impacted under the Full Build 2038 With Action condition could be mitigated using standard traffic improvements, such as signal timing and phasing changes, installation of new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping. Under the Full Build 2038 With Action condition, two of the 14 study locations would experience unmitigatable impacts. Broadway and Vernon Boulevard/11th Street and Hoyt Avenue North and 21st Street would experience unmitigatable impacts during the AM, midday and PM peak hours. In addition, the intersection of 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge and Vernon Boulevard would only be partially mitigatable during the AM and PM peak hours. Significant impacts at these unmitigated intersections are described in detail in Chapter 22, Mitigation.

C. CONSTRUCTION
TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC During construction, one of the seven study locations would experience partially mitigatable impacts in the PM peak hour. During the PM construction peak hour, 36th Avenue/Roosevelt Island Bridge and Vernon Boulevard would experience partially mitigatable The impacts at this partially mitigated intersection are described in detail in Chapter 20, Construction. NOISE IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE Construction of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts with respect to construction noise, as follows: During construction of Phase 1, the open space areas along Main Street would experience noise level increments resulting from construction traffic up to 6.2 dBA and would therefore experience exceedances due to trucks and workers travelling on Main Street to and from the project site during the AM construction traffic peak hour (6 to 7 AM); During construction of Phase 2, South Point Park and the waterfront promenades on the east and west sides of the Island adjacent to the project site would experience noise levels in the mid to high 70s of dBA for over 24 months. These exceedances would be due to the operation of on-site construction equipment. There are no practical and feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce noise levels to below the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline within any of the open space areas (i.e., the open spaces along Main Street, the waterfront promenade, or South Point Park). Noise levels in these spaces would exceed the 55 dBA L10(1) noise level recommended for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet by the June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual noise exposure guidelines. However, while the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline is a worthwhile goal for outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet, due to the level of activity present at most New York City open

23-2

Chapter 23: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

space areas and parks (except for areas far away from traffic and other typical urban activities) this relatively low noise level is often not achieved. For example, existing noise levels at the waterfront promenade and South Point Park are already above the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline due to noise from vehicular traffic on the Queensboro Bridge and on the FDR Drive. To achieve noise levels that would meet the 55 dBA L10(1) guideline, measures would need to be implemented to control noise from the Queensboro Bridge; the implementation of barriers on the bridge would not be possible because of the bridges landmarked status.

23-3

Chapter 24:

Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Actions

The term growth-inducing aspects generally refers to the potential for a proposed project to trigger additional development in areas outside the project site that would otherwise not have such development without the proposed project. The June 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual indicates that an analysis of the growth-inducing aspects of a proposed project is appropriate when the project: Adds substantial new land use, new residents, or new employment that could induce additional development of a similar kind or of support uses, such as retail establishments to serve new residential uses; and/or Introduces or greatly expands infrastructure capacity. The proposed project would be limited to the project site, which would be developed with a new applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island; the new campus would include academic space, corporate co-location space, an Executive Education Center, and residential uses. A small amount of campus-oriented retail space would also be included, and new open space on the site would also be provided. These new uses would replace the vacant Goldwater Hospital complex, and are expected to contribute to growth in the city and state economies consistent with the overarching goal for the Applied Sciences NYC initiative, which is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. The new uses are not expected to induce substantial additional growth within any specific neighborhood outside of the project site, although as discussed in Chapter 3, Socioeconomic Conditions, the proposed project would introduce residents that would be expected to support existing local retail uses on Roosevelt Island. In addition, the proposed project would not include the introduction or expansion of infrastructure capacity (e.g., sewers, central water supply) that would result in indirect development; all proposed infrastructure improvements would be made to support development of the project site itself. The upgraded gas line to Roosevelt Island, which would be undertaken by Con Edison in support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, would also not result in indirect development; instead, it would allow existing development on Roosevelt Island to change from electric heat to gas heat. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to induce significant new growth in the surrounding area.

24-1

Chapter 25:

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Resources, both natural and built, would be expended in the construction and operation of the
proposed project. These resources include the materials used in construction; energy in the form of fuel and electricity consumed during construction and operation of the Cornell NYC Tech project; and the human effort (i.e., time and labor) required to develop, construct, and operate various components of the project. The resources are considered irretrievably committed because their reuse for some purpose other than the proposed project would be highly unlikely. The proposed project constitutes an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the project site as a land resource, thereby rendering land use for other purposes infeasible, at least in the near term. These commitments of land resources and materials are weighed against the benefits of the proposed project. As described in Applied Sciences NYC Initiative and Purpose and Need for the Cornell NYC Tech Project, in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed project is a key component of the citys Applied Sciences NYC initiative, the overarching goal of which is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. To achieve this goal, the proposed project would transform the project site into a new engineering and applied sciences campus that would contain new academic space, corporate co-location space, an Executive Education Center, and residential uses. A small amount of campus-oriented retail space would also be included, and new open space on the site would be provided.

25-1

Chapter 26:

Response to Comments 1

A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) summarizes and responds to the substantive oral and written comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Cornell NYC Tech project. The public hearing on the DEIS was held concurrently with the hearing on the projects Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) draft applications on February 6, 2013 at Spector Hall at the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) located at 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007. The comment period for the DEIS remained open until 5:00 PM on Monday, February 19, 2013. Written comments received on the DEIS are included in Appendix 26. Section B identifies the organizations and individuals who provided relevant comments on the DEIS. Section C contains a summary of these relevant comments and a response to each. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim.

B. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ELECTED OFFICIALS 1. Brian Cook, Director of Planning, Office of the Manhattan Borough President, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Cook) 2. Scott Stringer, Borough President, Borough of Manhattan, written comments dated January 24, 2013 (Stringer) COMMUNITY BOARDS 3. Manhattan Community Board 8 Resolution dated December 20, 2012 (CB8) INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 4. Adek Afpelbaum, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Afpelbaum) 5. Jim Allen, Director of Economic Programs, Shakeways, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Allen)

This chapter is new to the FEIS.

26-1

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

6. Jim Bates, President, Roosevelt Island Disabled Associated, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Bates) 7. Mandana Beckman, Principal, PS/IS 217, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Beckman) 8. Paula Beltrone, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Beltrone) 9. Fouad Bennani, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Bennani) 10. Judith Berdy, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Berdy) 11. Seth Bornstein, Executive Director, Queens Economic Development Corporation, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Bornstein) 12. Eva Bosbach, Roosevelt Island Parents Network, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Bosbach) 13. LaRay Brown, Senior Vice President, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Brown) 14. Judy Buck, Board member, Roosevelt Island Community Coalition, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Buck) 15. Brian Dennis, Associate Planner, Regional Plan Association, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Dennis) 16. Doyle Family, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Doyle) 17. Althea Erickson, Etsy, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Erickson) 18. David Evans, Elected Member, Island Residents AssociatedCommon Council, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Evans) 19. Paul Fernandez, Chief of Staff, Building Construction Trades Council for Greater New York, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Fernandez) 20. Jack Friedman, Executive Director, Queens Chamber of Commerce, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Friedman) 21. Leonore Grandizio, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Grandizio) 22. Linda Heimer, Board Member, Roosevelt Island Community Coalition, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Heimer) 23. Sherie Helstein, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Helstein) 24. Jennifer Hensley, Executive Director, Association for a Better New York, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (ABNY) 25. Dan Hirsch, representing Donna Sectman of PS/IS 217, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 26. Andrew Hollweck, Vice President, New York Building Congress, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Hollweck) 27. Jonathan Kalkin, Co Chair, Roosevelt Island Community Coalition, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Kalkin) 28. Jukay Hsu, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Hsu) 26-2

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

29. Matthew Katz, Director, Roosevelt Island Community Coalition, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Katz) 30. Lorraine Lasker, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Lasker) 31. Mark Lyon, Board Member, Roosevelt Island Community Coalition, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Lyon) 32. Olga McCain, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (McCain) 33. Bryn Bass McCleary, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (McCleary) 34. Joyce Mincheff, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Mincheff) 35. Therese Munfakh, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Munfakh) 36. Larry Parnes, CB8, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Parnes) 37. Ellen Polivy, Co-Chair, Roosevelt Island Community Coalition, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Polivy) 38. Roosevelt Island Community Coalition (RICC), written testimony dated February 17, 2013 (RICC) 39. Joseph B. Rose, The Georgetown Group, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Rose) 40. Leonard Rothbart, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Rothbart) 41. Jaranimo Saldwa, Local 32-J, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Saldwa) 42. Ali N. Schwayri, M.D., oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Schwayri) 43. Beth Schrum, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Schrum) 44. Joseph Strong, on behalf of City Council Candidate Benjamin Kallos, oral testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Strong) 45. Lynne Strong-Shinokazi, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Shinokazi) 46. Sanjiv Tandon, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Tandon) 47. Jessica Walker, Vice President, Partnership for New York City, oral and written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (PNYC) 48. April Leithleiter Ward, written testimony dated February 6, 2013 (Ward)

C. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

PROCESS Comment 1: Given its relationship with the Island, the State of New York needs to be heard as part of, or in parallel to, ULURP (Evans). The General Development Plan (GDP) should be amended by RIOC and the City of New York. (RICC) The Roosevelt Island Operation Corporation (RIOC), which is a State agency, is an involved agency for the Cornell NYC Tech project. As discussed in Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, RIOC was established in 1984 and

Response:

26-3

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

was charged with assuming the 99-year lease with the City of New York that was entered into in 1969 (and held by other State agencies until RIOC was established). RIOC is also responsible for implementing the GDP. The Goldwater Hospital site was never included in the premises leased to RIOC, and the GDP anticipated that the Goldwater Hospital site would remain under city control. The 1969 lease requires the city and RIOC to cooperate on the development of a new plan for the Goldwater Hospital site in the event that it is no longer needed for hospital purposes. RIOC and the city have carried out this cooperation through the development of the Cornell NYC Tech project. For the proposed project, RIOC would have to approve a modification of its lease with the city, but would not have to amend the GDP. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK Comment 2: Cornell must provide a diligent analysis of the effects of the relocation of the occupants of Goldwater Hospital (Munfakh). The DEIS does not address the economic impact on Roosevelt Island of closing Goldwater Hospital, and the attendant loss of 1,000 jobs on the Island (Berdy). As stated in the DEIS, the closure of Goldwater Hospital and relocation of its patients to other locations will occur irrespective of whether the proposed Cornell project is approved. Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, notes that planning for the relocation of Goldwater Hospital, which has been undertaken by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC), has been on-going since approximately 2007. This effort has occurred independently of the proposed project, and an analysis of its potential impacts is outside the scope of the DEIS. NYCHHC conducted its own City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) analysis and issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the Goldwater North project, which includes the closure, relocation, and right-sizing of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). Cornell has not considered nor coordinated with the developer of the three residential towers that will be under construction at the same time as Phase 1 of the Cornell NYC Tech project (CB8). The DEIS does not account for the population impact of the three new buildings that will be built at Southtown nor does it account for population from recent development on the island. (RICC) The three residential buildings that will be built in Southtown are accounted for in the relevant sections of the EIS in the No Action condition. As discussed in Chapter 20, Construction, the construction analysis included both Southtown construction traffic and traffic from Southtowns residential units on Roosevelt Island. Population from recent development on the Island is reflected in existing conditions.

Response:

Comment 3:

Response:

26-4

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Comment 4:

The DEIS assumes 250 square feet per worker, but a February 2012 study found that the current U.S. average is 176 square feet per worker, which is expected to decrease to below 100 square feet per worker by 2017. Therefore, the worker estimates for the project should be 55 percent greater, including 43 percent greater during Phase 1 (Katz). The population assumptions in the DEIS use multipliers that are commonly used in EIS analyses, and have been accepted as reasonable in numerous environmental reviews. For example, the EISs for the Goldman Sachs building within Battery Park City and the proposed development at 15 Penn Plaza assumed 1 worker per 250 sf of office space. In the Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) for the NYU Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP), another project under development as part of the Citys Applied Sciences initiative, population estimates for the industry partner use, as well as for incubator employees, were 1 worker per 300 sf of space. Transient visitors will be attracted to the campus in high numbers, and this population was not reflected in the DEIS (Shinokazi, Mincheff). The EIS provides a projection of future trip-making to and from the proposed campus, including transient visitors. In addition to the academic-related tripmaking by Cornell students, faculty, administrative staff, residents, and visitors, the corporate co-location, university retail, and executive education center uses were all projected to generate trips made by their employees and other visitors. These trips were accounted for in the EISs analysis of potential transportation impacts. The daytime population is also accounted for in the analysis of open space.

Response:

Comment 5: Response:

CHAPTER 1, PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comment 6: Land given to Cornell should not be for commercial activities. Commercial and non-educational applicants should contribute to the City and to RIOC (Shinokazi). Comment noted. Cornell believes that given the mission of the campus to encourage industry-academic partnerships and commercialization, the presence of commercial (both for-profit and not-for profit organizations) on campus is critical to the future success of Cornell NYC Tech. The application is too open-ended and would permit a project or uses that could be different from the Cornell proposal. If Cornell is no longer the developer, an entirely different project, such as a fully commercial development could be built without ULURP review (CB8, Stringer, Shinokazi, Parnes). The commercial use and occupancy of the space are approximate, have not been fully explained, and include few limitations. (RICC) 26-5

Response:

Comment 7:

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Response:

Under Cornells lease with the City, a campus of at least 1.8 million square feet must be built over the next 25 years, including a minimum of at least 620,000 square feet of academic space. The lease will prohibit uses unrelated to the mission of the campus, such as big box retail. In order to change any of the material terms of the lease, that lease or an amended lease would require its own review and approval pursuant to City Charter Section 384(b)(4), including any CEQR review that would be required by such changes. If a new lease was granted for a substantially different program, then a reopening of the environmental record would be required as part of that process. The disposition action should be limited to the proposed program as described in the DEIS. (CB8, RICC) Use of the project site should be limited to a college or university campus and related activities, with a maximum of 620,000 gross square feet (gsf) of academic space, 800,000-gsf of faculty and/or student housing, 25,000-gsf of conference facilities, 145,000-gsf of hotel uses, 25,000gsf of campus-related retail, and 500,000-gsf of corporate co-location. The first phase of construction should be limited to 790,000 square feet. Upon completion of the project, there should be 500 off-street parking spaces (CB8). Under its lease with the City, Cornell will be required to develop a mixed-use campus containing a variety of uses, including academic space. Under the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is committed to building a minimum of 300,000 square feet by 2017 and a minimum of 1.8 million square feet (sf) by 2037, including at least 200,000 sf of academic space by 2017 and 620,000 sf of academic space by 2037. The program analyzed in the EIS reflects a reasonable worst case mixture of uses that might occur on the project site. The zoning map amendment action should not include the portion of the RIOCcontrolled waterfront promenade, which is not subject to the disposition application. Any rezoning of this parcel would be more appropriate at such time development might be proposed for this parcel, such as when RIOC relinquishes the property to the City. Thus, the relevant section of the proposed zoning text (133-05) should be deleted (CB8, RICC). The City should modify the proposed zoning text to require the waterfront esplanade to be open 24 hours. (RICC, Stringer) To clarify the text, the City should modify Zoning Resolution (ZR) Section 133-05 to say open recreational uses, and shall be publicly accessible daily (Stringer).

Comment 8:

Response:

Comment 9:

Response:

The waterfront promenade is not part of the Cornell campus. The intention of the text is to ensure that this area remains open and accessible. Cornell would not object to either CB8s approach or the Borough Presidents proposal to change the proposed ZR 133-05 to provide for 24-hour access to the waterfront areas outside of the Cornell NYC Tech Campus and to require that the width of 26-6

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

the existing promenade not be reduced. Similarly, Cornell would support a text amendment that would make it clear that the area is to be publicly accessible. Cornell does not have control or ownership interest in the waterfront areas so the zoning controls would not apply as long as RIOC retains jurisdiction of the waterfront areas. Comment 10: The proposed publicly accessible open space should be open from 6 AM to 10 PM year round (CB8). Response: Cornell is amenable to modifications to proposed ZR Section 133-32 to make the hours for the publicly accessible open space on the Cornell NYC Tech Campus 6 AM to 10 PM year round, as recommended by Community Board 8. Such a change would not alter any of the conclusions in the EIS.

Comment 11: The proposed Use Group 17-B laboratories should be required to follow the performance standards in M1 districts (Stringer, CB8). Such uses should require a special permit issued by the City Planning Commission, which requires review pursuant to ULURP (CB8). Response: Cornell is amenable to a modification to proposed ZR Section 133-11 to require that any Use Group 17 research labs comply with the performance standards applicable to such use in an M1 zoning district as proposed by Community Board 8. Such a change would not alter any of the conclusions in the EIS.

Comment 12: The applicant should add Use Group 18B, Electric Power and Steam Plants to the proposed text as a permitted use, to enable cogeneration on the campus (Stringer). Response: While Cornell has been advised by DCP that it believes that an energy substation is already permitted as an accessory use, Cornell is amenable to the addition of language to this Section that makes it clear that a co-generation or other utility building is a permitted use within the Special District. Such a change would not alter any of the conclusions in the EIS.

Comment 13: The proposed authorization to modify bulk regulations should become a special permit. The applicants should bifurcate the approval process for waiving bulk controls. Minor waivers would be allowed to go through an authorization process and larger waivers should require a special permit (CB8, Stringer). Response: Comment noted. Whether future bulk modifications are allowed by authorization or special permit would not alter any of the conclusions of the EIS.

26-7

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 14: ZR Section 133-233 of the proposed text is confusing and should explicitly state that if a building has multiple segments that rise above 180 feet, each segment can have a maximum floor plate of 15,000 square feet (Stringer). Response: Cornell supports changes to ZR Section 133-233 to clarify the intention of the text, namely that in the event a single building has two or more separate portions above a height of 180 feet above curb level, the 15,000 sf floor plate limitation applies to each such portion separately.

Comment 15: The proposed zoning text amendment would allow open air cafes in the publicly accessible open space. It is not clear if it would be necessary to be a patron of the caf to use the tables and chairs within them (CB8). Response: Cornell is amenable to modifications to proposed ZR Section 133-32 to make it clear that the public may use seating associated with a caf or kiosk when not used by a patron, as recommended by Community Board 8. Such a change would not alter any of the conclusions in the EIS.

Comment 16: Section 133-50 of the proposed zoning text does not indicate who determines that the various requirements of sections (a) through (d) are substantially complete. Section 133-60 of the proposed zoning text would allow elimination or reconfiguration of the publicly accessible open space without any review (CB8). Changes to the campus open space should be subject to a City Planning Commission Chair certification that the campus open space is consistent with the proposed zoning (CB8). Response: Comment noted. Neither of these changes, if they were to be implemented, would alter any of the conclusions in the EIS.

Comment 17: Once the project is complete, I believe Cornell will make the campus private, and residents will not have access to that part of the Island. Guarantees in law should be provided for Island residents (Schrum). Response: The proposed zoning text, which is legally binding, requires that 20 percent of the Campus be dedicated to publicly accessible open space. There will not be any fences around the Campus (other than as necessary during construction), and the open space network will be fully accessible.

CHAPTER 2, LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY Comment 18: The DEIS recognizes that the Islands GDP must be amended if Goldwater is no longer needed for hospital purposes, but ignores the broad outline for the island set forth in the GDP. Instead, the DEIS focuses on PlaNYC, which is applicable but not as tailored to the character of the island as the GDP. (RICC)

26-8

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Response:

Chapter 2 of the DEIS, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, summarizes the GDP and analyzes the consistency of the proposed project with the GDP's plans and goals. As noted in the analysis, the Goldwater Hospital site was never included in premises leased to RIOC, and the GDP anticipated that the Goldwater Hospital site would remain under city control. The proposed project would be consistent with the GDP, including its goals for housing, community facilities, retail uses, transportation, and open spaces. As the GDPs goals do not rely upon the project site for their realization, the proposed project would not conflict with the GDP. In addition, as stated above, the GDP would not need to be modified.

Comment 19: The DEIS contains several errors: (1) WIRE buildings were not built as Mitchell Lama coops: Eastview is Section 236; Rivercross is the only co-op. (2) One building in Southtown is condo, not rental. (3) Page 2-6 omits Main Street Theatre, Jewish congregation, synagogue. (RICC) Response: (1) According to the Roosevelt Island Northtown Phase II Development FEIS (February 1986), all four of the Northtown Phase I buildings were built under the Mitchell-Lama program, and in addition, Eastwood also received a Section 236 subsidy from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for low- to moderate-income tenants. As noted in the DEIS, Roosevelt Landings (formerly Eastwood) has left the Mitchell-Lama program. The Wall Street Journal reported in September 2011 that the three other Northtown Phase I buildings were considering leaving the Mitchell-Lama program. In Spring 2012, the owner of Westview and Island House submitted notices of intent for those buildings to leave the program. Accordingly, the FEIS has been updated to include these recent developments. (2) The description of the Southtown development in the DEIS does not specify whether these buildings contain rental or condominium units. Therefore, no revision is necessary in the FEIS. (3) The community facility uses noted by the commentor have been added to the FEIS. CHAPTER 3, SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Comment 20: How is it possible that the presence of a world-class university will not increase property values and rents on the island? The DEIS does not include residents of WIRE buildings, which have general lower incomes. The DEIS states that the average income of Cornell faculty, executive leaders, students, and workers is $56,000; this may or may not be accurate, and Cornells presence means property values will go up for everyone, regardless of what Cornell employees earn. The DEIS fails to account for the likelihood that graduate students and startup businesses would seek roommate arrangements in private apartments, 26-9

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

allowing workers to pool resources and edge out existing renters. The EIS should include a full examination of residential impacts that includes multiple unrelated individuals seeking apartment space on the island. (RICC) Response: The analysis in Chapter 3, Socioeconomic Conditions, follows the Scope of Work and CEQR Technical Manual guidelines in determining that the proposed project would not result in significant indirect residential displacement impacts on Roosevelt Island due to increased rents. As described in the Scope of Work, the analysis begins by considering whether the proposed project would add new population with higher average incomes compared to the average income of the study area population. The proposed projects 1,094 residential units would introduce 2,326 residents to the study area, consisting of University leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students, as well as their residential partners and children. These residential units will not be available in the larger residential market. Moreover, the analysis estimates that the average household income of the on-campus academic population would be $56,590. This estimate is based on average annual incomes provided by Cornell, averages reported in Reversing Course in Pennsylvania Higher Education: The Two Tiers in Faculty Pay and Benefits and a Way Forward, and a survey of housing costs of graduate students collected from NYU, Weill Cornell Medical College and the New School. Income of residential partners was estimated based on per capita income for New York City. While it is possible that the off-campus academic population of 1,552 students, faculty, and staff, as well as the estimated 2,228 non-academic employees could seek new housing opportunities in the study area, this worker population would be dispersed over a broader residential area that includes Manhattan, Queens, other areas of the City and beyond. The off-campus postdoctoral fellows and faculty populationwhich are populations that have a greater need to locate in close proximity to their workplaces as compared to a typical workermay seek off-campus housing opportunities on Roosevelt Island. But similar to Rockefeller University and Weill Cornell Medical College faculty and postdoctoral fellows currently residing in the study area, this population would not be expected to demand housing at rents higher than currently offered. While there is no income profile available for the 2,228 non-academic employees, the project-generated employment base is expected to reflect that of a typical commercial office building, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that these workers would have a combined average household income similar to the average household income for the City ($80,944). This population also would be expected to consider housing options within a reasonable commuting distance, which is a geographic area much greater than the study area. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, if the expected average incomes of the new population would be similar to or less than the average incomes of the 26-10

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

study area populations, no further analysis is necessary. The average household income of the academic and worker population living on campus, as well as the average incomes of the off campus populations would be lower than the average household income of the study area ($90,423). Therefore, potential new demand would not be expected to substantially change the market profile. Roosevelt Island is already within close proximity to numerous world-class institutions and to Midtown Manhattan, a world-renowned Central Business District. Market-rate rents on the island already reflect the locational value of this housing stock. The DEIS estimate of the average household income of the Roosevelt Island study area population include residents of the WIRE buildings. Low- and moderate-income residents of the WIRE buildings who are protected from rent increases through their lease terms are not subject to indirect residential displacement as a result of the proposed project. One of the WIRE buildings is rent-protected through the Mitchell-Lama program, while one building has transitioned out of the program and the remaining two are in the process of transitioning out of the program. The buildings transitioning out of the Mitchell Lama program are expected to provide rent protection for existing residents who decided not to buy their units. Comment 21: Workers on campus will have a strong incentive to seek a single-fare commute to work. Roosevelt Island is ideally located in the path of the Q102 bus, the tram, and the subway to provide such a commute; this should be included in displacement calculations. (RICC) Response: As stated above in response to Comment 20, the analysis in Chapter 3, Socioeconomic Conditions, follows the Scope of Work and CEQR Technical Manual guidelines in determining that the proposed project would not result in significant indirect residential displacement impacts on Roosevelt Island due to increased rents. The study area for the analysis of indirect residential displacement is defined as Roosevelt Island in its entiretythe area in which the proposed project has the greatest potential to affect socioeconomic conditions. Outside of this study area, project-generated workers who do not already live within a reasonable commuting distance of the project site and who seek housing are not expected to be concentrated in any specific geographic area in a way that would significantly affect market conditions. While the analysis does not factor in specific transportation services, it is expected that future residents would seek housing based on a number of factors, such as price, neighborhood character and amenities, and community distance.

Comment 22: The DEIS states that off-campus Cornell employees will possibly seek housing on Roosevelt Island. The population numbers in the chapter appear inconsistent: one statement is that there will be, after Phase 1, 805 Cornell-

26-11

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

related personnel living off campus, with 1,552 faculty, students, and workers at full build. Elsewhere it states that the new employment base at the campus associated with the corporate co-location space, the Executive Education Center, and the retail and residential buildings (estimated at about 2,228 employees in 2038), combined with an off-campus academic population could seek new housing opportunities in the study area. (RICC) Response: The analysis in the DEIS considers both the academic and non-academic populations that would be introduced by the proposed project. Upon the full build out of the project, there would be a forecasted academic population of 1,552 persons who are estimated to reside off campus. This academic population who would reside off campus includes all staff directly employed by Cornell, including funded researchers, and the portion of faculty, visitors/adjuncts, postdoctoral fellows, masters degree students, and Ph.D. candidates who would not be accommodated in on-site housing. In addition to this population, the project would result in 2,228 non-academic workers at full build out, none of whom would reside on the campus. This non-academic population includes workers who would be employed in the corporate co-location space, Executive Education Center, and the retail and residential buildings.

Comment 23: The DEIS dismisses indirect business displacement, indicating that the island has traditionally struggled to provide a vibrant retail corridor. The DEIS represents that additional retail on its property would not impact new and existing businesses on the island. It might, however, prove appealing to the islands existing businesses to move to the Cornell campus, if the campus provides parking, and students, staff and faculty provide constant demand. Currently, Roosevelt Island businesses see peak demand during commute hours. The campus would provide a different demand profile, which businesses like Subway and Starbucks may find more attractive. The impact on existing and planned island retail should be reconsidered. (RICC) Response: The DEIS follows the Scope of Work and CEQR Technical Manual guidelines in its preliminary assessment of indirect business displacement. The analysis finds that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse indirect business displacement impacts on Roosevelt Island, and would not be expected to adversely change the overall supply and demand for retail in the core Main Street and Southtown areas. Existing retailers would not be expected to migrate to the Cornell campus any more than they would be expected to migrate to offisland locations in Manhattan, for example, if other locations appear to be more attractive. In the future with or without the proposed project, there will continue to be a demand for neighborhood retail uses as part of Main Street and Southtown, evidenced by the recent tenanting of five retail spaces on Main Street. The additional expenditure potential generated by the proposed projects estimated 2,326 residents and a project-generated daily academic and worker population of approximately 3,780 would be met, in part, by the proposed 26-12

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

projects retail component, but would also result in new sales for the existing retail base on the Island. CHAPTER 4, COMMUNITY FACILITIES PUBLIC SCHOOLS Comment 24: The student enrollment data in the DEIS is dated and did not include prekindergarten students. The DEIS states that PS/IS 217 has 325 students, but the school actually has 482 students enrolled for the 2012-2013 school year (Beckman, RICC). The DEIS should use the schools updated numbers to create a more accurate projection. (RICC) Response: The schools analysis in the DEIS utilized 2010-2011 DOE data, which was the most recent information available at that time. The analysis in the FEIS has been updated with the New York City Department of Education (DOE) 2011-2012 enrollment figures. The schools analysis in Chapter 4, Community Facilities actually accounts for 416 students at PS/IS 217, including 323 elementary school students and 93 intermediate school students (see Table 4-2). However, officials at PS/IS 217 report 482 students at the school, which is 66 more students than are accounted for in the DOE information. Following the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, the FEIS utilizes DOE's enrollment data. However, if it is assumed that PS/IS 217 instead has 482 students, the findings of the schools analysis would not be altered.

Comment 25: The DEIS contains faulty capacity assumptions concerning the increase of students in PS/IS 217, using data that stops at 2010. The school will reach capacity sooner than projected. (RICC) Response: Consistent with the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual, the DEIS utilizes DOEs enrollment projections through 2018, which is the farthest projection currently available.

Comment 26: The DEIS indicates it based its population projection on faculty, post-doctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. It fails to mention the additional population that will result from its corporate co-location population. (RICC) Response: With regard to the schools analysis, an estimate of the students generated by the future Southtown development has been specifically accounted for and included in the analysis (see Table 4-3). The portion of the corporate co-location population that resides on the Island would either inhabit existing residential units, or residential units that will be built in the future Southtown development (which has been accounted for, as noted above). To the extent that this population would reside in existing housing units, they would not place a new 26-13

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

burden on schools, as they would replace existing residents. Therefore, the analysis properly accounts for the commentors populations of concern. Comment 27: The DEIS includes a table that has no bearing whatsoever on Roosevelt Island. It indicates the elementary and intermediate schools that service the district that PS/IS 217 is located in. It fails to consider that Roosevelt Island is indeed an island, separated from the island of Manhattan, and that no district school can turn away a child who lives in the zone for the school. The consideration made regarding the impact on District 2 schools has no relevance to this project. (RICC) Response: Consistent with the methodology of the CEQR Technical Manual and the guidance of the School Construction Authority (SCA), the schools analysis considers the sub-district that the project site is located in. Even if the analysis only considered PS/IS 217, significant impacts would not be identified. Currently, the SCA and DOE enrollment data show there is a surplus of 234 elementary school seats and 58 intermediate school seats at PS/IS 217. Using the multipliers recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual, the three Southtown buildings would generate 65 additional elementary students and 22 additional intermediate students, reducing the surplus to 169 elementary school seats and 36 intermediate school seats. The proposed project is estimated to result in 49 elementary school students and 16 intermediate school students, leaving PS/IS 217 with an estimated surplus of 120 elementary school seats and 20 intermediate school seats. In addition, members of the community have commented that PS/IS 217 actually houses 482 students. Assuming that DOEs capacity information for the school is correct (708 seats), that leaves a combined surplus of 227 elementary and intermediate school seats. Adding the 87 elementary and intermediate students generated by Southtown and the 65 elementary and intermediate students generated by the proposed project results in a reduced surplus of 75 seats. LIBRARIES Comment 28: There is an inconsistency that should be corrected. On page 4-10, Methodology, it states the catchment area for the library is limited to Roosevelt Island itself for the purposes of this analysis, as the East River acts as a physical barrier that would discourage residents from accessing library resources in Manhattan and Queens. On page 4-10, it states, many of the residents in the catchment area for the Roosevelt Island branch also reside within -miles of other nearby libraries such as the 67th Street branch and the Long Island City branch. This latter statement should be deleted. (RICC)

26-14

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Visiting other libraries within a -mile radius is not viable for children and disabled residents. (RICC) Response: As per the commentors request, this latter statement has been struck in the FEIS.

Comment 29: The DEIS does not consider that the population of Roosevelt Island will increase above 11,661, which is generally believed to be an undercount. (RICC) Response: The increase in the population of Roosevelt Island that is attributable to the proposed project has been accounted for in the relevant EIS analyses. Chapter 4, Community Facilities assumes for analysis purposes that the population of the Island will increase from 11,661 under existing conditions to 12,884 in the No Action condition, and to 15,170 by 2038 in the With Action condition. The EIS utilizes data from the 2010 US Census, which is an appropriate source for population information.

Comment 30: The Cornell NYC Tech library will be both technical and digital and will not serve the same need as the presently existing library it is being compared to. (RICC) Response: As noted in the DEIS, the Cornell NYC Tech community would have access to the Cornell University Library system (CUL), one of the worlds largest research libraries, with approximately 7.8 million print volumes and over 80,000 electronic serial titles. CUL users may request copies of books, journal articles, and other materials located in the print collection of the Ithaca/Geneva Cornell Libraries, and requested documents would be made available electronically. While not the principal part of the collection, CUL libraries (including the proposed library services at Cornell NYC Tech) include collections of literature, childrens books, youth books, and other non-academic materials.

Comment 31: The DEIS has used percentages rather than raw figures of population growth to claim no adverse effects. Further, it has used a projection of future development on Roosevelt Island to artificially make it appear that the Cornell population increase will diminish rather than add to the impact on the library. (RICC) Response: The DEIS discloses both the population figures and percentage changes, throughout the analysis (see Table 4-10 for this information). The impacts discussion focuses on percentages because the impact threshold criteria in the CEQR Technical Manual are presented in this manner. The libraries analysis does not state that the proposed project would diminish an impact on public library services. Instead, consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual, the analysis considers the projects potential adverse impacts on the environmental setting. Because the proposed project would be operational in future years, its environmental setting is not the current environment, but the future 26-15

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

environment. Therefore, throughout the DEIS, the technical analyses first assess current conditions and then forecast these conditions to 2018 and 2038, corresponding to the completion of Phases 1 and 2, respectively, for the purposes of determining potential impacts. This analytic framework ensures that the projects potential effects are comprehensively considered and disclosed. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION AND AMBULANCE SERVICES/PUBLIC SAFETY Comment 32: While the DEIS mentions police and fire protection, the unique nature of Roosevelt Islands Public Safety department is not fully considered. The DEIS indicates in a conclusory manner that no new neighborhood needs will be created, but as compared with the vacant as-delivered condition, the proposed development will require significant additional police and fire resources. A more thorough analysis on the impact on police and fire needs should be undertaken. (RICC) Fire protection and ambulance services on the Island come from Queens and are inadequate. Sometimes there is confusion because they do not know where to go. (Mincheff) Response: As described in the DEIS, the proposed project does not meet the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for an analysis of police, fire, or ambulance services, and significant adverse impacts are not expected. The campus will have a security department that will work cooperatively with the Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department and the New York City Police Department (NYPD).

Comment 33: Cornell should implement security measures to ensure the safety of Island residents during and after construction. As the project will bring increased security risks to the Island, Cornell and the City should establish an NYPD presence on or near the campus (CB8, Evans, Bennani, Tandon, Rothbart, Grandizio). The project will require increased security Island-wide. (RICC) Roosevelt Island has approximately 14,000 residents and only one part-time police officer for an 8 hour shift, three days per week. The Public Safety staff has 37 officers, far less than is necessary. The City needs to provide for greater security as a result of this project (Mincheff, Bennani). The additional Cornell population will likely result in uncompensated increased demand on the Public Safety Department. (RICC) Cornell should contribute to the cost of the necessary expansion of policing that will be necessitated by the project (CB8, Stringer, Shinokazi, Mincheff, Bennani, Munfakh, Tandon, RICC). Response: The campus will have a security department that will work cooperatively with the Roosevelt Island Public Safety Department and the NYPD. Cornell has met with the Mayors Office and will meet with NYPD to make sure that these concerns are properly addressed and that there is an effective plan for responding to any broader security concerns. As described in the EIS, the 26-16

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

proposed project does not meet the CEQR Technical Manual threshold for an analysis of police services. Comment 34: Owing to the location of the project site, situated on an isolated island, directly opposite the Keystone power plant, adjacent to the Queensboro Bridge and the tramway, and directly opposite the United Nations, there is the potential for the campus and the island to be targeted for terrorism. (RICC) Response: Comment noted. In accordance with SEQRA, the EIS focuses on the impacts of the potential reasonable worst case from construction and operation of the proposed project. Emergency scenarios, such as a terrorist attack, are outside the scope of an EIS. However, as indicated in response to Comment 33, the proposed project would implement its own site security plan. In addition, Cornell has met with the Mayors Office and the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and will meet with NYPD to make sure that these concerns are properly addressed and that there is an effective plan for responding to any broader security concerns.

Comment 35: Cornell should meet with the Islands CERT team, RIOC, RIOCs Public Safety Department, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management to develop an effective evacuation plan and a relief plan for residents in the event of emergencies (CB8). Response: Cornell is investigating with the community ways that the Campus might be a resource for the Island community in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. A preliminary meeting was held in December 2012 with the Mayors Office and OEM, and further discussions are planned. Ultimately Cornells role must be consistent with OEM guidelines and protocols.

OPEN SPACE Comment 36: The proposal should be amended to conform with Cornells public presentation of more than 35 percent open space (Strong). Response: The DEIS provides a reasonable worst-case analysis and therefore provides an assessment of the minimum amount of publicly accessible open space that Cornell is required to provide. As discussed in Chapter 5, Open Space, there would be no significant adverse impacts on open space.

Comment 37: The DEIS shows large decreases in the amount of open space allotted per person (over 80 percent), but the explanation of why that is okay is unclear. (RICC) Response: The DEIS discloses that the ratio of passive open space resources per 1,000 workers would decrease by 83.8 percent by 2018 and 95.8 percent by 2038 (the

26-17

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

percentage changes for the ratios of total, passive, and active open space resources per 1,000 residents are substantially smaller). As noted in the DEIS, these percentage decreases would not be considered significant adverse impacts for the following reasons: (1) the With-Action passive open space ratio would still be more than 20 times greater than the DCP planning goal of 0.15 acres per 1,000 non-residents; (2) the large decrease in the ratio is due to the fact that, in the future without the Cornell NYC Tech project, there will be very few workers in the commercial study area (142 workers), as a result of the closure of Goldwater Hospital. As the analysis compares conditions with the proposed project to conditions absent the proposed project, the change in the ratio of acres of passive open space to workers appears unusually large due to the absence of a substantial worker population in the No Action condition. Overall, the commercial study area would remain well-served, as the ratio of open space to workers would far exceed DCP's planning goal. Comment 38: The population figures used to measure the number of people who enjoy public space is from the 2010 Census and does not consider increased visitors to the island. (RICC) Response: The 2010 Census is considered to provide reasonable and reliable data for analytic use. As discussed in response to Comment 5, the EIS provided a detailed projection of future trip-making to and from the proposed campus that does include visitors.

Comment 39: It is unclear if Sportspark recreational center will need to be closed during construction. (RICC) Response: Construction of the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project will not require the closure of the Sportspark recreational center.

Comment 40: There is a lack of discussion about how the proposed campus public open space connects to other open spaces on Roosevelt Island. An analysis of pedestrian connectivity on the Island and how the campus open space fits into the existing network should be included. (RICC) Response: As noted in the DEIS, the proposed zoning text establishes a variety of requirements for the campus open space, including: ensuring public access in perpetuity; delineating view corridors; prescribing features such as a Central Open Area, a North-South connection, and a Waterfront Connection Corridor; and imposing a set of detailed design requirements that are consistent with the existing promenade. While an analysis of pedestrian connectivity on the Island is beyond the scope of the EIS, these requirements will ensure that the campus open space is well-integrated with surrounding open spaces, and becomes a major benefit to all Island residents. 26-18

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Comment 41: The campus open space should open until at least 10 PM and any caf seating should be available to the general public (Stringer). Response: Caf seating will be available to the general public. As discussed above, Cornell is amendable to modifications to proposed ZR Section 133-32 to make the hours for the publicly accessible open space on the Cornell NYC Tech Campus 6 AM to 10 PM year round, as recommended by Community Board 8.

Comment 42: Cornell should contribute to the cost of the necessary expansion of open space and recreational facility resources on the Island that will be necessitated by the project, including improvements to Sportspark (CB8, Lyon, Mincheff, McCain, Doyle, Schrum, McCleary, Rothbart, Grandizio). The islands recreational facilities will be stretched thin with a larger population, and will need increase maintenance, staffing, and equipment. (RICC) Response: The proposed project will include a minimum of 2.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space, which will serve the entire Island. The EIS does not identify any significant adverse impacts on open space from the new residents and non-residents (i.e., workers and non-resident students). The Cornell NYC Tech open space will provide a wide variety of space that will be attractive to multiple age groups, including spaces designed for children.

Comment 43: Cornell should repair or replace the railing along the promenade (Munfakh). Response: Comment noted. The promenade is not part of the Cornell NYC Tech project site and would not be affected or modified by the proposed project.

CHAPTER 6, SHADOWS Comment 44: The sun/shade models require further study, with an hour by hour layout in the summer. There is significant shade on Southpoint because the tallest buildings are on the south end. (RICC) Response: The shadow study follows the methodology of the CEQR Technical Manual, analyzing and presenting the entry and exit times and total duration of projectgenerated shadow on all sunlight-sensitive resources that could be affected, including South Point Park, and providing detailed graphic representations of the incremental shadows. The tallest proposed building would be located in the northern portion of the project site. South Point Park is located south of the project site, whereas solar shadows generally fall to the west, north and east at the latitude of New York City. The analysis concluded that project-generated shadow would fall on the northwestern portion of South Point Park early in the late spring and summer mornings only, would be limited in extent and duration, and that this area of the park would continue to receive direct sun for the

26-19

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

remainder of the day in those seasons due to the lack of structures to its south and west. CHAPTER 7, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Comment 45: Cornell should preserve the Works Progress Administration (WPA) murals and consider preserving and displaying other Island historic artifacts (CB8). Cornell should preserve six art deco bronze lanterns on granite plinths that are currently in Goldwater. This should be put in writing. (RICC) Response: Cornell has consulted with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to develop appropriate measures to partially mitigate the significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex. These measures will be implemented by Cornell in consultation with OPRHP and LPC, as set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR) among Cornell, OPRHP, LPC, and RIOC. These measures are described in Chapter 22, Mitigation, and include the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation, the removal and restoration of the four extant WPA murals to the extent practicable, the development of a digital media display about the murals, and the installation of one or more plaques or historic markers on the new academic campus that would provide information and a photograph describing and illustrating the history of the site, the Goldwater Hospital, and the WPA murals.

Comment 46: There is a need for archaeological research after the demolition and excavation of the Goldwater site (Berdy). Response: As discussed in Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, a Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study was prepared in March 2012 to evaluate the archaeological study areas potential to contain archaeological resources. Documentary research was undertaken, including the review of historic maps and atlases, photographs, local histories, previous archaeological studies, and other documentary information. The Phase 1A study determined that the archaeological study area is not sensitive for archaeological resources dating to either the precontact or historic periods. In a comment letter dated March 26, 2012, LPC concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase 1A study. As indicated in its June 19, 2012 findings letter, OPRHP has no further archaeological concerns for the project site (see Appendix 7, Historic and Cultural Resources). Therefore, no additional archaeological research is warranted.

26-20

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

CHAPTER 8, URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES Comment 47: The DEIS does not present the proposed residential towers height of 320 feet fully in the photographs. (RICC) Response: The residential building that is projected for development in Phase 1, which is closest to the Queensboro Bridge, is depicted at its full potential height of 320 feet. The two residential buildings that are projected for development in the later phases of the projectwhich are further south on the Islandare depicted at their anticipated maximum height of 280 feet.

Comment 48: If the center of campus is raised 21 feet, then the total height of the complex must be adjusted to reflect that. The concern is that the new buildings will tower over the Queensboro Bridge. (RICC) Response: As described in the EIS, buildings within 500 feet of the loop road section north of the site would be capped at 320 feet in height from ground level, and buildings on the remaining (southern) portion of the project site would be capped at a height of 280 feet from ground level. At approximately 320 feet in height, the proposed residential building to be constructed in Phase 1 would be lower than the height of the two Queensboro Bridge anchorages on the Island, which are approximately 350 feet tall (including the stone towers, metal framework, and finials). Raising the site was accounted for in the EIS analyses of shadows, urban design and visual resources, and historic resources. As shown in these analyses, the new buildings would not tower over the Queensboro Bridge. As further discussed in Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, the bridge would remain a highly visible resource in the study area.

Comment 49: The FEIS should include more information about the proportions of new buildings in comparison with the Queensboro Bridge and Roosevelt Island appearance. The EIS should include a view of the entire island with current residential buildings north of Queensboro Bridge and new campus buildings on the south. (RICC) Response: The EIS provides an analysis of the projects potential effects on urban design and visual resources (see Chapter 8). The analysis considers the project site and its relation to Roosevelt Island to the north and provides information on building heights of the Northtown, Northtown II, and Southtown buildings, among others. The relation of the proposed project to the Queensboro Bridge is discussed in Chapter 7, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Chapter 8. These analyses conclude that the project would not result in significant adverse impacts on Roosevelt Island or the Queensboro Bridge.

26-21

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

CHAPTER 9, NATURAL RESOURCES Comment 50: To the maximum extent feasible, Cornell should minimize the removal of trees, and replace those that must be removed (CB8, RICC). How will Cornell preserve mature trees on the site? How will raising the center of the site up to 21 feet impact existing trees? (RICC) Cornell must commit to a specific plan to protect the trees from damage and give them the best opportunity to survive. (Ward) Response: To the extent possible, Cornell will preserve mature trees on the project site, which are located primarily along the perimeter of the site. Measures will be implemented to protect the trees to be preserved from damage during construction activities. Health of the trees to be preserved will also be taken into account in developing the grading and landscaping plans for the project. The central portion of the project site that would be raised in elevation as a result of the project has no trees as it is occupied by the hospital. As discussed on page 917 of the EIS, the proposed project would be consistent with the tree planting requirements required as part of the New York City street tree zoning amendment and Local Law 3 of 2010. Landscaping within the publicly accessible open space would be planted with woody and herbaceous vegetation that is native to New York, consistent with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation tree planting standards. Because many of the trees that would be removed are non-native species, their replacement with native trees would increase native plant richness and diversity, and likely improve conditions for the few species of native wildlife inhabiting the area.

Comment 51: An extended site reconnaissance should be undertaken during spring migration and nesting periods. Wildlife on the site is not limited to disturbance tolerant species as the DEIS suggest, but includes species that thrive in undisturbed, healthy ecosystems. These include: black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), great egrets (Ardea alba), Brant goose (Branta bernicla), and Canada geese (Branta canadensis). In addition, Dekays brown snakes (Storeria dekayi) and raccoons may use the project site, and large silvery fish have been seen jumping out of the water in the west channel (possibly anadromous species: tomcod, striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, bluefish, weakfish). There are discrepancies in the DEIS, such as migratory species and resident ones. The DEIS states the opposite of what was stated in the December 2010 Tidal Energy project studythat the abundant source of pigeons is a likely source of forage for peregrine in urban habitat. There is no mention of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the DEIS. (RICC) Response: On the basis of the limited habitat availability and high levels of human disturbance, it can be predicted what wildlife species have the potential to occur within the project site. Wildlife within the project site is in fact limited to urban-

26-22

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

adapted species, including those mentioned in the comment. Black-crowned night heron, great egret, Canada goose, and Brant goose are all considered urban-adapted species and are common in New York City and many other urban areas. The DEIS noted the presence of anadromous fish in the East River and the expected presence of raccoons on Roosevelt Island, and concludes that there would be no impact to these species from the proposed project. Dekays brown snake is another urban-adapted generalist species that is one of the most abundant and widespread snakes in the northeast; the proposed project would not have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the species. Pages 9-11 to 9-13 of the DEIS identified the bird species with the potential to occur within the project site during the breeding season, migration, and winter. There are no discrepancies between migratory and resident species. Consistent with the excerpt from the Tidal Energy study that was included in the comment, the DEIS noted on page 9-19 that migrating peregrine falcons or those associated with nest sites elsewhere in the city have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site in pursuit of rock pigeons or other avian prey. The proposed project would not alter the current abundance of pigeons or other small birds, and therefore would not affect prey availability for any peregrine falcons potentially occurring in the area. The DEIS did not mention bald eagles because the occurrence of a bald eagle at the project site is an extreme improbability. On rare occasions, migrating bald eagles may be seen high above Roosevelt Island, but otherwise, there are no circumstances under which bald eagles are likely to occur near the project site. The proposed project has no potential to impact bald eagles. Comment 52: Geese must be protected during construction of the project. (RICC) Response: The proposed project would not affect Canada geese foraging or nesting in the area mentioned. It is beyond the projects limit of disturbance, and Canada geese are aggressive and extremely tolerant of human activity.

Comment 53: The developers should strive, during all phases of the project, to maintain a safe corridor between the areas north and south of the project site that are seeing increased wildlife diversity, and as much as possible develop the site in a way that supports extant wildlife and encourages the return of even more species. (RICC) Response: As discussed in the DEIS, some wildlife inhabiting areas adjacent to the project site could be temporarily disturbed by noise or other construction activity, but this effect would be temporary and would not significantly alter the diversity of wildlife in these areas. The same species would be expected to occur as at present. Following completion of the proposed project, conditions for native wildlife within the project site would be slightly improved from the existing

26-23

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

condition due to the increased structural diversity of vegetation and the replacement of non-native trees with native species. CHAPTER 10, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Comment 54: How will the Goldwater Hospital buildings be demolished and buried without resulting in contamination? (RICC) Response: Prior to demolition, any remaining chemicals would be removed and properly disposed of and asbestos would be abated in accordance with regulatory requirements. Any activities with the potential to disturb lead-based paint would be performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Any suspected polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment (such as fluorescent light ballasts) would be evaluated and disposed of at properly licensed facilities. Demolition would occur in accordance with the New York City Department of Buildings (NYCDOB) guidelines/requirements. In general, the first step is to remove any economically salvageable materials. Then the building is deconstructed; typical demolition requires fencing to prevent accidental dispersal of building materials into areas accessible to the general public. The demolition debris would be sorted to maximize recycling opportunities. Remaining non-recyclable material would be sent for disposal at licensed landfills. Reuse of certain demolition debris on site (e.g., crushed brick/concrete) is sometimes permitted, but only when conducted in accordance with City and State requirements (including New York City Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] Part 360 requirements for solid waste management).

Comment 55: The ground beneath Goldwater Hospital contains fly ash used to fill a quarry. Fly ash contains high levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and boron, each of which has been known to cause cancer, neurological and development problems, and other illnesses. How does Cornell intend to deal with removal of fly ash? (Lyon, RICC) Response: As noted in the Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study prepared in March 2012 on Figure 5, the location of the quarry was not within the boundaries of the Cornell NYC Tech project site, but rather was located to the north. As noted in the EIS, an assessment of the sites potential to contain hazardous materials was undertaken as part of the projects environmental review. A Phase I ESA was prepared in May 2011, and a Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation of the project site was undertaken in July 2011. Both reports were submitted to and reviewed by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). The Phase II investigation included the collection and laboratory analysis of 17 soil and 3 groundwater samples from 10 on-site borings. The 26-24

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Phase II borings advanced on the project site (as well as information on historical borings at the present location of Goldwater Hospital Building J) encountered sand with silt, gravel, urban fill materials, and/or organic matter with a thickness of approximately 3 to 20 feet, underlain by a layer of decomposed bedrock (generally less than 5 feet thick), with competent bedrock beneath. Urban fill materials in NYC often contain small amounts of cinder, coal, and ash. However, ash was not specifically noted in any of the on-site borings. As described in Chapter 10, Hazardous Materials, ash was noted in some geotechnical borings that were advanced outside of the Cornell NYC Tech project site (specifically, approximately 300 feet north of the project site near the Queensboro Bridge and approximately 50 feet west of the project site near the western shore of the Island). Demolition and excavation on the project site will be undertaken in accordance with a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and a Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP). The RAP and CHASP have been submitted to and approved by NYCDEP. The RAP and CHASP will address requirements for items such as soil stock piling, soil disposal and transportation, dust control, dewatering procedures, quality assurance, procedures for the closure of known petroleum storage tanks, and contingency procedures if unexpected conditions are encountered. The CHASP will specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that demolition and soil disturbance is undertaken in a manner protective of workers and the community, including air monitoring. CHAPTER 11, WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE Comment 56: A full examination of water and sewer infrastructure should be completed and published in time to allow a full review before the FEIS is prepared. (RICC) Response: Chapter 11, Water and Sewer Infrastructure, of the FEIS has been updated with the results of the additional study of the potential impacts of the projects flow increase on the operations of the pump station, the force mains, and the interceptor in Vernon Boulevard, and more detail on the study has been added in Appendix 11 of the FEIS. This analysis was undertaken in coordination with NYCDEP. As detailed in Chapter 11 of the FEIS, the south pump station has adequate capacity to handle the flows from Phase 1. When design begins for the final phase of the project, NYCDEP will be consulted to determine if upgrades are needed at the south pump station.

CHAPTER 12, SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES Comment 57: The costs and benefits of using the AVAC system instead of trucking for wastes should be more fully considered. A more detailed explanation of the difference between existing waste generation (including actual generation, not just

26-25

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

projections), and projected campus waste generation should be provided. (RICC) Response: Cornell has explored the possibility of connecting to the AVAC system, and it was determined that it would not be practicable for the campus to connect to the existing AVAC system. The analysis of the proposed projects waste generation has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual. Comment 58: To prevent traffic congestion, Cornell should provide areas of loading/unloading that are situated away from the main road. (RICC) Response: The campus proposed loading/unloading areas would be located within the site or in designated loading zones that do not interfere with free flow of traffic on the roadway.

CHAPTER 13, ENERGY Comment 59: The DEIS does not account for the following: 1. Energy needs of the three remaining buildings in Southtown; 2. Energy related strategic initiatives of WIRE buildings, particularly the potential conversion from electric heat to low temperature hydronic heat; 3. Consolidation of the hospitals on Roosevelt Island, specifically the closure of Goldwater Hospital and continuing steam needs of Coler Hospital; 4. Potential decommissioning of the steam plant and its alternative use for Cornell NYC Tech. Overall, the DEIS should consider the total energy needs (electric, natural gas, steam, and hot water) of Roosevelt Island in detail. (RICC) No provision is made for use of tidal currents. (Lyon, RICC) Response: A detailed assessment of the energy needs of other buildings on Roosevelt Island is beyond the scope of the Cornell project and is therefore not discussed in the EIS. In any case, Cornell has begun to participate in Island-wide conversations concerning energy including a RIOC study for alternative uses for the existing steam plant facility located north of the project site.

Comment 60: The DEIS is misleading regarding the high pressure natural gas linethis will be provided by Con Edison and is not a direct benefit from Cornell NYC Tech. (RICC) Response: The DEIS notes that, in support of the Cornell NYC Tech project, Con Edison would upgrade an existing gas line to Roosevelt Island, which would require the replacement of some piping and the change-out of pressure regulators within the Con Edison system. Cornell is partially funding this project. Con Edison would not implement this improvement absent the proposed project.

26-26

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

CHAPTER 14, TRANSPORTATION Comment 61: Additional students and residents will overburden Red Bus service on the Island (Beltrone, Schrum, Mincheff, RICC). Cornell should assume the cost of necessary improvements to the Islands transportation services, including the Red Bus (CB8, Stringer, Kalkin, Tandon). Cornell and the Roosevelt Island community should develop an objective formula that measures use of Red Bus service, so that when these measurements increase, Cornell will be obligated by prior agreement to take appropriate action (i.e., subsidize more buses). An independent advisor should devise this formula. (RICC) Response: The DEIS did project a need for increased Red Bus service under the Full Build2038 condition by one bus, from 8 buses per hour to 9 buses per hour during the weekday PM peak, and by two buses, from 8 to 10 buses per hour during the weekday AM peak. During the construction period, the DEIS also projected a need for increased Red Bus service in the off-peak hours to accommodate construction workers who would park at Motorgate and travel to/from the project site by Red Bus. Cornell has committed to fund the operating costs associated with providing additional Red Bus service if project activity adversely impacts the Red Bus service during the construction period.

Comment 62: Cornell should provide funding and technical assistance to relevant agencies to update Island transportation services and explore the possibility of additional Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) bus routes (CB8). Response: The EIS identifies the need to increase the frequency of the Q102 bus service during the peak hours (see Table 22-4 of the DEIS). New York City Transit (NYCT) practice is to monitor changes in bus ridership and make the necessary service adjustments where warranted. Cornell intends to work with the community to advocate for improvements to mass transit systems.

Comment 63: Additional students and residents will overburden the subway service on the Island (Beltrone, Schrum, Mincheff, RICC). In a 2009 study, the MTA noted that the F train was one of the most crowded train lines in New York City. More than 700 more passengers than currently during the 8 AM to 9 AM period are expected. Further developments in Queens served by the F train could lead to greater overcrowding. The DEIS says there is nothing to be done about the overcrowding. (RICC) By not providing enough parking on the site, the F train will see even greater overuse. (RICC) Response: Following the methodology of the CEQR Technical Manual, the EIS includes an analysis of the projects potential to affect subway service. This analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to subway line-haul or the Roosevelt Island Station.

26-27

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 64: The DEIS underestimates tram usage. (RICC) For the tramway, certain assumptions are made: Conference Center estimate 59% of people go out during AM hours but only 2% exiting by tramway. Estimated 7% of students during AM would be travelingonly 5% inbound and only 1.7% of them by tram. Therefore, tram usage could be underestimated in my opinion. Spouses and faculty, postdocs and grad students and others taking kids to school and going to jobs during AM peak hours are probably underestimated, as are those taking tram versus subway. Students may have work internships off campus and travel during rush hour as well. While 7% of students are supposedly traveling from campus to other sites during AM rush, they are essentially estimating none of them will take the tram. According to the estimates the DEIS does make, there are currently 753/hour taking tram to Manhattan during peak AM hours. Estimated increase to 793 with new Southtown buildings and to 803 in 2018 with Cornell, 852 in 2038 (includes some extra Southtown traffic as well). As mentioned above, the number of people per hour taking tram from RI during AM peak appears to be an underestimate. Overall, this may mean delays during most crowded times with more people having to wait for next tram due to overcrowding. RIOC will need to modify schedule to run on fill and go protocol to have an extra tram trip per hour (9-10 instead of 8) from 8-9 AM. No comment on this issue in reportthere is an assumption that Cornell's contribution is minor. No significant impact during other times of the day. (RICC) Response: Travel demand factors for tramway ridership were developed in coordination with New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) based on a review of demographic data, Journey-to-Work census data, and site observations. As indicated in Table 14-3 of the DEIS, subway is expected to be the primary mode of travel. Compared with the tramway, the subway provides broader geographic destinations, higher frequency of service, greater capacity and far better connectivity to other transit options. Based on site observations and discussions with RIOC staff, the profile for a tramway rider is typically a Roosevelt Island commuter with a destination in Midtown East or a tourist. The tramway is nearby to MTA bus service including the Q32 and Second Avenue buses but does not offer direct connectivity to the subways. Overall, tramway ridership for some user group such as researchers and corporate co-location workers was projected to be as high as 6 percent, which is comparable to MTA bus ridership projections. Overall, there is expected to be adequate capacity on the tram to accommodate future Roosevelt Island demand, including new tripmaking from the Cornell and Southtown developments.

Comment 65: As Motorgate is not walkable to the campus for many people, vehicles will unload at the campus before turning back to park at Motorgate, creating double traffic that is not accounted for in the DEIS (Mincheff, Shinokazi). Traffic impacts are likely underestimated in the DEIS as employees of companies 26-28

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

serving as co-op partners may come to campus short-term to teach classes and will certainly drive to the island. (RICC) No mention is made of non-Cornell faculty and staff commuting to campus by car. (RICC) Response: It is anticipated that people who drop off passengers at the campus before returning to park at the Motorgate will be a small minority of users. There will be readily available transportation to the campus from Motorgate via the Red Bus; limited parking is also assumed to be available on campus, including accommodations for handicap parking. Travel demand factors including modal splits were developed in coordination with NYCDOT based on a review of demographic data, Journey-to-Work census data, and other recently approved studies. Non-Cornell faculty and staff were accounted for and are considered part of the population of the Corporate Co-location Workers. Please see page 14-3 and Table 14-3 on page 14-7 of the DEIS. As indicated in Table 14-3, auto-share has been estimated to be 15.9 percent during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Comment 66: Cornell must guarantee the health of existing infrastructure and roadways, and minimize and/or mitigate project impacts (CB8, Stringer, Munfakh, Strong, Ward). The helix from the Roosevelt Island Bridge is in an increasing state of disrepair. The City and State should being regular inspections of the helix and secure funding to begin repair of the structure and prevent it from becoming unstable (Stringer, Munfakh, Schrum, Helstein, Mincheff, RICC). Response: RIOC is responsible for maintenance and repair of the helix. While Cornell cannot undertake the long-standing infrastructure needs of Roosevelt Island (such as repairs to the helix ramp), it will be responsible for and will fix any damage caused by Cornells construction activities in the event that such damage occurs.

Comment 67: Cornell should work with RIOC to consider development of an Island ferry dock and ferry service to the Island (CB8, Stringer, Kalkin, RICC). Cornell should help subsidize the Citys endeavor to make a ferry dock available for Roosevelt Island. (RICC) Response: In coordination with the local Council member, Cornell has indicated it would be pleased to work with other stakeholders on the Island to see if this goal can be achieved.

Comment 68: There should be adequate on-campus loading docks and trash removal areas within the property so that traffic will not jam Island streets (Berdy). Response: Adequate loading areas and trash removal areas will be provided within the campus property.

26-29

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 69: The 500 onsite parking spaces will exacerbate traffic, safety, and pollution issues on the Island. Parking on the Island should be in Motorgate only, as per the 1976 master plan for the Island (Lasker). Response: The DEIS analyzed the potential environmental effects of providing up to 500 spaces at the project site. The traffic analyses account for the fact that vehicles that park on the campus will use Roosevelt Island roadways. The projected traffic impacts on Roosevelt Island could be mitigated with the measures outlined in Chapter 22, Mitigation.

Comment 70: The zoning text language of up to 500 spaces is inadequate to accommodate visitors, hotel patrons, the co-location office employees, and Cornell faculty, students, and staff. The thinking is that eliminating required parking spaces will discourage the presence of cars; the Roosevelt Island community believes that this does not reflect real life. (RICC) Hotel patrons alone, at a rate of one parking space per room, could use half of the up to 500 on-site parking spaces. A minimum of 500 spaces should be provided on the site. Cornell needs to build at least 500 parking spaces. (Shinokazi, Kalkin, Helstein) While Cornell anticipates its employees will use mass transit, the corporate co-location and hotel uses will attract individuals who may not be familiar or comfortable with mass transit. Therefore, Cornell should ensure that adequate parking is provided for these users (Stringer). Having only limited parking on the campus after Phase 1 will cause excessive traffic on Main Street. Motorgate is insufficient to accommodate extra vehicles from this project. (Shinokazi) Adequate parking must be provided within the campus. (Berdy) Response: The DEIS analyses accounted for all parking demand, including employees and others visiting the campus. The analyses concluded that the combined capacities of the on-site parking and the Motorgate garage are sufficient to accommodate the needs of visitors, hotel patrons, the co-location office employees, and Cornell faculty, students, and staff. As presented on page 14-83 of the DEIS, the peak parking demand under the full build condition (2038) will be approximately 615 spaces. The DEIS demonstrates that 500 vehicles can be supported on-site and the remaining 115 can be accommodated at Motorgate. During Phase 1 (2018), the peak parking demand would be approximately 220 and 250 spaces would be provided on-site. As with the full build out, the Phase 1 demand would be accommodated by the combination of Motorgate and on-site parking. Cornell has indicated that it will discuss parking needs with its potential corporate co-location and executive education center/hotel partners to understand the need or lack of need for on-campus parking. Cornell has also indicated its willingness to commit to undertake an operational parking study before introducing a hotel/executive education conference facility on campus and to make the results of the study available to the Borough Presidents office

26-30

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

and the Community Board. The study will look at parking capacity on the island at the time the executive education center project moves forward and will evaluate strategies for accommodating individuals coming to events. Comment 71: If Cornell does not provide any parking, there will be a huge impact on the Red Bus as those parking in Motorgate would need to get to campus during peak rush hours. Cornell should run its own express bus service for employees during AM and PM peaks. (RICC) Response: For the analysis of pedestrians and bus service, the reasonable worst-case scenario assigned all auto trips to the Motorgate parking garage and assumed that people would either walk or take the Red Bus between Motorgate and the project site. This approach provides a conservative analysis of the Red Bus service and served as the basis for the proposed mitigation measuresan increase in bus frequencyto address project-related impacts.

Comment 72: The DEIS does not account for the fact that students and visitors will undoubtedly feed the meters in Southtown. (RICC) Response: The short-term nature of parking meters on Roosevelt Island was initiated to deter long term on-street parking. It is not likely that students and visitors will leave campus to travel to Southtown to feed the meters.

Comment 73: The DEIS does not include a weekend parking analysis, a significant deficiency in the report. (RICC) The estimates do not account for Four Freedoms park impact on parking on weekends, which is likely to be significant. (RICC) Response: Since there is notably less activity on an academic campus on weekends, and activity at the corporate co-location use would similarly be diminished, a weekend parking analysis is not warranted.

Comment 74: Cornell should be required to analyze the projects impact on parking prior to beginning construction of phase 2 of the project, and if the City finds that there is insufficient parking, Cornell should be required to provide additional parking (Stringer). Cornell should finance additional parking spaces at the Motorgate parking garage when a specific threshold of need is reached, and conduct an engineering study to determine if additional floors can be added. Currently, there is room for a fourth quadrant. (RICC) Cornell should continue discussions with RIOC, RICC, CB8, and any other necessary agencies about parking, taking into account and giving special consideration to Island residents requests and desires (CB8). Cornell needs to build at least 500 parking spaces, and commit to pay for extending Motorgate as the need arises (Shinokazi, Kalkin, Helstein). Response: During Phase 1 construction of the proposed project, Cornell construction workers would generate an estimated maximum daily parking demand for up to 26-31

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

430 spaces (fourth quarter of 2016). It is assumed that up to 100 parking spaces would be provided on-site. Since only short-term parking is available on-street, the remaining 330 spaces would be accommodated at the Motorgate garage. During Phase 2 construction of the proposed project, Cornell construction workers would generate an estimated maximum daily parking demand of up to approximately 255 and 260 spaces (fourth quarters of 2026 and 2036, respectively). As with Phase 1, up to 100 parking spaces are expected to be provided on-site, with the remaining parking demand accommodated at the Motorgate garage. The findings of the construction parking analyses concluded that the combined capacities of the on-site parking and the Motorgate garage are sufficient to accommodate the needs of the project. Additionally, Cornell has committed to fund the costs of snow removal on the upper deck of the Motorgate garage in the event that construction worker parking requires that the upper deck of the garage be opened during winter months. This commitment is reflected in the FEIS. Cornell has also indicated its commitment to undertake a formal evaluation of parking conditions at the campus and on the Island once the campus has developed 50 percent of the total planned square footage and in the event that parking has not already been introduced onto the campus. In the event that the evaluation demonstrates that the Cornell NYC Tech campus is causing congested parking conditions on the island, then Cornell will agree to include parking in the later phases of development. Comment 75: Cornell should commit to paying for snow removal from the rooftop of Motorgate during and after construction, to increase the number of available parking spaces (Stringer). Response: Cornell has committed to fund the costs of snow removal on the upper deck of the Motorgate garage in the event that construction worker parking requires that the upper deck of the garage be opened during winter months. This commitment is reflected in the FEIS.

Comment 76: Additional traffic from the project will pose a public safety risk for pedestrians, including the disabled and elderly (Polivy, Bates, RICC). Due in part to a lot of school children running around and crossing the streets, we need someone to direct traffic at the crosswalks (Doyle). A traffic simulation is needed. (RICC) Response: A detailed analysis of vehicular and pedestrian operations is provided in the EIS. Where impacts were identified, improvement measures (i.e., new traffic signals and widened sidewalks) were recommended to mitigate the impacts to the extent practicable, in accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, and to also enhance pedestrian safety. The traffic analyses presented in the DEIS were prepared in conformance with CEQR Technical Manual guidance and

26-32

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

reviewed with NYCDOT and RIOC. This review did not indicate a need for a traffic simulation of Roosevelt Island roadways. Comment 77: In 2038, there would be 110 seconds of delay in making left turns on Main Street from the Roosevelt Island bridge ramp during the AM peak and significant delays in PM getting on ramp from Main Street that could lead to traffic backup on Main Streetthis is not discussed. (RICC) Response: The proposed traffic signal at the Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and Main Street intersection would improve conditions to a Level of Service C or better; therefore, no traffic backups are anticipated.

Comment 78: The Citys new proposed bike share program does not include Roosevelt Island, but the City does propose to have a bike share station at the Manhattan side of the Roosevelt Island tram station. Cornell should work with RIOC to realize further improvements (Stringer). The Cornell campus must support access by bicycles and bike sharing (Strong). Cornell must ensure that the bike lanes do not become car lanes. (RICC) Response: The proposed project would widen and rebuild the loop roadway circling the project site. At full build, the roadway would include a 10-foot-wide two-way Class II bicycle path. The bicycle path would be separated from the 11-footwide vehicular lane by a 3-foot-wide striped buffer, ensuring that the bicycle path does not become a lane for cars.

Comment 79: The DEIS does not contain an assessment of how much bicycle traffic there would be. (RICC) The bike lane could negatively affect traffic around the campus as only one through lane will be available and delivery trucks and other vehicles could block it. (RICC) NYCDOT wants to build one lane of traffic and two bike lanes to the streets adjoining the campus. There is no need for bike lanes since the promenades serve that function. Limiting vehicle traffic will cause gridlock (Berdy). Response: A forecast of bicycle volumes is outside the scope of the EIS. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, at full build, the loop roadway circling the project site would be built out to its mapped right-of-way width. The typical section (50-foot width) of the loop roadway would be configured to have (beginning on the campus side) a 15-foot-wide sidewalk, an 8-foot-wide parking lane, an 11-foot-wide travel lane, a 3-foot-wide striped buffer, a 10-foot-wide twoway Class II bicycle path, with a 3-foot buffer on the outboard side. Provision of the bicycle path would not adversely affect traffic on the loop road.

26-33

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

CHAPTER 15, AIR QUALITY Comment 80: Roosevelt Island is located in a vortex of power plant emissions and bridge traffic pollution. Cornell must go beyond estimates and formulas and study actual conditions and plans based on site data. The cited monitoring stations are far from Roosevelt Island. Specific wind pattern studies under actual local conditions should be employed rather than information from LaGuardia airport, which is miles away. (RICC) Response: The air quality analysis used procedures recommended in the CEQR Technical Manual to estimate the potential impacts from the proposed project. These procedures, which are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modeling guidance, take into account background concentrations from emission sources both near and further away. The use of LaGuardia Airport surface data is considered representative as meteorological data based on EPA modeling guidance. In general, the analysis determined that maximum concentrations from the projects fossil fuel-fired equipment are highly localized, occurring on nearby buildings that would be constructed under the proposed project. Maximum concentrations on existing sites on Roosevelt Island and elsewhere would be much lower. Similarly, the mobile source analysis determined that concentrations from vehicle emissions with the proposed project would be below applicable standards and impact criteria.

Comment 81: The Ravenswood power plant as a (clean air) non-attainment designation and is subject to reasonably available control technology (RACT) corrective regulations. It is troubling that the DEIS does not factor in background pollution rates. (RICC) Do the Sensitive Receptors/Receptor Placements (DEIS Table 15-6) provide more information about local conditions? (RICC) Response: The air quality analysis presented in the DEIS did account for background concentrations, which represents emissions from sources including power plants in New York City.

Comment 82: We are concerned about the possible impact of the projects fossil fuel stack plumes flow and whether this will expose Roosevelt Island residents to harmful emissions beyond what is already experienced with the Ravenswood plant. (RICC) Response: An analysis of potential impacts due to the proposed projects fossil fuel-fired emissions was presented in the DEIS. That analysis considered the potential impacts from the proposed project at ground level locations such as open spaces and elevated locations such as residential buildings. The analysis determined that the maximum concentrations from the proposed project would be below applicable impact criteria at all locations, including locations on Roosevelt Island. 26-34

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Comment 83: Information should be provided on the location, capacity, exhaust mechanism, refurbishment/upgrade and operation of the proposed natural gas input line. (RICC) Response: As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, Con Edison would upgrade an existing gas line to Roosevelt Island. The upgrade would require the replacement of some piping and the change-out of pressure regulators within the Con Edison system.

Comment 84: The analysis should include a monitoring station along Main Street on Roosevelt Island where it really matters, not at 36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard or at Astoria Boulevard and 21st Street. These intersections do not have comparable dispersion of gases and pollutants as on Main Street, which is surrounded by buildings that act as a canyon where pollutants and gases will accumulate. (RICC) Response: As discussed in the DEIS, 36th Avenue and Vernon Boulevard and Astoria Boulevard and 21st Street were selected for analysis because they are the locations in the study area with the highest level of project-generated traffic and, therefore, where the greatest air quality impacts and maximum changes in concentrations would be expected. Other factors were considered including the existing and future volumes of traffic and levels of traffic congestion. At other locations, including locations on Roosevelt Island, concentrations from vehicle emissions with the proposed project would be anticipated to be similar or lower, based on these factors.

Comment 85: Island buildings have drafty windows that will allow diesel fumes to enter residences. The diesel fumes and particulate matter from the trucks associated with the project will impact the community (Polivy). Response: Cornell will implement a number of best practices in connection with the development of the campus that will minimize emissions, including: minimizing use of diesel equipment and maximizing electrification where feasible; use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel in the diesel equipment that is used; use of best available tailpipe reduction technologies for nonroad diesel engines greater than 50 Hp, including use of diesel particulate filters where feasible; utilization of newer equipment with improved emissions technology, including Tier 3 or higher for equipment with a power rating of more than 50 Hp; strict fugitive dust control measures; source location to limit the location of construction equipment near sensitive receptors where feasible; and restrictions on construction vehicle idling of more than three minutes except where necessary for a construction activity. The construction analysis (see Chapter 20, Construction, included an analysis of mobile sources (construction worker vehicle and truck traffic) and determined that construction of the proposed

26-35

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

project would not result in any significant air quality impacts due to mobile sources. CHAPTER 17, NOISE Comment 86: The EIS for New York University defines heavy truck at 30 feet as 80-90 aweighted decibels (dBA) and light car traffic is defined at 50-60 dBA at 30 feet. Another source defines conversation in a restaurant at 60 decibels. And CEQR recommends 55 dBA L10(1) level for outdoor areas requiring quiet. How do these diverse figures translate? With trucks used for transport, wont Roosevelt Island experience 80-90 dBA? (RICC) Response: There are several descriptors used to evaluate noise levels, depending on the nature of the noise source and the way it is to be considered. An explanation of these descriptors is provided on page 17-3 of Chapter 17, Noise. As the comment mentions, CEQR noise exposure guidelines generally use the L10(1h) descriptor, although the impact evaluation criteria use the Leq(1h) descriptor. Locations on Roosevelt Island may experience Lmax noise levels resulting from construction activities in the 80-90 dBA range, but the Island already experiences Lmax noise levels in that range due to the operation of buses on the Island and traffic on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge. As is described in Chapter 20, Construction and in Response 1, the Leq(1h) noise levels at impacted noise receptors were predicted to be less than 75 dBA.

CHAPTER 18, PUBLIC HEALTH Comment 87: Many Island residents are elderly and disabled, whose health could be adversely affected by lack of sleep and irritation due to early morning noise from construction vehicle traffic (Heimer). Response: As discussed in the EIS in Chapter 20, Construction, the residential buildings along Main Street all have double-glazed windows and a means of alternate ventilation (i.e., air conditioning), and would be expected to achieve between 25 and 35 dBA of attenuation. Consequently, these buildings would be expected to experience interior L10(1) values less than 45 dBA during the construction period, which would be considered acceptable according to CEQR criteria, and would therefore not be expected to experience a significant impact.

Comment 88: Children and residents with heart and lung diseases will be at risk of adverse health impacts from pollutants from truck traffic associated with the project (Schwayri, Polivy, Evans). Response: As analyzed in the DEIS in Chapter 20, Construction, no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected due to the construction activities of the proposed project. A detailed analysis of the off-site emissions determined that 26-36

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

the carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter greater than 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) concentrations would be below their corresponding National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and interim guidance criteria. To ensure that the construction of the proposed project would result in the lowest practicable diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, the project would implement an emissions reduction program for all construction activities, including: diesel equipment reduction; clean fuel; best available tailpipe reduction technologies; utilization of newer equipment; source location; dust control; and idle restriction. Comment 89: Traffic from the project could critically delay emergency responses, thus threatening public health on the Island (Evans). Response: Emergency response vehicles can maneuver around and through congested areas because they are not bound by standard traffic controls. Furthermore, the traffic impacts identified in the EIS can be mitigated. Therefore, incremental traffic volumes projected to occur with the proposed project are not expected to significantly affect emergency response times.

CHAPTER 19, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Comment 90: The neighborhood character chapter should focus on the area north of the Queensboro Bridge, since this is where most residents live. (RICC) Defining the neighborhood as south of the Queensboro Bridge is unacceptable. (RICC) Response: An assessment of the possible neighborhood character impacts of the proposed project on the area of Roosevelt Island north of the Queensboro Bridge is provided in the EIS. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the study area for a neighborhood character analysis should include at least the project site and the area within 400 feet of the project site boundary, and the extent of a study area may be modified, as appropriate, either to include any additional areas that may be affected by the project. Consistent with this guidance, the neighborhood character analysis in the DEIS studies both the area below the Queensboro Bridge, and the area north of it, as these are the areas most likely to be affected by the proposed project.

Comment 91: How does the Queensboro Bridge act as a barrier since it spans water, not land? (RICC) Response: The Queensboro Bridge extends from Manhattan to Queens and spans both the East River and Roosevelt Island. The bridge crosses over, but does not provide access to, Roosevelt Island. As noted in the DEIS, the bridge towers over the Island and limits views from the north side of the bridge to the south side, and vice versa.

26-37

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 92: The neighborhood character chapter should include an analysis of Roosevelt Island as a planned, sustainable community, and address how the campus would enhance its identity as a mixed-use, mixed-income, green, pedestrian-oriented community. (RICC) Response: The neighborhood character analysis in the DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual, which recommends that such an analysis first consider what the defining aspects of a neighborhood are, and then consider the potential of a project to affect those defining features. The consistency of the proposed project with applicable public policies, such as Roosevelt Islands General Development Plan and the Citys sustainability policies, can be found in Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy.

Comment 93: How can one truck, with its noise, every seven minutes on the sole vehicular street on the island not impact community character? Response: As discussed in response to Comment 98, during peak construction in the third quarter of 2015 when an average of 67 daily truck deliveries were estimated, there would be on average approximately one truck delivery every 8 minutes. The DEIS acknowledges that construction would be disruptive to the nearby area and that there would be construction-period significant adverse impacts in the areas of traffic and noise on open spaces. However, as discussed in response to Comment 95, it is anticipated that there will be several significant periods of time during this period when there would no construction activity.

CHAPTER 20, CONSTRUCTION Comment 94: Cornell should designate and pay for a construction coordinator/liaison and an independent environmentalist to meet on a regular basis with the community board and the residents to ensure environmental safety, to ensure that air quality monitoring is undertaken, to provide updates, and to be available to address issues that may arise. (CB8, RICC) The community advisory board should consist of representatives of the community board, RICC, RIOC, and Island residents. (CB8) Response: Cornell has committed to provide an on-site construction field representative to serve as a contact point for the community and local leaders; this representative will be available to answer questions and address concerns that might arise during the construction process. Cornell will also maintain and regularly update a web site that will inform the community, local leaders and interested parties about anticipated construction activities. In addition, Cornell will form and participate in a construction task force comprised of Roosevelt Island residents (and others if appropriate) appointed by elected officials and Community Board 8. Cornell expects that this task force will meet at least quarterly while construction is ongoing. Cornell will also participate in public meetings on 26-38

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Roosevelt Island in coordination with the Task Force to make sure that the community as a whole is aware of the construction plans and progress. Comment 95: Residents of Roosevelt Island are being asked to endure 25 years of construction. (RICC) The work schedule described in the DEIS means that, during certain periods, we will experience the noise of heavy construction vehicles and equipment from early morning to evening, including some weekends, for the next 25 years. Cornell must change this work schedule (Heimer). Use of trucks traversing Main Street, the helix, and the Roosevelt Island Bridge should be permitted only from the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday (CB8, RICC). Advance notice of any changes to the construction schedule should be provided (CB8). Work should start at 8 AM or 9 AM. Work should not be allowed on weekends (Heimer). Demolition and construction hours should be 8 AM to 4 PM on weekdays and 9 AM to 12 PM on Saturdays (Berdy). Construction should start at 7 AM and end at 3PM (Doyle). If barging proves infeasible, Cornell should develop protocols to limit noisy truck activities, particularly during early morning hours (Stringer). Response: Development of the proposed project it is anticipated to occur over a total build out period of approximately 25 years beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2038. However, it is anticipated that there will be several significant periods of time during this period when there would no construction activity, and even during construction periods, there would be variations in construction intensity depending on the number of buildings under construction at any one time. The construction schedule outlined in the EIS shows two significant gaps in construction activity of seven and six years. As described in Chapter 20, Construction, weekend (Saturday) work is not anticipated except in cases where make-up work is needed due to weather. Construction hours would be in accordance with New York City laws and regulations, and would generally begin at 7:00 AM on weekdays, with most workers arriving to prepare work areas between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM. Normal weekday work would end by 3:30 PM with some exceptions where the workday would be extended beyond normal hours (in instances where certain tasks would need to be completed, such as completing the drilling of piles or finishing a concrete pour for a floor deck).

Comment 96: According to a Crains New York Business article on 11/30/12, 1 Cornell plans to build twice as fast as originally agreed to with the City. Therefore, shortening the work week by a few hours should not create undue hardship or endanger Cornells compliance with contractual obligations. (Mincheff, RICC)

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20121130/REAL_ESTATE/121139994

26-39

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Response:

As referenced in Chapter 1, Project Description, under the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is obligated to build no less than 300,000 sf of buildings, of which at least 200,000 sf shall be academic space by June 30, 2017; by 2037, Cornell is obligated to build a minimum of 1,800,000 sf of total building space of which a minimum of 620,000 sf must be academic use. The Crains article discusses a possible construction scenario in which Cornell completes construction of 790,000 square feet of space by 2017. This is the construction schedule detailed in Chapter 20, Construction, of the EIS since this is the reasonable worst-case development scenario. As described in the response to the previous comment, construction hours would be in accordance with New York City laws and regulations, and would generally begin at 7:00 AM on weekdays and would end by 3:30 PM.

Comment 97: Table 20-4 shows that some construction tasks may have to be continuous and the work will extend to more than a typical 8-hour day. (Eleven hours per day for four years in Phase 1). (Mincheff) Response: Construction hours would be in accordance with New York City laws and regulations, and would generally begin at 7:00 AM on weekdays and would end by 3:30 PM. Table 20-4 shows the hourly distribution of daily construction worker and truck trips and accounts for trips arriving and departing the site before and after the construction work day.

Comment 98: Chapter 20 of the DEIS indicates that there will be one truck every 7 minutes all day long during the construction period. The DEIS estimates 40,000 truck round trips for Phase 1 (i.e., 86 daily truck trips) down Main Street. The DEIS does not account for returned (rejected) truck loads from concrete trucks. The effects of truck traffic on the residents of the island, especially those living on Main Street, is not included in the DEIS. (RICC) Residents are concerned about the traffic, noise, and roadway impacts that construction trucks and workers private vehicles would have as they utilize Main Street, which is a narrow street that runs past the Islands residential buildings and schools (CB8, Heimer, Katz , Schwayri, Evans, Beltrone, Schrum, Tandon, RICC). Response: The EIS provides a full and comprehensive examination of the potential environmental effects of construction of the project on population near the project site, including the effect of construction worker vehicle and construction truck trips. The DEIS construction analysis reflects a reasonable worst-case projection for trucking activity and is considered a conservative analysis. As shown in Table 20-3 on page 20-12, the average daily truck deliveries during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction were estimated at 37 and 21, respectively, which would be substantially less than what may be experienced during the peak quarter of construction. During peak construction in the third quarter of

26-40

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

2015 when an average of 67 daily truck deliveries were estimated, there would be on average approximately one truck delivery every 8 minutes. Rejected loads from concrete trucks at a construction site are usually due to the limited time frame that the concrete must be poured (typically within 90 minutes of batching) before going off. As described in Chapter 20, Construction, concrete deliveries to the construction site would be strictly regimented and scheduled to avoid rejected loads. Therefore, the amount of rejected loads from concrete trucks during the construction of the proposed project would be minimal. Comment 99: A heavy truck at 45 feet generates a common noise level of 80-90 dB. Most trucks passing along Main Street would be about 20 feet from pedestrians on the sidewalks and therefore, the noise level exposures of islanders would be much greater than 80-90 dB. The government mandates hearing conservation program for those exposed to 85 dB in 8 hours. (Schwayri, RICC). Response: As shown in Table 20-17, heavy trucks used for construction of the proposed project, including concrete trucks, dump trucks, and tractor trailers, are mandated to produce a maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) noise level of no more than 79 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This is comparable to the noise produced by bus service that already exists on Main Street. However, during construction of the proposed project, the number of heavy vehicles traversing Main Street would increase. For this reason, the DEIS construction noise analysis considers the average hourly noise level (Leq(1h)), which includes not only the magnitude of the noise resulting from the heavy trucks, but also the frequency of heavy truck pass-bys and the amount of time that each truck is producing noise at a given receptor location. Based on this analysis of average noise levels, Leq(1h) noise levels resulting from construction vehicles were predicted to range from 56.4 dBA to 74.8 dBA (see Appendix 20 for the detailed construction traffic noise analysis results) throughout construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project, which the DEIS found to be a significant adverse impact at receptors along Main Street and West Road between the Roosevelt Island Bridge and the Project Site. However, these noise levels are less than those that would mandate a hearing conservation program. Furthermore, these are the noise levels predicted to occur during the peak hour of the construction work day, and would not last a full 8 hours. Noise levels would be lower during the rest of the day, because the frequency of construction vehicle pass-bys would be lower.

Comment 100: If Cornell does not honor RICCs request for a later start time (8 AM or 9 AM) and no work on weekends, then we ask Cornell to install noise-reducing windows in the buildings facing Main Street and south, a mitigation that has been provided by developers in the past under similar conditions. (RICC)

26-41

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Response:

Based on the maximum predicted noise level resulting from traffic associated with construction of the proposed project at the residential buildings along Main Street and West Street between the Roosevelt Avenue Bridge and the Project Site, and a survey of the existing windows installed in these buildings, interior noise levels during the Phase 1 construction period were predicted to be within the acceptable range according to CEQR criteria. The existing windows in each of these buildings appear to be modern double-glazed windows, which would be expected to provide sufficient attenuation of construction-related noise, and all of the buildings appear to also have an alternate means of ventilation. Consequently, it is expected that no additional receptor control measures are necessary to maintain acceptable interior noise levels during the construction period.

Comment 101: Removing hazardous materials by truck risks exposing residents of Roosevelt Island, Queens, and Manhattan to these toxic substances. (Lyon, RICC) These materials must be barged from the site. (RICC) Heavy construction trucks will spew hazardous pollutants, and dispersion of these pollutants will take longer to occur because Main Street is surrounded by tall buildings (Schwayri, Buck, RICC). Response: To the extent that trucks are used either to bring in hazardous materials (e.g., fuels) or take out hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos removed prior to demolition or petroleum contaminated soil during tank removal or subsequent excavation), it would only be performed in strict accordance with the RAP/CHASP (e.g., covering of trucks containing soil) and applicable regulatory requirements, including those relating to state waste transporter permits and state/federal placarding rules.

Comment 102: Cornell must barge everything except what they are forced to truck (Polivy, Schwaryi, Evans, Buck, Berdy, Bosbach, Bennani, Doyle, Munfakh, Schrum, Helstein, Apfelbaum, Mincheff, Katz, Parnes, Ward). The commitment to barging must be binding. (RICC) To the extent feasible, Cornell should remove all demolition waste by means other than trucks, and reduce the amount of construction truck trips by at least 55 percent. A firm commitment to barging should be provided by Cornell prior to final approval of this project by the City (CB8). To advance the possibility of barging, Cornell should begin conversations with the relevant state agencies to ensure an expedited review and should study barging as part of the FEIS (Stringer). Barging must be implemented to avoid construction noise and vibration on Main Street. (Schwayri, RICC) Barging must be included to eliminate traffic congestion/pollution, eliminate long-term damage to the islands access, and

26-42

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

avoid traffic accidents. (RICC) Hazardous materials must be barged from the site. (RICC) Response: Cornell is investigating the feasibility of using barging techniques to help limit construction traffic on to the Island. Cornell has identified two potentially feasible barging techniques: (a) a floating harbor barge for bulk materials and (b) a fixed platform for driving trucks directly from barges to the site. The use of barges in the construction process will require additional approvals and permits, including from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, coordination with RIOC and with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) and LPC will be required for work in the area of the Roosevelt Island seawall. As part of its investigation, Cornell has begun meeting with NYSDEC to discuss regulations regarding temporary installations and to determine pre-application procedures for expedited review. The FEIS includes an analysis of the environmental consequences of barging as an alternative construction measure to make sure that the effects have been fully considered in the event that barging proves to be feasible (see Section G in Chapter 20, Construction). In the event that barging proves to not be feasible, Cornell agrees that it will consider appropriate construction protocols to help address noisier deliveries within the framework of standard construction hours for New York City. To the extent that trucks are used either to bring in hazardous materials (e.g., fuels) or to take out hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos removed prior to demolition of Goldwater Hospital) it would be performed in strict accordance with RAP/CHASP and include measures such as secure covering of trucks containing soil. Such work would also be in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, including those relating to state waste transporter permits and state/federal placarding rules. Comment 103: Large construction vehicles will likely obstruct two-way traffic on the Roosevelt Island Bridge. (RICC) Response: Construction traffic will not obstruct two-way traffic on the Roosevelt Island Bridge. All truck traffic will conform to the bridges height, width and weight requirements. Any special oversized deliveries will be scheduled in advance and in coordination with RIOC and NYCDOT.

Comment 104: Construction traffic poses a danger to walking elderly and disabled people. (RICC). Response: All construction activity will be conducted in accordance with NYCDOT work zone safety requirements to ensure that the safe, smooth flow of all pedestrians

26-43

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

and vehicular traffic is maintained at all times, and that contractors and others performing work properly restore roadways and street hardware. Comment 105: It is not clear how it will be enforced that construction workers park in Motorgate. Workers would want to park in Southtown spaces. (RICC) The DEIS does not include an assessment of construction parking on weekends. (RICC) Construction worker cars could take up Southtown metered parking spaces. (RICC) Response: See response to Comment 72 regarding parking at Southtown. Regarding weekend construction, the DEIS states construction is expected to take place Monday through Friday with special exceptions and minimal weather make-up work on Saturdays. If Saturday construction does occur, parking demand would be met similar to during the week.

Comment 106: Cornell should consider preparing concrete/cement on site (Evans, Berdy, Apfelbaum). A temporary batch plant would minimize diesel pollution, traffic tie-ups, and vibration damage (RICC). The argument that run off from the batch plant would be environmentally damaging is untrue; a containment, gunite ring, is standard, and if concrete saturated water is dangerous, then no foundation could ever be put in place. (RICC) Response: Cornell has determined that such a plant may not be feasible due to the fact that the volume of concrete needed for construction during Phase 1 will not support the permitting effort and cost of implementing an on-site concrete plant.

Comment 107: Cornell should commit to best practices to reduce particulate matter from equipment emissions and commit to air quality monitoring throughout construction (Stringer, Evans, RICC). Response: As detailed in Chapter 20, Construction, of the EIS, Cornell will implement a number of best practices in connection with the development of the campus that will minimize emissions, including: minimizing use of diesel equipment and maximizing electrification where feasible; use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel in the diesel equipment that is used; use of best available tailpipe reduction technologies for nonroad diesel engines greater than 50 Hp, including use of diesel particulate filters where feasible; utilization of newer equipment with improved emissions technology, including Tier 3 or higher for equipment with a power rating of more than 50 Hp; strict fugitive dust control measures; source location to limit the location of construction equipment near sensitive receptors where feasible; and restrictions on construction vehicle idling of more than three minutes except where necessary for a construction activity.

26-44

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Comment 108: The Goldwater Hospital site is known to contain hazardous materials. Independent air and water monitoring programs must be implemented to protect Island residents when these materials are removed. (Lyon, Bennani, Schrum, Helstein, RICC). Cornell should establish a fund to compensate for the independent monitoring program. (RICC) Cornell must create a remedial action plan and a construction health and safety plan that would evaluate the conditions of soil and existing buildings, and create protocols enforceable by the relevant agencies to ensure that contamination does not spread during construction activities (Stringer). Response: Demolition of the Goldwater buildings will require the participation of an independent third party monitor and the use of air monitors to assure that the remediation is proceeding in accordance with all applicable regulations and that there is no opportunity for exposure to hazardous materials by workers or the surrounding community. In addition, demolition and excavation on the project site will be undertaken in accordance with a RAP and CHASP, which have been submitted to and approved by NYCDEP. The RAP and CHASP will address requirements for items such as soil stock piling, soil disposal and transportation, dust control, dewatering procedures, quality assurance, procedures for the closure of known petroleum storage tanks, and contingency procedures if unexpected conditions are encountered. The CHASP will specify appropriate health and safety measures to be undertaken to ensure that demolition and soil disturbance is undertaken in a manner protective of workers and the community, including air monitoring.

Comment 109: Cornell should ensure that Island streets are not littered with dust and dirt (Doyle). Response: As discussed in Chapter 20, Construction, dust control measuresincluding watering of exposed areas and dust covers for truckswould be implemented to ensure compliance with the New York City Air Pollution Control Code, which regulates construction-related dust emissions.

Comment 110: The drilling of 400 geothermal wells in such a small space is unwise; since the site is near water, developers simply run hose into river. (RICC) Information and schematic detailing on the placement of the proposed geothermal wells and related pump system venting should be shared. (RICC) Response: Closed loop geothermal wells (those that continuously recirculate the same fluid through a closed system to exchange heat from the earth to the building interior) of depths of less than 500 feet, such as those that are being proposed for the Cornell NYC Tech project, are not subject to special regulation beyond general NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit requirements and a possible EPA approval. As discussed in Chapter 20, Construction, of the DEIS, all land-disturbing construction activities during 26-45

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

the proposed project would be conducted under, and compliant with the conditions of, a SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-10-001). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be developed and implemented, and construction of the geothermal wells would follow best management practices for the industry (e.g., U.S. Department of Energy-sponsored Handbook of Best Practices for Geothermal Drilling) to the greatest extent practicable. Overall, construction of the proposed geothermal wells would not directly or indirectly impact the East River, and as a closed-loop system, operation of the wells would not have the potential to impact the river. Comment 111: No mention is made of what happens to the tram station and subway if demolition is used. (RICC) Response: Neither the tram station nor the subway would be affected by construction activities as both are located at a sufficient distance from the construction site.

Comment 112: Any damage to Roosevelt Island streets, the helix, and the Roosevelt Island Bridge should be repaired and paid for by Cornell. Cornell should ensure the continued operation of the helix (CB8, Stringer, Schwayri, Evans, Schrum, Helstein, RICC). Cornell has agreed to replace any damages caused by construction. Cornell should work with RIOC to establish a baseline to determine when damage has occurred (Stringer). Response: Cornell will be responsible for and will fix any damage caused by Cornells construction activities in the event that such damage occurs. Cornell will work with RIOC to establish a baseline that will help determine if any future damage is the result of Cornells construction activities or stems from another source.

Comment 113: Cornell must preserve green space and trees, and should ensure public access to Southpoint Park is maintained throughout construction and work with the management of the Four Freedoms memorial (CB8, McCain, Rothbart, Grandizio, RICC). Response: As discussed in Chapter 20, Construction, access to both South Point Park and the Four Freedoms Park would be maintained throughout the construction period.

CHAPTER 21, ALTERNATIVES Comment 114: The Island is too small to handle this project. An alternative site in Queens or Manhattan should be selected, where it is clearly defined as to what agencies are responsible for the upkeep of the infrastructure (Schrum). Response: While upgrades to some infrastructure would be needed to accommodate the proposed project at the project site, the island infrastructure is adequate to 26-46

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

handle the Cornell NYC Tech campus. The EIS analyzed the potential for impacts on infrastructurefor example: water and sewer, solid waste, energy, and transportation. The EIS identifies that some upgrades would be needed, including the relining or replacing of sewers in East and West Roads surrounding the project site. CHAPTER 22, MITIGATION Comment 115: Cornell should present solutions to the unmitigated issues and be responsible for the cost of implementation (Munfakh). Response: Between publication of the DEIS and FEIS, Cornell continued to work with the reviewing agencies to identify mitigation measures for those impacts identified as unavoidable significant adverse impacts in the DEIS. See response to Comment 45 for a discussion of the mitigation measures to be undertaken by Cornell to address the historic and cultural resources impact. For the pedestrian impacts, which were projected to occur during both the construction and operation periods, additional coordination was undertaken with both NYCDOT and New York City Fire Department (FDNY). NYCDOT and FDNY determined that the sidewalk widening measures identified in Chapter 22, Mitigation, are feasible; therefore, the pedestrian impacts would be mitigated and is no longer considered unavoidable. NYCDOT and RIOC have determined that the mitigation measures identified for the two significantly impacted intersections on Roosevelt Island under Full Build 2038 condition are feasible. No feasible mitigation has been identified for the temporary construction-period noise impacts on open space.

Comment 116: Mitigation measures for traffic impacts are superficial, citing only traffic signals, left to Cornell discretion, and if deemed not feasible, need not occur at all. There is no consideration of alternative solutions should traffic prove to be a major concern (e.g., staggered start times for employees, class scheduling to distribute arrival time, etc.). (RICC) Response: The DEIS identified traffic mitigation measures that included signal timing and phasing changes, installation of new traffic signals, parking regulation changes to gain or widen a travel lane at key intersections, and lane restriping. These are the types of measures outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual and are standard mitigation measures. On Roosevelt Island, traffic signals and other measures at two locations were proposed to address traffic impacts. As discussed in response to Comment 115, between publication of the DEIS and FEIS, additional coordination was undertaken with NYCDOT, reducing the number of unmitigated intersections from five to two unmitigated plus one partially mitigated intersection. Staggered start times for employees and class scheduling has not been identified as appropriate or necessary mitigation.

26-47

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 117: The mitigation proposed for West Road/Main Street includes a suggestion to not allow U-turns at this intersection. The EIS does not discuss the fact that this would greatly increase traffic in Southtown as drivers would have to drive to the next circle or loop around on West Road. It would greatly inconvenience drivers dropping off at WIRE buildings. Most importantly, traffic signals could lead to significant traffic backups on the bridge during AM peak on Main Street and West Drive during the PM peak. (RICC) Response: The DEIS accounts for the additional traffic that would be diverted to the traffic circle upon removal of the U-turn movement and signalization of West Road/Main Street. Traffic signals at Main Street and the Roosevelt Island Bridge Ramp and West Road would mitigate significant impacts and reduce delays when compared to the With Action condition without mitigation.

Comment 118: There is no mitigation plan for noise impacts during construction. Closed windows and air conditioning is not acceptable. (RICC) Response: Based on the maximum noise levels predicted to occur at the impacted residential receptor locations on the Island, the existing window/wall attenuation at these buildings would be sufficient to result in acceptable interior noise levels according to CEQR criteria throughout the construction period. At the open space locations that would experience noise level increases resulting from traffic traveling to and from the project site during construction there would be no feasible and practicable mitigation to decrease the noise levels resulting from construction traffic, and those open space areas would consequently experience a significant adverse impact resulting from construction noise.

CHAPTER 23, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Comment 119: Throughout the DEIS there are numerous instances of unavoidable adverse aspects which we do not believe are unavoidable. These include, but are not limited to: traffic, air quality, construction process, pollution, and damage to the community from construction transportation. (RICC) Response: See response to Comment 115.

Comment 120: The unmitigatable impacts in locations in Long Island City from trucking (21st Street and Broadway and all along Vernon Boulevard) could be mitigated by implementing barging. Mitigations do not include transporting materials by barge. (RICC) Response: The EIS analyzes the reasonable worst-case development scenario. For the analysis of construction, the reasonable worst-case development scenario includes the assumption of a truck-based approach to the delivery and removal of construction materials. With the truck-based approach, the EIS identifies the

26-48

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

potential for significant adverse impacts in Long Island City from constructionperiod traffic. As stated in the response to Comment 102, Cornell is investigating the feasibility of utilizing barging techniques to help limit construction traffic on to the Island. Cornell is considering two barging techniques: (a) a floating harbor barge for bulk materials and (b) a fixed platform for driving trucks directly from barges to the site. CHAPTER 24, GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS Comment 121: Chapter 24 is contradictory. The chapter states that the new uses are not expected to induce substantial additional growth within any specific neighborhood outside of the project site but then concludes that the project is expected to induce significant new growth in the surrounding area. Which is it? How is the surrounding area defined? (RICC) Response: The DEIS contained a typographic error in the last sentence of Chapter 24, Growth Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action. The sentence has been corrected to state that the proposed project is not expected to induce significant new growth in the surrounding area. As stated elsewhere in the chapter, the new uses introduced by the project are not expected to induce substantial additional growth within any specific neighborhood outside of the project site.

Comment 122: This chapter is ambiguous and not particularly rigorous, if the intention is to cite environmental impacts and not just to greenlight the project. (RICC) Response: As per the CEQR Technical Manual, the purpose of the Growth Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action chapter is to summarize the conclusions of other technical assessments, as they pertain to the secondary impacts of a project that could trigger further development. The information provided in the chapter is adequate to understand the relationship between the proposed project and growth inducement.

COMMENTS MADE DURING PUBLIC HEARING THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE DEIS Comment 123: As part of the land exchange, RICC urges RIOC to obtain the rights to purchase the leased premises. Non-trivial portions of RIOC-leased properties will be rezoned and used for this project. RIOC should receive adequate compensation for same. (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

Comment 124: Cornell should contribute to the cost of the necessary expansion of recreational facilities and Island maintenance that will be necessitated by the project (CB8, Stringer, Shinokazi, Mincheff, Bennani, Munfakh, Tandon, RICC). If, due to 26-49

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Cornells presence, the Island struggles to support basic services, the Public Purpose Fund, which exists to help create and support the Islands organizations, will be the first budget line to disappear. (RICC) The Cornell proposal should include expansion of Public Purpose Funds to support Island organizations (Rothbart, Grandizio, Katz). The City needs to consider the potential impact of the expanded campus and adequately supplement RIOCs operating budget to ensure that there is no service shortfall for Island residents (Lyon, Stringer, Mincheff, RICC, Schrum, Tandon, Strong). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 125: In consideration of the sensitive nature of the Cornell Technion partnership, zoning plans should include a restriction from manufacturing weapons, meaning research for military purposes. (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

Comment 126: The City Map change application should be changed to designate East and West Main Street instead of East and West Loop Roads (CB8, RICC). The two connecting loop streets (North and South Loop Roads) could be renamed to something more representative of Roosevelt Island (e.g., FDR Street, South Point Park North). (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

Comment 127: The RICC group needs to have direct involvement in the development of the final design of the project. Cornell, with our input, must assure that the plans and specifications are complete, leaving the contracting team with minimal room for interpretation. During construction, Cornell should allow periodic site inspections by RICC. RICC wishes to have access to written agreements with contractors and sub-contractors and ability to scrutinize cost controls and change orders, in order to make sure they will be environmentally responsible (Apfelbaum, RICC). To be able to correctly predict construction time and sequencing, a Critical Path Method sequential schedule must be prepared that includes contingencies for unforeseen conditions (Apfelbaum, RICC). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 128: Cornell should investigate the feasibility of providing reduced rates for hotel space for Island residents (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

26-50

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

Comment 129: Cornell should work with the community to program outdoor space for children (CB8). Existing playgrounds are currently full. Cornell should provide more playgrounds and some indoor play spaces anywhere on the Island (Bosbach). We need a second Olympic-size pool for the thousands of children who take swimming lessons and the visiting summer camps (McCleary). Urgent need for tennis courts, as they are inadequate for NYJTL (Rothbart, Grandizio) Cornell should consider building a multi-use facility around an ice-skating rink, for the use of Island residents, as Roosevelt Island has no winter activity center (Tandon). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 130: Cornell should provide free WiFi on the Island (Doyle). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 131: Cornell should provide consideration to Island organizations and services prior to working with outside organizations, when feasible. Cornell should provide Island residents with opportunities to announce Island news and cultural events to Cornell faculty, students, and staff, through electronic community bulletins boards, postings, and newsletters. Cornell should post employment, contracting, and cultural opportunities via email, WIRE blog, and local bulletin boards (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 132: Cornell should make its campus facilities available for use by Island residents (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 133: Cornell should provide: assistance to the disabled (CB8). The campus should be fully ADA compliant, including incorporating accessibility features on campus, such as a looping system for hearing impaired and disabled access (CB8, Strong). Cornell students should have the opportunity to research ways that technology can enhance the lives of older adults and the disabled, including sponsoring a tech hackathon to advance technology education for the disabled (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 134: Cornell should provide: assistance to seniors and computers and computer training for the Islands Senior Center (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

26-51

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 135: Cornell should create a shadowing program for Island middle school students to accompany scientists and observe academic/laboratory process. Cornell should create mentoring programs for the Islands population of post-high school young adults. Cornell should work closely with PS/IS 217 to implement pilot programs focused on tech education for students, and work with other age groups (CB8). We are looking to support our students with mentoring possibilities and programs that extend the Cornell expertise in science, technology, engineering, and math, to PS/IS 217 (Beckman). Cornell should begin looking at opportunities and programs for PS/IS 217 students immediately instead of waiting until there is an established campus (Beckman) We have ideas for further collaboration between PS/IS 217 and Cornell, including: updating school technology and applications; implementing more effective data collection and analysis tools; create a cadre of students who can address tech needs of the school; assist with middle school exit projects for grade 8; establish long-term science investigation, to culminate in annual science fair; create science investigation about sustainability, recycling, and lower carbon footprint; co-tech honors science class starting with grade 5 (Beckman). Cornell must commit to improving our public school (McCain). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 136: The design of the campus open space should be developed in consultation with the community, elected officials, and relevant stakeholders (Stringer). The Cornell site should be designed to welcome access with a minimum of visual and physical barriers. Response: Comment noted.

Comment 137: Cornell should study the feasibility of an elevator to the pedestrian walkway of the Queensboro Bridge (CB8, Stringer, Bosbach, RICC). Cornell should study a tram connection to Queens. (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

Comment 138: Cornell should utilize waste-to-energy technology to supplement Island-wide power (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 139: Cornell should provide cohesive energy solutions appropriate for the entire Island. Cornell should explore options for the steam plant, including: as a gasfired cogeneration plant that would service the Island; or transforming the plant 26-52

Chapter 26: Response to Comments

into the Museum of Technology, Art, and Science (CB8, Lyon, Stringer, Tandon). Cornells green energy initiatives should expand beyond the campus, and help the entire Island with energy efficient improvements (Lyon). Cornell should share in detail its comprehensive energy plans. Cornell should actively participate in, if not lead, a comprehensive Energy Plan for Roosevelt Island. Cornell could consider/proposed alternatives for the Roosevelt Island steam plant. Cornell could upsize its energy production on Roosevelt Island beyond its own campus needs and share the economic and environmental benefits with the Roosevelt Island community (RICC). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 140: The Island needs infrastructure repairs, including to the sea walls, as the Island is in a potential flood plain (Berdy, Strong). Cornell should repair the sea wall. (Munfakh) Cornell should be more invested in protecting the entire island from sea level rise, which would mean Cornell participation in the fortification of the Roosevelt Island sea wall. (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

Comment 141: Cornell should make its best efforts to achieve LEED Platinum certification for the buildings on the site (CB8). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 142: Cornell should consider use of pre-fabricated buildings, which could be shipped to the Island and can be completed much more quickly (Beltrone). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 143: Cornell should explore options to increase the use of mass transit and commuting by bike or foot and develop programs to encourage its employees to use mass transit (Stringer, Schrum, Lasker, Helstein). Response: Comment noted.

Comment 144: RICC requests access to Cornells digital library, which offers research materials only a university can provide; a give that would cost Cornell nothing. (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

Comment 145: Many residents request materials from Inter-library loan. This vital service may become limited due to budget cuts. (RICC) Response: Comment noted. 26-53

Cornell NYC Tech FEIS

Comment 146: Cornells landscape plan should include native plants and grasses, ideally with NYS plants, organic, no pesticides. This will address global carbon emissions as well. (RICC) Response: Comment noted.

26-54

Appendix 1 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District Zoning Text

SPECIAL SOUTHERN ROOSEVELT ISLAND DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT

September 24, 2012

Matter in underline is new, to be added; Matter in strikeout is old, to be deleted; Matter within # # is defined in Section 12-10; * * * indicates where unchanged text appears in the Zoning Resolution

Article 1 Chapter 2 * Section 12-10 (Definitions) * Special Southern Roosevelt Island District The Special Southern Roosevelt Island District is a Special Purpose District designated by the letters SRI in which the special regulations set forth in Article XIII, Chapter 3, apply. * * * * * * *

Article XIII Special Purpose Districts (all text is new) Chapter 3 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District

133-00 GENERAL PURPOSES The #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District# established in this Resolution is designed to promote and protect public health, safety and general welfare. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: (a) (b) providing opportunities for the development of an academic and research and development campus in a manner that benefits the surrounding community; allowing for a mix of residential, retail, and other commercial uses to support the academic and research and development facilities and complementing the urban fabric of Roosevelt Island; establishing a network of publicly accessible open areas that take advantage of the unique location of Roosevelt Island and that integrate the academic campus into the network of open spaces on Roosevelt Island and provide a community amenity; strengthening visual and physical connections between the eastern and western shores of Roosevelt Island by establishing publicly accessible connections through the Special District and above grade view corridors; encouraging alternative forms of transportation by eliminating required parking and placing a maximum cap on permitted parking; providing flexibility of architectural design within limits established to assure adequate access of light and air to the street and surrounding waterfront open areas, and thus to encourage more attractive and innovative building forms; and promoting the most desirable use of land in this area and thus conserving the value of land and buildings, and thereby protect the Citys tax revenues.

(c)

(d)

(e) (f)

(g)

133-01 Definitions Definitions specifically applicable to this Chapter are set forth in this Section and may modify definitions set forth in Section 12-10 (DEFINITIONS). Where matter in italics is defined both in Section 12-10 and in this Chapter, the definitions in this Chapter shall govern. Base Plane The definition of base plane is hereby modified to mean elevation 19.0, which elevation reflects the measurement in feet above Belmont Island Datum, which is 2.265 feet below the mean sea level at Sandy Hook, NJ.

Development Parcel The Development Parcel shall mean all of the property located within the boundaries of the #Loop Road#, as shown on Map 1 in Appendix A of this Chapter. The #Development Parcel# shall be deemed a single #zoning lot# for the purpose of applying all regulations of this Resolution. Loop Road The Loop Road shall be comprised of the East Loop Road, the North Loop Road, the South Loop Road, and the West Loop Road, as shown on Map 1 in Appendix A of this Chapter. All such roads shall be deemed separate #streets# for the purposes of applying all regulations of this Chapter and shall not generate #floor area#.

133-02 General Provisions The provisions of this Chapter shall apply within the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District#. The regulations of all other Chapters of this Resolution are applicable, except as superseded, supplemented or modified by the provisions of this Chapter. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and other regulations of this Resolution, the provisions of this Chapter shall control. 133-03 District Plan and Maps The regulations of this Chapter are designed to implement the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island# District Plan. The District Plan includes the following maps: Map 1 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District, Development Parcel, and Loop Road Map 2 Public Access Areas The Maps are located in Appendix A of this Chapter and are hereby incorporated and made part of this Resolution. The Maps are incorporated for the purpose of specifying locations where the special regulations and requirements set forth in the text of this Chapter apply.

133-04 Applicability of Article III, Chapter 6 (Accessory Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) The provisions of Article III, Chapter 6 (Accessory Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) shall not apply in the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District#. In lieu thereof, a maximum of 500 #accessory# parking spaces shall be permitted, which may be made available for public use. However, bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 36-70 (BICYCLE PARKING).

133-05 Applicability of Special Regulations Applying in the Waterfront Area The provisions of Article VI, Chapter 2 (Special Regulations Applying in the Waterfront Area) shall not apply in the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District#. In lieu thereof, the area between the shoreline and the western #street line# of the #West Loop Road# and the area between the shoreline and the eastern #street line# of the #East Loop Road# shall be used exclusively for open recreational uses, and shall be accessible daily from 6am to 10pm between April 15th and October 31st and from 7am to 8pm for the remainder of the year. 133-10 SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS 133-11 Additional Uses Within the #Development Parcel#, the provisions of Section 32-10 (Uses Permitted As-Of-Right) are modified to permit Use Group 17B research, experimental or testing laboratories. 133-12 Location within buildings Within the #Development Parcel#, the provisions of Section 32-422 (Location of floors occupied by commercial uses) shall not apply.

133-20 SPECIAL BULK REGULATIONS Within the #Development Parcel#, the special #bulk# regulations of this Section 133-20, inclusive, shall apply. 133-21 Floor Area Ratio The #floor area# provisions of Section 23-14 (Minimum Required Open Space, Open Space Ratio, Maximum Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area Ratio), shall be modified to permit a maximum #residential floor area ratio# of 3.44 without regard to #height factor#. In addition, the maximum permitted #floor area ratio# for a Use Group 17B research, experimental or testing laboratory shall be 3.40. 133-22 Lot Coverage The #open space ratio# requirements of Section 23-14 (Minimum Required Open Space, Open Space Ratio, Maximum Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area Ratio), and the #lot coverage# requirements of Sections 23-14 (Minimum Required Open Space, Open Space Ratio, Maximum Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area Ratio) and 24-11(Maximum Floor Area Ratio and Percentage of Lot Coverage) shall not apply. In lieu thereof, the aggregate #lot coverage# for all #buildings# shall comply with the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) The maximum #lot coverage# from the #base plane# to a height that is 20 feet above the #base plane# shall be 70 percent. The maximum #lot coverage# from a height that is more than 20 feet above the #base plane# to a height that is 60 feet above the #base plane# shall be 60 percent. The maximum #lot coverage# from a height that is more than 60 feet above the #base plane# to a height that is 180 feet above the #base plane# shall be 45 percent. The maximum #lot coverage# above a height of 180 feet above the #base plane# shall be 25 percent.

133-23 Height and Setback The height and setback regulations of Sections 23-60, 24-50, and 33-40 shall apply except as modified by this Section. All heights shall be measured from the #base plane.#

133-231 Modification of height and setback controls #Buildings or other structures# may exceed the underlying height and setback regulations for a percentage of the length of each #street line# of the #Loop Road# as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) #North Loop Road#: 65 percent #East Loop Road#: 35 percent #West Loop Road#: 35 percent #South Loop Road#: 65 percent

Furthermore, the #street line# length percentage limitations set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this Section may be exceeded by one percentage point for every two percentage points that the #lot coverage# within 50 feet of a #street line# is less than the following percentage: (1) (2) (3) (4) #North Loop Road#: 50 percent #East Loop Road#: 30 percent #South Loop Road#: 50 percent #West Loop Road#: 30 percent

All portions of #buildings or other structures# that exceed the underlying height and setback regulations in accordance with this Section shall comply with the height regulations of Section 133-232. 133-232 Height regulations For the portion of any #building or other structure# exceeding the height and setback controls set forth in Section 133-231, the maximum height of such portion located within 500 feet of the #North Loop Road# shall be 320 feet, exclusive of permitted obstructions allowed by the underlying height and setback regulations, and the maximum height for any such portion on the remainder of the #Development Parcel# shall be 280 feet, exclusive of such permitted obstructions.

133-233 Maximum area of stories above a height of 180 feet The gross area of any #story# located entirely above a height of 180 feet shall not exceed 15,000 square feet. Where a single #building# has multiple #stories# entirely above a height of 180 feet, each such #story# shall not exceed a gross area of 15,000 square feet. 133-234 Permitted Obstructions Sections 23-62 (Permitted Obstructions), 24-62 (Permitted Obstructions) and 33-42 (Permitted Obstructions) shall be modified to allow #accessory# energy generating systems on the roof of a #building#, or any other structures supporting such systems, as permitted obstructions, without limitations. 133-24 Distance Between Buildings The requirements of Sections 23-70 (Minimum Required Distance Between Two or More Buildings on a Single Zoning Lot) and 23-82 (Building Walls Regulated by Minimum Spacing Requirements) shall not apply, provided that if two or more #buildings# or portions of #buildings# are detached from one another at any level, such #buildings#, or such detached portions of #buildings# shall at no point be less than eight feet apart at or below a height of 180 feet, and shall at no point be less than 60 feet apart above a height of 180 feet. 133-25 Modification of Bulk Regulations Within the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District#, the City Planning Commission may authorize a modification of the #bulk# regulations of this Chapter and the underlying #bulk# regulations, except #floor area# regulations, provided the Commission finds that such modifications will Within the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District#, the City Planning Commission may authorize a modification of the #bulk# regulations of this Chapter and the underlying #bulk# regulations, except #floor area# regulations, provided the Commission finds that: (a) (b) such modifications are necessary to achieve the programmatic requirements of the academic and research and development campus; such distribution of #bulk# will result in better site planning and will thus benefit both the residents, occupants or users of the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District# and the surrounding neighborhood;

(c) (d)

such distribution of #bulk# will permit adequate access of light and air to surrounding public access areas, #streets# and properties; and that such distribution of #bulk# will not unduly increase the #bulk# of #buildings# in the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District#, to the detriment of the occupants or users of #buildings# in the #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District# or on nearby #blocks#.

133-30 PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS At least 20 percent of the #lot area# of the #Development Parcel# shall be publicly accessible and shall include, but need not be limited to, a Central Open Area, a North-South Connection, and a Waterfront Connection Corridor, the size and location requirements for which are set forth in Section 133-31. Any supplemental public access areas provided in order to meet the minimum public access #lot area# requirements of this Section shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (d) of Section 133-31. Design and operational standards for such public access areas are set forth in Section 133-32. 133-31 Size and Location of Public Access Areas (a) Central Open Area A Central Open Area shall front upon the #West Loop Road# for a minimum linear distance of 150 feet and be located at least 300 feet south of the #North Loop Road#, and at least 300 feet north of the #South Loop Road#. The Central Open Area shall be at least 30,000 square feet in area, with no portion having a dimension less than 20 feet in all directions counting towards such minimum area. (b) North-South Connection A continuous pedestrian connection shall be provided through the #Development Parcel# from the #North Loop Road#, or from the #West Loop Road# or #East Loop Road# within 200 feet of the #North Loop Road#, to the #South Loop Road#, or to the #West Loop Road# or #East Loop Road# within 200 feet of the #South Loop Road#. Such NorthSouth connection shall have a minimum width of 50 feet throughout its required length. The North-South Connection shall include at least one segment with a minimum length of 300 feet located more than 100 feet from both the #West Loop Road# and #East Loop Road#. The North-South Connection shall connect to the Central Open Area either directly, or through a supplemental public access area having a minimum width of 30 feet. In the event that the North-South Connection traverses the Central Open Area, the area within the

North-South Connection, as determined by its length and minimum required width shall not be included in the 30,000 square foot minimum area of the Central Open Area. There shall be at least one publicly accessible connection from each of the #East Loop Road# and the #West Loop Road# to the North-South Connection. Such connections shall have a minimum width of 30 feet, and shall be located a minimum of 300 feet south of the #North Loop Road# and a minimum of 300 feet north of the #South Loop Road#. In addition, such connections may be coterminous with the Waterfront Connection Corridor required by paragraph (c) of this Section. (c) Waterfront Connection Corridor A Waterfront Connection Corridor shall be provided through the #Development Parcel# allowing for pedestrian access between the western boundary of the #East Loop Road# and either the eastern boundary of the #West Loop Road# or the eastern boundary of the Central Open Area. Such corridor shall be located in its entirety in the area located 300 feet south of the #North Loop Road# and 300 feet north of the #South Loop Road#. The Waterfront Connection Corridor shall have a minimum width of 30 feet. (d) Supplemental Public Access Supplemental public access areas may be located anywhere within the #Development Parcel#, provided such areas have a minimum dimension of 20 feet in all directions and connect directly to one or more of the #Loop Roads#, the North-South Connection, the Central Open Space, and the Waterfront Connection Corridor. 133-32 Design Requirements for Public Access Areas (a) Level of public access areas and limits on coverage At least 80 percent of publicly accessible areas shall be located at grade level, or within five feet of grade level, as such grade level may change over the #Development Parcel#, and shall be open to the sky. The remainder of such publicly accessible areas may be enclosed, covered by a structure, or located more than five feet above or below grade level, provided that such publicly accessible areas are directly accessible from public access areas that are at grade level or within five feet of grade level, and in all cases have a minimum clear height of 15 feet. At least 50% of the linear #street# frontage for the Central Open Area required under Section 133-31(a) shall be located at the same elevation as the adjoining sidewalk of the West Loop Road. At least 80% of the area of the Central Open Area shall be open to the sky, and the remainder may be open to the sky or covered by a #building or other structure#. A minimum clear height of 30 feet shall be provided in any area of the Central Open Area covered by a #building or other structure#.

The northern and southern access points to the North-South Connection shall be located at the same elevation as the adjoining public sidewalk. The elevation of the North-South Connection may vary over the remainder of its length. At least 70 percent of the area of the North-South Connection shall be open to the sky, and the remainder may be open to the sky or covered by a #building or other structure#. A minimum clear height of 15 feet shall be provided in any area of the North-South Connection covered by a #building or other structure#. Any portion of the Waterfront Connection Corridor that is covered by a #building# or located within a #building#, shall have a minimum clear height of 30 feet, provided that overhead walkways, structures and lighting occupying in the aggregate no more than 10 percent of the area of the Waterfront Connection Corridor, as determined by the minimum required width, shall be permitted within the required clear height. (b) Clear paths The North-South Connection and the Waterfront Connection Coprridor shall each have a clear path of 12 feet throughout their entire required lengths, including those connections required between the North-South Connection and the #East# and #West Loop Roads#. All such clear paths shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. (c) Permitted obstructions Permitted obstructions allowed under paragraph (a) of Section 62-611 may be located within any required public access area, provided that no such permitted obstructions shall be located within a required clear path. Furthermore, kiosks may be up to 500 square feet in area, and open air cafes may occupy not more than five percent of any required public access area. (d) Seating A minimum of one linear foot of seating shall be provided for each 200 square feet of required public access areas. Required seating types may be moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches with or without backs, and design-feature seating such as seat walls, planter edges or steps. All required seating shall comply with the following standards: (1) Seating shall have a minimum depth of 18 inches. Seating with 36 inches or more in depth may count towards two seats, provided there is access to both sides. When required seating is provided on a planter ledge, such ledge must have a minimum depth of 22 inches. (2) Seating shall have a height not less than 16 inches nor greater than 20 inches above the level of the adjacent walking surface. However, as described in paragraph (5) of this Section, seating steps may have a height not to exceed 30 inches and seating walls may have a height not to exceed 24 inches.

(3) At least 50 percent of the linear feet of fixed seating shall have backs at least 14 inches high and a maximum seat depth of 20 inches. Walls located adjacent to a seating surface shall not count as seat backs. All seat backs must either be contoured in form for comfort or shall be reclined from vertical between 10 to 15 degrees. (4) Moveable seating shall be credited as 24 inches of linear seating per chair. All moveable seats must have backs and a maximum seat depth of 20 inches. Moveable chairs shall not be chained, fixed, or otherwise secured while the public access area is open to the public. (5) Seating steps and seating walls may be used for required seating if such seating does not, in aggregate, represent more than 15 percent of the linear feet of all required seating. Seating steps shall not include any steps intended for circulation and must have a height not less than six inches nor greater than 30 inches and a depth not less than 18 inches. Seating walls shall have a height not greater than 18 inches; such seating walls, however, may have a height not to exceed 24 inches if they are located within 10 feet of an edge of a public access area. Seating shall be provided in the Central Open Area in an amount equal to a minimum of one linear foot for every 100 square feet of the Central Open Area. Such seating shall include at least one moveable chair for every 500 square feet of the Central Open Area, and at least one other seating type. One table shall be provided for every four moveable chairs. At least 15 percent of the required seating shall be located within 20 feet of any #Loop Road#, and at least 10 percent of such required seating shall be located within 20 feet of the North-South Connection or any Supplemental Public Access Area that connects the Central Open Area to the North-South Connection. Seating shall be provided in the North-South Connection in an amount equal to at least one linear foot for every 150 square feet of the North-South Connection. At least 20 linear feet of such seating shall be located within 20 feet of its northern entrance and an additional 20 linear feet of such seating shall be located within 20 feet of its southern entrance. There shall be at least two types of seating in the North-South Connection. (e) Planting At least 20 percent of the required public access areas on the #Development Parcel# shall be comprised of planted areas, including planting beds and lawns. At least 30 percent of the Central Open Area shall be planted with lawns, planting beds, or a combination thereof. (f) Hours All required public access areas shall be open daily from 6am to 10pm between April 15th and October 31st and from 7am to 8pm for the remainder of the year. Signs stating that the North-South Connection is publicly accessible shall be posted at its northern and southern

entrances. Signs indicating that the Central Open Space is publicly accessible shall be posted at its entrance from the West Loop Road and the North-South Connection. 133-40 BUILDING PERMITS The Department of Buildings shall not approve any application for a building permit for a #development# or an #enlargement# unless such application shows the location of the Central Open Area, the North-South Connection and the Waterfront Connection Corridor, and any Supplemental Public Access Areas, for the purposes of demonstrating that the required amount of public access area, as set forth in Sections 133-30 and 133-31, is able to be accommodated on the #Development Parcel#. 133-50 PHASING The public access areas required pursuant to Section 133-30, inclusive, may be built out in phases on the #Development Parcel# in accordance with this Section. (a) Prior to obtaining a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for more than 300,000 square feet of #floor area# #developed# or #enlarged# on the #Development Parcel#, at least 25,000 square feet of public access area shall be substantially completed and shall be open to the public. Prior to obtaining a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for more than 500,000 square feet of #floor area# #developed# or #enlarged# on the #Development Parcel#, at least 40,000 square feet of public access area shall be substantially completed and shall be open to the public. The Central Open Area shall be part of the public access area required to be substantially completed and open to the public under this paragraph. Prior to obtaining a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for each additional 200,000 square feet of #floor area# #developed# or #enlarged# on the #Development Parcel#, an additional 12,000 square feet of public access area shall be substantially completed and open to the public. A portion of the North-South Connection connecting at least one of the #Loop Roads# and the Central Open Area shall be substantially completed and open to the public prior to obtaining a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for more than 750,000 square feet of #floor area# #developed# or #enlarged# on the #Development Parcel#. The Waterfront Connection shall be substantially completed and open to the public prior to obtaining a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for more than 900,000 square feet of #floor area# #developed# or #enlarged# on the #Development Parcel#. Except as set forth above, the open space provided pursuant to this Section may include interim open space areas, provided that all of the Central Open Area, the North-South Connection, and the Waterfront Connection shall be substantially completed prior to the

(b)

(c)

(d)

issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for more than 1,700,000 square feet of #floor area developed# or #enlarged# on the #Development Parcel.# Not more than 20 percent of the #lot area# of the #Development Parcel# shall be required to be improved as public access areas, and the obligation to provide public access areas in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Section shall terminate at such time as 20 percent of the #lot area# of the #Development Parcel# has been improved as public access areas and has been opened to the public. 133-60 MODIFICATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS Any public access area may be modified, eliminated, or reconfigured over time, provided that such modification, elimination, or reconfiguration does not reduce the amount of public access area required under Section 133-40 (Phasing) for the amount of #floor area# located on the #Development Parcel# at the time of such activity. Any modified or reconfigured public access area shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 133-30 (PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS), inclusive.

133-70 NO-BUILD VOLUME A volume shall be established on the #Development Parcel# between a line that is 300 feet south of the #North Loop Road# and a line that is 300 feet north of the #South Loop Road#. Such volume shall extend from the #East Loop Road# to the #West Loop Road# along a line that is within 30 degrees of the line connecting true east and true west. The minimum width of such volume shall be 50 feet, with its lowest level 60 feet above the #base plane#. Such volume shall be open to the sky. No obstructions of any kind shall be permitted within such volume.

APPENDIX A #Special Southern Roosevelt Island District# Plan Map 1 Special Southern Roosevelt Island District, Development Parcel and Loop Road

MAP 1 - SPECIAL SOUTHERN ROOSEVELT ISLAND DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT PARCEL AND LOOP ROAD
NORTH LOOP ROAD

WESTERN WATERFRONT SUBDISTRICT

EASTERN WATERFRONT SUBDISTRICT

WEST LOOP ROAD

SHORELINE

EAST LOOP ROAD

DEVELOPMENT PARCEL

SHORELINE

1380

U.S. PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD LINE

U.S. PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD LINE

SOUTH LOOP ROAD SPECIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT PARCEL BOUNDARY

Map 2 Public Access Areas

MAP 2 - PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS

100 100 NORTH LOOP ROAD

ENTRANCE (TYP)

DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 200

WEST LOOP ROAD

300

30 MIN

SHORELINE

CENTRAL OPEN AREA

MIN SIZE: 30,000 SF MIN DIMENSION: 20

EAST LOOP ROAD

WATERFRONT CONNECTION CORRIDOR

SHORELINE

1380

150 MIN FRONTAGE

MINIMUM DIMENSION 50

U.S. PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD LINE

NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTION (At least 300 length located more than 100 from East and West Loop Roads)

U.S. PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD LINE

ENTRANCE (TYP)

200

SOUTH LOOP ROAD SPECIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT PARCEL BOUNDARY NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS MAY VARY PURSUANT TO SECTION 133-30.

300

Appendix 2 Consistency Assessment Form

For Internal Use Only: Date Received:______________________

WRP no.____________________________ DOS no.____________________________

NEW YORK CITY WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM Consistency Assessment Form

Proposed action subject to CEQR, ULURP, or other Local, State or Federal Agency Discretionary Actions that are situated within New York City's designated Coastal Zone Boundary must be reviewed and assessed for their consistency with the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP). The WRP was adopted as a 197-a Plan by the Council of the City of New York on October 13, 1999, and approved in coordination with local, state and Federal laws and regulations, including the State's Coastal Management Program (Executive Law, Article 42) and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583). As a result of these approvals, state and federal discretionary actions within the city's coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the WRP policies and the city must be given the opportunity to comment on all state and federal projects within its coastal zone. This form is intended to assist an applicant in certifying that the proposed activity is consistent with the WRP. It should be completed when the local, state, or federal application is prepared. The completed form and accompanying information will be used by the New York State Department of State, other State Agency or the New York City Department of City Planning in its review of the applicant's certification of consistency.

A.
1.

APPLICANT
Name: Cornell University Address: c/o Richard G. Leland, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP. One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004

3.

Telephone: (212) 859-8978 E-mail Address: richard.leland@friedfrank.com

Fax: (212) 859-4000

4.

Project site owner: New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) and Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC)

B.
1.

PROPOSED ACTIVITY
Brief description of activity: The applicant, Cornell University, together with the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, is seeking a number of discretionary approvals, including disposition of City-owned property, and zoning map and text and City map amendments, to facilitate the development of a new applied sciences and engineering campus, Cornell NYC Tech, on Roosevelt Island. Purpose of activity: To create a new applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City and to provide economic development. Location of activity: Roosevelt Island Borough: Manhattan

2.

3.

Street Address or Site Description: 200 Main Street (Manhattan Block 1373, Lot 20; and a portion of Lot 1).

WRP consistency form January 2003

Proposed Activity Contd

4. If a federal or state permit or license was issued or is required for the proposed activity, identify the permit type(s), the authorizing agency and provide the application or permit number(s), if known: No federal or state licenses or permits are required for the proposed project. See Chapter 1, Project Description, for a list of state discretionary actions and a potential federal discretionary action. Is federal or state funding being used to finance the project? If so, please identify the funding source(s). No. Will the proposed project result in any large physical change to a site within the coastal area that will Yes No require the preparation of an environmental impact statement? If yes, identify Lead Agency: X Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Identify City discretionary actions, such as zoning amendment or adoption of an urban renewal plan, required for the proposed project. Disposition of City-owned property (by lease with a purchase option) from the City of New York to the New York City Land Development Corporation (NYCLDC), which will assign the lease to Cornell; Approval of the lease and sale terms of the disposition parcels pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter; Zoning Map amendment to change the project site zoning from R7-2 to C4-4 and to establish the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District over the same area; Zoning Text amendment to create the Special Southern Roosevelt Island District and to establish special bulk, use, parking and public access controls for the site; City Map Amendment to map the one-way loop road surrounding the project site and its connection to Main Street as a City street.

5. 6.

7.

C.

COASTAL ASSESSMENT

The following questions represent, in a broad sense, the policy of the WRP. The number in the parentheses after each question indicated the policy or policies that are the focus of the question. A detailed explanation of the Waterfront Revitalization Program and its policies are contained in the publication the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program. Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions. Once the checklist is completed, assess how the proposed project affects the policy or standards indicated in "( )" after each question with a Yes response. Explain how the action is consistent with the goals of the policy or standard.

Location Questions:
1. 2. 3. Is the project site on the waterfront or at the water's edge? The project site is separated from the waterfront by the Roosevelt Island promenade and a roadway that borders the site. Does the proposed project require a waterfront site? Would the action result in a physical alteration to a waterfront site, including land along the shoreline, land underwater, or coastal waters?

Yes

No X X

Policy Questions:
The following questions represent, in a broad sense, the policies of the WRP. Numbers in parentheses after each questions indicate the policy or policies addressed by the question. The new Waterfront Revitalization Program offers detailed explanations of the policies, including criteria for consistency determinations. Check either Yes or No for each of the following questions. For all yes responses, provide an attachment assessing the effects of the proposed activity on the relevant policies or standards. Explain how the action would be consistent with the goals of those policies and standards. Please see the Waterfront Revitalization Program section of EIS Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy for an assessment of the proposed projects consistency with New York City coastal zone policies. 4. Will the proposed project result in revitalization or redevelopment of a deteriorated or under- used waterfront site? (1) 5. Is the project site appropriate for residential or commercial redevelopment? (1.1)

Yes

X No

X X

WRP consistency form January 2003

Policy Questions contd:

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Will the action result in a change in scale or character of a neighborhood? (1.2) Will the proposed activity require provision of new public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or sparsely populated sections of the coastal area? (1.3) Is the action located in one of the designated Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas (SMIA): South Bronx, Newtown Creek, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Red Hook, Sunset Park, or Staten Island? (2) Are there any waterfront structures, such as piers, docks, bulkheads or wharves, located on the project sites? (2) Would the action involve the siting or construction of a facility essential to the generation or transmission of energy, or a natural gas facility, or would it develop new energy resources? (2.1) Does the action involve the siting of a working waterfront use outside of a SMIA? (2.2) Does the proposed project involve infrastructure improvement, such as construction or repair of piers, docks, or bulkheads? (2.3, 3.2) Would the action involve mining, dredging, or dredge disposal, or placement of dredged or fill materials in coastal waters? (2.3, 3.1, 4, 5.3, 6.3) Would the action be located in a commercial or recreational boating center, such as City Island, Sheepshead Bay or Great Kills or an area devoted to water-dependent transportation? (3) Would the proposed project have an adverse effect upon the land or water uses within a commercial or recreation boating center or water-dependent transportation center? (3.1) Would the proposed project create any conflicts between commercial and recreational boating? (3.2) Does the proposed project involve any boating activity that would have an impact on the aquatic environment or surrounding land and water uses? (3.3) Is the action located in one of the designated Special Natural Waterfront Areas (SNWA): Long Island Sound-East River, Jamaica Bay, or Northwest Staten Island? (4 and 9.2) Is the project site in or adjacent to a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats? (4.1) Is the site located within or adjacent to a Recognized Ecological Complex: South Shore of Staten Island or Riverdale Natural Area District? (4.1and 9.2) Would the action involve any activity in or near a tidal or freshwater wetland? (4.2) Does the project site contain a rare ecological community or would the proposed project affect a vulnerable plant, fish, or wildlife species? (4.3) Would the action have any effects on commercial or recreational use of fish resources? (4.4)

Yes X

No

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

WRP consistency form January 2003

Policy Questions contd:

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Would the proposed project in any way affect the water quality classification of nearby waters or be unable to be consistent with that classification? (5) Would the action result in any direct or indirect discharges, including toxins, hazardous substances, or other pollutants, effluent, or waste, into any waterbody? (5.1) Would the action result in the draining of stormwater runoff or sewer overflows into coastal waters? (5.1) Will any activity associated with the project generate nonpoint source pollution? (5.2) Would the action cause violations of the National or State air quality standards? (5.2) Would the action result in significant amounts of acid rain precursors (nitrates and sulfates)? (5.2C) Will the project involve the excavation or placing of fill in or near navigable waters, marshes, estuaries, tidal marshes or other wetlands? (5.3) Would the proposed action have any effects on surface or ground water supplies? (5.4) Would the action result in any activities within a Federally designated flood hazard area or State designated erosion hazards area? (6) Would the action result in any construction activities that would lead to erosion? (6) Would the action involve construction or reconstruction of flood or erosion control structure? (6.1) Would the action involve any new or increased activity on or near any beach, dune, barrier island, or bluff? (6.1) Does the proposed project involve use of public funds for flood prevention or erosion control? (6.2) Would the proposed project affect a non-renewable source of sand? (6.3) Would the action result in shipping, handling, or storing of solid wastes; hazardous materials, or other pollutants? (7) Would the action affect any sites that have been used as landfills? (7.1) Would the action result in development of a site that may contain contamination or has a history of underground fuel tanks, oil spills, or other form or petroleum product use or storage? (7.2)

Yes

No X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

WRP consistency form January 2003

Policy Questions contd:

41. 42. 43. Will the proposed activity result in any transport, storage, treatment, or disposal of solid wastes or hazardous materials, or the siting of a solid or hazardous waste facility? (7.3) Would the action result in a reduction of existing or required access to or along coastal waters, public access areas, or public parks or open spaces? (8) Will the proposed project affect or be located in, on, or adjacent to any federal, state, or city park or other land in public ownership protected for open space preservation? (8)

Yes

No X X

X
44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Would the action result in the provision of open space without the provision for its maintenance? (8.1) Would the action result in any development along the shoreline but NOT include new water enhanced or water dependent recreational space? (8.2) Will the proposed project impede visual access to coastal lands, waters and open space? (8.3) Does the proposed project involve publically owned or acquired land that could accommodate waterfront open space or recreation? (8.4) Does the project site involve lands or waters held in public trust by the state or city? (8.5) Would the action affect natural or built resources that contribute to the scenic quality of a coastal area? (9) Does the site currently include elements that degrade the area's scenic quality or block views to the water? (9.1) Would the proposed action have a significant adverse impact on historic, archeological, or cultural resources? (10) Will the proposed activity affect or be located in, on, or adjacent to an historic resource listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or designated as a landmark by the City of New York? (10)

X X X X X X X X

WRP consistency form January 2003

D.

CERTIFICATION
The applicant must certify that the proposed activity is consistent with New York Citys Waterfront Revitalization Program, pursuant to the New York State Coastal Management Program. If this certification cannot be made, the proposed activity shall not be undertaken. If the certification can be made, complete this section. The proposed activity complies with New York States Coastal Management Program as expressed in New York Citys approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, pursuant to New York States Coastal Management Program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. Applicant/Agent Name: Address: Richard G. Leland Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP. One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004 Telephone Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: (212) 859-8978

WRP consistency form January 2003

Appendix 7 Historic and Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Final Sign-Off

Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / LA-CEQR-M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 2/9/2012 Archaeological Review Only Properties with Archaeological significance:

1) 2)

ADDRESS: ROOSEVELT ISLAND, BBL: 1013730020 ADDRESS: 40 RIVER ROAD, BBL: 1013730001

Comments: LPC review of archaeological sensitivity models and historic maps indicates that there is potential for the recovery of remains from 19th Century and Native American occupation on the project site. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that an archaeological documentary study be performed for this site to clarify these initial findings and provide the threshold for the next level of review, if such review is necessary (see CEQR Technical Manual 2010).

2/10/2012 SIGNATURE Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator File Name: 27899_FSO_DNP_02102012.doc DATE

ARCHAEOLOGY
Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / 12DME004M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 3/19/2012

Comments: The LPC is in receipt of the, "Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study for Cornell/NYC Tech Roosevelt Island Campus B 1373, Lot 20 and Block 1371, Lot 1 (in part), New York, New York," prepared by AKRF, Inc and dated March 2012. The LPC concurs that there are no further archaeological concerns. Please submit two bound copies of the reports to LPC for our archives.

3/26/2012 SIGNATURE Amanda Sutphin, Director of Archaeology File Name: 27899_FSO_ALS_03262012.doc DATE

W:\Projects\11487 - CORNELL APPLIED SCIENCES\Drafts\Appendices\Appendix 7_Historic Resources\Inputs\2012-04-26_LPC Comments on Architectural Resources (Goldwater).doc

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / 12DME004M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 4/9/2012

Comments: The LPC is in receipt of the draft historic documentation report of 4/4/12. Comments are as follows. The Coler Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility appears eligible for listing on the State and National Registers. The WPA artworks within the hospital are of unusual significance as they are abstract murals unique to the New York City region as part of a group of the first non-objective public murals in the United States. WPA murals usually depicted historical narratives and portraits; the American scene; or portrayed the worker. An exception to this was the WPA region that included New York City, New York State, and New Jersey. This region was distinctive in that abstract murals, not the typical representational murals, were approved by the WPA. The New York City Design Commission has submitted the following list of WPA artworks within the hospital to LPC as listed on page 3 of this document. This may not be a complete list of all artworks. With regard to as yet unidentified WPA artworks, including those thought to be demolished (evidence of demolition shall also be provided), a survey meeting the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) standards of all structures shall be completed by the lead agency in conjunction with New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and Cornell University. See: http://www.conservationus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=1026. The survey shall include an inventory of all the rooms in the buildings and a finding of presence or absence of WPA era resources in each space. Should previously unidentified resources be found, a description of the condition of the resource shall be provided. A copy of the survey report shall be provided to SHPO and LPC for review and comment. Any previously unidentified WPA artworks found to be historically significant by the SHPO and the LPC shall be included in the restoration and relocation program. According to an email communication from EDC dated 4/24/12, HHC, EDC, and Cornell are committed to the preservation and relocation of the stained glass and murals as partial mitigation for demolition of the hospital complex. EDC also submitted a current conditions report on the WPA murals on the Design Commission list as follows: Some of the murals on the list provided attached are already gone per information received from HHC and the Roosevelt Island historic society a. 8 total (6 still exist) b. 2 were likely demolished i. Recreation and Sports Day Room WA 333 East and Day Room WA 448 West Page 1 of 4

W:\Projects\11487 - CORNELL APPLIED SCIENCES\Drafts\Appendices\Appendix 7_Historic Resources\Inputs\2012-04-26_LPC Comments on Architectural Resources (Goldwater).doc ii. Title Unknown Room W-443 East c. 1 has been restored i. Abstraction Room B-11 d. 5 are covered up in paint i. Abstraction Top Floor, Room B-41 ii. Abstraction Third Floor, Room B-31 iii. Abstraction Based on Music Room A-41 iv. Title Unknown Room D-31 v. Fantasy Room C-12

[go to page 3]

Page 2 of 4

W:\Projects\11487 - CORNELL APPLIED SCIENCES\Drafts\Appendices\Appendix 7_Historic Resources\Inputs\2012-04-26_LPC Comments on Architectural Resources (Goldwater).doc

Page 3 of 4

W:\Projects\11487 - CORNELL APPLIED SCIENCES\Drafts\Appendices\Appendix 7_Historic Resources\Inputs\2012-04-26_LPC Comments on Architectural Resources (Goldwater).doc LPC recommends that restoration of the artworks conform to the AIC code of ethics and guidelines for practice: http://www.conservationus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=1026 and the National Park Service conservation guidelines: http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/publications/handbook.html The Final Environmental Impact Statement shall indicate the final repositories for the restored artworks and their accessibility to the public. The text shall state whether the artworks are reinstalled for display in other facilities or placed in storage. LPC recommends that the artworks be accessible to the public as much as is practicable, including temporary exhibition at a New York City museum and, at a minimum, on an online digital gallery. Regarding recordation and documentation of the Goldwater Hospital structures themselves, the historic documentation report as submitted appears acceptable, although LPC defers to the SHPO on this issue.

4/26/2012 SIGNATURE Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator File Name: 27899_FSO_GS_04262012.doc Cc: SHPO EDC HHC NYC Art/Design Commission Cornell University DATE

Page 4 of 4

Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor

Rose Harvey
Commissioner

Division for Historic Preservation Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 www.nysparks.com

June 19, 2012 Amy D. Crader AKRF 440 Park Avenue South, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Re: RIOC Cornell NYC, Roosevelt Island New York County 12PR02181

Dear Ms. Crader, Thank you for requesting the comments of the New York State Bureau of Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). Since the project involves the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC), which is a considered a state agency, we are reviewing the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617). Our architectural historian for New York County has determined that the Coler Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility on Roosevelt Island is eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Her Resource Evaluation is attached for your use. Our archeological unit has no further archeological concerns. Since the facility is considered historic, we offer the following comments and request the following additional information in order to continue our review: 1. We note that the project proposes to demolish the historic facility. By definition, demolition of an historic property is deemed an Adverse Impact, which is an action that can only be moved forward after a thorough exploration of alternatives. The intent of the exploration is to determine if there are any prudent and feasible alternatives to demolition. If none are identified, then we would enter into a formal Letter of Resolution (LOR) which would identify proper mitigation measures to be incorporated into the work. 2. We understand that the site includes several WPA artworks within the hospital that are of particular historic significance. These artworks are identified within the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commissions (LPC) Environmental Review Comments dated 4/9/2012. Please include impacts to these murals in your alternatives analysis. 3. From the information provided, it seems reasonable to think that these institutional buildings could be adapted to meet the needs of an applied sciences and engineering campus. In addition, since the buildings are considered historic, we urge you to explore the use of the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program. This

An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Agency

program enables building owners to earn a tax credit equal to 20% of all certified rehabilitation expenditures. Eligible costs include all hard and soft costs attributed to the rehabilitation of the historic property. At this point, we recommend a full alternatives analysis be undertaken. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (518) 237-8643, ext. 3282. Please refer to the Project Review (PR) number in any future correspondences regarding this project. Sincerely,

Beth A. Cumming Historic Site Restoration Coordinator e-mail: Beth.cumming@oprhp.state.ny.us cc: G. Santucci NYC LPC R. Ryan RIOC

Enc: Resource Evaluation via e-mail only

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / 12DME004M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 7/16/2012

Comments: The LPC is in receipt of the Historic and Cultural Resources chapter of the EIS dated 7/3/12. Comments are as follows. In order to complete the review, the Alternatives and Mitigation chapters and the draft LOR shall be submitted for review and comment. The NYS SHPO has indicated that the Steam Plant appears S/NR eligible. Cc: SHPO

7/19/2012 SIGNATURE Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator File Name: 27899_FSO_GS_07192012.doc DATE

Proposed Cornell NYC Tech Project Alternatives Analysis Goldwater Hospital Complex Roosevelt Island, New York, NY A. INTRODUCTION
Cornell University (Cornell), the applicant, proposes to develop an applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island (the Cornell NYC Tech project) comprising up to 2.13 million gross square feet (gsf). Of this, 620,000 gsf would be academic space, 500,000 gsf would be partner research and development (R&D) space, 800,000 gsf would be residential, 170,000 gsf would be for an academic-oriented hotel with conference facilities, 40,000 gsf for the central utility plants, up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail, and up to 500 parking spaces. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared to assess the potential impacts of the Cornell NYC Tech project. The proposed development would allow Cornell to build an applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City, meeting the Citys goal of maintaining and increasing New York Citys global competitiveness, diversifying the Citys economy, driving economic growth, and creating jobs for New Yorkers. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to focus on research and graduate degrees in the applied sciences and fields of study related to the technology sector with a campus centered on flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs instead of traditional academic departments. The project site is located on the southern portion of Roosevelt Island, south of the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge (Queensboro Bridge). A majority of the project site (Block 1373, Lot 20) is owned by the City of New York and is occupied by the Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facilitys Goldwater Memorial Hospital (Goldwater Hospital), which is operated by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) (see Figures 1 through 4). The remainder of the project site (Block 1372, part of Lot 1) is vacant and owned by the City of New York and leased to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). Independently of, and prior to, the proposed project, NYCHHC will vacate Goldwater Hospital and relocate patients and services elsewhere. 1 Outside of the project site, Roosevelt Island is controlled by RIOC, under a long-term lease with NYC. 2 Roosevelt Island is under the political jurisdiction of the borough of Manhattan.
1

NYCHHC issued a Negative Declaration on December 6, 2011 for the closure and relocation of operations currently housed at the Goldwater Memorial Hospital (CEQR No. 12HHC001M). Roosevelt Island is owned by the City of New York, and the entire Island except for the Goldwater Memorial Hospital campus and the Coler Memorial Hospital campus is leased to the State of New York. RIOC was established by New York State in 1984 to manage the operation, maintenance, and

August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

The Goldwater Hospital complex has been determined eligible for listing on the State/National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR-eligible) by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). Cornell has evaluated the potential for retaining and reusing the existing Goldwater Hospital complex buildings in conjunction with the proposed Cornell NYC Tech project proposed for the project site. This alternatives analysis presented below in greater detail, concludes that it is not feasible to retain all or portions of the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the proposed project. The hospital buildings, containing a total of 647,900 gsf, do not contain sufficient square footage to meet the Citys development requirements for an applied science and engineering campus of a minimum of 1.8 million gsf of total building space, of which a minimum of 620,000 gsf must be academic use and the campus must have no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students, as stipulated under an agreement between the City of New York and New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). The existing hospital does not meet the requirements for academic research and R&D facilities due to the small and irregularly-shaped floor plates of most of the buildings and configurations including incompatible floor-to-floor heights and restrictive column spacing. Further, alternatives that were considered to expand or enlarge the hospital buildings to allow them to meet the spatial needs of the proposed project do not meet the program requirements and would substantially alter and destroy elements of the building complex that convey its historic significance and compromise the integrity of the Goldwater Hospital complex, adversely impacting this historic resource. The removal of the S/NR-eligible Goldwater Hospital campus would constitute a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. The proposed project has been developed through the careful consideration of a number of design alternatives that explored reusing all or some of the existing components of the Goldwater Hospital complex. The analysis described below sets forth the alternatives that were considered including those that seek to avoid and minimize impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex. The following analysis concludes that it is not feasible to retain and reuse the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the Cornell NYC Tech project.

B. CORNELL UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK CITY

Cornell has a long history and a strong presence in New York City. Founded in Ithaca, New York in 1865, Cornell first established a presence in New York City in 1898, with the founding of what is now known as the Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC). WCMC began an affiliation with New York Hospital in 1913 and subsequently with what is now New YorkPresbyterian Hospital in 1998. Weill Cornells Graduate School of Medical Sciences was founded in 1952 through the convergence of two institutionsthe Sloan-Kettering Institute and WCMC. WCMC and Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences are located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan between East 65th and East 72nd Streets. In addition to medical studies, Cornell has a number of other active academic programs in Manhattan, including programs in finance, labor relations, architecture and planning, and cooperative extension.

development of the Island. The State's lease on the Island expires in 2068, when control will revert to New York City.

August 16, 2012

8.15.12

SEE INSET

EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL

1 8

5 4 3 2 7

INSET - Area of Detail

EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

A

Goldwater Hospital Building Name Photograph View Direction and Reference Number

1 5

Interior Photograph

Project Location Map

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 1

8.15.12

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District)

CornellNYC Tech

N
EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL
0

200

400 FEET

SCALE

Existing Conditions: Aerial Photograph of Goldwater Hospital

Figure 2

8.15.12

EAST RIVER - WEST CHANNEL

EAST RIVER - EAST CHANNEL

100

200 FEET

SCALE

Existing Conditions: Goldwater Hospital Site Plan

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 3

8.15.12

Existing Conditions: Goldwater Hospital Axonometric View

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 4

Alternatives Analysis

In 2011 Cornell responded to the Citys Request for Proposals (RFP) to build an applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City that would continue the Universitys long relationship with New York City and be consistent with Cornells plan to expand its engineering and technology programs. Cornell, in partnership with the TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, was selected to develop the Cornell NYC Tech project at the Goldwater Hospital site on Roosevelt Island.

C. PROPOSED CORNELL NYC TECH PROJECT

PURPOSE AND NEED The City of New York launched its Applied Sciences 1 NYC initiative in 2010 after working with a variety of New York Citys business leaders, academics, community groups, and entrepreneurs to identify ambitious, achievable initiatives that the City could undertake to achieve local economic growth. From that process, it was determined that there is an unmet demand in New York City for top-flight engineers and applied scientists. The purpose of Applied Sciences NYC is to provide an opportunity for a leading academic institution to build an applied sciences and engineering campus in New York City. The overarching goal is to maintain and increase New York Citys global competitiveness, diversify the Citys economy, drive economic growth, and create jobs for New Yorkers. To this end, in December 2010, the City issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) from academic institutions to develop and operate a new applied science and engineering research campus in New York City. In connection with the new campus, the City indicated its willingness to provide City-owned land in addition to a significant capital contribution in site infrastructure. Four sites were identified: the Goldwater Hospital campus on Roosevelt Island, the Navy Hospital campus within the Brooklyn Navy Yard, certain buildings and land on Governors Island, and a site on Staten Island. The City announced plans for the closure of the hospital in 2010 prior to the City issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2011. Based on the RFEI and RFP process, Cornell University, in conjunction with its academic partner the TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, was selected to develop the Applied Sciences NYC projectthe Cornell NYC Tech projectat the Goldwater Hospital site on Roosevelt Island. Under an agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC, Cornell is obligated to build a minimum of 1.8 million gsf of total building space, of which a minimum of 620,000 gsf must be academic use. The terms of the agreement also obligate Cornell to have no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students when the campus is fully operational. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to focus on research and graduate degrees in the applied sciences and fields of study related to the technology sector. A defining aspect of the proposed campuss graduate-level academic programs is the close tie to business and entrepreneurship that will be woven through the curriculum. Research will be focused on technology in application areas that have commercial potential in New York City markets. Specifically, New York Citys technology sector and information-driven economy serve as the impetus for the development of many consumer-oriented companies focused specifically on technology to meet end users
1

Applied sciences is the discipline of applying scientific knowledge from one or more fields to practical problems.

August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

needs, including some of NYCs core industries: media, advertising, finance, healthcare, real estate, construction, and design. The Cornell NYC Tech campus will be centered on flexible and dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs instead of traditional academic departments. This model will serve as a focal point for accelerating existing sectors of NYCs economy and driving the formation of new technology businesses through close ties to customers and core industry knowledge. CAMPUS FRAMEWORK Since its selection by New York City, Cornell has prepared various planning activities for the Cornell NYC Tech project, including campus framework planning. Cornells campus framework is being developed to guide development of the proposed project but to allow Cornell flexibility in implementing the plan over the projects long build out period. The framework will include a discussion of principles that will guide design and implementation of the campus; strategies for campus operations (e.g., vehicular and pedestrian circulation, service access and loading, and parking); principles for site design, including sustainability goals and strategies to meet these goals; and design guidelines that would apply to the campus as a whole and to individual parcels and the sites open spaces. CAMPUS FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLES The campus framework principles are intended to inform the campus design, and consist of the following: Create a River to River Campus Vision. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to create a campus that will recognize the existing Roosevelt Island esplanade and the Islands water frontage as important adjacent elements of the campus site. Create a Diverse Collection of Active Open Spaces. The Cornell NYC Tech project intends to create a diverse array of publicly-accessible open spaces that extend from the waterfront road into the campus. Cornell intends to design and program these spaces so that each space is clearly defined in its character and use. The sites open spaces are also intended to facilitate movement within the campus, both north to south and east to west. Create a Symbiotic Cycle between Indoor and Outdoor Spaces. To ensure an active and engaging campus, the Cornell NYC Tech project intends to activate the lower floors of the campus buildings by encouraging both indoor and outdoor amenities. Create a North-South Pedestrian Spine. The Cornell NYC Tech project would include a north-south pedestrian spine, a pedestrian thoroughfare that is intended to create a dense, urban scale circulation spine uniting the campus from north to south. Optimize Campus Buildings for Use and Performance. The Cornell NYC Tech project site plan would orient the academic and partner research and development buildings along the north-south pedestrian spine to encourage connections between such buildings. The residential and conference/hotel facility buildings would be located along the ring road to optimize access to light and air. Create a Livable and Sustainable Campus. The Cornell NYC Tech project campus plan is intended to enhance pedestrian flows, maximize views of the East River and Manhattan and Queens, and take advantage of the solar orientation with the goal of enhancing the health, comfort, and productivity of the projects workers and residents.

August 16, 2012

Alternatives Analysis

PRINCIPLES FOR SITE DESIGN The proposed project would incorporate a number of sustainable design measures that would reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition to meeting all applicable local laws regarding energy, Cornell has agreed to achieve a minimum of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification for all project buildings and has set a goal to achieve net-zero energy consumption for its Phase 1 academic building. This means that the campus collectively would generate enough renewable electricity to offset the cumulative electrical power, heating, and cooling energy use of the Phase 1 academic building on an annual basis. DESIGN GUIDELINES The framework will outline a series of design guidelines for the campus that are intended to guide campus development over time, building by building, by providing flexibility while ensuring the integrity of the campus as a whole. The design guidelines will inform specific building design and relate specifically to frontage, entry points, energy and space-use efficiency, and overall functionality. CAMPUS PLAN Within this framework, the Cornell NYC Tech campus has been planned to develop up to 2.13 million gsf and would include the following componentsacademic and research space, partner R&D space, residential units, and an academic-oriented hotel with conference facilities. These project components would be located within approximately 10 new buildings, ranging in height from approximately four to 27 stories (approximately 60 to 290 feet). The campus would also include new landscaping, publicly accessible open space, roadway improvements, and two new central utility plants. The new buildings have been designed to contribute to a unified, pedestrian-oriented campus centered around a north-south walkway that would extend through the project site. The campus would also include a minimum of 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space that would form a network of open spaces among the approximately 10 new buildings (see Figure 5). The Cornell NYC Tech campus would include the following components: Academic and Research SpaceAs required by the Citys agreement with NYCEDC, 620,000 gsf of academic and research space would be developed with classrooms, faculty offices, research space for faculty and scientists, and adequate space for activities including student projects and corporate-sponsored research. Ancillary space would also be provided for exhibits, interactive and social gatherings, cafs, and other amenities as well as meeting space for the adjacent conference center. The academic and research space would be located in three new buildings that would have large floor plates of up to 40,000 gsf with open floor plans and a core configuration allowing for maximum flexibility of space for different academic and research uses. The floor-to-floor heights would be 14 feet or greater to sufficiently allow for 10-foot or greater ceiling clearance heights, consistent with current design standards for academic research buildings. The large open floor plans would provide opportunities for interactions among the campuss faculty, researchers, students, and private R&D companies. Partner R&D SpaceThe Cornell NYC Tech campus would include 500,000 gsf of commercial R&D space that would accommodate private companies interested in taking advantage of proximity to academic research occurring at the Cornell NYC Tech campus and having access to the Cornell NYC Tech faculty, researchers, and students. The campus is envisioned to include 5 August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

three partner R&D buildings with larger floor plates (greater than 24,000 gsf) and floor-to-floor heights of 14 feet or greater, consistent with current design standards for such structures. The buildings large floor plates would allow for lower height buildings while meeting the expressed need for large, flexible rectangular open floor plans with a core configuration. The structural system would be expected to have generally wide column spacing to allow for large and flexible open floor plates suitable for academic buildings. Residential SpaceProviding housing is an essential component of a successful campus. The Cornell NYC Tech campus would provide residential units for Cornell leadership, faculty, postdoctoral fellows, Ph.D. candidates, and masters students. Based on Cornells experience with both its Ithaca and WCMC campuses, Cornell would provide housing to 100 percent of the campus leadership and 80 percent of tenure track and research faculty, postdoctoral students, PhD candidates, and masters students. No University housing would be provided for administrative and building staff, corporate-funded researchers, or visiting/adjunct professors, as it is assumed that these populations would already reside in NYC. As described above, under the terms of the agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC, Cornell is obligated to have no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 students when the campus is fully operational. Therefore, based on the above requirements, approximately 1,094 residential units would be accommodated in 800,000 gsf of residential space on the Cornell NYC Tech campus. The project would develop three residential buildings. The heights of these buildings are expected to range from 20 to 27 stories to accommodate residential needs within the available campus footprint. Academic-Oriented Hotel with Conference FacilitiesAn approximately 170,000-gsf academicoriented hotel with conference facilities would serve the campuss industry partners and visitors. The hotel would be designed, financed, developed, and operated by a private, non-Cornell entity and would include 200-225 guestrooms and also accommodate flexible meeting and breakout space. The hotel would have a large first floor plate of column-free space for large conference/meeting rooms, with approximately 20-foot-tall floor-to-floors on the first floor. Additional conference room floors would be approximately 15 feet high, and guest rooms would have approximately 10-foot-tall floor-to-ceiling heights In addition, the Cornell NYC Tech project has been designed to include active street frontages (and open space frontages) to enhance the public realm and would contain up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail that could include cafs, newsstands, bookstores, etc.). The proposed project would provide public open space in place of the existing small grassy and paved areas on the project site. Overall, by 2038 with the Cornell NYC Tech project, Cornell would develop a new academic campus on Roosevelt Island that would meet the Citys goals for a new technology campus in New York City. MODERN ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND R&D FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS In designing academic research and R&D facilities, floor plate size and configuration are key to creating a building that will serve evolving state-of-the-art research functions over the long term. Generally, large academic research and R&D buildings have multiple floors. Upper floors generally have the same basic form and layout, and share the same vertical core and infrastructure with the lower floors. The functional design objectives of academic research and R&D building floor plates are to: (1) create flexible space for the long-term life of the building; (2) promote

August 16, 2012

8.15.12

RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT PARTNER R&D

ACADEMIC

CONFERENCE CENTER/HOTEL

ACADEMIC

ACADEMIC RESIDENTIAL PARTNER R&D

PARTNER R&D

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT

RESIDENTIAL

Source: SOM

Note: For illustrative purposes only

Proposed Illustrative Site Plan

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 5

Alternatives Analysis

interaction among the research teams; (3) support the research functions in floor layout; and (4) keep the building systems as simple as possible. With large open floor layouts, which must be flexible enough to respond to changes in technology and research teaming, academic research and R&D buildings need to have simple and efficient building systems. A central core for all vertical functions, one or more combined building systems, rather than numerous multiple systems, and a minimum of jogs or corners for pipes, conduits, and ducts are all features that help achieve this purpose. Therefore requirements for modern academic research and R&D facilities include the following features: Flexibility and Adaptability Shared Spaces Large Floor Plates High Floor to Floor Heights High Performance Mechanical and Centralized Utility Systems Each of these requirements is described in further detail below. 1) Flexibility and Adaptability i. It is important that modern academic research space provide for flexibility and adaptability. Over time researchers needs change, expanding and contracting with advances in technology and shifting emphasis in scientific and technology direction. Generic spaces that can readily accommodate changes are critical and are even more important for interdisciplinary research. The generic academic research spaces are best fit into floor plates with broad dimensions in both directions. A large, open floor plate provides flexibility for expansion and contraction of space allocation quickly and without costly and time-consuming alterations to the facility. The advantages of a large, open, floor plan that allows for the creation of adaptable/flexible spaces are immeasurable in terms of avoiding major disruptions to ongoing research programs necessitated by costly renovations.

ii.

2) Shared Research Support Spaces Critical to the success of a highly interdisciplinary research program is the provision of shared research support spaces, such as computer labs. These types of spaces need to be in close proximity to investigators, their offices, and meeting rooms. Modern academic research buildings have some of these uses located on each floor to enhance interaction among the researchers with easy access to equipment, files, and important supplies. The shared interactive functions must serve the needs of all research groups requirements on the floor, but may also serve the broader needs of the buildings entire research community. 3) Large floor plates The need for shared spaces mandates large open floor plates of at least 24,000 gsf to allow for an optimal number of researchers working in proximity on each floor, to accommodate the required uses per floor and to allow for research groups from various disciplines to 7 August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

interact. The creation of an environment conducive to interaction, or a research neighborhood, is facilitated by a floor plate design with a minimum of obstructions, that is as column-free as possible, and allows for physical and visual contact between researchers and associated staff. The rectangular floor plan best meets this requirement as it is conducive to easy access between laboratories and support space. 4) High Floor-to-Floor Heights To effectively support the work of the researchers it is imperative that modern academic research facilities have high floor-to-floor heights of at least 14 feet to accommodate infrastructure systems that would otherwise take up valuable space. This height provides for approximately 10 feet of clear ceiling height, and 4 feet of mechanical distribution and structural zones. The systems required to support the research space located within the mechanical and structural zones include: Heating, cooling, and general ventilations systems; Robust electrical distribution for analytic imaging and computing systems; Supplemental cooling systems as needed to support sensitive analytical and laser imaging apparatus, robotics, or similar technology; Distribution of piping to support plumbing, compressed air, vacuum, gas and sprinkler systems; and Network and computational data wiring.

D. EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE GOLDWATER HOSPITAL COMPLEX

The Goldwater Hospital complex, originally known as the Welfare Hospital for Chronic Diseases, was developed during the Fiorello LaGuardia administration as part of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) 1 initiative at a time when Roosevelt Island 2 was being redeveloped with hospital facilities.3 Completed in 1939 under the direction of Dr. Sigismund Schulz Goldwater (1873-1942), the New York City Commissioner of Hospitals, the hospital complex was designed by architect Isadore Rosenfield with the aid of Public Works Administration (PWA) funds. 4 THE BUILDINGS AND SITE PLAN The six original buildings in the hospital complex were designed in the Art Deco style by Rosenfield in association with Butler & Kohn and York & Sawyer. Rosenfields site plan
1 2

The Works Progress Administration was renamed the Works Project Administration in 1939. Until circa 1921, Roosevelt Island was known as Blackwell Island. At that time, the island was renamed Welfare Island. The island was renamed again in 1973, becoming Roosevelt Island. Hospital for Chronic Diseases, Welfare Island, New York. The Architect & Building News. January 12, 1939. Page 208. Rosenfield Resigns. The New York Times. August 4, 1945.

August 16, 2012

Alternatives Analysis

organizes the buildings along a central, north-south corridor with five pairs of projecting wings, maximizing exposure to sunlight and East River views from the hospitals frontages on both its east and west sides. The hospital complex was altered with the circa 1971 addition of the onestory modernist Activities Building designed by architect William Lescaze. The complex was designed as a hospital with the majority of the hospital facility serving as Patient Wards. The hospital complex has a central six-story Administration Building that has a shallow H plan, four four-story chevron-shaped Patient Ward buildings (two to the north and two to the south of the Administration Building), a narrow rectangular three-story Laboratory and Morgue building that establishes the hospitals north end, and the one-story Activities Building at the hospitals south end (see Figures 1 through 4, 6, and 7). The 15-foot-wide north-south corridor connects the hospitals original six buildings at the basement, first, and second floors; the corridor was extended to the south to connect to the Activities Building at the basement and first floors. The original six buildings are faced in buff-colored brick with limestone parapets; the Activities Building is a boxy modernist structure faced in brown brick and buff-colored limestone. The Goldwater Hospital complex contains a total of 647,900 gsf, allocated as follows: The six-story Administration Building has 155,497-gsf. It is the tallest building in the hospital complex and is located at the center of the building complex (see Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6). The Administration Building contains the hospitals primary entrance, which is accessed by a U-shaped ramp from the west side of the hospital site. The Administration Buildings basement and first floors have 38,895 gsf floor plates while the upper floors have smaller floor plates ranging from 2,314 gsf on the sixth floor to 31,885 gsf on the third floor. The building has steel columns located 20 feet from the outside walls on floors two through six to create a double-loaded corridor configuration, with the columns forming an approximately eight-foot-wide corridor on these floors. The building has nine-foot ceilings (with 12-foot floor-to-floor heights). At the basement and first floors where the floor plates are larger, the columns are spaced at 15-foot-intervals. Each of the four four-story Patient Ward buildings has 114,164 gsf with 19,928-gsf floor plates (for a total of 456,656 gsf). The Patient Ward buildings have long and narrow, approximately 45-foot-wide floor plates that narrow to approximately 28 feet wide at the outer ends of each floor. The Ward buildings have steel columns spaced at approximately 15-foot intervals, located approximately 18 feet from the outer walls to create a doubleloaded corridor configuration, with the columns forming an approximately eight-foot-wide corridor on each floor. Like the Administration Building, the Patient Ward buildings also have 9-foot ceilings (with 12-foot floor-to-floor heights). Each Patient Ward building has two wings that extend at an angle from the north-south connecting corridor in a chevron shape (see Figures 1, 3, 4, and 7). The south faade of each Patient Ward building has concrete balconies and curved concrete slab terraces with metal railings and wood handrails. Some balconies have been modified by glass enclosures and metal framing creating additional interior space. The Patient Wards have circular day rooms on their south facades (see View 4 of Figure 7). Each Patient Ward building originally had Rigs ward configurations arranged with open wards; however, only the fourth floor of the western wing of Patient Ward D remains in its original layout. All other corridors are doubleloaded and have narrow floor plates. Eight murals were commissioned for Goldwater Hospital as part of the Federal Art Project (FAP) of the WPA, employing artists during the Depression who provided artwork for non9 August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

federal public buildings. Among the murals at the Goldwater Hospital complex were murals painted by abstract artists, including Ilya Bolotowsky (1907-1981), Albert Swinden (19011961), Joseph Rugolo (1911-1983), Riccardo Dane Chanase (1894-1975), Byron Browne (1907-1961), Richard Goldman, and Theodore Haupt (1902-present). Of the eight murals, only Bolotowskys Abstraction has been conserved and is currently visible (see Figure 8). It is located in the day room in the east wing of Patient Ward Ds third floor. The three-story Laboratory and Morgue building has 25,377 gsf, with floor plates ranging from 4,424 gsf to 8,377 gsf and 9-foot-tall ceilings (with 12-foot floor-to-floor heights) (see Views 6 and 7 of Figure 9). The one-story Activities Building has 72,148 gsf, with 36,074 gsf floor plates (contained in the first floor and basement) (see View 8 of Figure 10). The ceilings in the Activities Building are approximately 25 feet high. The Activities Building has a U-shaped floor plan with a centrally-located auditorium. The building contains two chapels, a synagogue, and a mosque, among other uses, with stained glass windows in the two chapels (see View 9 of Figure 10).

E. ALTERNATIVES
As part of the design process, Cornell considered various options for the Goldwater Hospital campus site to meet the Universitys programmatic and academic needs while also fulfilling the Citys objectives and directives for the project. Throughout the planning process, the overall objective has been to meet the Citys expressed goal of developing an academic and research campus in New York City with a total minimum of 1.8 million gsf, including a minimum of 620,000 gsf for academic and research space. Three redevelopment alternatives were developed and analyzed, as detailed below. These include 1) maintaining the current site configuration and retaining the Goldwater Hospital structures to avoid adverse impacts to this architectural resource; 2) expanding the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings to meet programmatic and square footage requirements; and 3) demolishing the Goldwater Hospital complex in its entirety, which would result in a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. 1. AVOIDANCE OF AN ADVERSE IMPACTRETAIN AND REUSE THE GOLDWATER HOSPITAL COMPLEX To avoid adverse impacts, an alternative that retains and reuses all of the Goldwater Hospital complex without new construction or alterations to the buildings or the site plan was evaluated. Under this scenario, the hospital buildings, the site plan, landscaping, and surface parking areas would not be altered apart from regular maintenance (see Figures 1 through 4 and 6 through 10). Under this scenario, the hospital complexs total existing 647,900 gsf of space would be retenanted to accommodate the Cornell NYC Tech science and technology campus. However, because the City requires a minimum of 1.8 million gsf including a minimum of 620,000 gsf of space for academic uses on the campus, re-tenanting the hospital buildings to meet the academic research square footage requirement would result in only 27,900 gsf of space within the existing hospital complex remaining available for re-tenanting with other project components. Therefore, there would not be sufficient square footage for the development of other critical project components as established by the projects purpose and need, which include R&D space, proposed at 500,000 gsf; a hotel proposed at 170,000-gsf; and 1,094 residential units, in addition to the requirement to provide open space. Even if the academic square footage requirement can August 16, 2012 10

8.15.12

View east to the Administration Building and Patient Ward Buildings A, B, and D

View west to the Administration Building and Patient Ward Building D

Existing Conditions: Goldwater Hospital Administration Building and Patient Ward Buildings
CornellNYC Tech

Figure 6

8.15.12

Patient Ward AView southwest to the east wings north and east facades

Patient Ward AView northwest to the east wings south facade

Existing Conditions: Goldwater HospitalPatient Ward Buildings

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 7

8.15.12

Mural Abstraction by Ilya BolotowskyPatient Ward D

Existing Conditions: Goldwater HospitalPatient Ward Buildings

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 8

8.15.12

LABORATORY AND MORGUE BUILDING

PATIENT WARD BUILDING D

View northeast to the Laboratory and Morgue Buildings west facade, with Patient Ward Building D in the foreground

LABORATORY AND MORGUE BUILDING

PATIENT WARD BUILDING D

View northeast to the Laboratory and Morgue Buildings east facade, with Patient Ward Building D in the foreground

Existing Conditions: Goldwater HospitalLaboratory and Morgue Building

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 9

8.15.12

View northeast to the Activities Building/Building J, with Patient Ward Building A in the background

Stained glass windows in the Protestant chapel

Existing Conditions: Goldwater HospitalActivities Building

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 10

Alternatives Analysis

be met with the reuse of the existing buildings, the buildings themselves do not contain the required characteristics for academic research facilities, as described in greater detail below. The configuration of the buildings do not meet the requirements for modern academic research facilities as the existing hospital buildings have internal structural layouts that preclude the required open and flexible spaces needed for academic research buildings. Each of the hospital buildings, apart from the Activities Building and two floors of the Administration Building, has double loaded, narrow corridors with small floor plates. In terms of overall square footage, the largest building in the hospital complex is the six-story Administration Building which has 155,497 gsf with floors having varied configurations and containing between 2,314 gsf (sixth floor) and 38,836 gsf (basement and first floor). Although it has two floors with large floor plates in a shallow H plan (38,836 gsf), these floors would only provide a small amount of the required academic research square footage in a floor plate size that could be utilized for academic research or R&D use. In addition, the H plan would not allow for large, open floor plates that provide the spatial flexibility required for academic research or R&D uses. Each Patient Ward building has a total square footage of 114,164 gsf, however, each floor has long, narrow and irregularly-shaped floor plates containing 19,928 gsf. This floor plate configuration and the buildings structural system would not meet programming needs for academic research space or R&D uses which call for large and flexible floor plates with generally wide column spacing. The two smaller hospital buildings have even smaller floor plates, with the Laboratory and Morgue building containing 25,377 gsf on four floors with floor plates ranging from 4,424 to 8,377 gsf, and the Activities Building containing 72,148 gsf on two floors. While the Activities Building has larger floor plates at 36,074 gsf, the building is onestory plus a basement and would also only provide a small amount of the required academic research square footage in a floor plate that could be utilized for academic research or R&D use. The reuse of the hospital buildings for academic research uses would not provide the large floor plates of up to 40,000 gsf proposed for these types of uses. The existing hospital buildings would not allow for large open floor plates due to their primarily small size, and the existing partitions and structural systems would not provide the spatial flexibility necessary for academic research buildings. In addition, R&D buildings require floor plates of at least 24,000 gsf with open plans maximizing flexibility and efficiency. While several hospital buildings have floor plates of adequate square footage, the floor plate shape and interior configuration of the buildings, as described above, do not provide wide column spacing that allows for large and flexible open floor plans suitable for academic buildings. Further, the existing buildings, with 12-foot-tall floor-to-floors only allow for 9-foot-tall clearances and do not provide the required, at minimum, ten-foot clear interior heights provided with 14-foot-tall floor-to-floor heights necessary for academic research and R&D buildings. The proposed development of approximately 1,094 residential units would require approximately 800,000 gsf of residential space. The existing Patient Ward buildings contain approximately 19,928 gsf per floor. To accommodate the anticipated user population, the four Ward buildings could hypothetically accommodate a total of 448 residential units, with approximately 28 units per floor (for a total of approximately 112 residential units per building). This would be far below the number of units required to house the no fewer than 286 faculty and 1,800 student population Cornell is obligated to have under the terms of the agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC. Most importantly, the reuse of these buildings for residential use would preclude the ability to provide the required minimum of 620,000 gsf of academic research space. 11 August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

CONCLUSION Although the re-tenanting alternative would hypothetically meet the minimum 620,000 gsf of academic square footage required for the project, the current design and structural configuration of the majority of the buildings precludes their reuse for academic research and R&D use and would not allow for efficiencies of use and interdisciplinary interactions. Further, the remaining 27,900 gsf available in the hospital buildings, would not allow for the remainder of the program (1,207,900 gsf of the required minimum of 1.8 million gsf) to be located on the project site within the existing buildings. Therefore, while the re-tenanting alternative would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex, this alternative would not be feasible as it would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project. To develop the other programming components, including R&D space, the hotel, and housing, additional floor area would need to be constructed on the Goldwater Hospital campus. These alternatives are discussed below. 2. EXPANSION OF THE GOLDWATER HOSPITAL COMPLEX The potential for retaining the Goldwater Hospital buildings and overbuilding and expanding the existing hospital buildings to accommodate the required 620,000 gsf of academic square footage and other program components for the proposed total of 2.13 million gsf was evaluated. To meet the proposed 2.13 gsf for the various programming components as established in the purpose and need, approximately 1,482,100 gsf would need to be developed on the project site. [To meet the required minimum development of 1.8 million gsf, approximately 1,152,100 gsf would need to be developed]. As described below, two concepts were developed to consider the potential for expanding the existing hospital buildings: Concept Avertical expansion and Concept Bvertical and horizontal expansion. Concept ABuild Up Concept A would involve the vertical expansion of the existing hospital buildings to accommodate the proposed program. However, the potential for developing the vertical expansion concept would be limited by several factors. The greatest limitation is the structural capacity of the existing hospital buildings. According to available information about the existing buildings structural systems, the hospital buildings were not designed or constructed to carry additional vertical expansion loads. The buildings structural systems could support, at best, a minimal overbuild. Vertically expanding these buildings would require modifications to the buildings structures through structural reinforcement and/or bridging over the existing structures. Vertical expansions would also present substantial structural and engineering challenges and dramatically increasing construction costs. Not only would such modifications substantially compromise the architectural integrity of the existing buildings, the vertical expansions would not result in large, flexible floor plans required for academic research and R&D buildings. The amount of additional square footage that could be developed without requiring structural reinforcement and/or bridging over the existing structures would not result in adequate square footage to meet the programming needs of the proposed project. Hypothetically, even doubling the size of the existing buildings, regardless of structural capacity, would not meet either the proposed 2.13 million gsf or the minimum required development of 1.8 million gsf. In addition, by vertically expanding the existing buildings, August 16, 2012 12

Alternatives Analysis

the buildings would still not have sufficiently sized floor plates in a shape required for academic research and R&D uses and the existing floors would not have the appropriate floor-to-floor heights and interior configurations needed for academic research and R&D buildings. This alternative would not allow for the interdepartmental and R&D adjacencies that are essential to the purpose and need of the project. Concept BBuild Up and Build Infill Concept B explored the potential to create additional square footage to meet the square footage of the proposed project and increase floor plate size by horizontally expanding the existing hospital buildings with infill structures. Under this scenario, the Administration Buildings floor plates could be in-filled above the first floor to create floor plates of approximately 38,836 gsf (the same square footage as the buildings first floor). This would result in a six-story building containing approximately 230,016 gsf. While this concept would allow for floor plate sizes in the Administration Building appropriate to academic research and R&D uses, it would compromise the buildings original design and would not provide a structure with an open and flexible floor plate and required floor-to-floor heights. The construction required to expand this building would compromise its original design and the hospital complexs site plan. The Administration Building is an important component of the Goldwater Hospital complex as it is the nexus of the complex, and contains the hospitals primary entrance. Redevelopment of this portion of the hospital site would dramatically alter the hospitals site plan and change the spatial and visual relationship between the complexs northern buildings and the southern buildings, compromising the sites overall design. The in-filled Administration Building could not be used for residential or hotel uses because the large floor plates would not be appropriate for residential units or hotel rooms which require access to light and air, in addition to other building code. The infilled building also would not provide the 20-foot ceiling height at the ground floor needed for the hotels conference facility space. Under Concept B, horizontal expansion of the Patient Ward buildings was explored instead of vertical expansions due to limited overbuild potential. With Concept B, additional square footage would be created by constructing additions to the four Patient Ward buildings north facades. Each of the four additions would be approximately 252 feet tall (18 stories) and would contain approximately 20,500 gsf per floor (a total of 1,483,000 gsf among the four addition structures). The footprint size of the additions would be limited due to the close proximity of the Ward buildings to each other and to the Administration Building. To maintain the balconies and terraces on the Ward buildings south facades, the additions would be located only on the Ward buildings north facades (see Figure 11). Either the additions would have similar incompatible floor-to-floor heights as the existing Ward buildings, or the additions would have the taller required floor-to-floor heights. Under the second scenario, the floors would be at different levels because the existing buildings do not have the required minimum 14-foot-tall floor-to-floor heights that the new expansion structures would have. Because of the differences in floor heights, the expansion structures would not create uniform large floor plates, and would not meet the purpose and need of the project where large, flexible floor plates are required. The horizontal expansions would also not be suitable to a hotel use because the hotel would include a conference center requiring a large base floor plate with approximately 20-foot-tall floor-to-floor heights and additional conference floors of approximately 15 feet high. In addition, the horizontal expansion of the Patient Ward buildings would not allow for residential or hotel configurations as the floor 13 August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

plates would be too large to create layouts that meet light and air requirements for these uses. Therefore, the horizontal expansion of the Patient Ward buildings could not feasibly accommodate the proposed programming of the project. Further, to create sufficient floor area for the program, the horizontal expansions would need to be tall structures that would compromise the historic appearance and design intent of the Ward buildings, and destroy the physical and visual relationships between the existing hospital buildings. The horizontal expansion of Patient Ward D also would require the demolition of the Laboratory and Morgue Building. The potential for constructing new, free-standing infill buildings on the hospital site was also considered. The configurations of the existing buildings, particularly the chevron shape of the Patient Ward buildings, and the narrow distances between the existing buildings would not provide the necessary area to allow for the development of academic research and R&D buildings with adequately-sized floor plates. There are no other locations on the hospital site would allow for buildings with 24,000 to 40,000 gsf floor plates. With Concept B, the potential for a substantial overbuild of the Activities Building involving major structural reconstruction of the building was explored since the Activities Building was not built as part of the original hospital complex, and has a sufficient floor plate size. Because of the zoning regulations limiting building heights within this portion of the project site, a vertical expansion would only be allowed up to 280 feet. Vertically expanding the one-story Activities Building would require substantial reconstruction with engineering challenges that would ultimately remove the buildings original design and compromise its architectural integrity. Using the existing floor plate size and accounting for the height limitation, a total of 721,480 gsf could be built in this location. If the Activities Building were to be demolished, and assuming minimum 14-foot floor-to-floor heights and 40,000 gsf floor plates that would meet academic research and R&D efficiencies, a vertical expansion up to 280 feet would allow for a 20 story building containing 800,000-gsf building that would exceed the required minimum of 620,000 gsf of academic research space. However, the building would not have enough square footage to also accommodate the 500,000 gsf of R&D space. As described above, R&D uses could not be located in any of the other hospital buildings because the existing buildings would not provide adequate floor plates and ceiling heights. The Laboratory and Morgue Building has small floor plates of 4,424 to 8,377 gsf. Expanding this buildings footprint to create larger floor plates would be extremely limited by site constraints, including the close proximity to Patient Ward D, immediately to the south and the loop road immediately to the north. The shape of the Patient Ward building also limits the potential for expanding or redeveloping the Laboratory and Morgue Building site. This site does not provide enough space for developing a building of a size and scale that could house academic research and R&D floor plates, or hotel and residential units. CONCLUSION Although the expansion alternative could potentially retain most of the existing hospital buildings, with either Concept A or Concept B, the required alterations to the Goldwater Hospital buildings and hospital site would compromise the architectural integrity of this architectural resource. With Concept A, vertical expansion, even if practical, could not generate sufficient floor area to meet the required 1.8 million gsf minimum. Under Concept B, additional square footage could be created to meet certain aspects of the project. Additional square footage August 16, 2012 14

8.16.12

PLAN

Source: SOM

ELEVATION

Project Site Existing Hospital Building Expansion Structure CornellNYC Tech

Note: For illustrative purposes only

Conceptual Horizontal and Vertical Expansion Alternative

Figure 11

Alternatives Analysis

that could be developed by infilling the Administration Building would provide additional square footage, however, the floors would not have flexible, open floor plates with generally wide column spacing that could accommodate efficient academic or R&D uses and would not be suitable for hotel and residential use. Similarly, though the expansion of the four Ward buildings would create larger buildings, the expanded buildings would not provide the configurations required for academic research and R&D uses, nor would they be appropriate for residential or hotel uses. While a scenario that would redevelop the Activities Building site with a new 800,000 gsf building, the R&D uses could not be fully accommodated in this building and it is not feasible to locate these uses elsewhere on the site. Therefore, both Concepts A and B of the expansion alternative would result in adverse impacts to the Goldwater Hospital complex and would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. 3. DEMOLISH THE GOLDWATER HOSPITAL COMPLEX AND REDEVELOP THE SITE THE PROPOSED PROJECT With the proposed project, the Goldwater Hospital complex would be demolished. The projects demolition of the Goldwater Hospital complex would result in a significant adverse impact. As described above, retaining the Goldwater Hospital buildings in their existing configurations and with new construction on the site is not practicable. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with 10 new buildings with academic, research and development (R&D), residential, and conference center/hotel uses (see Figure 5). On the northern portion of the project site would be an academic building of at least four stories and 150,000 gsf; a residential building of up to 27 stories (290 feet); a conference facility/hotel building of up to 13 stories (165 feet); and a partner R&D building of at least four stories, adding another 150,000 gsf to the project site. In addition, a central utility plant would be located in the northern portion of the project site. The southern portion of the project site would be developed with six new buildings, including two academic buildings, two partner R&D buildings, and two residential buildings, for a total of up to 2.13 million gsf. A second central utility plant would also be located in the southern portion of the project site. The new buildings would contribute to a pedestrian-oriented campus centered around a north-south walkway that would extend through the project site. The project site would also include a minimum of 2.5 acres of publicly accessible open space that would form a network of open spaces at the perimeters of the project site and among the 10 new buildings. Because the academic research and R&D buildings require higher floor-to-floor heights and large, unobstructed floor plates maximizing flexibility in use, the programs required 620,000 gsf of academic and research space and 500,000 gsf of R&D space must be accommodated in buildings with these characteristics. As described above, the existing hospital buildings do not have these characteristics. Further, the project objective of building lower height buildings with large floors plates to allow for and encourage interdisciplinary interactions could also not be accommodated by the existing buildings. The proposed site plan has been designed to locate buildings and amenities on the project site at an angle that would maximize access to air, sunlight, and views. The proposed project would also involve the reconstruction of the existing roadway in the rezoning area with a new bicycle path and sidewalk, new plantings, and roadway improvements and improved access and circulation to the project site. 15 August 16, 2012

CornellNYC Tech

CONCLUSION With the proposed project, the amount of square footage required to meet Cornells program and the Citys minimum square footage requirements would be accommodated and would include academic research, R&D, and a hotel located in a cohesive campus of lower height buildings with large, flexible floor plates with appropriate floor-to-floor heights that would maximize efficiencies and interaction opportunities among academic and R&D researchers, while also accommodating the development of a hotel with conference and meeting rooms that would further support the academic research campus. The development of residential units in taller buildings on the campus would support the overall campus plan, providing housing for the at minimum 286 faculty and 1,800 students as per the agreement between the City of New York and NYCEDC, and allow for additional opportunities for formal and informal interactions among the campus population.

F. CONCLUSION
As described above, Cornell has evaluated the potential for 1) maintaining the current site configuration and retaining the Goldwater Hospital structures; 2) expanding the existing Goldwater Hospital buildings vertically and horizontally to meet the projects spatial requirements; and 3) demolishing the Goldwater Hospital complex and redeveloping the site. While the demolition alternative would remove the Goldwater Hospital complex from the project site, it is the only alternative that would meet the purpose and need of the Cornell NYC Tech project. As described above, only the alternative that maintains the Goldwater Hospital complex in its entirety would avoid a significant adverse impact to this architectural resource. However, as described above, this alternative would not fulfill the Citys requirement for developing an academic research campus containing 620,000 gsf of academic research space, nor would it allow for the overall development of the Citys minimum requirement of 1.8 million gsf of space for a research campus. In addition, the 647,900 gsf is contained in buildings that, in general, do not meet the requirements for academic research and R&D buildings. Similarly, the expansion alternative would meet certain square footage and programming needs, however, the type of space that could be developed would not provide the spatial configuration needed for dynamic interdisciplinary application hubs for academic research or R&D uses, which are central to the projects purpose and need. In consideration of Cornells purpose and need for the proposed project, it is not possible to retain and reuse the Goldwater Hospital complex as part of the proposed project. Therefore, there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid a significant adverse impact to the Goldwater Hospital complex.

August 16, 2012

16

Alternatives Analysis

REFERENCES Hospital for Chronic Diseases, Welfare Island, New York. The Architect & Building News. January 12, 1939. Rosenfield Resigns. The New York Times. August 4, 1945.

17

August 16, 2012

Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor

Rose Harvey
Commissioner

Division for Historic Preservation Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 www.nysparks.com September 19, 2012 Amy D. Crader AKRF 440 Park Avenue South, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Re: RIOC Cornell NYC, Roosevelt Island New York County 12PR02181

Dear Ms. Crader, Thank you for continuing to consult with the New York State Bureau of Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). Since the project involves the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC), which is a considered a state agency, we are continuing to review the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). At this time we have reviewed the provided alternatives analysis dated August 16, 2012. In general, we find the document to be thoughtful and reasonable in its evaluation of re-using the existing historic buildings. We understand that Cornell University proposes to develop an applied science and engineering campus comprising up to 2.13 million gross square feet (gsf) as required by the New York Citys development requirements. The existing historic buildings contain about 650,000 gsf of institutional space and that they contain irregularly-shaped floor plates, incompatible floor-to-floor heights and restrictive column spacing making their adaptive re-use difficult. Based upon the information provided, it is clear that the requirement of 2.13 million gsf cannot be met with the existing historic buildings, that new construction within and around the existing buildings is not sufficient to meet the needs of the project and that the existing structures themselves have lost much of their historic interiors over time. Given this information we are able to conclude that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives at this time to demolition of these historic buildings. Our next step is to begin development of a Letter of Resolution (LOR) which would include mitigation measures that strive to minimize harm. We understand that the project is already evaluating the re-use of the eight WPA murals in the complex. Other mitigation ideas could include documentation, salvage of certain building components, retention of the historic circulation paths and continued consultation with our office on the new campus design. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (518) 237-8643, ext. 3282. Please refer to the Project Review (PR) number in any future correspondences regarding this project. Sincerely,

Beth A. Cumming Historic Site Restoration Coordinator e-mail: Beth.cumming@oprhp.state.ny.us cc: G. Santucci NYC LPC R. Ryan RIOC via e-mail only

An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Agency

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / 12DME004M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 8/16/2012

Comments: The LPC is in receipt of the alternatives analysis dated 8/16/12 and the SHPO comments of 9/19/12. The LPC concurs with the SHPO acceptance of the alternatives analysis. LPC requests inclusion in the Letter of Resolution under NYS 14.09 as a concurring or signatory party, decision to be determined later. LPC reiterates the importance of the preservation of the WPA murals and the importance of public access to the murals, preferably both onsite and online. As per LPC comments of 4/26/12, the LPC also states that the Final Environmental Impact Statement shall indicate the final repositories for the restored artworks and their accessibility to the public. The text shall state whether the artworks are reinstalled for display in other facilities or placed in storage. LPC recommends that the artworks be accessible to the public as much as is practicable, including temporary exhibition at a New York City museum and, at a minimum, on an online digital gallery. Cc: SHPO

9/25/2012 SIGNATURE Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator File Name: 27899_FSO_GS_09252012.doc DATE

W:\Projects\11487 - CORNELL APPLIED SCIENCES\Drafts\Appendices\Appendix 7_Historic Resources\Inputs\27899a_FSO_GS_09252012_ScopeComments.doc

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / 12DME004M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 8/16/2012

Comments: The LPC is in receipt of the final scope of work for EIS dated 9/24/12. Page 20, Architectural Resources shall be amended to start: The project site, the Coler Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility has been determined eligible for listing on the State and National Registers. The WPA artworks within the hospital are of exceptional importance. Task B to be amended to read: Conduct a field survey of the project site, including the interiors and WPA murals within the Coler Hospital as requested by LPC Cc: SHPO

9/25/2012 SIGNATURE Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator File Name: 27899a_FSO_GS_09252012.doc DATE

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Project number: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. / 12DME004M Project: CORNELL NYC TECH Date received: 2/22/2013

Comments: The LPC is in receipt of the draft Letter of Resolution (LOR) of 2/21/13 written by the applicant, and the Evergreene Report, Evaluation of Murals at Goldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Island of 1/23/13. LPC defers comments on the LOR, and possibly inclusion in the LOR, pending receipt of comments from the SHPO on the LOR. LPC concurs with the Evergreene Report recommendation on page 6 that further investigation be done to confirm the presence of the Swindon and Rugolo murals in rooms B-41 and B-31. In order to complete the review, LPC requests the final Historic and Cultural Resources and Mitigation chapters of the EIS. Cc: SHPO

3/1/2013 SIGNATURE Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator File Name: 27899_FSO_GS_02272013.doc DATE

Appendix 9 Natural Resources

Appendix 9

March 2012 Roosevelt Island Technology Campus Tree Survey A walking survey of 132 trees located on the project site of the Roosevelt Island Technology Campus was conducted on March 5 and 6, 2012. Only trees located on the project site were surveyed; trees adjacent to the project site were not surveyed. Data on genus, species, DBH (trunk diameter at breast height), height, and canopy spread were collected for all 132 surveyed trees. A hazard risk assessment was performed in accordance with ISA hazard risk criteria for 115 trees to assess tree structure, describe defects, evaluate the likelihood of failure, and note what would be damaged if the tree failed. This assessment was performed by visual inspection only. Trees were not sounded or bored to test for internal decay. However, for some trees, boring is recommended to test for structural integrity. An additional 17 trees, most with a DBH equal to or less than four inches, did not receive a hazard risk assessment. DBH was measured to the 10th of an inch. Data on all trees is contained in an Excel file. One worksheet contains data for trees receiving a hazard risk assessment. A second worksheet contains data for trees that did not receive a hazard risk assessment. All surveyed trees have been given a unique identifier (i.e. a TreeID number). Locations for surveyed trees were also mapped. Initial locations were based on a 1999 tree survey contained in a CAD dwg file. However, this CAD file is not geo-referenced (i.e. tree locations do not have longitude and latitude coordinates). To associate tree locations with longitude and latitude coordinates, the CAD file was imported into GIS (Geographic Information Systems) software and rubber-sheeted to a 2010 aerial orthoimage serving as a reference layer. The CAD file data was superimposed on the 2010 aerial orthoimage to create maps used in the survey. Tree locations were corrected post-inventory to correspond more closely with that image. Some trees included in the 1999 survey were found to have been removed. Additionally, some trees were found either to have been missed in the 1999 survey or to have been planted in the interim. These trees were located and given longitude and latitude coordinates based on the 2010 orthoimage. Finally, while the 1999 tree survey included information on tree species and DBH, data was found in many instances to be inaccurate. Data from the 1999 tree survey was updated with data from the 2012 tree survey. Locations of surveyed trees are contained in two GIS shapefiles. The first shapefile contains data from the 115 trees that received a hazard risk assessment. A second shapefile contains data from the 17 trees that did not receive a hazard risk assessment. A third shapefile contains data from trees that were identified in the 1999 tree survey, but were found to have been removed in the 2012 tree survey. All shapefiles are State Plane New York Long Island, NAD 83, US Survey Foot.

Results of the CornellNYC Tech Project Tree Survey (Selected Data)

Live Crown Ratio 75% 80% 60% 65% 60% 25% 70% 65% 60% 65% 55% 60% 45% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 65% 60% 65% 65% 70% 60% 65% 60% 40% 60% 55% 50% Botanic Quercus palustris Cornus mas Cornus mas Cornus mas Cornus mas Cornus mas Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Cornus mas Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Pinus strobus Pinus nigra Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Ulmus americana Quercus palustris Roosevelt Island Tree Survey Genus Height Spread Quercus 45 50 Cornus 15 16 Cornus 15 16 Cornus 15 16 Cornus 12 16 Cornus 15 18 Quercus 50 50 Quercus 50 55 Quercus 50 50 Quercus 50 50 Quercus 40 50 Quercus 45 60 Quercus 30 40 Quercus 40 30 Quercus 35 35 Quercus 35 35 Quercus 45 45 Quercus 30 40 Quercus 50 65 Cornus 12 25 Quercus 50 55 Quercus 45 55 Quercus 50 55 Quercus 50 60 Quercus 50 50 Quercus 50 60 Pinus 40 25 Pinus 30 12 Quercus 40 25 Quercus 50 55 Ulmus 45 60 Quercus 40 30 DBH 28.4 10.2 9.5 9.8 17.0 33.0 35.0 26.8 31.4 28.0 22.8 25.4 22.5 22.0 18.6 19.5 23.0 21.8 24.3 8.0 23.3 23.0 23.1 30.0 21.4 29.3 14.1 6.4 17.6 30.3 25.4 20.4 Age Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Declining Mature Semi-mature Declining Mature Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Young Semi-mature Mature Mature Semi-mature

TreeID 1003 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1023 1024 1027 1028 1029 1031 1032 1033 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1071 1072 1093 1094 1095 1096

Date 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012

SpCode QUPA COMA COMA COMA COMA COMA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QURU QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QURU QUPA QUPA COMA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA PIST PINI QUPA QUPA ULAM QUPA

Results of the CornellNYC Tech Project Tree Survey (Selected Data)

Botanic Picea pungens Picea pungens Platanus x acerifolia Platanus x acerifolia Gleditsia triacanthos Prunus serotina Magnolia x soulangiana Carpinus caroliniana Catalpa speciosa Cornus florida Platanus x acerifolia Platanus x acerifolia Acer saccharinum Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Carpinus caroliniana Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Gleditsia triacanthos Pinus strobus Carpinus caroliniana Quercus palustris Populus deltoides Platanus x acerifolia Platanus x acerifolia Platanus x acerifolia Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Pinus strobus Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Roosevelt Island Tree Survey Genus Height Spread Picea 12 6 Picea 14 9 Platanus 60 55 Platanus 60 65 Gleditsia 40 50 Prunus 40 30 Magnolia 18 20 Carpinus 30 40 Catalpa 20 25 Cornus 15 12 Platanus 55 80 Platanus 50 70 Acer 45 50 Quercus 55 70 Quercus 50 60 Quercus 60 75 Carpinus 18 40 Quercus 50 50 Quercus 55 45 Gleditsia 50 60 Pinus 30 16 Carpinus 25 35 Quercus 30 30 Populus 55 50 Platanus 50 40 Platanus 50 55 Platanus 60 70 Quercus 45 55 Quercus 40 55 Pinus 25 24 Quercus 35 55 Quercus 45 40 DBH 4.9 6.8 22.9 32.7 23.7 16.0 20.5 16.0 16.0 6.3 35.5 30.7 39.9 34.8 26.7 38.4 30.6 22.6 22.8 24.9 11.2 30.6 15.6 28.3 25.7 25.9 32.5 32.5 28.5 13.1 23.8 21.7 Age Young Young Semi-mature Mature Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Declining Young Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Semi-mature Mature Mature Young Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Mature Mature Semi-mature Mature Live Crown Ratio 85% 85% 55% 80% 60% 50% 65% 80% 45% 65% 65% 70% 80% 60% 60% 75% 85% 60% 70% 60% 85% 80% 45% 75% 55% 55% 60% 65% 80% 85% 60% 50%

TreeID 1097 1098 1113 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1123 1124 1126 1127 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1141 1146 1182 1186 1188 1189 1190 1191 1195 1197 1198 1199 1200

Date 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012

SpCode PIPU PIPU PLAC PLAC GLTR PRSE1 MASO CACA CASP COFL PLAC PLAC ACSA1 QUPA QUPA QUPA CACA QUPA QUPA GLTR PIST CACA QUPA PODE PLAC PLAC PLAC QUPA QUPA PIST QUPA QUPA

Results of the CornellNYC Tech Project Tree Survey (Selected Data)

Botanic Prunus serotina Pinus strobus Catalpa bignonioides Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Quercus rubra Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Ginkgo biloba Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus palustris Crataegus crus-galli Quercus rubra Ailanthus altissima Morus alba Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Crataegus species Pyrus calleryana Liquidambar styraciflua Liquidambar styraciflua Malus species Crataegus species Pinus strobus Roosevelt Island Tree Survey Genus Height Spread Prunus 35 60 Pinus 25 30 Catalpa 25 45 Quercus 40 40 Quercus 45 40 Liquidambar 55 20 Quercus 40 55 Quercus 45 45 Quercus 40 40 Quercus 45 40 Quercus 40 40 Quercus 40 40 Quercus 35 30 Quercus 55 70 Quercus 45 50 Ginkgo 35 18 Liquidambar 50 50 Quercus 45 65 Crataegus 12 20 Quercus 55 60 Ailanthus 40 40 Morus 35 60 Quercus 35 35 Quercus 40 45 Quercus 50 55 Crataegus 25 20 Pyrus 14 14 Liquidambar 50 30 Liquidambar 45 55 Malus 10 30 Crataegus 15 16 Pinus 35 35 DBH 27.5 15.8 19.8 21.3 32.0 12.2 23.7 31.0 24.5 20.5 23.8 20.8 15.5 29.7 27.0 16.8 20.0 26.2 10.2 24.0 16.5 26.1 17.9 21.6 26.0 12.6 4.2 23.2 24.4 20.0 10.6 15.7 Age Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Mature Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Mature Declining Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Mature Young Mature Mature Mature Mature Semi-mature Live Crown Ratio 65% 90% 80% 70% 60% 70% 65% 65% 55% 60% 55% 50% 40% 50% 60% 35% 70% 65% 10% 45% 35% 80% 60% 60% 65% 55% 80% 60% 60% 65% 75% 80%

TreeID 1201 1216 1217 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1261 1262 1263 1288 1289 1291 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1299 1300 1301 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312

Date 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012

SpCode PRSE1 PIST CABI QUPA QUPA LIST QUPA QUPA QURU QURU QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA GIBI LIST QUPA CRCR QURU AIAL MOAL QUPA QUPA QUPA CR PYCA LIST LIST MA2 CR PIST

Results of the CornellNYC Tech Project Tree Survey (Selected Data)

Botanic Acer pensylvanicum Pinus nigra Pinus nigra Gleditsia triacanthos Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Quercus palustris Pyrus calleryana Acer pensylvanicum Acer pensylvanicum Malus species Pinus strobus Pinus strobus Pinus nigra Pinus nigra Quercus palustris Quercus palustris 60% 60% 55% 65% 60% 75% 80% 85% 75% 75% 70% 75% 60% 60% Roosevelt Island Tree Survey Genus Height Spread Acer 15 15 Pinus 30 25 Pinus 35 30 Gleditsia 30 35 Quercus 50 65 Quercus 50 45 Quercus 45 30 Quercus 40 25 Quercus 40 35 Pyrus 15 20 Acer 15 20 Acer 18 22 Malus 10 12 Pinus 30 18 Pinus 30 16 Pinus 20 12 Pinus 12 9 Quercus 40 40 Quercus 45 35 DBH 15.9 12.8 15.6 19.2 35.6 17.8 21.0 16.7 22.5 7.8 11.0 12.6 6.2 9.0 8.5 6.3 4.5 26.2 25.2 Age Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Semi-mature Young Young Young Young Young Mature Semi-mature Live Crown Ratio 80% 70% 70% 60%

TreeID 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1401 1402 1403 1405

Date 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012 3/6/2012

SpCode ACPE PINI PINI GLTR QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA QUPA PYCA ACPE ACPE MA2 PIST PIST PINI PINI QUPA QUPA

Appendix 10 Hazardous Materials

Appendix 11 Water and Sewer Infrastructure

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Cornell'NYC'Tech' Analysis'of'Roosevelt'Island'South'Pump'Station'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' March'2013' ' ' ' ' Philip'Habib'&'Associates' 102'Madison'Avenue' New'York,'NY''10016'

Cornell'NYC'Tech' Analysis'of'Roosevelt'Island'South'Pump'Station' ! ! 1.0 ''Introduction' ! The!South!Pump!Station!analysis!is!being!conducted!to!confirm!the!pump!stations! existing!capacity,!based!upon!the!available!reference!information,!and!evaluate!its! ability!to!handle!the!projected!flows!from!the!proposed!Cornell!NYC!Tech! development.! ! Due!to!the!location!and!topography!of!Roosevelt!Island,!the!sanitary!sewer! collection!system!is!divided!into!three!drainage!areas!which!each!discharge!to!a! separate!pump!station.!!The!North!Pump!Station!receives!flow!from!the!Coler! Hospital!area.!!The!South!Pump!Station!receives!flow!from!all!buildings!south!of!the! Queensboro!Bridge.!!The!sanitary!flow!from!the!buildings!in!the!center!of!the!island! goes!to!the!Main!Pump!Station,!along!with!the!pumped!flows!from!the!North!and! South!Pump!Stations.!!All!sanitary!flow!from!the!island!is!then!pumped!from!the! Main!Pump!Station!to!the!interceptor!sewer!in!Vernon!Boulevard!in!Queens,!via!a! 20!subOaqueous!force!main.!The!Vernon!Boulevard!interceptor!sewer!discharges!to! the!Bowery!Bay!treatment!plant.! ! This!analysis!evaluates!the!only!the!South!Pump!Station!as!this!facility!will!be! handling!all!flow!from!the!proposed!development,!along!with!minimal!existing!flows! from!the!Sportspark!and!Tram!area.! ! 2.0 ''Methodology' ! Record!data!on!the!South!Pump!Station!was!provided!by!NYCDEP,!including!number! and!type!of!pump,!station!capacity,!daily!average!run!time!and!electrical!service.!! This!information!is!summarized!below!and!included!in!Appendix!1.!!Construction! drawings!of!the!South!Pump!Station!are!also!included!in!Appendix!1.!! ! Table'1'D''South'Pump'Station'Data' ! ! South'Pump'Station' Manufacturer! Yeomans! Model! 9100O6165! Number!of!pumps! two! Motor!Horsepower! 25!HP! Motor!RPM! 1160! Performance!characteristics! 875!GPM!@!57!TDH! Description! NonOclog!submersible!pumps! ! !

1!

In!order!to!determine!if!the!existing!South!Pump!Station!can!handle!the!flows!from! the!proposed!Cornell!NYC!Tech!development,!the!sanitary!flows!from!the!proposed! project!were!estimated!using!CEQR!generation!rates.!The!CEQR!rates!produce!a! conservative!estimate!of!the!sanitary!flow!based!upon!the!Reasonable!WorstOCase! Development!program!shown!below!in!Table!2.! ! Table'2'D'Reasonable'WorstDCast'Development'Program'for'CEQR'

Phase I: 2018 Use Academic Residential Housing (Total) (2) Faculty Housing Student Housing Residential Total Corporate Co-Location Executive Education Center (3) Utility Plant Parking Total (4) 790,000 300,000 100,000 170,000 20,000 250 1,340,000 104 338 442 N/A 225 500,000 400,000 0 20,000 142 510 652 N/A N/A N/A 250 2,130,000 800,000 500,000 170,000 40,000 500 246 848 1,094 N/A 225 Gross Square Footage 200,000 Units/ Rooms/ Spaces N/A Phase 2: 2038 Gross Square Footage 420,000 Units/ Rooms/ Spaces N/A Full Build (Phase 1 and 2) Gross Square Footage 620,000 Units/ Rooms/ Spaces N/A

'' '' '' '' '' '' Notes:' (1) Under the agreement between the City of New York and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Cornell is obligated to build no less than 300,000 sf of building, of which at least 200,000 sf shall be academic space by June 30, 2017; by 2037, Cornell is obligated to build a minimum of 1,800,000 sf of total building space of which a minimum of 620,000 sf must be academic use. RWCDS conservatively accounts for likely maximum program and population by phase.
(2) Residential units would be the same size but could be occupied differently (e.g., a faculty family may occupy a multi-bedroom unit while such units may also be rented by unrelated students without facility as two or three shares). (3) Conference facilities would occupy approximately 25,000 gsf of the 170,000 gsf Executive Education Center. (4) It is anticipated that for analysis purposes up to approximately 25,000 gsf of campus-oriented retail could be included on the site (e.g., caf, a restaurant, newsstand, bookstore, ect.).

! ! ! As!the!sanitary!sewage!from!all!facilities!south!of!the!Tram!goes!to!the!South!Pump! Station,!the!flow!estimates!for!the!Sportspark,!the!tennis!bubble,!the!steam!plant!and! the!tram,!which!were!developed!by!AKRF!for!the!2011!Due!Diligence!Report,!were! used!in!the!analysis.! ! The!sanitary!flow!calculations!for!Phase!1!and!Full!Build!of!Cornell!NYC!Tech!are! summarized!in!Table!3.!!The!detailed!calculations!are!included!in!Appendix!2.! ! Table'3''Summary'of'Flow'to'South'Pump'Station' ! Development'Stage' Flow'to'South'Pump'Station'(gpm)' Phase!1! 225! Full!Build! 531!

2!

3.0 '''Results' ! Using!the!pump!information!provided!by!NYCDEP!and!pump!data!provided!by! Yeomans!Pump,!the!pumping!capability!of!the!South!Pump!Station!was!analyzed.! The!system!curve!was!developed!for!the!pump!station!based!on!length!of!pipe!run! and!head!losses,!and!the!operating!point!was!determined!(see!Appendix!3).!!As! shown!on!the!pump!curve,!the!operating!point!is!770!gpm.!!The!flows!and!capacity! by!development!phase!are!summarized!in!Table!4!below.! ! Table'4'South'Pump'Station'Flow'Comparison' ' Development'Stage' Sanitary'Flow'Rate' Pump'Operation'Point' (gpm)' (gpm)' Phase!1! 225! 770! Full!Build! 531! 770! ! Based!upon!this!operating!point!of!770!gpm,!the!existing!pumps!in!the!South!Pump! Station!are!sufficient!to!handle!the!sanitary!flows!from!Phase!1!and!the!Full!Build! Cornell!NYC!Tech!development.! ! The!Phase!1!flows!(225!gpm)!are!very!comparable!to!existing!flows!from!Goldwater! Hospital!and!therefore!well!within!the!capacity!of!the!pump!station.!!Although!the! estimated!flows!from!the!Full!Build!project,!at!531!gpm,!are!below!the!pump! operation!point!of!770!gpm,!NYCDEP!has!determined!that,!at!that!flow!level,!pump! operation!would!be!compromised!and!an!additional!pump!would!likely!be!needed! for!redundancy.!Therefore,!when!design!begins!for!the!final!phase!of!the!project,! NYCDEP!will!be!consulted!to!determine!if!upgrades!are!needed!at!the!South!Pump! Station.! !

3!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Cornell'NYC'Tech' Analysis'of'Vernon'Boulevard'Interceptor'Sewer'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' March'2013' ' ' ' ' Philip'Habib'&'Associates' 102'Madison'Avenue' New'York,'NY''10016'

Cornell'NYC'Tech' Analysis'of'Vernon'Boulevard'Interceptor'Sewer' ! ! 1.0 ''Introduction' ! The!sanitary!sewer!collection!system!on!Roosevelt!Island!is!divided!into!three! drainage!areas!which!each!discharge!to!a!separate!pump!station.!!The!North!Pump! Station!receives!flow!from!the!Coler!Hospital!area.!!The!South!Pump!Station!receives! flow!from!all!buildings!south!of!the!Queensboro!Bridge.!!The!sanitary!flow!from!the! buildings!in!the!center!of!the!island!goes!to!the!Main!Pump!Station,!along!with!the! pumped!flows!from!the!North!and!South!Pump!Stations.!!All!sanitary!flow!from!the! island!is!then!pumped!from!the!Main!Pump!Station!to!the!interceptor!sewer!in! Vernon!Boulevard!in!Queens,!via!a!20!subJaqueous!force!main!which!discharges!in! 35th!Street.!The!Vernon!Boulevard!interceptor!sewer!discharges!to!the!Bowery!Bay! treatment!plant.! ! The!flow!levels!in!the!Vernon!Boulevard!interceptor!sewer!were!monitored!for!a! week!in!January!2013!to!measure!the!dry!weather!flow!and!evaluate!its!ability!to! handle!the!projected!flows!from!the!proposed!Cornell!NYC!Tech!development.!!As! the!Full!Build!year!for!Cornell!NYC!Tech!is!2038,!the!analysis!also!includes!estimated! sanitary!flows!from!two!large!development!projects!currently!in!the!planning! stages:!!Astoria!Cove!and!Halletts!Point.! ! 2.0 ''Methodology' ! The!proposed!monitoring!plan!and!preferred!manhole!locations!for!meter! installation!were!developed!in!consultation!with!NYCDEP.!!Alternate!manhole! locations!were!also!selected,!in!the!event!of!access!or!installation!problems!at!the! primary!sites.!Manholes!at!the!three!locations!below!were!chosen!as!the!primary! sites!for!the!installation!of!flow!meters:! ! 1. 35th!Street!and!Vernon!Boulevard! 2. 37th!Avenue!and!Vernon!Boulevard! 3. Astoria!Park!South!and!18th!Street!! ! These!locations!were!selected!to!provide!data!on!existing!flow!levels!both! downstream!and!upstream!of!the!connection!from!Roosevelt!Island,!with!an! additional!downstream!location!to!capture!flow!data!below!the!Astoria!Cove!and! Halletts!Point!sites.! ! Savin!Engineers!P.C.!was!retained!to!install!flow!meters!at!the!three!locations!and! take!measurements!every!15!minutes!for!a!continuous!period!of!one!week.! ! ! ! ! 1!

3.0 ''Meter'Installation' ! NYCDEP!granted!approval!of!the!proposed!monitoring!plan!on!January!8,!2013.! Savin!personnel!began!the!installation!on!Tuesday,!January!15,!2013.!!They!were! unable!to!install!the!flow!meter!at!the!Astoria!Park!South!/!18th!Street!manhole!due! to!surcharging!at!that!manhole.!!Subsequent!investigation!by!NYCDEP!found!the! flow!at!normal!levels!and!determined!that!the!surcharged!conditions!on!1/15/13! were!due!to!operations!at!the!plant.! ! Savin!completed!the!installation!on!Tuesday!January!22,!2013.!Due!to!access!issues! at!two!of!the!primary!sites,!the!flow!meters!were!installed!at!the!following!locations:! ! 1. 41st!Avenue!and!Vernon!Boulevard! 2. 35th!Street!and!Vernon!Boulevard! 3. 19th!Street!and!23rd!Terrace! ! The!locations!are!shown!on!Figure!1.!The!interceptor!sewer!has!a!66!diameter!at! 41st!Avenue/Vernon!Boulevard;!an!84!diameter!at!35th!Street/Vernon!Boulevard;! and!a!96!diameter!at!19th!Street/!23rd!Terrace.!! ! The!flow!monitors!were!in!place!from!January!22,!2013!until!January!29,!2013.!! Flow!monitors!were!ISCO!Model!2150,!which!measured!depth!of!flow!and!average! velocity!at!15Jminute!intervals.! ! 4.0 '''Monitoring'Results' ! !Savins!Field!Work!Summary!Report!is!attached!in!Appendix!1,!followed!by!the! spreadsheet!data!from!each!flow!monitor.!Flows!were!generally!consistent!over!the! period,!with!the!exception!of!a!spike!on!January!28,!2013!at!all!three!locations.!!The! flow!rates!reverted!to!prior!stable!levels!at!Vernon!Boulevard/41st!Street!and!at! Vernon!Boulevard/35th!Street!within!a!few!hours,!however!higher!flow!rates! continued!for!almost!12!hours!at!19th!Street/23rd!Terrace.!NYCDEP!provided!the! plant!flow!sheets!for!the!period!of!January!22,!2013!January!31,!2013.!!This!data,! which!is!included!in!Appendix!2,!shows!elevated!flow!levels!on!the!afternoon!and! evening!of!January!28!which!are!consistent!with!Savins!results.! ! The!NOAA!records!for!rainfall!at!LaGuardia!Airport!(included!in!Appendix!!3)!show! that!only!0.22!inches!of!rain!fell!over!a!12Jhour!period!on!January!28,!2013.!!Based! upon!consultation!with!NYCDEP!personnel,!it!was!concluded!that!the!spike!in!flows! was!likely!due!to!a!localized!heavy!downpour.! ! Table!1!below!summarizes!the!average!daily!flows!at!each!location.!!The!Table!1! data!differs!from!the!summary!information!in!Savins!Field!Work!Summary!Report,! as!the!negative!values!were!not!included!in!the!computations!for!Table!1.!Savins! raw!data!includes!some!negative!values!for!velocity!and!computed!flow!which!skew! the!average!data!in!their!summary.! ! 2!

19th St./23rd Terr.

Vernon Bl./35th St.

Vernon Bl./41st Ave.

Philip Habib & Associates 102 Madison Avenue

Engineers and Planners New York, NY 10016

FIGURE 1 MONITORING LOCATIONS

Table'1''Daily'Average'Flow'Rates
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

' The!daily!average!flows!were!then!averaged!to!determine!the!average!daily!flow!for! the!monitored!period.!!For!Vernon!Boulevard!at!41st!Street,!the!average!daily!flow! over!the!period!in!the!66!interceptor!is!3.819!mgd.!!The!average!daily!flow!in!the! 84!interceptor!sewer!at!Vernon!Boulevard/35th!Street!is!8.464!mgd.!The!96! interceptor!sewer!at!19th!Street/23rd!Terrace!has!an!average!daily!flow!of!24.395! mgd.!!! ! 5.0 ''Projected'Impacts'on'the'Interceptor' ! The!sanitary!flow!calculations!for!Phase!1!(2017)!and!Full!Build!(2038)!of!Cornell! NYC!Tech!are!detailed!in!Appendix!4!and!summarized!in!Table!2!below.!As!the!2038! Cornell!NYC!Tech!Full!Build!year!is!later!than!the!build!year!for!the!Astoria!Cove! project!and!the!Halletts!Point!project,!sanitary!flow!estimates!were!also!developed! for!these!projects!in!order!to!assess!the!cumulative!effects!on!the!interceptor!sewer! downstream!of!all!three!development!projects.!!The!sanitary!flow!estimates!for! Astoria!Cove!and!Halletts!Point!are!also!included!in!Appendix!4!and!summarized!in! Table!2.! ! ! Table'2''Sanitary'Flow'Rates' ' Project/' Sanitary'Flow'Rate' Sanitary'Flow'Rate' Development'Stage' (gpm)' '(mgd)' Cornell!Phase!1! 225! 0.324! Cornell!Full!Build! 531! 0.765! Astoria!&!Halletts! 731! 1.053! 2038!Full!Build! 1262! 1.818! ! ! The!35th!Street/Vernon!Boulevard!manhole!will!process!flows!from!Cornell!NYC! Tech,!while!the!19th!Street/23rd!Terrace!manhole!will!ultimately!process!flows!from! Cornell!NYC!Tech!as!well!as!Astoria!Cove!and!Hallets!Point.!Table!3!shows!the!

3!

current!and!2038!average!daily!flows!at!the!Vernon!Boulevard/35th!Street!and!19th! Street/23rd!Terrace!manholes.! ! ! Table'3''Post'Development'Sanitary'Flow'Rates' ' Location' Current'Average' 2038'Full'Build' Flow'Rate'(mgd)' Average'Flow'Rate(mgd)' Vernon!Blvd./35th!Street! 8.428! 9.193! th rd 19 !Street/23 !Terrace! 24.395! 26.213! ! The!estimated!average!flow!rate!of!9.193!mgd!at!Vernon!Blvd./35th!Street!is!well! within!the!range!of!flow!levels!documented!during!the!flow!monitoring!for!typical! periods.!The!level!of!flow!for!this!flow!rate!was!in!the!range!of!32!inches!to!35!inches! in!the!84!inch!diameter!interceptor!sewer.!!! ! The!estimated!average!flow!rate!of!26.213!mgd!at!19th!Street/23rd!Terrace! corresponds!to!documented!flow!levels!ranging!from!37!inches!to!40!inches!in!the! 96!diameter!interceptor!sewer!for!typical!periods!during!the!monitoring!period.!! ! Therefore,!based!upon!the!flow!monitoring!data,!the!interceptor!sewer!has!adequate! capacity!to!handle!the!projected!flows!from!Cornell!NYC!Tech!in!the!2038!Full!Build! year.! ! !

4!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Appendix(1(
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( (

REPORT
PHILIP HABIB & ASSOCIATES CORNELL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT ROOSEVELT ISLAND SEWER SYSTEM FLOW MONITORING

FIELD WORK SUMMARY

Prepared by SAVIN ENGINEERS, P.C.

FEBRUARY 2013

PHILIP HABIB & ASSOCIATES CORNELL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT ROOSEVELT ISLAND SEWER SYSTEM FLOW MONITORING TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. Introduction Flow Monitoring

List of Attachments Attachment 1 - Field Map Attachment 2 - Flow Meter Hydrographs Attachment 3 - Daily Average Flow Tables Attachment 4 - Flow Monitor Site Sheets

PHILIP HABIB & ASSOCIATES CORNELL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT ROOSEVELT ISLAND SEWER SYSTEM FLOW MONITORING I. INTRODUCTION

The Cornell University Campus is considering a development on Roosevelt Island in New York City. As part of the planning process, the University is conducting an evaluation of the flow of sewage from the development and the potential impact on the existing New York City sewer system. Savin Engineers conducted flow monitoring in the interceptor sewer along Vernon Boulevard in Queens to determine depth of flow in the interceptor under dry weather conditions. The flow monitoring took place during the period of January 22 through January 29, 2013.

II.

FLOW MONITORING

A total of three flow monitors were installed and maintained in the interceptor sewer for one week during the period from January 22 through January 29, 2013. The table below lists the flow monitor designation, the locations where the monitors were installed, and installation date.

Meter No. 1 2 3

Installation Location 19th St. & 23rd Terr. Vernon Blvd. & 35th Ave. Vernon Blvd. & 41st Ave.

Installation Date January 21, 2013 January 22, 2013 January 22, 2013

The monitors were ISCO Model 2150 and recorded depth and velocity at 15-minute intervals. Flow rate was calculated from the continuity equation based on the depth and velocity readings and the configuration and size of the sewer. Depth was measured by a pressure transducer. Average velocity was measured by a Doppler ultrasonic transducer.

The maps detailing locations of each of the three meters can be found in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 contains the hydrograph for each meter during the entire metering period. The graphs are based on hourly averages. Attachment 3 contains daily average flow for each meter, presented in tabular form.

Attachment 4 includes the flow monitor site sheet for each monitor. The site sheet provides the location of the monitor and details of the installation and servicing throughout the monitoring period.

Subsequent to the rainfall that occurred on January 28, the probe at meter Site 3 apparently became fouled. The level data continued to record properly, but the fouling of the probe interfered with proper collection of the velocity data. The velocity data at Site 3, and therefore the calculated flow rate, is not reliable after the storm event on January 28, 2013.

ATTACHMENT 1 FIELD MAPS

ATTACHMENT 2 FLOW METER HYDROGRAPHS

ATTACHMENT 3 DAILY AVERAGE FLOW TABLES

Philib Habib & Associates Cornell University Campus Development Roosevelt Island Sewer System Flow Monitoring Daily Average Flow Rates Site Name Label Units 1/22/2013 1/23/2013 1/24/2013 1/25/2013 1/26/2013 1/27/2013 1/28/2013 1/29/2013 19th St. and 23rd Terr. Flow Rate Level Velocity mgd in ft/s 12.456 20.027 1.801 11.907 35.711 0.982 13.08 35.934 1.083 12.998 44.577 0.679 21.457 56.37 1.179 18.362 58.901 0.805 26.585 73.436 1.081 28.394 80.807 1.027

Page 1 of 1

Philib Habib & Associates Cornell University Campus Development Roosevelt Island Sewer System Flow Monitoring Daily Average Flow Rates Site Name Label Units 1/22/2013 1/23/2013 1/24/2013 1/25/2013 1/26/2013 1/27/2013 1/28/2013 1/29/2013 Vernon Blvd. and 35th Ave. Flow Rate Level Velocity mgd in ft/s 8.052 32.288 0.847 7.308 32.28 0.752 7.224 32.153 0.744 7.667 32.258 0.79 7.777 32.507 0.797 6.948 32.596 0.7 12.894 43.449 0.943 9.551 36.154 0.833

Page 1 of 1

Philib Habib & Associates Cornell University Campus Development Roosevelt Island Sewer System Flow Monitoring Daily Average Flow Rates Site Name Label Units 1/22/2013 1/23/2013 1/24/2013 1/25/2013 1/26/2013 1/27/2013 1/28/2013 1/29/2013 Vernon Boulevard at 41st. Avenue Flow Rate Level Velocity mgd in ft/s 2.029 10.293 0.632 3.152 17.797 0.922 3.273 18.169 0.934 3.288 18.239 0.944 2.783 18.316 0.796 3.042 18.373 0.858 5.311 26.855 1.116 1.967 19.636 0.623

Page 1 of 1

ATTACHMENT 4 FLOW MONITOR SITE SHEETS

SAVIN ENGINEERS, P.C. FLOW MONITOR SITE SHEET

PROJECT No. DATE: 01/22/13 TIME: INSTALLER: RT JP LOGGER No. 208C01529 PROBE No. 208C01062 BATTERY TYPE: Lantern 10:30

Cornell NYC ENGINEER: PHILIB HABIB & ASSOCIATES OWNER: NYCDEP SITE NAME: 1 M.H. No. NA MH DEPTH: PIPE SIZE 96 TYPE: Con

PROJECT

SITE CONDITIONS: DEPOSITION: NONE: 0 INVERT CONDITION: Smooth: X PROBE MOUNTED: On Invert: ACTUAL PROBE OFFSET: 31 COMMENTS: 19th St. and 23rd Terr. INCHES: Rough:_____In-Between Side of Pipe: X INCHES

SUBSEQUENT SITE VISIT INFORMATION: COMMENTS Installed archived

DATE

TIME

01/22/13 02/04/13

11:30 16:30

MANUAL DEPTH 36.50 40

MANUAL LOGGER LOGGER VEL DEPTH VEL 2.0 36.559 2.18 2 40.362 1.989

FOULING CALIBRATION BATTERY DESICCANT OFFSET VOLTAGE 12.7 OK 12.2 OK

CREW CHIEF RT RT

SAVIN ENGINEERS, P.C. FLOW MONITOR SITE SHEET

PROJECT No. DATE: 01/21/13 TIME: INSTALLER: RT JP LOGGER No. 209M01096 PROBE No. 210B01538 BATTERY TYPE: Lantern SITE CONDITIONS: DEPOSITION: NONE: 0 INCHES: INVERT CONDITION: Smooth: X Rough:_____In-Between PROBE MOUNTED: On Invert: Side of Pipe: X ACTUAL PROBE OFFSET: 28 INCHES COMMENTS: Vernon Blvd. and 35th Ave. 12:00

Cornell NYC ENGINEER: PHILIB HABIB & ASSOCIATES OWNER: NYCDEP SITE NAME: 2 M.H. No. NA MH DEPTH: PIPE SIZE 84 TYPE: Con

PROJECT

SUBSEQUENT SITE VISIT INFORMATION: COMMENTS Installed Archived

DATE

TIME

01/21/13 02/04/13

13:45 11:00

MANUAL DEPTH 34.25 34.79

MANUAL LOGGER LOGGER VEL DEPTH VEL 1.0 34.276 0.63 1.0 35.000 0.57

FOULING CALIBRATION BATTERY DESICCANT OFFSET VOLTAGE 11.1 OK 11.1 OK

CREW CHIEF RT RT

SAVIN ENGINEERS, P.C. FLOW MONITOR SITE SHEET

PROJECT No. DATE: 01/22/13 TIME: INSTALLER: RT JP LOGGER No. 209M01096 PROBE No. 210B01538 BATTERY TYPE: Lantern 8:00

Cornell NYC ENGINEER: PHILIB HABIB & ASSOCIATES OWNER: NYCDEP SITE NAME: 3 M.H. No. NA MH DEPTH: PIPE SIZE 66 TYPE: Con

PROJECT

SITE CONDITIONS: DEPOSITION: NONE: INVERT CONDITION: Smooth: PROBE MOUNTED: On Invert: ACTUAL PROBE OFFSET: 0 X 12 INCHES: Rough:_____In-Between Side of Pipe: X INCHES COMMENTS:

Vernon Boulevard at 41 st Avenue

SUBSEQUENT SITE VISIT INFORMATION: COMMENTS Installed Archived

DATE

TIME

01/22/13 02/04/13

10:00 11:20

MANUAL DEPTH 17.25 21.00

MANUAL LOGGER LOGGER VEL DEPTH VEL 1.0 17.350 1.08 1.6 20.639 -0.87

FOULING CALIBRATION BATTERY DESICCANT OFFSET VOLTAGE 12.2 OK 11.8 OK

CREW CHIEF RT RT

Site%Name Label Units 1/22/13%9:30 1/22/13%9:45 1/22/13%10:00 1/22/13%10:15 1/22/13%10:30 1/22/13%10:45 1/22/13%11:00 1/22/13%11:15 1/22/13%11:30 1/22/13%11:45 1/22/13%12:00 1/22/13%12:15 1/22/13%12:30 1/22/13%12:45 1/22/13%13:00 1/22/13%13:15 1/22/13%13:30 1/22/13%13:45 1/22/13%14:00 1/22/13%14:15 1/22/13%14:30 1/22/13%14:45 1/22/13%15:00 1/22/13%15:15 1/22/13%15:30 1/22/13%15:45 1/22/13%16:00 1/22/13%16:15 1/22/13%16:30 1/22/13%16:45 1/22/13%17:00 1/22/13%17:15 1/22/13%17:30 1/22/13%17:45 1/22/13%18:00 1/22/13%18:15 1/22/13%18:30 1/22/13%18:45 1/22/13%19:00 1/22/13%19:15 1/22/13%19:30 1/22/13%19:45 1/22/13%20:00 1/22/13%20:15 1/22/13%20:30

Vernon%Boulevard%at%41st.%Avenue Flow%Rate Level Velocity mgd in ft/s 0 A0.158 0.002 0.109 0.661 0.206 2.664 17.451 1.159 3.915 16.985 1.252 3.682 16.993 1.177 4.278 16.511 1.424 3.57 16.899 1.15 3.201 16.743 1.045 3.073 17 0.982 3.474 16.858 1.123 2.897 17.079 0.919 3.242 16.619 1.069 3.19 16.811 1.035 3.017 16.94 0.968 3.445 17.014 1.099 3.377 17.139 1.066 3.078 17.31 0.958 3.316 17.236 1.039 3.413 17.326 1.061 2.924 17.305 0.911 3.371 17.168 1.062 3.836 16.86 1.239 3.587 17.558 1.095 2.958 17.385 0.915 3.465 17.337 1.077 4.239 17.489 1.301 3.346 17.568 1.02 3.389 17.224 1.063 2.78 17.514 0.852 3.65 17.48 1.121 2.967 17.7 0.895 2.969 17.455 0.914 3.777 17.645 1.145 3.7 17.519 1.133 3.788 18.007 1.116 3.287 17.775 0.986 3.902 17.871 1.162 2.997 17.838 0.895 3.244 17.87 0.966 3.207 17.771 0.962 3.477 17.779 1.043 3.204 17.947 0.948 3.055 17.351 0.948 3.309 17.526 1.013 3.429 17.957 1.014

1/22/13%20:45 1/22/13%21:00 1/22/13%21:15 1/22/13%21:30 1/22/13%21:45 1/22/13%22:00 1/22/13%22:15 1/22/13%22:30 1/22/13%22:45 1/22/13%23:00 1/22/13%23:15 1/22/13%23:30 1/22/13%23:45 1/23/13%0:00 1/23/13%0:15 1/23/13%0:30 1/23/13%0:45 1/23/13%1:00 1/23/13%1:15 1/23/13%1:30 1/23/13%1:45 1/23/13%2:00 1/23/13%2:15 1/23/13%2:30 1/23/13%2:45 1/23/13%3:00 1/23/13%3:15 1/23/13%3:30 1/23/13%3:45 1/23/13%4:00 1/23/13%4:15 1/23/13%4:30 1/23/13%4:45 1/23/13%5:00 1/23/13%5:15 1/23/13%5:30 1/23/13%5:45 1/23/13%6:00 1/23/13%6:15 1/23/13%6:30 1/23/13%6:45 1/23/13%7:00 1/23/13%7:15 1/23/13%7:30 1/23/13%7:45 1/23/13%8:00 1/23/13%8:15 1/23/13%8:30

3.545 3.563 3.422 3.688 4.065 4.01 3.65 3.844 3.571 3.697 3.241 3.195 2.9 3.56 4.256 2.564 2.626 3.298 2.695 2.683 2.482 2.224 2.687 2.309 2.971 1.929 2.673 2.147 2.525 2.875 2.323 2.509 2.099 2.513 2.582 2.215 A2.703 2.269 2.459 1.975 2.445 2.739 A2.143 A2.7 A2.904 3.439 3.869 4.017

17.994 18.135 18.168 17.876 17.899 17.911 17.634 17.834 17.58 17.23 17.427 17.556 17.258 17.111 16.956 16.687 16.6 16.218 16.232 15.788 15.773 15.926 15.374 15.455 15.351 15.075 14.795 14.8 14.933 14.88 14.683 14.615 14.437 14.628 14.702 14.575 13.352 14.57 14.882 15.094 15.47 15.796 16.039 16.64 17.529 18.237 18.769 19.279

1.045 1.039 0.996 1.098 1.208 1.19 1.107 1.148 1.088 1.159 1 0.975 0.907 1.127 1.364 0.841 0.867 1.126 0.919 0.951 0.881 0.779 0.989 0.844 1.096 0.73 1.039 0.834 0.969 1.108 0.913 0.993 0.845 0.993 1.013 0.88 A1.216 0.901 0.948 0.746 0.892 0.97 A0.743 A0.889 A0.889 0.995 1.076 1.076

1/23/13%8:45 1/23/13%9:00 1/23/13%9:15 1/23/13%9:30 1/23/13%9:45 1/23/13%10:00 1/23/13%10:15 1/23/13%10:30 1/23/13%10:45 1/23/13%11:00 1/23/13%11:15 1/23/13%11:30 1/23/13%11:45 1/23/13%12:00 1/23/13%12:15 1/23/13%12:30 1/23/13%12:45 1/23/13%13:00 1/23/13%13:15 1/23/13%13:30 1/23/13%13:45 1/23/13%14:00 1/23/13%14:15 1/23/13%14:30 1/23/13%14:45 1/23/13%15:00 1/23/13%15:15 1/23/13%15:30 1/23/13%15:45 1/23/13%16:00 1/23/13%16:15 1/23/13%16:30 1/23/13%16:45 1/23/13%17:00 1/23/13%17:15 1/23/13%17:30 1/23/13%17:45 1/23/13%18:00 1/23/13%18:15 1/23/13%18:30 1/23/13%18:45 1/23/13%19:00 1/23/13%19:15 1/23/13%19:30 1/23/13%19:45 1/23/13%20:00 1/23/13%20:15 1/23/13%20:30

4.519 4.129 4.144 4.191 4.45 4.311 3.73 3.414 3.96 3.937 4.239 3.793 3.439 3.505 3.662 3.848 3.753 3.644 4.375 3.239 4.52 3.732 3.574 3.567 4.155 3.723 3.689 3.754 3.448 4.155 4.674 3.613 3.702 3.292 3.774 3.708 3.784 3.626 3.638 4.115 4.06 3.467 2.886 3.719 4.747 3.001 3.599 4.487

19.489 19.583 19.421 19.428 19.812 19.681 19.143 19.266 18.863 18.768 18.746 18.587 18.517 18.6 18.674 18.912 18.649 18.473 19.202 18.614 18.75 19.028 18.683 18.515 18.795 18.716 18.677 18.697 18.65 18.83 19.123 19.115 18.536 19.023 19.031 18.961 19.24 19.134 19.18 19.218 19.032 19.032 19.264 19.256 19.136 19.403 19.473 19.265

1.192 1.082 1.099 1.111 1.148 1.122 1.009 0.915 1.093 1.095 1.181 1.069 0.974 0.987 1.025 1.059 1.053 1.036 1.178 0.911 1.259 1.018 1 1.011 1.153 1.039 1.033 1.049 0.967 1.15 1.266 0.979 1.047 0.898 1.029 1.016 1.016 0.981 0.981 1.107 1.107 0.946 0.774 0.998 1.285 0.797 0.951 1.203

1/23/13%20:45 1/23/13%21:00 1/23/13%21:15 1/23/13%21:30 1/23/13%21:45 1/23/13%22:00 1/23/13%22:15 1/23/13%22:30 1/23/13%22:45 1/23/13%23:00 1/23/13%23:15 1/23/13%23:30 1/23/13%23:45 1/24/13%0:00 1/24/13%0:15 1/24/13%0:30 1/24/13%0:45 1/24/13%1:00 1/24/13%1:15 1/24/13%1:30 1/24/13%1:45 1/24/13%2:00 1/24/13%2:15 1/24/13%2:30 1/24/13%2:45 1/24/13%3:00 1/24/13%3:15 1/24/13%3:30 1/24/13%3:45 1/24/13%4:00 1/24/13%4:15 1/24/13%4:30 1/24/13%4:45 1/24/13%5:00 1/24/13%5:15 1/24/13%5:30 1/24/13%5:45 1/24/13%6:00 1/24/13%6:15 1/24/13%6:30 1/24/13%6:45 1/24/13%7:00 1/24/13%7:15 1/24/13%7:30 1/24/13%7:45 1/24/13%8:00 1/24/13%8:15 1/24/13%8:30

A3.327 4.292 3.971 3.979 3.903 3.543 3.036 4.419 4.539 3.839 3.844 3.637 3.931 4.51 3.443 3.371 3.279 3.3 3.417 3.199 2.175 2.926 1.965 2.925 2.502 2.439 2.592 3.251 2.386 2.333 2.717 3.108 2.431 2.946 2.51 1.527 1.819 2.839 2.338 2.52 2.566 A2.334 A2.304 A2.653 A2.883 3.848 4.196 4.002

17.572 19.23 19.287 19.231 19.146 18.935 19.223 18.916 18.862 18.499 18.609 18.351 18.439 17.91 17.784 17.552 17.289 17.183 16.974 16.982 16.737 16.561 16.048 15.941 15.966 15.984 15.895 15.451 15.498 15.525 15.447 15.466 15.254 15.496 15.23 15.192 15.572 15.459 15.041 14.96 16.021 16.205 16.558 16.847 17.424 18.604 19.033 19.598

A1.014 1.154 1.063 1.07 1.056 0.973 0.816 1.215 1.253 1.089 1.082 1.043 1.12 1.339 1.032 1.029 1.023 1.038 1.094 1.023 0.71 0.97 0.681 1.023 0.873 0.85 0.91 1.188 0.868 0.847 0.993 1.134 0.905 1.072 0.936 0.572 0.658 1.037 0.888 0.964 0.891 A0.798 A0.764 A0.858 A0.89 1.083 1.144 1.048

1/24/13%8:45 1/24/13%9:00 1/24/13%9:15 1/24/13%9:30 1/24/13%9:45 1/24/13%10:00 1/24/13%10:15 1/24/13%10:30 1/24/13%10:45 1/24/13%11:00 1/24/13%11:15 1/24/13%11:30 1/24/13%11:45 1/24/13%12:00 1/24/13%12:15 1/24/13%12:30 1/24/13%12:45 1/24/13%13:00 1/24/13%13:15 1/24/13%13:30 1/24/13%13:45 1/24/13%14:00 1/24/13%14:15 1/24/13%14:30 1/24/13%14:45 1/24/13%15:00 1/24/13%15:15 1/24/13%15:30 1/24/13%15:45 1/24/13%16:00 1/24/13%16:15 1/24/13%16:30 1/24/13%16:45 1/24/13%17:00 1/24/13%17:15 1/24/13%17:30 1/24/13%17:45 1/24/13%18:00 1/24/13%18:15 1/24/13%18:30 1/24/13%18:45 1/24/13%19:00 1/24/13%19:15 1/24/13%19:30 1/24/13%19:45 1/24/13%20:00 1/24/13%20:15 1/24/13%20:30

6.556 5.863 5.373 5.122 5.118 6.048 3.872 4.718 5.302 3.843 5.083 3.97 A2.542 4.289 3.886 4.064 4.504 4.397 3.951 3.719 3.977 3.844 4.075 3.887 3.693 3.33 4.032 3.867 3.559 3.608 4.17 4.132 3.804 3.426 3.446 3.848 3.608 3.865 3.369 3.383 3.367 2.995 3.185 4.235 3.554 3.191 3.795 2.746

19.984 19.775 20.313 20.03 20.087 19.965 19.793 19.538 19.411 19.21 19.064 19.258 18.647 19.737 19.745 19.475 19.295 19.397 19.384 18.983 19.133 19.357 19.323 18.986 18.753 18.975 19.037 18.724 18.908 18.816 18.957 18.85 19.171 18.958 18.817 19.233 19.236 19.283 19.025 18.883 19.264 19.209 19.019 19.138 19.22 19.332 18.993 19.366

1.671 1.516 1.338 1.301 1.295 1.543 1 1.24 1.407 1.035 1.383 1.065 A0.713 1.112 1.007 1.073 1.205 1.168 1.05 1.018 1.077 1.024 1.088 1.064 1.028 0.912 1.099 1.079 0.979 1 1.144 1.142 1.027 0.939 0.955 1.034 0.969 1.035 0.919 0.933 0.903 0.806 0.869 1.146 0.956 0.852 1.038 0.731

1/24/13%20:45 1/24/13%21:00 1/24/13%21:15 1/24/13%21:30 1/24/13%21:45 1/24/13%22:00 1/24/13%22:15 1/24/13%22:30 1/24/13%22:45 1/24/13%23:00 1/24/13%23:15 1/24/13%23:30 1/24/13%23:45 1/25/13%0:00 1/25/13%0:15 1/25/13%0:30 1/25/13%0:45 1/25/13%1:00 1/25/13%1:15 1/25/13%1:30 1/25/13%1:45 1/25/13%2:00 1/25/13%2:15 1/25/13%2:30 1/25/13%2:45 1/25/13%3:00 1/25/13%3:15 1/25/13%3:30 1/25/13%3:45 1/25/13%4:00 1/25/13%4:15 1/25/13%4:30 1/25/13%4:45 1/25/13%5:00 1/25/13%5:15 1/25/13%5:30 1/25/13%5:45 1/25/13%6:00 1/25/13%6:15 1/25/13%6:30 1/25/13%6:45 1/25/13%7:00 1/25/13%7:15 1/25/13%7:30 1/25/13%7:45 1/25/13%8:00 1/25/13%8:15 1/25/13%8:30

3.687 3.797 3.016 3.828 4.225 3.085 3.49 3.624 3.552 3.532 3.078 3.078 3.723 4.704 2.932 3.407 2.524 3.621 3.127 3.129 2.924 3.234 2.668 2.935 2.688 3.168 2.28 3.315 2.288 2.813 2.982 2.448 2.74 2.947 2.696 3.003 2.806 2.511 2.604 2.077 2.55 2.545 2.797 A3.153 A2.071 A3.303 A3.516 3.984

19.475 18.894 18.948 18.895 19.038 18.983 18.925 19.078 18.592 18.469 18.33 18.325 18.327 18.082 17.936 17.746 17.636 17.309 16.999 16.904 17.173 16.581 16.448 16.233 15.939 15.411 15.781 15.39 15.45 15.229 15.211 15.374 15.035 15.394 15.222 15.108 15.27 14.77 15.86 15.56 15.644 15.779 16.22 17.226 17.48 18.065 18.889 19.273

0.974 1.046 0.827 1.054 1.152 0.844 0.959 0.985 1.001 1.004 0.885 0.885 1.07 1.378 0.869 1.024 0.766 1.128 0.999 1.007 0.921 1.07 0.893 1.001 0.94 1.162 0.809 1.219 0.837 1.05 1.115 0.901 1.041 1.083 1.006 1.133 1.043 0.979 0.917 0.752 0.916 0.903 0.955 A0.988 A0.636 A0.969 A0.969 1.067

1/25/13%8:45 1/25/13%9:00 1/25/13%9:15 1/25/13%9:30 1/25/13%9:45 1/25/13%10:00 1/25/13%10:15 1/25/13%10:30 1/25/13%10:45 1/25/13%11:00 1/25/13%11:15 1/25/13%11:30 1/25/13%11:45 1/25/13%12:00 1/25/13%12:15 1/25/13%12:30 1/25/13%12:45 1/25/13%13:00 1/25/13%13:15 1/25/13%13:30 1/25/13%13:45 1/25/13%14:00 1/25/13%14:15 1/25/13%14:30 1/25/13%14:45 1/25/13%15:00 1/25/13%15:15 1/25/13%15:30 1/25/13%15:45 1/25/13%16:00 1/25/13%16:15 1/25/13%16:30 1/25/13%16:45 1/25/13%17:00 1/25/13%17:15 1/25/13%17:30 1/25/13%17:45 1/25/13%18:00 1/25/13%18:15 1/25/13%18:30 1/25/13%18:45 1/25/13%19:00 1/25/13%19:15 1/25/13%19:30 1/25/13%19:45 1/25/13%20:00 1/25/13%20:15 1/25/13%20:30

4.296 4.499 6.266 5.861 5.417 4.934 5.038 4.605 4.752 3.498 4.265 3.783 4.034 3.991 3.723 4.251 3.762 3.848 3.452 4.475 3.566 3.563 4.706 3.76 3.711 3.522 3.314 3.985 4.339 3.593 3.632 4.022 3.116 3.433 3.293 3.793 3.603 3.342 3.275 3.6 3.577 4.017 3.53 3.389 3.669 3.568 4.082 3.72

19.78 20.021 19.98 20.442 20.281 19.852 19.961 19.841 19.651 19.875 19.22 19.357 19.303 19.529 19.308 19.413 19.589 19.402 19.293 19.45 19.52 18.942 19.28 19.311 19.273 19.266 19.233 19.333 18.903 18.951 18.85 19.121 18.88 18.937 19.127 19.262 19.08 19.165 19.444 19.302 19.412 19.391 19.205 19.242 19.233 19.096 19.1 19.272

1.11 1.144 1.597 1.447 1.352 1.269 1.286 1.185 1.239 0.898 1.147 1.008 1.079 1.05 0.995 1.128 0.986 1.022 0.924 1.184 0.939 0.978 1.26 1.005 0.994 0.944 0.89 1.063 1.194 0.986 1.004 1.09 0.859 0.943 0.892 1.017 0.979 0.903 0.867 0.963 0.949 1.067 0.95 0.91 0.986 0.969 1.108 0.997

1/25/13%20:45 1/25/13%21:00 1/25/13%21:15 1/25/13%21:30 1/25/13%21:45 1/25/13%22:00 1/25/13%22:15 1/25/13%22:30 1/25/13%22:45 1/25/13%23:00 1/25/13%23:15 1/25/13%23:30 1/25/13%23:45 1/26/13%0:00 1/26/13%0:15 1/26/13%0:30 1/26/13%0:45 1/26/13%1:00 1/26/13%1:15 1/26/13%1:30 1/26/13%1:45 1/26/13%2:00 1/26/13%2:15 1/26/13%2:30 1/26/13%2:45 1/26/13%3:00 1/26/13%3:15 1/26/13%3:30 1/26/13%3:45 1/26/13%4:00 1/26/13%4:15 1/26/13%4:30 1/26/13%4:45 1/26/13%5:00 1/26/13%5:15 1/26/13%5:30 1/26/13%5:45 1/26/13%6:00 1/26/13%6:15 1/26/13%6:30 1/26/13%6:45 1/26/13%7:00 1/26/13%7:15 1/26/13%7:30 1/26/13%7:45 1/26/13%8:00 1/26/13%8:15 1/26/13%8:30

3.157 4.198 3.473 4.035 3.41 4.008 4.003 2.597 3.884 3.325 3.301 3.61 3.698 3.791 3.619 3.051 3.723 3.201 3.016 3.726 3.312 3.089 1.925 3.175 3.188 3.004 2.986 2.327 2.877 2.798 3.067 2.368 2.833 2.963 2.729 2.799 2.298 2.54 2.605 2.768 2.344 2.211 1.968 2.036 2.593 2.281 2.659 2.703

19.601 19.397 19.271 19.458 19.084 19.193 19.058 18.804 18.715 18.82 18.495 18.476 18.399 17.953 18.131 17.765 17.69 17.522 17.543 17.421 17.392 17.063 16.939 16.657 16.613 16.494 16.154 16.021 15.88 15.915 15.696 15.61 15.617 15.372 15.501 15.597 15.376 15.339 15.502 15.597 15.599 16.178 16.095 15.911 16.435 16.74 17.077 17.276

0.826 1.115 0.931 1.067 0.926 1.08 1.089 0.72 1.084 0.921 0.937 1.026 1.057 1.121 1.056 0.916 1.124 0.98 0.922 1.15 1.024 0.981 0.618 1.044 1.052 1.001 1.025 0.808 1.012 0.981 1.096 0.853 1.02 1.091 0.993 1.01 0.846 0.938 0.948 0.998 0.845 0.757 0.679 0.714 0.869 0.745 0.844 0.844

1/26/13%8:45 1/26/13%9:00 1/26/13%9:15 1/26/13%9:30 1/26/13%9:45 1/26/13%10:00 1/26/13%10:15 1/26/13%10:30 1/26/13%10:45 1/26/13%11:00 1/26/13%11:15 1/26/13%11:30 1/26/13%11:45 1/26/13%12:00 1/26/13%12:15 1/26/13%12:30 1/26/13%12:45 1/26/13%13:00 1/26/13%13:15 1/26/13%13:30 1/26/13%13:45 1/26/13%14:00 1/26/13%14:15 1/26/13%14:30 1/26/13%14:45 1/26/13%15:00 1/26/13%15:15 1/26/13%15:30 1/26/13%15:45 1/26/13%16:00 1/26/13%16:15 1/26/13%16:30 1/26/13%16:45 1/26/13%17:00 1/26/13%17:15 1/26/13%17:30 1/26/13%17:45 1/26/13%18:00 1/26/13%18:15 1/26/13%18:30 1/26/13%18:45 1/26/13%19:00 1/26/13%19:15 1/26/13%19:30 1/26/13%19:45 1/26/13%20:00 1/26/13%20:15 1/26/13%20:30

2.978 A3.019 3.945 3.392 3.297 4.091 3.939 4.002 3.583 3.917 3.243 3.388 3.848 4.042 4.172 3.949 4.119 3.966 4.192 4.194 4.035 4.358 4.21 4.189 4.211 3.486 3.375 4.156 4.233 4.133 3.674 3.689 3.788 3.775 3.732 3.721 3.817 3.728 3.664 3.708 3.711 3.653 3.689 3.719 3.696 3.769 3.668 3.645

17.497 17.007 18.483 18.969 19.552 19.767 19.685 19.964 19.759 19.83 20.048 20.078 20.366 20.023 20.311 20.388 20.23 20.711 20.661 20.667 20.592 20.776 20.262 20.188 20.265 20.07 19.608 19.746 20.01 19.667 19.294 19.353 19.44 19.389 19.231 19.192 19.547 19.218 18.979 19.145 19.153 18.938 19.074 19.182 19.1 19.368 18.994 18.909

0.913 A0.964 1.121 0.929 0.866 1.058 1.025 1.021 0.927 1.009 0.823 0.858 0.955 1.027 1.039 0.979 1.032 0.962 1.02 1.02 0.987 1.052 1.052 1.052 1.052 0.883 0.883 1.077 1.077 1.077 0.983 0.983 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003

1/26/13%20:45 1/26/13%21:00 1/26/13%21:15 1/26/13%21:30 1/26/13%21:45 1/26/13%22:00 1/26/13%22:15 1/26/13%22:30 1/26/13%22:45 1/26/13%23:00 1/26/13%23:15 1/26/13%23:30 1/26/13%23:45 1/27/13%0:00 1/27/13%0:15 1/27/13%0:30 1/27/13%0:45 1/27/13%1:00 1/27/13%1:15 1/27/13%1:30 1/27/13%1:45 1/27/13%2:00 1/27/13%2:15 1/27/13%2:30 1/27/13%2:45 1/27/13%3:00 1/27/13%3:15 1/27/13%3:30 1/27/13%3:45 1/27/13%4:00 1/27/13%4:15 1/27/13%4:30 1/27/13%4:45 1/27/13%5:00 1/27/13%5:15 1/27/13%5:30 1/27/13%5:45 1/27/13%6:00 1/27/13%6:15 1/27/13%6:30 1/27/13%6:45 1/27/13%7:00 1/27/13%7:15 1/27/13%7:30 1/27/13%7:45 1/27/13%8:00 1/27/13%8:15 1/27/13%8:30

3.66 A3.294 4.11 3.177 3.172 A4.419 A2.634 A2.678 A2.537 A2.587 A2.506 2.852 2.821 A3.23 3.623 3.56 3.023 2.564 3.377 2.701 2.536 2.674 2.197 2.299 2.547 2.295 3.269 2.524 2.039 2.558 2.347 2.294 2.621 2.755 2.552 2.787 2.84 2.764 2.933 2.457 2.588 2.653 2.209 2.943 2.454 1.663 3.167 3.203

18.963 19.295 18.603 18.93 18.905 18.864 18.862 19.091 18.364 18.623 18.2 18.066 17.927 17.256 17.955 17.702 17.539 17.68 17.621 17.08 16.858 16.716 16.662 16.611 16.713 16.086 15.902 16.063 15.872 15.916 15.967 15.462 15.511 15.336 15.235 15.328 15.512 15.435 15.486 15.258 15.454 15.32 15.829 16.043 15.78 16.218 16.459 16.59

1.003 A0.881 1.157 0.873 0.873 A1.22 A0.727 A0.727 A0.727 A0.727 A0.727 0.836 0.836 A1.01 1.072 1.074 0.924 0.775 1.025 0.857 0.819 0.874 0.722 0.759 0.833 0.792 1.147 0.873 0.718 0.897 0.819 0.837 0.953 1.018 0.952 1.03 1.032 1.012 1.069 0.914 0.946 0.982 0.78 1.02 0.871 0.568 1.059 1.059

1/27/13%8:45 1/27/13%9:00 1/27/13%9:15 1/27/13%9:30 1/27/13%9:45 1/27/13%10:00 1/27/13%10:15 1/27/13%10:30 1/27/13%10:45 1/27/13%11:00 1/27/13%11:15 1/27/13%11:30 1/27/13%11:45 1/27/13%12:00 1/27/13%12:15 1/27/13%12:30 1/27/13%12:45 1/27/13%13:00 1/27/13%13:15 1/27/13%13:30 1/27/13%13:45 1/27/13%14:00 1/27/13%14:15 1/27/13%14:30 1/27/13%14:45 1/27/13%15:00 1/27/13%15:15 1/27/13%15:30 1/27/13%15:45 1/27/13%16:00 1/27/13%16:15 1/27/13%16:30 1/27/13%16:45 1/27/13%17:00 1/27/13%17:15 1/27/13%17:30 1/27/13%17:45 1/27/13%18:00 1/27/13%18:15 1/27/13%18:30 1/27/13%18:45 1/27/13%19:00 1/27/13%19:15 1/27/13%19:30 1/27/13%19:45 1/27/13%20:00 1/27/13%20:15 1/27/13%20:30

A2.291 A2.043 A2.634 A2.939 A2.963 A2.742 2.942 3.875 3.522 4.337 4.302 4.352 4.009 3.886 4.254 3.767 4.758 5.707 3.733 4.34 3.535 3.26 4.641 3.535 4.208 3.704 4.557 3.469 3.81 3.442 3.463 3.628 3.73 3.749 3.641 3.995 3.01 3.794 3.797 3.47 3.243 3.731 3.084 3.527 3.275 3.88 3.624 3.826

16.594 16.841 17.13 17.869 18.844 18.752 19.025 19.422 19.521 19.904 19.788 20.443 20.273 20.012 20.354 20.45 20.373 20.472 20.134 20.011 20.063 20.065 19.621 19.414 19.708 19.652 19.695 19.863 19.653 19.523 19.525 19.301 19.487 19.292 19.399 19.287 19.343 19.303 19.353 19.536 19.56 19.577 19.432 19.91 19.889 19.92 19.93 19.969

A0.757 A0.661 A0.832 A0.875 A0.819 A0.763 0.803 1.027 0.927 1.111 1.111 1.075 1.001 0.988 1.057 0.93 1.18 1.407 0.941 1.104 0.896 0.826 1.213 0.938 1.093 0.966 1.185 0.891 0.993 0.906 0.911 0.97 0.984 1.003 0.967 1.069 0.803 1.015 1.011 0.913 0.851 0.978 0.817 0.903 0.84 0.993 0.927 0.976

1/27/13%20:45 1/27/13%21:00 1/27/13%21:15 1/27/13%21:30 1/27/13%21:45 1/27/13%22:00 1/27/13%22:15 1/27/13%22:30 1/27/13%22:45 1/27/13%23:00 1/27/13%23:15 1/27/13%23:30 1/27/13%23:45 1/28/13%0:00 1/28/13%0:15 1/28/13%0:30 1/28/13%0:45 1/28/13%1:00 1/28/13%1:15 1/28/13%1:30 1/28/13%1:45 1/28/13%2:00 1/28/13%2:15 1/28/13%2:30 1/28/13%2:45 1/28/13%3:00 1/28/13%3:15 1/28/13%3:30 1/28/13%3:45 1/28/13%4:00 1/28/13%4:15 1/28/13%4:30 1/28/13%4:45 1/28/13%5:00 1/28/13%5:15 1/28/13%5:30 1/28/13%5:45 1/28/13%6:00 1/28/13%6:15 1/28/13%6:30 1/28/13%6:45 1/28/13%7:00 1/28/13%7:15 1/28/13%7:30 1/28/13%7:45 1/28/13%8:00 1/28/13%8:15 1/28/13%8:30

4.192 4.307 4.535 3.979 4.504 3.253 4.406 4.297 4.622 4.117 3.466 3.732 2.888 3.906 3.69 3.106 3.536 3.706 3.197 3.039 3.284 2.614 3.403 2.838 2.716 2.686 2.682 2.631 2.719 2.796 2.613 2.795 2.901 3.051 2.674 2.537 3.752 2.665 1.857 2.086 1.905 2.442 A2.52 A2.903 A2.744 4.058 4.1 5.109

20.418 20.386 20.332 20.397 20.454 19.377 20.296 19.666 19.704 19.594 19.212 19.153 18.945 19.184 18.886 18.295 17.881 17.644 17.521 17.377 17.199 16.96 16.57 16.398 16.426 16.1 15.727 15.582 15.46 15.648 15.46 15.487 15.428 15.346 15.14 15.834 15.458 15.644 15.576 16.071 16.105 16.47 16.715 17.231 18.115 18.664 19.605 19.727

1.037 1.068 1.128 0.985 1.111 0.865 1.099 1.12 1.201 1.078 0.933 1.009 0.793 1.053 1.017 0.895 1.052 1.123 0.979 0.941 1.032 0.838 1.127 0.954 0.91 0.926 0.956 0.95 0.993 1.004 0.954 1.018 1.063 1.126 1.006 0.896 1.371 0.957 0.671 0.721 0.657 0.816 A0.824 A0.91 A0.802 1.137 1.073 1.325

1/28/13%8:45 1/28/13%9:00 1/28/13%9:15 1/28/13%9:30 1/28/13%9:45 1/28/13%10:00 1/28/13%10:15 1/28/13%10:30 1/28/13%10:45 1/28/13%11:00 1/28/13%11:15 1/28/13%11:30 1/28/13%11:45 1/28/13%12:00 1/28/13%12:15 1/28/13%12:30 1/28/13%12:45 1/28/13%13:00 1/28/13%13:15 1/28/13%13:30 1/28/13%13:45 1/28/13%14:00 1/28/13%14:15 1/28/13%14:30 1/28/13%14:45 1/28/13%15:00 1/28/13%15:15 1/28/13%15:30 1/28/13%15:45 1/28/13%16:00 1/28/13%16:15 1/28/13%16:30 1/28/13%16:45 1/28/13%17:00 1/28/13%17:15 1/28/13%17:30 1/28/13%17:45 1/28/13%18:00 1/28/13%18:15 1/28/13%18:30 1/28/13%18:45 1/28/13%19:00 1/28/13%19:15 1/28/13%19:30 1/28/13%19:45 1/28/13%20:00 1/28/13%20:15 1/28/13%20:30

5.533 6.545 6.2 6.848 5.482 4.393 3.829 4.492 5.025 5.388 5.504 4.369 3.912 4.702 4.375 4.439 4.467 3.972 5.748 5.985 5.94 6.163 4.989 6.544 6.736 6.482 5.506 7.867 9.791 14.462 A11.353 A12.287 12.976 19.302 16.491 21.839 17.855 14.665 19.02 17.35 9.761 8.16 7.301 5.496 5.028 4.969 5.048 7.95

20.274 20.342 20.623 20.625 20.487 20.296 20.581 20.336 20.738 20.337 20.623 20.678 20.65 20.613 20.474 20.618 20.669 20.166 21.234 21.226 21.681 21.643 22.014 22.357 22.611 22.202 22.43 23.221 25.57 28.917 57.445 148.167 204.928 166.958 73.072 64.428 56.29 47.784 38.63 31.052 25.984 23.282 21.94 21.583 21.864 21.7 21.95 22.471

1.382 1.627 1.512 1.67 1.35 1.096 0.937 1.117 1.216 1.34 1.343 1.062 0.953 1.148 1.078 1.083 1.086 1 1.347 1.403 1.352 1.407 1.113 1.429 1.448 1.429 1.197 1.631 1.782 2.235 A0.8 A0.8 0.845 1.257 1.074 1.431 1.28 1.232 2.037 2.443 1.738 1.685 1.636 1.259 1.132 1.13 1.13 1.724

1/28/13%20:45 1/28/13%21:00 1/28/13%21:15 1/28/13%21:30 1/28/13%21:45 1/28/13%22:00 1/28/13%22:15 1/28/13%22:30 1/28/13%22:45 1/28/13%23:00 1/28/13%23:15 1/28/13%23:30 1/28/13%23:45 1/29/13%0:00 1/29/13%0:15 1/29/13%0:30 1/29/13%0:45 1/29/13%1:00 1/29/13%1:15 1/29/13%1:30 1/29/13%1:45 1/29/13%2:00 1/29/13%2:15 1/29/13%2:30 1/29/13%2:45 1/29/13%3:00 1/29/13%3:15 1/29/13%3:30 1/29/13%3:45 1/29/13%4:00 1/29/13%4:15 1/29/13%4:30 1/29/13%4:45 1/29/13%5:00 1/29/13%5:15 1/29/13%5:30 1/29/13%5:45 1/29/13%6:00 1/29/13%6:15 1/29/13%6:30 1/29/13%6:45 1/29/13%7:00 1/29/13%7:15 1/29/13%7:30 1/29/13%7:45 1/29/13%8:00 1/29/13%8:15 1/29/13%8:30

7.388 7.481 7.991 6.406 5.689 5.834 4.668 4.406 4.238 4.542 5.746 5.904 5.285 3.988 3.953 3.722 3.864 3.744 3.248 3.355 3.02 2.639 2.834 2.572 2.468 2.564 A2.31 A2.329 A2.255 A2.199 A2.193 A2.174 A2.137 A2.134 A2.117 A2.206 A2.19 A2.277 A2.24 A2.334 A2.373 A2.409 A2.797 A2.617 A2.283 A2.417 A2.474 A5.945

22.87 22.942 22.072 22.042 21.616 21.324 21.009 20.856 20.731 20.568 20.486 20.272 20.003 19.781 19.441 19.192 19.207 18.511 18.238 17.938 17.369 17.365 17.006 16.593 16.116 16.556 16.466 16.558 16.185 15.898 15.868 15.77 15.584 15.567 15.48 15.937 15.852 16.296 16.107 16.583 16.779 16.961 17.391 17.689 18.495 19.263 19.592 19.935

1.564 1.577 1.776 1.426 1.301 1.359 1.11 1.058 1.026 1.112 1.415 1.475 1.345 1.031 1.046 1.003 1.04 1.061 0.94 0.994 0.936 0.818 0.905 0.85 0.85 0.85 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.772 A0.865 A0.791 A0.648 A0.648 A0.648 A1.52

1/29/13%8:45 1/29/13%9:00 1/29/13%9:15 1/29/13%9:30 1/29/13%9:45 1/29/13%10:00 1/29/13%10:15 1/29/13%10:30 1/29/13%10:45 1/29/13%11:00 1/29/13%11:15 1/29/13%11:30 1/29/13%11:45 1/29/13%12:00 1/29/13%12:15 1/29/13%12:30 1/29/13%12:45 1/29/13%13:00 1/29/13%13:15 1/29/13%13:30 1/29/13%13:45 1/29/13%14:00 1/29/13%14:15 1/29/13%14:30 1/29/13%14:45 1/29/13%15:00 1/29/13%15:15 1/29/13%15:30 1/29/13%15:45 1/29/13%16:00 1/29/13%16:15 1/29/13%16:30 1/29/13%16:45 1/29/13%17:00 1/29/13%17:15 1/29/13%17:30 1/29/13%17:45 1/29/13%18:00 1/29/13%18:15 1/29/13%18:30 1/29/13%18:45 1/29/13%19:00 1/29/13%19:15 1/29/13%19:30 1/29/13%19:45 1/29/13%20:00 1/29/13%20:15 1/29/13%20:30

A6.118 A4.353 A4.436 A4.774 A5.495 A4.901 A4.917 A4.323 A5.626 A5.609 A6.086 A6.075 A6.322 A5.968 A5.984 A6.03 A5.987 A4.268 A4.297 A4.214 A4.173 A4.077 A5.303 A4.699 A4.669 A4.665 A4.106 A3.615 A3.631 A3.58 A3.61 A3.554 A4.656 A4.403 A4.343 A2.235 A3.548 A3.451 A3.402 A3.414 A3.977 A4.208 A4.496 A4.847 10.919 11.693 15.02 14.09

20.292 20.622 20.877 20.997 20.685 20.569 20.618 20.339 20.581 20.48 20.695 20.668 21.108 20.949 20.789 20.847 20.74 20.585 20.687 20.337 20.196 20.009 20.252 19.879 19.785 19.773 19.782 19.439 19.5 19.303 19.419 19.201 19.409 19.455 19.264 18.731 19.547 19.698 19.496 19.36 19.745 20.566 21.581 22.798 23.976 26.314 27.602 27.214

A1.526 A1.062 A1.064 A1.136 A1.335 A1.2 A1.2 A1.075 A1.376 A1.382 A1.478 A1.478 A1.494 A1.425 A1.444 A1.449 A1.449 A1.044 A1.044 A1.048 A1.048 A1.037 A1.326 A1.206 A1.206 A1.206 A1.061 A0.957 A0.957 A0.957 A0.957 A0.957 A1.235 A1.164 A1.164 A0.623 A0.932 A0.897 A0.897 A0.909 A1.03 A1.03 A1.03 A1.03 2.167 2.048 2.468 2.359

1/29/13%20:45 1/29/13%21:00 1/29/13%21:15 1/29/13%21:30 1/29/13%21:45 1/29/13%22:00 1/29/13%22:15 1/29/13%22:30 1/29/13%22:45 1/29/13%23:00 1/29/13%23:15 1/29/13%23:30 1/29/13%23:45 1/30/13%0:00

10.66 10.179 10.428 9.902 A9.616 A8.169 A6.304 A5.506 A6.44 A5.888 A5.174 A5.2 A5.595 A4.914

26.172 25.082 24.12 23.219 22.534 21.808 21.249 20.861 20.574 20.383 20.335 20.409 19.956 19.775

1.88 1.901 2.053 2.053 A2.077 A1.845 A1.476 A1.322 A1.576 A1.46 A1.287 A1.287 A1.429 A1.27

Site%Name Label Units 1/22/13%0:00 1/22/13%0:15 1/22/13%0:30 1/22/13%0:45 1/22/13%1:00 1/22/13%1:15 1/22/13%1:30 1/22/13%1:45 1/22/13%2:00 1/22/13%2:15 1/22/13%2:30 1/22/13%2:45 1/22/13%3:00 1/22/13%3:15 1/22/13%3:30 1/22/13%3:45 1/22/13%4:00 1/22/13%4:15 1/22/13%4:30 1/22/13%4:45 1/22/13%5:00 1/22/13%5:15 1/22/13%5:30 1/22/13%5:45 1/22/13%6:00 1/22/13%6:15 1/22/13%6:30 1/22/13%6:45 1/22/13%7:00 1/22/13%7:15 1/22/13%7:30 1/22/13%7:45 1/22/13%8:00 1/22/13%8:15 1/22/13%8:30 1/22/13%8:45 1/22/13%9:00 1/22/13%9:15 1/22/13%9:30 1/22/13%9:45 1/22/13%10:00 1/22/13%10:15 1/22/13%10:30 1/22/13%10:45 1/22/13%11:00

Vernon%Blvd.%and%35th%Ave. Flow%Rate Level Velocity mgd in ft/s 5.506 32.372 0.572 5.328 31.673 0.57 5.499 31.088 0.604 5.023 30.858 0.557 5.355 30.946 0.591 8.48 30.927 0.937 8.518 31.03 0.937 4.315 29.482 0.51 4.27 29.26 0.51 8.794 29.763 1.025 8.46 28.943 1.025 8.503 29.047 1.025 10.031 29.442 1.187 9.806 28.964 1.187 9.801 28.954 1.187 9.804 28.961 1.187 9.799 28.95 1.187 9.802 28.957 1.187 9.801 28.953 1.187 9.893 29.149 1.187 9.803 28.958 1.187 9.801 28.953 1.187 9.788 28.927 1.187 9.691 28.719 1.187 9.803 28.958 1.187 9.799 28.95 1.187 9.801 28.954 1.187 10.564 30.567 1.187 9.073 29.841 1.054 7.066 30.376 0.801 8.125 31.374 0.881 10.985 32.6 1.13 6.347 32.875 0.645 7.137 33.208 0.716 8.48 34.523 0.807 6.189 34.889 0.58 8.315 34.283 0.798 9.759 34.297 0.937 12.028 35.189 1.115 11.802 35.006 1.102 6.266 34.156 0.605 7.333 33.878 0.716 7.044 33.557 0.696 6.729 33.507 0.667 9.428 32.865 0.959

1/22/13%11:15 1/22/13%11:30 1/22/13%11:45 1/22/13%12:00 1/22/13%12:15 1/22/13%12:30 1/22/13%12:45 1/22/13%13:00 1/22/13%13:15 1/22/13%13:30 1/22/13%13:45 1/22/13%14:00 1/22/13%14:15 1/22/13%14:30 1/22/13%14:45 1/22/13%15:00 1/22/13%15:15 1/22/13%15:30 1/22/13%15:45 1/22/13%16:00 1/22/13%16:15 1/22/13%16:30 1/22/13%16:45 1/22/13%17:00 1/22/13%17:15 1/22/13%17:30 1/22/13%17:45 1/22/13%18:00 1/22/13%18:15 1/22/13%18:30 1/22/13%18:45 1/22/13%19:00 1/22/13%19:15 1/22/13%19:30 1/22/13%19:45 1/22/13%20:00 1/22/13%20:15 1/22/13%20:30 1/22/13%20:45 1/22/13%21:00 1/22/13%21:15 1/22/13%21:30 1/22/13%21:45 1/22/13%22:00 1/22/13%22:15 1/22/13%22:30 1/22/13%22:45 1/22/13%23:00

10.56 8.519 9.855 7.125 8.7 6.22 5.609 7.09 5.474 6.548 6.997 8.677 7.244 6.501 8.836 5.838 6.339 7.598 6.59 6.641 6.343 5.365 6.502 6.734 7.702 6.945 6.094 7.761 6.79 7.15 9.14 8.881 11.774 6.776 6.34 6.699 11.42 9.51 6.241 8.02 7.606 10.425 11.758 5.908 6.832 8.13 6.531 7.305

33.863 33.476 33.714 34.269 34 33.607 33.521 33.379 33.476 33.397 33.504 33.151 33.382 33.228 33.352 33.253 33.063 32.99 32.824 32.899 32.982 32.985 32.792 33.251 32.968 32.75 32.88 33.244 32.911 32.869 33.653 34.367 33.892 33.874 33.467 33.467 34.2 34.037 33.711 33.454 33.169 33.625 34.761 33.292 33.152 32.751 32.692 32.525

1.031 0.845 0.968 0.684 0.845 0.614 0.555 0.706 0.543 0.652 0.693 0.872 0.721 0.651 0.881 0.584 0.639 0.769 0.671 0.674 0.642 0.543 0.663 0.674 0.78 0.71 0.619 0.777 0.689 0.727 0.9 0.85 1.148 0.661 0.629 0.665 1.1 0.922 0.613 0.796 0.764 1.028 1.108 0.59 0.687 0.831 0.669 0.754

1/22/13%23:15 1/22/13%23:30 1/22/13%23:45 1/23/13%0:00 1/23/13%0:15 1/23/13%0:30 1/23/13%0:45 1/23/13%1:00 1/23/13%1:15 1/23/13%1:30 1/23/13%1:45 1/23/13%2:00 1/23/13%2:15 1/23/13%2:30 1/23/13%2:45 1/23/13%3:00 1/23/13%3:15 1/23/13%3:30 1/23/13%3:45 1/23/13%4:00 1/23/13%4:15 1/23/13%4:30 1/23/13%4:45 1/23/13%5:00 1/23/13%5:15 1/23/13%5:30 1/23/13%5:45 1/23/13%6:00 1/23/13%6:15 1/23/13%6:30 1/23/13%6:45 1/23/13%7:00 1/23/13%7:15 1/23/13%7:30 1/23/13%7:45 1/23/13%8:00 1/23/13%8:15 1/23/13%8:30 1/23/13%8:45 1/23/13%9:00 1/23/13%9:15 1/23/13%9:30 1/23/13%9:45 1/23/13%10:00 1/23/13%10:15 1/23/13%10:30 1/23/13%10:45 1/23/13%11:00

9.474 9.421 7.385 10.642 10.832 9.536 7.562 6.222 5.722 6.045 7.425 3.727 3.745 3.704 3.704 3.702 3.706 3.703 3.706 3.704 3.703 3.706 3.704 3.706 3.702 3.701 3.705 3.702 8.466 9.324 12.598 4.846 5.36 8.564 9.967 7.438 6.11 12.458 7.897 10.593 11.094 11.239 8.958 10.558 9.576 6.338 10.555 9.131

33.394 33.482 32.643 33.308 31.901 32.39 31.169 30.65 30.159 30.054 30.361 29.078 29.18 28.95 28.949 28.941 28.962 28.942 28.96 28.952 28.945 28.961 28.947 28.961 28.941 28.934 28.954 28.936 28.925 30.002 30.059 29.657 29.964 32.06 32.681 32.809 32.943 34.871 34.915 34.658 35.384 34.597 34.45 34.394 33.974 33.858 34.516 34.806

0.943 0.934 0.758 1.063 1.148 0.989 0.827 0.696 0.655 0.695 0.842 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 1.027 1.075 1.448 0.568 0.619 0.901 1.022 0.758 0.619 1.169 0.74 1.002 1.021 1.066 0.854 1.009 0.931 0.619 1.004 0.859

1/23/13%11:15 1/23/13%11:30 1/23/13%11:45 1/23/13%12:00 1/23/13%12:15 1/23/13%12:30 1/23/13%12:45 1/23/13%13:00 1/23/13%13:15 1/23/13%13:30 1/23/13%13:45 1/23/13%14:00 1/23/13%14:15 1/23/13%14:30 1/23/13%14:45 1/23/13%15:00 1/23/13%15:15 1/23/13%15:30 1/23/13%15:45 1/23/13%16:00 1/23/13%16:15 1/23/13%16:30 1/23/13%16:45 1/23/13%17:00 1/23/13%17:15 1/23/13%17:30 1/23/13%17:45 1/23/13%18:00 1/23/13%18:15 1/23/13%18:30 1/23/13%18:45 1/23/13%19:00 1/23/13%19:15 1/23/13%19:30 1/23/13%19:45 1/23/13%20:00 1/23/13%20:15 1/23/13%20:30 1/23/13%20:45 1/23/13%21:00 1/23/13%21:15 1/23/13%21:30 1/23/13%21:45 1/23/13%22:00 1/23/13%22:15 1/23/13%22:30 1/23/13%22:45 1/23/13%23:00

7.075 7.861 6.69 6.82 7.258 7.037 8.264 7.999 7.222 8.532 8.118 8.239 8.424 6.333 8.277 7.071 6.407 7.529 8.088 7.301 6.529 7.152 6.209 6.913 7.376 6.777 7.818 6.601 6.82 6.989 7.339 7.764 10.633 8.823 9.595 8.548 7.013 6.208 10.31 11.978 6.203 8.652 9.029 8.564 12.797 7.83 6.909 7.032

34.079 33.394 33.634 33.318 33.12 33.082 32.93 33.137 33.093 33.007 33.022 33.087 33.143 33.113 33.152 32.87 33.18 33.118 32.922 32.913 33.173 33.17 33.155 33.128 33.164 33.189 33.324 33.411 33.569 33.164 33.264 33.393 33.717 33.612 33.906 33.784 33.648 33.725 33.813 34.7 34.083 33.566 33.102 34.015 33.549 33.602 33.225 32.94

0.685 0.782 0.659 0.681 0.73 0.709 0.838 0.804 0.728 0.863 0.82 0.83 0.847 0.638 0.832 0.719 0.643 0.758 0.821 0.741 0.656 0.718 0.624 0.695 0.741 0.68 0.78 0.656 0.674 0.702 0.734 0.773 1.044 0.87 0.935 0.837 0.691 0.61 1.009 1.131 0.6 0.855 0.909 0.831 1.266 0.773 0.692 0.713

1/23/13%23:15 1/23/13%23:30 1/23/13%23:45 1/24/13%0:00 1/24/13%0:15 1/24/13%0:30 1/24/13%0:45 1/24/13%1:00 1/24/13%1:15 1/24/13%1:30 1/24/13%1:45 1/24/13%2:00 1/24/13%2:15 1/24/13%2:30 1/24/13%2:45 1/24/13%3:00 1/24/13%3:15 1/24/13%3:30 1/24/13%3:45 1/24/13%4:00 1/24/13%4:15 1/24/13%4:30 1/24/13%4:45 1/24/13%5:00 1/24/13%5:15 1/24/13%5:30 1/24/13%5:45 1/24/13%6:00 1/24/13%6:15 1/24/13%6:30 1/24/13%6:45 1/24/13%7:00 1/24/13%7:15 1/24/13%7:30 1/24/13%7:45 1/24/13%8:00 1/24/13%8:15 1/24/13%8:30 1/24/13%8:45 1/24/13%9:00 1/24/13%9:15 1/24/13%9:30 1/24/13%9:45 1/24/13%10:00 1/24/13%10:15 1/24/13%10:30 1/24/13%10:45 1/24/13%11:00

7.949 7.348 7.406 6.434 6.825 6.102 6.604 5.314 6.35 7.605 4.635 3.896 4.026 3.804 3.79 3.813 3.812 3.813 3.811 3.793 3.813 3.812 3.812 3.811 3.814 3.812 3.773 3.813 3.811 3.812 3.811 3.786 6.765 8.863 7.052 7.564 12.205 9.287 8.034 11.886 8.245 7.216 8.965 7.981 13.381 13.316 7.936 6.979

32.515 32.263 32.082 31.907 31.494 31.101 30.878 30.739 30.641 30.701 29.442 29.405 30.112 28.905 28.827 28.951 28.951 28.954 28.944 28.843 28.955 28.948 28.951 28.942 28.96 28.951 28.736 28.953 28.942 28.947 28.943 28.804 30.164 30.667 31.742 32.578 33.291 34.44 34.08 35.28 35.384 35.494 34.394 34.286 34.981 34.663 34.271 33.777

0.82 0.766 0.778 0.681 0.736 0.669 0.732 0.592 0.711 0.849 0.548 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.774 0.991 0.752 0.779 1.22 0.886 0.778 1.098 0.758 0.661 0.857 0.766 1.25 1.26 0.762 0.684

1/24/13%11:15 1/24/13%11:30 1/24/13%11:45 1/24/13%12:00 1/24/13%12:15 1/24/13%12:30 1/24/13%12:45 1/24/13%13:00 1/24/13%13:15 1/24/13%13:30 1/24/13%13:45 1/24/13%14:00 1/24/13%14:15 1/24/13%14:30 1/24/13%14:45 1/24/13%15:00 1/24/13%15:15 1/24/13%15:30 1/24/13%15:45 1/24/13%16:00 1/24/13%16:15 1/24/13%16:30 1/24/13%16:45 1/24/13%17:00 1/24/13%17:15 1/24/13%17:30 1/24/13%17:45 1/24/13%18:00 1/24/13%18:15 1/24/13%18:30 1/24/13%18:45 1/24/13%19:00 1/24/13%19:15 1/24/13%19:30 1/24/13%19:45 1/24/13%20:00 1/24/13%20:15 1/24/13%20:30 1/24/13%20:45 1/24/13%21:00 1/24/13%21:15 1/24/13%21:30 1/24/13%21:45 1/24/13%22:00 1/24/13%22:15 1/24/13%22:30 1/24/13%22:45 1/24/13%23:00

8.38 8.101 8.997 7.248 6.917 6.872 8.404 8.21 8.893 8.425 6.172 8.927 7.66 5.956 8.884 8.445 8.821 7.22 8.173 8.26 7.193 8.05 7.103 7.977 8.024 7.579 7.399 8.507 7.357 7.863 8.129 8.411 8.67 9.764 10.237 8.024 7.538 8.376 8.778 15.243 9.255 6.946 8.867 10.22 7.767 7.364 8.666 7.578

33.794 33.496 33.32 33.972 33.817 33.39 33.338 33.105 33.143 33.036 34.095 32.908 32.9 33.029 32.605 32.846 33.352 33.051 32.409 32.747 32.39 32.522 32.603 32.76 32.647 32.847 32.869 32.82 32.817 32.946 33.126 33.073 34.385 34.034 34.202 33.77 33.453 33.337 33.641 33.954 34.126 33.49 33.126 33.977 33.356 33.186 32.755 32.888

0.821 0.803 0.898 0.705 0.677 0.684 0.838 0.827 0.894 0.851 0.597 0.906 0.778 0.602 0.913 0.86 0.879 0.729 0.847 0.844 0.746 0.831 0.73 0.815 0.824 0.771 0.752 0.867 0.75 0.797 0.818 0.848 0.829 0.947 0.986 0.786 0.748 0.836 0.865 1.483 0.894 0.689 0.892 0.993 0.774 0.739 0.885 0.77

1/24/13%23:15 1/24/13%23:30 1/24/13%23:45 1/25/13%0:00 1/25/13%0:15 1/25/13%0:30 1/25/13%0:45 1/25/13%1:00 1/25/13%1:15 1/25/13%1:30 1/25/13%1:45 1/25/13%2:00 1/25/13%2:15 1/25/13%2:30 1/25/13%2:45 1/25/13%3:00 1/25/13%3:15 1/25/13%3:30 1/25/13%3:45 1/25/13%4:00 1/25/13%4:15 1/25/13%4:30 1/25/13%4:45 1/25/13%5:00 1/25/13%5:15 1/25/13%5:30 1/25/13%5:45 1/25/13%6:00 1/25/13%6:15 1/25/13%6:30 1/25/13%6:45 1/25/13%7:00 1/25/13%7:15 1/25/13%7:30 1/25/13%7:45 1/25/13%8:00 1/25/13%8:15 1/25/13%8:30 1/25/13%8:45 1/25/13%9:00 1/25/13%9:15 1/25/13%9:30 1/25/13%9:45 1/25/13%10:00 1/25/13%10:15 1/25/13%10:30 1/25/13%10:45 1/25/13%11:00

7.94 7.516 6.957 5.911 6.989 6.768 7.199 6.923 6.285 10.836 3.951 4.714 4.818 4.6 4.577 4.601 4.599 4.6 4.6 4.618 4.6 4.601 4.598 4.582 4.6 4.6 4.602 4.6 4.567 4.597 8.196 7.779 5.565 5.929 9.287 10.385 8.862 9.354 10.665 12.477 10.75 8.374 11.463 8.739 8.986 8.658 6.222 11.178

32.338 32.035 31.871 31.576 31.339 31.111 30.854 30.833 30.381 30.458 29.234 29.467 29.939 28.953 28.847 28.956 28.949 28.95 28.952 29.033 28.951 28.957 28.945 28.872 28.954 28.952 28.96 28.954 28.805 28.941 29.313 29.672 29.762 30.02 31.086 32.308 33.01 33.163 34.284 34.945 34.994 34.316 35.183 35.49 34.633 33.988 33.699 34.151

0.826 0.792 0.738 0.635 0.759 0.742 0.798 0.769 0.712 1.224 0.472 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.976 0.911 0.649 0.683 1.019 1.081 0.896 0.94 1.024 1.167 1.004 0.803 1.063 0.801 0.851 0.841 0.612 1.079

1/25/13%11:15 1/25/13%11:30 1/25/13%11:45 1/25/13%12:00 1/25/13%12:15 1/25/13%12:30 1/25/13%12:45 1/25/13%13:00 1/25/13%13:15 1/25/13%13:30 1/25/13%13:45 1/25/13%14:00 1/25/13%14:15 1/25/13%14:30 1/25/13%14:45 1/25/13%15:00 1/25/13%15:15 1/25/13%15:30 1/25/13%15:45 1/25/13%16:00 1/25/13%16:15 1/25/13%16:30 1/25/13%16:45 1/25/13%17:00 1/25/13%17:15 1/25/13%17:30 1/25/13%17:45 1/25/13%18:00 1/25/13%18:15 1/25/13%18:30 1/25/13%18:45 1/25/13%19:00 1/25/13%19:15 1/25/13%19:30 1/25/13%19:45 1/25/13%20:00 1/25/13%20:15 1/25/13%20:30 1/25/13%20:45 1/25/13%21:00 1/25/13%21:15 1/25/13%21:30 1/25/13%21:45 1/25/13%22:00 1/25/13%22:15 1/25/13%22:30 1/25/13%22:45 1/25/13%23:00

10.993 7.589 8.234 8.122 8.261 9.525 8.893 8.576 7.755 7.731 7.604 10.889 7.769 10.865 8.215 8.135 7.737 6.953 10.231 10.599 8.801 8.861 9.725 8.453 8.554 7.174 10.702 7.486 8.479 7.997 8.486 8.385 7.839 7.674 7.206 7.56 7.949 8.385 6.896 7.386 7.07 6.714 11.455 8.771 7.307 7.822 6.258 9.297

34.349 34.472 33.92 33.818 33.537 33.54 33.376 33.482 33.327 33.193 33.627 34.229 33.587 34.395 33.481 32.934 32.924 32.972 32.926 33.922 33.009 34.413 33.592 33.523 33.737 33.799 33.831 33.593 33.925 34.081 33.84 33.28 33.102 33.288 33.129 32.989 33.329 34.051 33.465 32.994 32.696 33.686 34.386 33.317 32.607 32.338 32.378 33.126

1.053 0.723 0.802 0.794 0.817 0.942 0.886 0.85 0.774 0.776 0.75 1.048 0.767 1.039 0.815 0.825 0.785 0.704 1.038 1.032 0.89 0.846 0.96 0.837 0.839 0.702 1.046 0.739 0.826 0.774 0.829 0.838 0.789 0.767 0.725 0.765 0.793 0.813 0.684 0.747 0.724 0.66 1.095 0.876 0.751 0.813 0.65 0.935

1/25/13%23:15 1/25/13%23:30 1/25/13%23:45 1/26/13%0:00 1/26/13%0:15 1/26/13%0:30 1/26/13%0:45 1/26/13%1:00 1/26/13%1:15 1/26/13%1:30 1/26/13%1:45 1/26/13%2:00 1/26/13%2:15 1/26/13%2:30 1/26/13%2:45 1/26/13%3:00 1/26/13%3:15 1/26/13%3:30 1/26/13%3:45 1/26/13%4:00 1/26/13%4:15 1/26/13%4:30 1/26/13%4:45 1/26/13%5:00 1/26/13%5:15 1/26/13%5:30 1/26/13%5:45 1/26/13%6:00 1/26/13%6:15 1/26/13%6:30 1/26/13%6:45 1/26/13%7:00 1/26/13%7:15 1/26/13%7:30 1/26/13%7:45 1/26/13%8:00 1/26/13%8:15 1/26/13%8:30 1/26/13%8:45 1/26/13%9:00 1/26/13%9:15 1/26/13%9:30 1/26/13%9:45 1/26/13%10:00 1/26/13%10:15 1/26/13%10:30 1/26/13%10:45 1/26/13%11:00

8.926 7.901 7.982 8.338 9.195 7.452 3.927 6.815 5.922 5.527 5.633 6.754 7.849 7.812 4.178 5.896 5.788 5.75 5.785 5.786 5.757 5.788 5.764 5.864 5.787 6.182 5.77 5.786 5.76 5.787 5.734 5.76 6.055 5.858 5.784 9.255 9.312 11.1 7.733 7.056 7.819 10.171 7.693 7.679 13.547 9.414 8.05 7.472

32.963 32.735 32.219 31.725 31.66 31.934 32.444 30.928 30.384 30.213 29.911 30.24 29.129 29.029 28.833 29.345 28.956 28.821 28.948 28.95 28.845 28.958 28.872 29.233 28.954 30.37 28.892 28.95 28.857 28.954 28.761 28.858 29.918 29.212 28.944 30.273 31.193 31.225 30.935 31.28 31.788 33.358 33.279 33.204 35.006 35.394 34.239 34.054

0.904 0.808 0.834 0.89 0.984 0.788 0.407 0.753 0.671 0.631 0.652 0.77 0.943 0.943 0.509 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 0.701 1.054 1.017 1.211 0.855 0.768 0.832 1.014 0.769 0.77 1.264 0.866 0.774 0.724

1/26/13%11:15 1/26/13%11:30 1/26/13%11:45 1/26/13%12:00 1/26/13%12:15 1/26/13%12:30 1/26/13%12:45 1/26/13%13:00 1/26/13%13:15 1/26/13%13:30 1/26/13%13:45 1/26/13%14:00 1/26/13%14:15 1/26/13%14:30 1/26/13%14:45 1/26/13%15:00 1/26/13%15:15 1/26/13%15:30 1/26/13%15:45 1/26/13%16:00 1/26/13%16:15 1/26/13%16:30 1/26/13%16:45 1/26/13%17:00 1/26/13%17:15 1/26/13%17:30 1/26/13%17:45 1/26/13%18:00 1/26/13%18:15 1/26/13%18:30 1/26/13%18:45 1/26/13%19:00 1/26/13%19:15 1/26/13%19:30 1/26/13%19:45 1/26/13%20:00 1/26/13%20:15 1/26/13%20:30 1/26/13%20:45 1/26/13%21:00 1/26/13%21:15 1/26/13%21:30 1/26/13%21:45 1/26/13%22:00 1/26/13%22:15 1/26/13%22:30 1/26/13%22:45 1/26/13%23:00

12.539 10.246 10.225 10.469 11.417 10.712 9.046 8.655 11.452 6.757 6.59 9.799 11.921 8.782 8.486 9.673 7.578 7.809 8.069 9.688 10.031 7.327 8.288 6.765 6.506 7.74 7.405 8.738 11.118 10.48 7.725 7.602 6.864 6.833 6.823 7.44 8.07 7.796 6.998 7.544 8.8 7.627 10.309 8.781 7.263 8.894 6.531 7.458

34.951 35.512 35.03 34.665 35.831 35.553 35.417 35.405 36.498 36.778 36.514 36.217 36.062 36.088 35.31 35.542 35.378 34.768 34.508 34.296 33.961 33.542 34.436 34.466 34.018 33.804 33.535 33.3 33.272 33.972 34.193 34.414 33.813 33.631 33.454 33.473 34.545 34.507 33.645 33.597 33.305 33.1 33.741 33.918 33.295 32.838 32.327 32.024

1.173 0.938 0.953 0.99 1.033 0.979 0.831 0.796 1.01 0.59 0.581 0.873 1.069 0.787 0.783 0.884 0.697 0.736 0.768 0.93 0.976 0.725 0.791 0.645 0.631 0.758 0.733 0.873 1.112 1.019 0.744 0.726 0.672 0.673 0.677 0.738 0.767 0.742 0.689 0.745 0.879 0.768 1.012 0.856 0.726 0.906 0.679 0.786

1/26/13%23:15 1/26/13%23:30 1/26/13%23:45 1/27/13%0:00 1/27/13%0:15 1/27/13%0:30 1/27/13%0:45 1/27/13%1:00 1/27/13%1:15 1/27/13%1:30 1/27/13%1:45 1/27/13%2:00 1/27/13%2:15 1/27/13%2:30 1/27/13%2:45 1/27/13%3:00 1/27/13%3:15 1/27/13%3:30 1/27/13%3:45 1/27/13%4:00 1/27/13%4:15 1/27/13%4:30 1/27/13%4:45 1/27/13%5:00 1/27/13%5:15 1/27/13%5:30 1/27/13%5:45 1/27/13%6:00 1/27/13%6:15 1/27/13%6:30 1/27/13%6:45 1/27/13%7:00 1/27/13%7:15 1/27/13%7:30 1/27/13%7:45 1/27/13%8:00 1/27/13%8:15 1/27/13%8:30 1/27/13%8:45 1/27/13%9:00 1/27/13%9:15 1/27/13%9:30 1/27/13%9:45 1/27/13%10:00 1/27/13%10:15 1/27/13%10:30 1/27/13%10:45 1/27/13%11:00

6.74 5.783 6.144 10.486 10.147 5.4 5.035 6.314 6.772 6.535 5.606 3.704 7.099 7.556 7.46 7.469 5.827 5.824 5.755 2.946 2.804 2.785 2.803 2.804 2.847 2.804 2.806 2.804 2.803 2.815 2.803 2.776 2.783 2.869 2.897 2.918 2.964 2.969 7.854 8.229 6.858 6.826 7.174 9.872 8.94 6.682 10.277 11.324

31.534 31.618 31.468 32.075 32.145 31.003 30.552 30.405 30.414 30.328 30.635 29.263 29.069 29.199 28.93 28.955 28.968 28.957 28.711 30.014 28.958 28.818 28.953 28.958 29.28 28.957 28.973 28.958 28.953 29.039 28.955 28.748 28.806 29.446 29.65 29.805 30.145 30.184 31.693 31.021 31.067 31.308 32.08 33.318 33.582 33.269 34.318 35.116

0.725 0.62 0.663 1.103 1.064 0.595 0.566 0.715 0.766 0.742 0.628 0.442 0.855 0.904 0.904 0.904 0.705 0.705 0.705 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.84 0.906 0.753 0.742 0.754 0.986 0.883 0.668 0.985 1.052

1/27/13%11:15 1/27/13%11:30 1/27/13%11:45 1/27/13%12:00 1/27/13%12:15 1/27/13%12:30 1/27/13%12:45 1/27/13%13:00 1/27/13%13:15 1/27/13%13:30 1/27/13%13:45 1/27/13%14:00 1/27/13%14:15 1/27/13%14:30 1/27/13%14:45 1/27/13%15:00 1/27/13%15:15 1/27/13%15:30 1/27/13%15:45 1/27/13%16:00 1/27/13%16:15 1/27/13%16:30 1/27/13%16:45 1/27/13%17:00 1/27/13%17:15 1/27/13%17:30 1/27/13%17:45 1/27/13%18:00 1/27/13%18:15 1/27/13%18:30 1/27/13%18:45 1/27/13%19:00 1/27/13%19:15 1/27/13%19:30 1/27/13%19:45 1/27/13%20:00 1/27/13%20:15 1/27/13%20:30 1/27/13%20:45 1/27/13%21:00 1/27/13%21:15 1/27/13%21:30 1/27/13%21:45 1/27/13%22:00 1/27/13%22:15 1/27/13%22:30 1/27/13%22:45 1/27/13%23:00

8.782 7.061 10.556 7.564 9.363 8.299 9.62 8.434 8.231 8.307 7.265 9.843 7.092 8.545 8.482 9.306 8.353 9.27 6.991 8.112 8.189 7.45 5.814 9.544 10.255 7.883 7.218 6.661 7.637 11.262 9.76 7.419 6.812 9.502 10.035 9.572 7.75 7.588 6.963 10.802 5.18 6.803 8.011 9.47 5.617 7.494 10.258 7.926

34.823 34.379 34.903 35.531 35.065 34.761 35.414 35.738 34.92 34.673 34.563 35.091 35.312 34.955 34.134 34.144 34.873 35.223 34.502 33.975 33.574 33.453 33.249 34.325 33.805 33.791 33.484 33.426 33.588 34.133 34.738 34.104 34.079 33.717 35.315 35.248 34.821 34.722 34.501 35.193 35.902 35.226 35.047 35.283 35.479 35.729 35.517 34.928

0.826 0.675 0.989 0.692 0.872 0.782 0.884 0.765 0.771 0.785 0.69 0.916 0.654 0.799 0.819 0.898 0.784 0.858 0.665 0.789 0.809 0.74 0.582 0.915 1.004 0.772 0.716 0.662 0.754 1.088 0.921 0.717 0.659 0.933 0.926 0.885 0.729 0.716 0.663 1.001 0.467 0.63 0.746 0.874 0.515 0.68 0.939 0.742

1/27/13%23:15 1/27/13%23:30 1/27/13%23:45 1/28/13%0:00 1/28/13%0:15 1/28/13%0:30 1/28/13%0:45 1/28/13%1:00 1/28/13%1:15 1/28/13%1:30 1/28/13%1:45 1/28/13%2:00 1/28/13%2:15 1/28/13%2:30 1/28/13%2:45 1/28/13%3:00 1/28/13%3:15 1/28/13%3:30 1/28/13%3:45 1/28/13%4:00 1/28/13%4:15 1/28/13%4:30 1/28/13%4:45 1/28/13%5:00 1/28/13%5:15 1/28/13%5:30 1/28/13%5:45 1/28/13%6:00 1/28/13%6:15 1/28/13%6:30 1/28/13%6:45 1/28/13%7:00 1/28/13%7:15 1/28/13%7:30 1/28/13%7:45 1/28/13%8:00 1/28/13%8:15 1/28/13%8:30 1/28/13%8:45 1/28/13%9:00 1/28/13%9:15 1/28/13%9:30 1/28/13%9:45 1/28/13%10:00 1/28/13%10:15 1/28/13%10:30 1/28/13%10:45 1/28/13%11:00

7.508 6.681 9.279 10.672 10.263 7.453 9.558 5.991 5.457 6.177 6.121 4.263 4.203 4.999 4.858 4.793 4.839 4.859 4.865 4.86 4.838 4.859 4.83 4.825 4.829 4.883 4.859 4.816 5 4.806 5.937 5.941 7.522 7.667 11.972 8.444 7.955 8.038 10.971 7.401 8.53 7.711 11.309 8.947 8.094 8.958 11.03 7.819

34.237 34.254 33.528 33.975 33.844 32.823 33.085 31.112 30.648 30.662 31.336 29.459 29.159 29.557 28.949 28.673 28.87 28.955 28.98 28.959 28.867 28.954 28.832 28.809 28.827 29.06 28.954 28.769 29.558 28.727 29.71 29.722 30.137 30.487 31.824 33.746 33.142 33.559 35.068 35.625 35.142 34.756 35.334 35.588 34.476 34.434 35.095 35.265

0.722 0.642 0.918 1.037 1.003 0.759 0.963 0.657 0.611 0.691 0.665 0.504 0.504 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.588 0.694 0.694 0.862 0.865 1.273 0.828 0.8 0.795 1.022 0.675 0.792 0.727 1.042 0.817 0.771 0.855 1.026 0.723

1/28/13%11:15 1/28/13%11:30 1/28/13%11:45 1/28/13%12:00 1/28/13%12:15 1/28/13%12:30 1/28/13%12:45 1/28/13%13:00 1/28/13%13:15 1/28/13%13:30 1/28/13%13:45 1/28/13%14:00 1/28/13%14:15 1/28/13%14:30 1/28/13%14:45 1/28/13%15:00 1/28/13%15:15 1/28/13%15:30 1/28/13%15:45 1/28/13%16:00 1/28/13%16:15 1/28/13%16:30 1/28/13%16:45 1/28/13%17:00 1/28/13%17:15 1/28/13%17:30 1/28/13%17:45 1/28/13%18:00 1/28/13%18:15 1/28/13%18:30 1/28/13%18:45 1/28/13%19:00 1/28/13%19:15 1/28/13%19:30 1/28/13%19:45 1/28/13%20:00 1/28/13%20:15 1/28/13%20:30 1/28/13%20:45 1/28/13%21:00 1/28/13%21:15 1/28/13%21:30 1/28/13%21:45 1/28/13%22:00 1/28/13%22:15 1/28/13%22:30 1/28/13%22:45 1/28/13%23:00

8.676 7.923 7.662 7.478 4.473 8.255 9.299 8.491 8.709 11.05 7.664 11.044 12.882 16.987 9.723 13.846 14.243 17.763 22.845 29.848 12.166 22.689 23.07 57.732 35.481 36.392 35.693 56.296 45.013 37.803 33.536 22.356 18.643 18.901 15.132 20.096 17.871 16.774 20.091 15.057 17.94 17.82 16.253 11.956 14.417 8.791 8.956 10.849

34.668 34.834 34.846 34.834 34.841 34.883 35.016 35.369 35.939 36.95 37.422 36.751 37.034 37.39 37.299 37.38 37.774 39.298 43.05 52.079 103.981 189.394 242.011 188.54 87.888 83.544 76.859 69.367 61.26 52.669 46.481 41.654 39.134 38.106 37.937 38.665 38.465 38.773 39.183 38.735 38.867 38.039 37.456 37.906 38.502 39.787 40.351 41.657

0.82 0.744 0.72 0.703 0.42 0.774 0.868 0.781 0.784 0.959 0.654 0.965 1.114 1.451 0.833 1.183 1.2 1.419 1.619 1.658 0.374 0.698 0.71 1.777 1.138 1.213 1.28 2.24 2.057 2.071 2.151 1.654 1.498 1.574 1.267 1.641 1.469 1.365 1.612 1.226 1.455 1.487 1.385 1.002 1.184 0.691 0.691 0.803

1/28/13%23:15 1/28/13%23:30 1/28/13%23:45 1/29/13%0:00 1/29/13%0:15 1/29/13%0:30 1/29/13%0:45 1/29/13%1:00 1/29/13%1:15 1/29/13%1:30 1/29/13%1:45 1/29/13%2:00 1/29/13%2:15 1/29/13%2:30 1/29/13%2:45 1/29/13%3:00 1/29/13%3:15 1/29/13%3:30 1/29/13%3:45 1/29/13%4:00 1/29/13%4:15 1/29/13%4:30 1/29/13%4:45 1/29/13%5:00 1/29/13%5:15 1/29/13%5:30 1/29/13%5:45 1/29/13%6:00 1/29/13%6:15 1/29/13%6:30 1/29/13%6:45 1/29/13%7:00 1/29/13%7:15 1/29/13%7:30 1/29/13%7:45 1/29/13%8:00 1/29/13%8:15 1/29/13%8:30 1/29/13%8:45 1/29/13%9:00 1/29/13%9:15 1/29/13%9:30 1/29/13%9:45 1/29/13%10:00 1/29/13%10:15 1/29/13%10:30 1/29/13%10:45 1/29/13%11:00

8.015 9.17 10.356 7.279 12.184 16.232 16.279 13.451 16.076 15.564 11.628 10.751 8.816 5.63 7.207 5.983 5.326 7.926 7.332 7.243 7.363 7.307 7.285 7.252 7.284 7.229 6.535 6.495 6.464 6.56 7.485 6.577 7.038 6.428 8.615 9.384 8.486 9.386 10.008 10.37 8.107 11.292 8.344 9.065 9.218 9.061 9.099 6.048

42.281 44.637 46.192 47.556 48.338 48.925 49.038 48.551 47.155 45.838 44.103 41.359 39.321 37.143 34.376 33.157 30.775 30.538 28.867 28.612 28.955 28.795 28.733 28.639 28.731 28.574 28.816 28.688 28.589 28.896 30.477 30.928 30.993 31.61 32.436 33.13 33.789 34.416 34.924 36.047 36.125 36.197 35.916 36.3 35.973 35.519 35.853 35.281

0.581 0.62 0.67 0.453 0.743 0.975 0.975 0.816 1.012 1.016 0.798 0.803 0.704 0.485 0.689 0.601 0.593 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.797 0.797 0.797 0.797 0.844 0.727 0.776 0.69 0.892 0.944 0.831 0.896 0.937 0.93 0.725 1.007 0.752 0.806 0.829 0.829 0.822 0.559

1/29/13%11:15 1/29/13%11:30 1/29/13%11:45 1/29/13%12:00 1/29/13%12:15 1/29/13%12:30 1/29/13%12:45 1/29/13%13:00 1/29/13%13:15 1/29/13%13:30 1/29/13%13:45 1/29/13%14:00 1/29/13%14:15 1/29/13%14:30 1/29/13%14:45 1/29/13%15:00 1/29/13%15:15 1/29/13%15:30 1/29/13%15:45 1/29/13%16:00 1/29/13%16:15 1/29/13%16:30 1/29/13%16:45 1/29/13%17:00 1/29/13%17:15 1/29/13%17:30 1/29/13%17:45 1/29/13%18:00 1/29/13%18:15 1/29/13%18:30 1/29/13%18:45 1/29/13%19:00 1/29/13%19:15 1/29/13%19:30 1/29/13%19:45 1/29/13%20:00 1/29/13%20:15 1/29/13%20:30 1/29/13%20:45 1/29/13%21:00 1/29/13%21:15 1/29/13%21:30 1/29/13%21:45 1/29/13%22:00 1/29/13%22:15 1/29/13%22:30 1/29/13%22:45 1/29/13%23:00

7.792 8.591 9.243 9.301 10.08 8.619 8.587 7.789 10.349 9.22 7.715 8.488 8.914 8.429 10.57 10.327 7.501 6.439 6.655 11.006 8.576 7.321 5.405 4.962 7.177 6.257 6.503 9.905 9.863 7.773 10.889 8.209 10.948 9.878 13.572 13.872 16.401 31.518 34.351 30.758 19.559 20.825 13.678 K6.27 K5.927 7.979 6.995 5.976

35.3 34.978 35.349 35.373 35.279 35.77 35.4 35.634 35.263 35.938 35.688 35.891 34.766 34.868 34.193 33.842 33.808 33.58 33.983 33.977 33.733 32.649 32.712 32.962 32.982 33.586 34.204 33.948 33.776 34.266 34.193 34.81 36.148 37.776 39.968 41.568 43.719 45.341 47.928 51.456 50.156 47.964 45.492 43.045 41.242 39.613 38.569 37.146

0.719 0.803 0.851 0.856 0.931 0.781 0.789 0.71 0.956 0.831 0.701 0.766 0.84 0.791 1.019 1.009 0.734 0.636 0.647 1.07 0.842 0.751 0.553 0.503 0.726 0.618 0.626 0.964 0.966 0.747 1.049 0.772 0.978 0.832 1.06 1.029 1.139 2.087 2.119 1.735 1.139 1.283 0.902 K0.444 K0.444 0.631 0.573 0.515

1/29/13%23:15 1/29/13%23:30 1/29/13%23:45 1/30/13%0:00

9.14 6.854 7.444 9.477

35.983 35.33 35.453 34.806

0.822 0.632 0.683 0.891

Site%Name Label Units 1/22/13%10:45 1/22/13%11:00 1/22/13%11:15 1/22/13%11:30 1/22/13%11:45 1/22/13%12:00 1/22/13%12:15 1/22/13%12:30 1/22/13%12:45 1/22/13%13:00 1/22/13%13:15 1/22/13%13:30 1/22/13%13:45 1/22/13%14:00 1/22/13%14:15 1/22/13%14:30 1/22/13%14:45 1/22/13%15:00 1/22/13%15:15 1/22/13%15:30 1/22/13%15:45 1/22/13%16:00 1/22/13%16:15 1/22/13%16:30 1/22/13%16:45 1/22/13%17:00 1/22/13%17:15 1/22/13%17:30 1/22/13%17:45 1/22/13%18:00 1/22/13%18:15 1/22/13%18:30 1/22/13%18:45 1/22/13%19:00 1/22/13%19:15 1/22/13%19:30 1/22/13%19:45 1/22/13%20:00 1/22/13%20:15 1/22/13%20:30 1/22/13%20:45 1/22/13%21:00 1/22/13%21:15 1/22/13%21:30 1/22/13%21:45

19th%Ave.%and%23rd%Road Flow%Rate Level Velocity mgd in ft/s 0 1.259 0 0 1.206 0 0.907 2.485 0 1.925 36.506 0 24.78 36.446 0 24.243 36.407 0 24.184 36.341 0 24.116 36.265 0 19.822 36.303 1.761 24.354 36.133 2.178 22.492 36.176 2.008 21.949 36.156 1.961 23.35 36.414 2.066 25.014 36.34 2.22 24.637 36.26 2.193 23.051 36.328 2.046 25.187 36.255 2.242 25.211 36.28 2.242 23.348 36.113 2.089 25.334 36.095 2.269 24.57 35.915 2.215 22.43 35.723 2.037 21.852 35.666 1.989 24.917 35.696 2.265 23.214 35.744 2.106 23.392 35.792 2.119 23.176 35.748 2.103 23.454 35.917 2.114 24.089 36.059 2.16 25.679 36.123 2.297 25.958 36.156 2.319 25.629 36.312 2.277 24.723 36.46 2.184 24.768 36.509 2.184 22.029 36.65 1.932 25.916 36.903 2.253 20.42 36.961 1.771 23.647 37.171 2.035 21.048 37.115 1.815 26.063 37.201 2.241 27.649 37.359 2.364 27.729 37.439 2.364 26.532 37.407 2.264 24.058 37.584 2.04 25.352 37.645 2.145

1/22/13%22:00 1/22/13%22:15 1/22/13%22:30 1/22/13%22:45 1/22/13%23:00 1/22/13%23:15 1/22/13%23:30 1/22/13%23:45 1/23/13%0:00 1/23/13%0:15 1/23/13%0:30 1/23/13%0:45 1/23/13%1:00 1/23/13%1:15 1/23/13%1:30 1/23/13%1:45 1/23/13%2:00 1/23/13%2:15 1/23/13%2:30 1/23/13%2:45 1/23/13%3:00 1/23/13%3:15 1/23/13%3:30 1/23/13%3:45 1/23/13%4:00 1/23/13%4:15 1/23/13%4:30 1/23/13%4:45 1/23/13%5:00 1/23/13%5:15 1/23/13%5:30 1/23/13%5:45 1/23/13%6:00 1/23/13%6:15 1/23/13%6:30 1/23/13%6:45 1/23/13%7:00 1/23/13%7:15 1/23/13%7:30 1/23/13%7:45 1/23/13%8:00 1/23/13%8:15 1/23/13%8:30 1/23/13%8:45 1/23/13%9:00 1/23/13%9:15 1/23/13%9:30 1/23/13%9:45

25.927 19.929 24.649 22.342 25.689 22.005 22.933 22.475 17.59 22.844 19.069 J8.865 J8.873 J8.553 J8.626 J8.415 J8.24 J8.18 J8.284 J8.308 J8.339 J8.348 J8.356 J8.362 J8.36 J8.361 J8.36 J8.363 J8.363 J8.36 J8.367 J8.367 J8.365 J8.367 J8.373 J8.372 J8.372 J8.524 J8.814 J9.505 J10.518 J10.959 J11.204 J11.35 21.329 23.459 24.823 22.228

37.637 37.612 37.547 37.527 37.464 37.239 36.906 36.628 36.154 35.912 35.291 34.671 33.965 33.531 32.941 32.348 31.858 31.689 31.98 32.048 32.136 32.162 32.184 32.2 32.196 32.197 32.196 32.202 32.204 32.195 32.215 32.214 32.21 32.214 32.231 32.229 32.228 32.654 33.42 34.277 35.471 36.568 37.173 37.533 38.056 38.226 38.435 38.167

2.195 1.688 2.093 1.899 2.188 1.89 1.993 1.973 1.572 2.06 1.76 J0.838 J0.863 J0.846 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.875 J0.876 J0.913 J0.964 J0.964 J0.964 J0.964 1.779 1.945 2.043 1.847

1/23/13%10:00 1/23/13%10:15 1/23/13%10:30 1/23/13%10:45 1/23/13%11:00 1/23/13%11:15 1/23/13%11:30 1/23/13%11:45 1/23/13%12:00 1/23/13%12:15 1/23/13%12:30 1/23/13%12:45 1/23/13%13:00 1/23/13%13:15 1/23/13%13:30 1/23/13%13:45 1/23/13%14:00 1/23/13%14:15 1/23/13%14:30 1/23/13%14:45 1/23/13%15:00 1/23/13%15:15 1/23/13%15:30 1/23/13%15:45 1/23/13%16:00 1/23/13%16:15 1/23/13%16:30 1/23/13%16:45 1/23/13%17:00 1/23/13%17:15 1/23/13%17:30 1/23/13%17:45 1/23/13%18:00 1/23/13%18:15 1/23/13%18:30 1/23/13%18:45 1/23/13%19:00 1/23/13%19:15 1/23/13%19:30 1/23/13%19:45 1/23/13%20:00 1/23/13%20:15 1/23/13%20:30 1/23/13%20:45 1/23/13%21:00 1/23/13%21:15 1/23/13%21:30 1/23/13%21:45

27.348 27.136 20.399 18.926 24.046 24.164 24.048 24.35 24.255 24.217 20.979 24.113 24.076 19.976 21.353 21.575 21.497 21.543 22.295 22.326 22.243 21.156 18.978 18.869 18.891 18.937 18.955 23.339 19.904 18.351 24.171 24.18 24.424 24.5 26.616 24.53 24.321 23.531 24.508 24.906 22.349 26.457 22.922 21.953 19.068 26.29 22.982 23.495

37.929 37.709 37.55 37.311 37.158 37.036 36.903 36.747 36.641 36.598 36.513 36.44 36.398 36.412 36.338 36.316 36.377 36.435 36.375 36.414 36.313 36.313 36.103 35.95 35.919 35.984 36.01 35.911 36.05 36.141 36.213 36.223 36.494 36.579 36.914 36.971 37.051 37.163 37.304 37.683 37.664 37.808 37.934 38.068 38.2 38.464 38.544 38.654

2.291 2.291 1.732 1.621 2.071 2.09 2.09 2.128 2.128 2.128 1.85 2.132 2.132 1.768 1.895 1.916 1.905 1.905 1.976 1.976 1.976 1.879 1.699 1.699 1.703 1.703 1.703 2.104 1.785 1.64 2.155 2.155 2.155 2.155 2.312 2.127 2.103 2.026 2.099 2.105 1.89 2.226 1.92 1.83 1.582 2.162 1.884 1.919

1/23/13%22:00 1/23/13%22:15 1/23/13%22:30 1/23/13%22:45 1/23/13%23:00 1/23/13%23:15 1/23/13%23:30 1/23/13%23:45 1/24/13%0:00 1/24/13%0:15 1/24/13%0:30 1/24/13%0:45 1/24/13%1:00 1/24/13%1:15 1/24/13%1:30 1/24/13%1:45 1/24/13%2:00 1/24/13%2:15 1/24/13%2:30 1/24/13%2:45 1/24/13%3:00 1/24/13%3:15 1/24/13%3:30 1/24/13%3:45 1/24/13%4:00 1/24/13%4:15 1/24/13%4:30 1/24/13%4:45 1/24/13%5:00 1/24/13%5:15 1/24/13%5:30 1/24/13%5:45 1/24/13%6:00 1/24/13%6:15 1/24/13%6:30 1/24/13%6:45 1/24/13%7:00 1/24/13%7:15 1/24/13%7:30 1/24/13%7:45 1/24/13%8:00 1/24/13%8:15 1/24/13%8:30 1/24/13%8:45 1/24/13%9:00 1/24/13%9:15 1/24/13%9:30 1/24/13%9:45

25.289 23.649 22.219 23.409 23.396 24.997 22.345 22.579 21.361 19.658 21.759 19.122 J8.398 J7.926 J7.642 J6.865 J6.667 J6.587 J6.606 J6.616 J6.623 J6.626 J6.624 J6.624 J6.627 J6.625 J6.625 J6.627 J6.627 J6.628 J6.627 J6.628 J6.627 J6.628 J6.627 J6.627 J6.627 J6.638 J6.873 J9.349 J11.687 J12.19 18.487 23.232 22.423 20.786 23.82 25.218

38.501 38.537 38.49 38.505 38.447 38.42 38.073 37.861 37.605 37.272 36.807 36.053 35.218 34.432 33.726 33.055 32.355 32.073 32.141 32.175 32.202 32.211 32.205 32.206 32.213 32.208 32.208 32.216 32.213 32.219 32.215 32.217 32.215 32.217 32.214 32.213 32.216 32.252 33.083 34.026 35.215 36.33 37.124 37.706 38.06 38.302 38.43 38.203

2.077 1.94 1.825 1.922 1.925 2.059 1.863 1.896 1.81 1.686 1.898 1.715 J0.777 J0.757 J0.75 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.693 J0.907 J1.082 J1.082 1.594 1.962 1.87 1.719 1.961 2.092

1/24/13%10:00 1/24/13%10:15 1/24/13%10:30 1/24/13%10:45 1/24/13%11:00 1/24/13%11:15 1/24/13%11:30 1/24/13%11:45 1/24/13%12:00 1/24/13%12:15 1/24/13%12:30 1/24/13%12:45 1/24/13%13:00 1/24/13%13:15 1/24/13%13:30 1/24/13%13:45 1/24/13%14:00 1/24/13%14:15 1/24/13%14:30 1/24/13%14:45 1/24/13%15:00 1/24/13%15:15 1/24/13%15:30 1/24/13%15:45 1/24/13%16:00 1/24/13%16:15 1/24/13%16:30 1/24/13%16:45 1/24/13%17:00 1/24/13%17:15 1/24/13%17:30 1/24/13%17:45 1/24/13%18:00 1/24/13%18:15 1/24/13%18:30 1/24/13%18:45 1/24/13%19:00 1/24/13%19:15 1/24/13%19:30 1/24/13%19:45 1/24/13%20:00 1/24/13%20:15 1/24/13%20:30 1/24/13%20:45 1/24/13%21:00 1/24/13%21:15 1/24/13%21:30 1/24/13%21:45

23.102 22.681 21.068 23.47 23.395 24.99 25.045 24.948 21.501 23.361 23.425 17.937 17.857 22.781 22.799 23.456 20.872 21.361 20.222 20.201 22.664 22.269 22.202 22.218 21.676 21.669 21.619 21.559 21.907 22.028 21.969 23.033 22.027 19.119 19.279 23.887 23.998 21.677 21.894 19.87 25.772 21.311 26.421 23.016 24.007 24.664 23.758 25.553

37.988 37.762 37.498 37.366 37.277 36.98 37.04 36.934 36.72 36.719 36.795 36.664 36.542 36.491 36.512 36.429 36.503 36.558 36.34 36.312 36.256 36.108 36.027 36.047 35.937 35.928 35.867 35.793 35.884 36.03 35.959 36.158 36.168 36.377 36.603 36.952 37.08 37.143 37.485 37.644 37.793 37.962 38.259 38.487 38.66 38.828 38.93 39.194

1.931 1.911 1.792 2.006 2.006 2.166 2.166 2.166 1.881 2.044 2.044 1.573 1.573 2.01 2.01 2.075 1.841 1.88 1.794 1.794 2.017 1.993 1.993 1.993 1.953 1.953 1.953 1.953 1.977 1.977 1.977 2.058 1.967 1.694 1.694 2.072 2.072 1.868 1.863 1.682 2.17 1.783 2.188 1.891 1.961 2.003 1.922 2.049

1/24/13%22:00 1/24/13%22:15 1/24/13%22:30 1/24/13%22:45 1/24/13%23:00 1/24/13%23:15 1/24/13%23:30 1/24/13%23:45 1/25/13%0:00 1/25/13%0:15 1/25/13%0:30 1/25/13%0:45 1/25/13%1:00 1/25/13%1:15 1/25/13%1:30 1/25/13%1:45 1/25/13%2:00 1/25/13%2:15 1/25/13%2:30 1/25/13%2:45 1/25/13%3:00 1/25/13%3:15 1/25/13%3:30 1/25/13%3:45 1/25/13%4:00 1/25/13%4:15 1/25/13%4:30 1/25/13%4:45 1/25/13%5:00 1/25/13%5:15 1/25/13%5:30 1/25/13%5:45 1/25/13%6:00 1/25/13%6:15 1/25/13%6:30 1/25/13%6:45 1/25/13%7:00 1/25/13%7:15 1/25/13%7:30 1/25/13%7:45 1/25/13%8:00 1/25/13%8:15 1/25/13%8:30 1/25/13%8:45 1/25/13%9:00 1/25/13%9:15 1/25/13%9:30 1/25/13%9:45

20.754 22.227 24.378 22.924 25.555 22.888 21.565 21.711 20.287 21.383 18.738 20.473 20.523 18.376 J8.632 J10.555 J10.217 J9.904 J9.998 J10.002 J10.002 J10.004 J10.005 J10.006 J10.005 J10.004 J10.005 J10.002 J10.006 J10.003 J10.006 J10.007 J10.006 J10.005 J10.004 J10.004 J10.001 J9.971 J10.301 J9.767 J10.287 J10.208 J10.523 11.044 11.21 11.356 26.95 26.966

39.389 39.43 39.566 39.642 39.707 39.607 39.499 39.204 39 38.444 37.826 37.139 36.285 35.286 34.45 33.518 32.73 31.993 32.216 32.224 32.224 32.229 32.233 32.235 32.233 32.229 32.231 32.226 32.235 32.226 32.234 32.236 32.235 32.233 32.23 32.23 32.222 32.152 32.927 33.702 34.677 35.592 36.402 36.982 37.396 37.759 37.96 38.051

1.653 1.768 1.93 1.811 2.014 1.81 1.711 1.74 1.638 1.759 1.576 1.764 1.825 1.697 J0.823 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J1.045 J0.96 J0.973 J0.932 J0.932 0.957 0.957 0.957 2.255 2.249

1/25/13%10:00 1/25/13%10:15 1/25/13%10:30 1/25/13%10:45 1/25/13%11:00 1/25/13%11:15 1/25/13%11:30 1/25/13%11:45 1/25/13%12:00 1/25/13%12:15 1/25/13%12:30 1/25/13%12:45 1/25/13%13:00 1/25/13%13:15 1/25/13%13:30 1/25/13%13:45 1/25/13%14:00 1/25/13%14:15 1/25/13%14:30 1/25/13%14:45 1/25/13%15:00 1/25/13%15:15 1/25/13%15:30 1/25/13%15:45 1/25/13%16:00 1/25/13%16:15 1/25/13%16:30 1/25/13%16:45 1/25/13%17:00 1/25/13%17:15 1/25/13%17:30 1/25/13%17:45 1/25/13%18:00 1/25/13%18:15 1/25/13%18:30 1/25/13%18:45 1/25/13%19:00 1/25/13%19:15 1/25/13%19:30 1/25/13%19:45 1/25/13%20:00 1/25/13%20:15 1/25/13%20:30 1/25/13%20:45 1/25/13%21:00 1/25/13%21:15 1/25/13%21:30 1/25/13%21:45

20.427 24.669 26.387 23.889 23.036 23.784 23.372 21.523 23.309 22.228 21.659 24.402 24.405 21.725 25.205 21.126 19.946 24.425 22.853 23.191 23.782 23.01 20.828 20.964 22.055 23.743 21.932 22.083 23.442 24.587 22.838 23.775 25.822 24.945 22.548 23.348 23.578 23.408 23.729 24.527 26.441 24.41 25.338 25.253 26.735 24.976 27.818 24.183

37.791 37.811 37.93 37.979 38.061 38.492 38.843 39.198 39.696 40.482 41.197 41.959 42.835 43.674 44.403 45.233 46.072 46.895 47.697 48.381 48.83 49.332 49.703 50.119 50.464 50.797 51.137 51.456 51.884 52.322 52.826 53.374 53.908 54.486 55.027 55.753 56.395 57.062 57.609 58.365 58.94 59.584 60.194 60.773 61.428 62.036 62.554 63.069

1.72 2.075 2.211 1.998 1.921 1.954 1.897 1.726 1.838 1.708 1.626 1.788 1.74 1.511 1.715 1.404 1.294 1.549 1.418 1.413 1.433 1.368 1.227 1.222 1.275 1.361 1.247 1.245 1.308 1.358 1.247 1.281 1.375 1.311 1.171 1.193 1.188 1.163 1.166 1.186 1.264 1.152 1.182 1.165 1.218 1.125 1.241 1.069

1/25/13%22:00 1/25/13%22:15 1/25/13%22:30 1/25/13%22:45 1/25/13%23:00 1/25/13%23:15 1/25/13%23:30 1/25/13%23:45 1/26/13%0:00 1/26/13%0:15 1/26/13%0:30 1/26/13%0:45 1/26/13%1:00 1/26/13%1:15 1/26/13%1:30 1/26/13%1:45 1/26/13%2:00 1/26/13%2:15 1/26/13%2:30 1/26/13%2:45 1/26/13%3:00 1/26/13%3:15 1/26/13%3:30 1/26/13%3:45 1/26/13%4:00 1/26/13%4:15 1/26/13%4:30 1/26/13%4:45 1/26/13%5:00 1/26/13%5:15 1/26/13%5:30 1/26/13%5:45 1/26/13%6:00 1/26/13%6:15 1/26/13%6:30 1/26/13%6:45 1/26/13%7:00 1/26/13%7:15 1/26/13%7:30 1/26/13%7:45 1/26/13%8:00 1/26/13%8:15 1/26/13%8:30 1/26/13%8:45 1/26/13%9:00 1/26/13%9:15 1/26/13%9:30 1/26/13%9:45

25.371 25.381 22.408 24.226 23.518 25.92 26.168 24.299 22.314 22.218 21.292 23.523 21.719 20.794 20.04 19.476 19.037 17.29 16.965 16.71 14.828 15.407 14.629 14.77 12.862 14.513 13.001 12.453 12.432 12.435 12.433 12.437 12.434 12.433 12.434 12.437 12.431 12.433 12.434 12.434 12.435 12.428 12.536 12.891 13.229 13.533 J9.922 J10.224

63.486 63.908 64.026 64.037 64.123 63.8 63.31 62.793 62.24 61.412 60.626 59.562 58.316 56.828 55.286 53.7 52.058 50.207 48.315 46.411 44.393 42.38 40.478 38.512 36.702 34.989 33.324 32.292 32.252 32.257 32.254 32.261 32.255 32.254 32.255 32.261 32.249 32.254 32.256 32.256 32.258 32.244 32.449 33.118 33.753 34.321 35.088 35.876

1.113 1.105 0.973 1.052 1.02 1.131 1.151 1.079 1.001 1.012 0.985 1.111 1.052 1.038 1.035 1.042 1.058 1.006 1.036 1.074 1.009 1.114 1.124 1.212 1.126 1.356 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 1.297 J0.923 J0.923

1/26/13%10:00 1/26/13%10:15 1/26/13%10:30 1/26/13%10:45 1/26/13%11:00 1/26/13%11:15 1/26/13%11:30 1/26/13%11:45 1/26/13%12:00 1/26/13%12:15 1/26/13%12:30 1/26/13%12:45 1/26/13%13:00 1/26/13%13:15 1/26/13%13:30 1/26/13%13:45 1/26/13%14:00 1/26/13%14:15 1/26/13%14:30 1/26/13%14:45 1/26/13%15:00 1/26/13%15:15 1/26/13%15:30 1/26/13%15:45 1/26/13%16:00 1/26/13%16:15 1/26/13%16:30 1/26/13%16:45 1/26/13%17:00 1/26/13%17:15 1/26/13%17:30 1/26/13%17:45 1/26/13%18:00 1/26/13%18:15 1/26/13%18:30 1/26/13%18:45 1/26/13%19:00 1/26/13%19:15 1/26/13%19:30 1/26/13%19:45 1/26/13%20:00 1/26/13%20:15 1/26/13%20:30 1/26/13%20:45 1/26/13%21:00 1/26/13%21:15 1/26/13%21:30 1/26/13%21:45

23.838 24.329 24.615 26.821 23.107 19.785 26.713 30.32 29.534 26.588 27.494 28.395 22.423 29.103 26.407 29.482 30.076 28.355 30.055 26.934 29.608 27.269 26.712 26.654 26.28 27.281 28.097 24.501 25.052 23.851 26.16 23.829 25.232 27.025 27.529 27.756 22.439 26.089 24.887 27.173 27.869 25.239 26.29 27.247 26.916 29.39 29.787 28.84

36.598 37.158 37.597 38.173 38.478 38.655 39.146 39.642 40.303 40.95 42.41 44.219 46.64 48.821 51.302 53.836 56.272 58.885 61.308 63.739 65.942 67.897 69.644 71.209 72.718 73.937 75.068 76.142 76.893 77.7 78.866 79.773 80.673 81.687 82.345 83.166 83.872 84.499 85.263 85.651 86.081 86.351 86.622 86.52 86.292 85.098 84.187 83.111

2.095 2.095 2.087 2.228 1.899 1.616 2.146 2.395 2.282 2.012 1.986 1.943 1.432 1.753 1.495 1.572 1.52 1.357 1.372 1.176 1.245 1.11 1.058 1.032 0.995 1.016 1.031 0.887 0.898 0.847 0.916 0.826 0.866 0.917 0.928 0.928 0.745 0.861 0.816 0.888 0.907 0.82 0.852 0.884 0.875 0.965 0.986 0.965

1/26/13%22:00 1/26/13%22:15 1/26/13%22:30 1/26/13%22:45 1/26/13%23:00 1/26/13%23:15 1/26/13%23:30 1/26/13%23:45 1/27/13%0:00 1/27/13%0:15 1/27/13%0:30 1/27/13%0:45 1/27/13%1:00 1/27/13%1:15 1/27/13%1:30 1/27/13%1:45 1/27/13%2:00 1/27/13%2:15 1/27/13%2:30 1/27/13%2:45 1/27/13%3:00 1/27/13%3:15 1/27/13%3:30 1/27/13%3:45 1/27/13%4:00 1/27/13%4:15 1/27/13%4:30 1/27/13%4:45 1/27/13%5:00 1/27/13%5:15 1/27/13%5:30 1/27/13%5:45 1/27/13%6:00 1/27/13%6:15 1/27/13%6:30 1/27/13%6:45 1/27/13%7:00 1/27/13%7:15 1/27/13%7:30 1/27/13%7:45 1/27/13%8:00 1/27/13%8:15 1/27/13%8:30 1/27/13%8:45 1/27/13%9:00 1/27/13%9:15 1/27/13%9:30 1/27/13%9:45

27.141 27.6 30.565 28.666 25.051 26.773 27.326 25.856 23.924 20.125 24.165 21.229 24.079 23.853 20.75 21.473 21.7 22.137 19.193 18.691 18.789 18.146 15.745 16.662 15.886 13.619 13.991 13.301 13.809 14.039 J6.055 J7.69 J7.291 J7.229 J7.238 J7.237 J7.238 J7.239 J7.238 J7.239 J7.238 J7.243 J7.241 J7.226 J7.44 J7.595 J9.407 J8.712

82.079 81.066 79.781 78.699 77.46 76.119 74.69 74.401 73.875 73.326 72.729 71.704 70.509 69.108 67.76 66.256 64.61 62.826 60.928 59.012 56.906 54.73 52.546 50.253 47.993 45.728 43.537 41.269 39.248 37.388 35.414 33.738 32.448 32.247 32.276 32.272 32.274 32.278 32.276 32.279 32.275 32.29 32.286 32.237 32.931 33.431 34.015 34.794

0.918 0.943 1.059 1.006 0.892 0.969 1.008 0.957 0.892 0.756 0.915 0.816 0.942 0.953 0.847 0.898 0.933 0.983 0.883 0.892 0.937 0.948 0.865 0.968 0.978 0.892 0.977 0.996 1.105 1.199 J0.556 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.755 J0.913 J0.82

1/27/13%10:00 1/27/13%10:15 1/27/13%10:30 1/27/13%10:45 1/27/13%11:00 1/27/13%11:15 1/27/13%11:30 1/27/13%11:45 1/27/13%12:00 1/27/13%12:15 1/27/13%12:30 1/27/13%12:45 1/27/13%13:00 1/27/13%13:15 1/27/13%13:30 1/27/13%13:45 1/27/13%14:00 1/27/13%14:15 1/27/13%14:30 1/27/13%14:45 1/27/13%15:00 1/27/13%15:15 1/27/13%15:30 1/27/13%15:45 1/27/13%16:00 1/27/13%16:15 1/27/13%16:30 1/27/13%16:45 1/27/13%17:00 1/27/13%17:15 1/27/13%17:30 1/27/13%17:45 1/27/13%18:00 1/27/13%18:15 1/27/13%18:30 1/27/13%18:45 1/27/13%19:00 1/27/13%19:15 1/27/13%19:30 1/27/13%19:45 1/27/13%20:00 1/27/13%20:15 1/27/13%20:30 1/27/13%20:45 1/27/13%21:00 1/27/13%21:15 1/27/13%21:30 1/27/13%21:45

22.942 23.585 22.168 22.651 19.403 25.971 28.905 28.668 25.835 27.984 26.679 26.339 28.541 28.043 25.956 23.916 28.045 28.66 28.631 26.673 22.676 24.86 27.403 22.896 25.336 24.891 26.279 24.932 25.262 25.667 26.597 27.91 25.116 26.704 25.426 24.909 28.393 26.875 27.28 26.026 29.3 24.334 28.834 28.455 28.306 26.937 26.001 28.137

35.623 36.361 37.085 37.686 37.944 38.554 39.048 39.483 40.278 40.972 41.881 43.459 45.092 47.066 49.136 51.123 53.181 55.438 57.613 59.701 61.555 63.152 64.94 66.495 67.996 69.31 70.39 71.449 72.306 73.055 73.831 74.604 75.39 76.188 76.958 77.818 78.84 79.807 80.635 81.553 82.867 84.031 85.195 86.252 87.036 87.982 88.744 89.451

2.091 2.091 1.914 1.914 1.625 2.129 2.329 2.276 1.998 2.116 1.96 1.843 1.904 1.77 1.551 1.36 1.518 1.475 1.406 1.256 1.03 1.097 1.172 0.954 1.03 0.991 1.029 0.962 0.962 0.968 0.992 1.03 0.918 0.966 0.911 0.883 0.994 0.931 0.936 0.885 0.983 0.807 0.946 0.925 0.914 0.864 0.829 0.893

1/27/13%22:00 1/27/13%22:15 1/27/13%22:30 1/27/13%22:45 1/27/13%23:00 1/27/13%23:15 1/27/13%23:30 1/27/13%23:45 1/28/13%0:00 1/28/13%0:15 1/28/13%0:30 1/28/13%0:45 1/28/13%1:00 1/28/13%1:15 1/28/13%1:30 1/28/13%1:45 1/28/13%2:00 1/28/13%2:15 1/28/13%2:30 1/28/13%2:45 1/28/13%3:00 1/28/13%3:15 1/28/13%3:30 1/28/13%3:45 1/28/13%4:00 1/28/13%4:15 1/28/13%4:30 1/28/13%4:45 1/28/13%5:00 1/28/13%5:15 1/28/13%5:30 1/28/13%5:45 1/28/13%6:00 1/28/13%6:15 1/28/13%6:30 1/28/13%6:45 1/28/13%7:00 1/28/13%7:15 1/28/13%7:30 1/28/13%7:45 1/28/13%8:00 1/28/13%8:15 1/28/13%8:30 1/28/13%8:45 1/28/13%9:00 1/28/13%9:15 1/28/13%9:30 1/28/13%9:45

27.278 28.468 22.757 29.412 28.027 28.842 28.439 26.842 29.718 26.376 26.675 25.824 29.237 24.886 25.295 24.324 23.256 23.586 22.563 22.596 19.814 20.926 18.161 18.341 17.34 15.176 14.546 13.188 13.194 12.088 14.017 J5.743 J5.431 J5.226 J5.14 J5.097 J5.151 J5.262 J9.617 J9.971 J10.674 J11.095 10.472 25.766 25.501 25.271 25.837 23.712

90.083 91.028 91.588 91.724 91.895 91.68 91.233 90.69 89.862 88.857 87.627 86.106 84.341 82.124 79.748 77.428 74.833 72.24 69.472 66.678 63.9 61.047 58.153 55.275 52.373 49.476 46.757 44.071 41.422 39.046 36.954 35.191 33.773 32.835 32.438 32.241 32.487 32.996 33.761 34.555 35.571 36.606 37.296 37.939 38.615 39.181 39.784 40.531

0.862 0.894 0.712 0.92 0.876 0.902 0.892 0.845 0.94 0.84 0.858 0.841 0.967 0.841 0.877 0.866 0.856 0.899 0.896 0.938 0.863 0.96 0.882 0.947 0.957 0.899 0.926 0.906 0.983 0.974 1.216 J0.532 J0.532 J0.532 J0.532 J0.532 J0.532 J0.532 J0.943 J0.947 J0.975 J0.975 0.897 2.158 2.086 2.027 2.031 1.819

1/28/13%10:00 1/28/13%10:15 1/28/13%10:30 1/28/13%10:45 1/28/13%11:00 1/28/13%11:15 1/28/13%11:30 1/28/13%11:45 1/28/13%12:00 1/28/13%12:15 1/28/13%12:30 1/28/13%12:45 1/28/13%13:00 1/28/13%13:15 1/28/13%13:30 1/28/13%13:45 1/28/13%14:00 1/28/13%14:15 1/28/13%14:30 1/28/13%14:45 1/28/13%15:00 1/28/13%15:15 1/28/13%15:30 1/28/13%15:45 1/28/13%16:00 1/28/13%16:15 1/28/13%16:30 1/28/13%16:45 1/28/13%17:00 1/28/13%17:15 1/28/13%17:30 1/28/13%17:45 1/28/13%18:00 1/28/13%18:15 1/28/13%18:30 1/28/13%18:45 1/28/13%19:00 1/28/13%19:15 1/28/13%19:30 1/28/13%19:45 1/28/13%20:00 1/28/13%20:15 1/28/13%20:30 1/28/13%20:45 1/28/13%21:00 1/28/13%21:15 1/28/13%21:30 1/28/13%21:45

28.315 24.38 27.066 22.903 24.953 28.174 26.093 25.923 25.217 24.232 26.254 30.036 26.434 29.047 32.455 33.081 35.221 29.075 29.838 34.1 29.906 29.857 33.079 30.907 31.992 42.766 52.901 43.396 98.167 26.314 83.948 73.962 26.754 79.416 65.777 61.711 53.856 27.23 26.303 46.722 48.919 47.104 36.683 34.687 31.826 32.201 32.334 30.728

41.514 42.418 43.704 44.997 46.554 47.914 49.301 50.774 52.159 53.602 53.862 54.494 54.968 56.082 58.058 60.131 62.314 64.164 66.128 68.722 71.907 75.79 81.495 96.285 127.784 173.231 249.791 305.851 203.257 104.958 111.6 104.301 99.701 93.933 93.309 87.776 84.502 79.735 75.494 72.23 69.039 66.12 70.958 75.87 80.188 84.076 87.181 89.685

2.104 1.761 1.88 1.532 1.597 1.738 1.553 1.487 1.398 1.299 1.399 1.578 1.374 1.474 1.58 1.545 1.578 1.26 1.25 1.37 1.146 1.085 1.125 0.951 0.985 1.316 1.628 1.336 3.022 0.81 2.584 2.277 0.824 2.458 2.041 1.982 1.778 0.944 0.96 1.782 1.956 1.974 1.425 1.26 1.098 1.067 1.043 0.973

1/28/13%22:00 1/28/13%22:15 1/28/13%22:30 1/28/13%22:45 1/28/13%23:00 1/28/13%23:15 1/28/13%23:30 1/28/13%23:45 1/29/13%0:00 1/29/13%0:15 1/29/13%0:30 1/29/13%0:45 1/29/13%1:00 1/29/13%1:15 1/29/13%1:30 1/29/13%1:45 1/29/13%2:00 1/29/13%2:15 1/29/13%2:30 1/29/13%2:45 1/29/13%3:00 1/29/13%3:15 1/29/13%3:30 1/29/13%3:45 1/29/13%4:00 1/29/13%4:15 1/29/13%4:30 1/29/13%4:45 1/29/13%5:00 1/29/13%5:15 1/29/13%5:30 1/29/13%5:45 1/29/13%6:00 1/29/13%6:15 1/29/13%6:30 1/29/13%6:45 1/29/13%7:00 1/29/13%7:15 1/29/13%7:30 1/29/13%7:45 1/29/13%8:00 1/29/13%8:15 1/29/13%8:30 1/29/13%8:45 1/29/13%9:00 1/29/13%9:15 1/29/13%9:30 1/29/13%9:45

26.602 24.674 26.221 24.948 25.92 22.604 21.81 23.93 23.674 24.652 24.547 23.469 23.325 22.051 25.747 26.339 23.317 26.769 26.263 26.087 26.039 27.35 23.606 26.533 21.177 24.602 22.735 22.617 18.992 21.292 19.378 19.771 18.027 20.129 20.661 21.846 20.917 20.696 23.349 21.867 26.543 25.505 27.812 29.821 29.731 30.497 22.569 32.037

93.817 97.132 99.715 102.15 104.162 107.658 109.406 111.41 112.762 113.961 114.41 114.13 113.422 112.544 110.822 108.206 105.878 103.138 99.821 96.855 93.599 90.804 87.646 84.78 81.532 78.692 75.632 72.743 69.834 67.178 64.556 62.251 60.086 58.446 56.904 55.666 55.037 54.797 54.939 55.949 57.274 59.214 61.389 63.783 66.156 68.756 71.349 71.933

0.824 0.759 0.807 0.768 0.798 0.696 0.671 0.737 0.729 0.759 0.756 0.722 0.718 0.679 0.793 0.811 0.718 0.824 0.808 0.803 0.807 0.86 0.759 0.874 0.72 0.863 0.828 0.856 0.75 0.877 0.834 0.887 0.843 0.972 1.03 1.118 1.086 1.08 1.215 1.113 1.313 1.213 1.268 1.301 1.245 1.225 0.872 1.227

1/29/13%10:00 1/29/13%10:15 1/29/13%10:30 1/29/13%10:45 1/29/13%11:00 1/29/13%11:15 1/29/13%11:30 1/29/13%11:45 1/29/13%12:00 1/29/13%12:15 1/29/13%12:30 1/29/13%12:45 1/29/13%13:00 1/29/13%13:15 1/29/13%13:30 1/29/13%13:45 1/29/13%14:00 1/29/13%14:15 1/29/13%14:30 1/29/13%14:45 1/29/13%15:00 1/29/13%15:15 1/29/13%15:30 1/29/13%15:45 1/29/13%16:00 1/29/13%16:15 1/29/13%16:30 1/29/13%16:45 1/29/13%17:00 1/29/13%17:15 1/29/13%17:30 1/29/13%17:45 1/29/13%18:00 1/29/13%18:15 1/29/13%18:30 1/29/13%18:45 1/29/13%19:00 1/29/13%19:15 1/29/13%19:30 1/29/13%19:45 1/29/13%20:00 1/29/13%20:15 1/29/13%20:30 1/29/13%20:45 1/29/13%21:00 1/29/13%21:15 1/29/13%21:30 1/29/13%21:45

32.382 29.82 29.576 28.019 30.989 29.734 28.838 26.158 29.206 28.992 27.517 28.602 32.034 30.361 27.047 31.981 29.569 29.957 28.146 28.796 30.163 27.724 27.66 24.086 27.505 28.906 30.069 26.682 24.111 27.639 27.439 28.773 28.46 29.434 28.964 29.69 33.501 32.495 33.695 36.981 33.045 31.185 33.477 30.588 42.919 41.388 40.898 41.674

73.044 74.049 75.096 75.994 76.915 77.931 78.939 79.453 80.577 81.398 81.997 82.686 83.215 83.75 83.115 82.823 82.615 82.267 81.938 81.077 80.137 78.995 77.984 76.817 75.602 74.352 73.078 71.9 70.601 69.489 68.575 67.599 66.899 66.379 65.836 65.494 67.302 70.434 73.551 77.888 83.59 91.075 99.942 108.184 106.56 106.888 104.451 101.537

1.221 1.109 1.085 1.016 1.111 1.053 1.009 0.91 1.003 0.987 0.931 0.961 1.071 1.01 0.905 1.073 0.994 1.011 0.953 0.984 1.041 0.969 0.979 0.864 1.002 1.071 1.133 1.022 0.941 1.097 1.105 1.177 1.177 1.228 1.22 1.257 1.377 1.272 1.262 1.31 1.101 0.979 1.03 0.942 1.321 1.274 1.259 1.283

1/29/13%22:00 1/29/13%22:15 1/29/13%22:30 1/29/13%22:45 1/29/13%23:00 1/29/13%23:15 1/29/13%23:30 1/29/13%23:45 1/30/13%0:00

35.083 40.202 37.638 36.707 39.319 33.73 32.781 32.035 32.799

98.153 96.53 94.305 91.84 89.122 89.249 88.992 88.118 87.058

1.08 1.237 1.163 1.147 1.25 1.071 1.043 1.026 1.059

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Appendix(2(
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( (

BOWERY'BAY'PLANT'FLOW

DATE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AVG 2.0 STD PLUS 2.0 STD

AM 7:00 55 58 53 56 61 65 66 74 71 229 78 99 178 8:00 73 76 70 66 60 59 78 83 77 221 83 94 177 9:00 87 83 81 86 69 65 89 93 93 193 90 87 178 10:00 96 95 92 90 75 75 96 100 104 184 98 74 171 2:00 93 98 104 98 115 110 116 104 101 125 109 40 149 3:00 91 95 97 99 113 109 120 108 100 121 109 35 144 4:00 90 95 96 98 116 108 130 103 101 120 108 35 144 5:00 98 94 97 99 114 109 166 92 98 117 108 35 143 6:00 96 95 98 100 111 112 270 99 86 113 110 63 174 7:00 97 95 101 102 114 109 207 103 99 115 110 42 152 8:00 103 101 101 105 111 114 190 112 105 118 116 70 186

AM 11:00 101 94 96 93 77 94 101 100 103 177 102 58 160

Noon 12:00 99 96 98 92 97 102 103 103 106 160 106 50 156

PM 1:00 100 95 101 96 103 107 109 103 101 118 107 44 151

Max Flow

Min Flow

Aerator Flow

Secondary Bypass Flow

D Daily Dry A Raw Weather Y Flow Flow 22 90 90 23 91 91 24 91 91 25 90 90 26 93 93 27 95 95 28 122 122 29 103 103 30 130 130 31 128 128 Total 3204 3035 Average 103 98 MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW (MGD) MAXIMUM HOURLY FLOW (MGD)) 105 109 108 105 116 115 270 161 314 229 314 MAX 163 314 45 38 4 231 39 49 55 53 56 60 59 66 67 71 66 49 MIN 90 91 91 90 93 95 120 103 124 128 3164 102 65%

High Level Flow 59 59 59 59 60 62 79 67 85 83 2083 67

Lower Level Flow 32 32 32 32 33 33 43 36 46 45 1121 36

High Level % Flow 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

Lower Level % Flow 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 35%

9:00 101 105 104 104 113 115 152 142 108 115 117 71 188

10:00 103 109 108 105 106 115 140 161 101 116 118 64 182

PM 11:00 105 106 103 103 106 113 133 141 112 115 116 58 174 2:00 91 95 93 88 88 91 100 106 174 96 106 61 167 3:00 88 87 90 83 87 83 91 88 233 83 101 87 188 4:00 74 75 75 74 77 75 84 82 243 84 95 97 192 5:00 60 65 69 70 72 70 79 67 314 66 90 125 215 6:00 49 55 61 62 66 66 70 68 262 68 80 109 189 AVG 90 91 91 90 93 95 122 103 130 128 103 Avg MAX 105 109 108 105 116 115 270 161 314 229 314 Max MIN 49 55 53 56 60 59 66 67 71 66 49 Min DRY 90 91 91 90 93 95 122 103 130 128 98 Dry

Midnt 12:00 105 105 102 101 96 111 122 125 109 114 113 51 164

AM 1:00 104 102 99 100 94 103 114 113 129 107 110 53 163

7-6 PM Aer 90 90 90 89 93 93 117 97 95 156 3095 98

7-6 AM Aer 90 92 92 91 94 97 124 109 153 100 3229 104

Total Aer 90 91 91 90 93 95 120 103 124 128 3164 101

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Appendix(3(
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( (

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Appendix(4(
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( (

Appendix 20 Construction Impacts

Construction Manpower and Truck Trips Projections

CORNELLNYC TECH CAMPUS PHASE I MANPOWER PROJECTIONS

Jan-14 Site Preparation & Civil Work Site Preparation Supervision Interior Demolition Abatement Structural Demolition Civil/Site Work Photovoltaic Work Geothermal Wells 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 12 20 40 12 20 40 12 20 50 40 50 40 10 40 10 40 60 50 40 40 12 20 10 10 60 10 10 60 60 10 10 60 60 40 10 10 60 60 40 10 10 60 60 40 10 15 10 15

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

May-14

2014 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16

2015 Jul-15

Feb-16

Mar-16

Apr-16

May-16

Jun-16

2016 Jul-16

Aug-16

Sep-16

Oct-16

Nov-16

Dec-16

Jan-17

Feb-17

Mar-17

Apr-17

May-17

Jun-17

2017 Jul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

Nov-17

Dec-17

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

10

10

10

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

40 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

20 12 20

ACADEMIC BLDG.
General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation/Foundation Structure (Steel) Elevators Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 36 36 36 36 32 16 48 8 48 8 36 32 16 36 32 16 48 8 32 32 48 4 48 4 48 8 PARTNER R&D BUILDING General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation/Foundation Structure (Steel) Elevators Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 32 32 GRADUATE/FACULTY/STAFF HOUSING General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation/Foundation Structure (Concrete) Elevators Exterior Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation/Foundation Structure (Concrete) Elevators Exterior Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation/Foundation Structure Faade Equipment Installation MEP Fire Protection N/A DAILY WORKER AVERAGE: 2014 1Q 133 2014 2Q 186 2014 3Q 201 2014 4Q 209 2015 1Q 279 80 140 180 180 180 197 2015 2Q 379 223 2015 3Q 689 4 8 4 24 4 24 6 24 6 24 6 24 6 24 12 8 12 24 12 24 12 24 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 80 8 12 80 8 24 32 32 48 12 80 16 24 48 12 80 16 24 48 8 12 80 16 48 48 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 12 24 12 24 12 24 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 80 8 12 80 8 16 32 32 48 12 80 16 16 48 12 80 16 16 48 4 12 80 16 16 48 4 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 12 8 12 8 12 24 12 24 12 24 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 8 12 12 12 12 24 12 32 12 32 8 12 32 8 16 48 4 48 4 48 8 48 8 48 8 12 32 8 16 48 8 12 32 8 16 48 8 12 12 16 16 48 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 12 8 12 24 12 24 12 24 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 36 12 8 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 32 16 48 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

12

12

12

12

32 16 48 8

32 16 64 8

32 12 64 8

32 8 64 8

32 8 64 8 24 64 12 24 72 12 24 72 12 24 72 12 24 72 12 24 72 12 24 64 12 60 24 64 12 60 24 48 8 60 24 48 8 60 24 12 8 60

24 12 4 60

24 12

24 12

60

60

60

12

12

12

12

12

16 16 64 8

16 16 64 8

8 16 64 8

8 8 24 64 8

8 24 64 12

24 72 12

24 72 12

24 72 12

24 72 12

24 72 12

24 64 12 60

24 64 12 60

24 48 8 60

24 48 8 60

24 12 8 60

24 12 4 60

16 12

16 12

60

60

60

60

16

16

16

16

16 16 48 8

16 16 48 8

16 16 24 48 8

8 16 24 48 8

8 16 24 64 16

16 24 64 16

16 24 64 16

16 36 64 16

16 36 64 16

16 36 72 16 30

36 72 16 30

36 72 16 30

48 72 8 30

48 72 8 30

36 64 8 30

24 64 8 30

12 48 8 30

48 4 30

12 4 30

12

12

12

12

16 48 48 8

16 48 48 8

16 48 24 48 8

8 48 24 48 8

8 48 24 64 24

48 24 64 24

48 24 64 24

24 36 64 24

24 36 64 24

24 36 72 24 30

36 72 24 30

36 72 24 30

48 72 24 30

48 72 24 30

36 64 24 30

24 64 24 30

12 48 24 30

48 4 30

12 4 30

6 24

6 24

6 24 8

6 16

6 16

6 16

6 16

6 8 12 60 60

12 60 60 8 189 2015 4Q 839 191 2016 1Q 770 207 2016 2Q 781 199 2016 3Q 808 220 2016 4Q 867 242 2017 1Q 840 290 2017 2Q 644 306 2017 3Q 215 366 362 410 522 722 822

12 60 60 8 858

12 60 60 8 854

12 60 60 8 806

12 60 60 8 814

12 60 60 8 758

60 60 8 738

60 60 8 766

60 60 8 774

60 60 8 802

60 60 8 806

60 60 8 796

60 60 8 822

60 60 8 838

60 60 8 876

60 60 8 888

60 60 8 888

60 60 8 824

60 60 8

60 60 8

60 60 8

60 60 8

60 60 8

60 60 8

808

720

688

524

326

250

70

CORNELLNYC TECH PHASE 2A MANPOWER PROJECTIONS

2024 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Apr-26 May-26 Aug-26 Sep-26 2025 Jun-25 Jul-25 2026 Jun-26 Jul-26

Jan-24 Site Utilities, Civil & Grading Supervision Utilities Site Civil (PV) Landscaping 25 30 30 30 ACADEMIC BUILDING General Carpenters & Laborers Exacavation & Foundation Superstructure (Steel) Elevators Exterior Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 32 16 24 64 8 64 8 64 8 64 8 42 72 8 42 72 12 16 24 16 16 8 16 8 16 42 64 8 32 32 46 8 46 8 16 48 8 48 8 48 8 48 8 32 16 16 32 16 16 12 16 24 12 12 48 48 48 4 48 4 47 72 12 Corporate Co-location General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation & Foundation Superstructure (Steel) Elevators Exterior Faade Interiors Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 36 36 32 32 32 32 MIXED-USE BUILDING (CORPORATE CO-LOCATION RESIDENTIAL) General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation & Foundation Superstructure (Concrete) Elevators Exterior Faade Interiors Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 80 16 40 48 48 16 40 80 8 80 8 26 32 32 60 16 26 16 60 48 CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation & Foundation Super Structure Exterior Faade MEP Equipment & Distribution Fire Protection 16 12 60 60 6 449 2027 2Q 377 2027 3Q 207 12 60 6 329 2026 4Q 516 2027 1Q 465 345 383 12 60 6 12 60 6 16 16 8 12 60 DAILY WORKER AVERAGE: 2024 2Q 72 2024 3Q 131 2024 4Q 147 2025 1Q 207 2025 2Q 352 2025 3Q 435 2025 4Q 455 2026 1Q 494 2026 2Q 508 2026 3Q 481 72 110 130 154 146 154 142 146 220 255 4 8 4 24 6 24 6 24 6 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 8 4 16 8 24 8 24 8 32 8 32 8 24 8 24 8 16 8 8 60 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 16 8 16 8 28 8 28 8 16 8 88 8 7 24 8 8 8 36 8 16 40 4 8 36 8 16 40 4 8 24 16 16 40 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 6 16 8 24 8 36 8 36 8 36 8 24 8 16 8 8 18 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 24 16 16 24 16 16 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 24 16 25 32 16 25 30 32 16 25 30 32 16 25 30 32 16 25 30 32 16 25 30 32 32 32 32

Feb-24

Mar-24

Apr-24

May-24

Oct-26

Nov-26

Dec-26

Jan-27

Feb-27

Mar-27

Apr-27

May-27

2027 Jun-27 Jul-27

Aug-27

Sep-27

Oct-27

Nov-27

Dec-27

Jan-28

Feb-28

32

32

32

40

40

40

40

40

40

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

59 72 12

68 72 12

63 64 12

63 64 12

63 48 12 60

63 48 12 60

63 12 8 60

59 12 8 60

42 12 8 60

42 12 4 60

42

42

60

60

16 16 40 8

16 16 40 8

16 16 40 8

16 16 40 8

16 16 40 8

8 16 64 8

8 16 24 64 8

24 64 10

36 64 10

36 72 10

36 72 10

36 72 8

36 72 8

36 64 8 60

36 64 8 60

36 64 4 60

36 40 4 60

36 40 4 60

36 12

24

24

60

60

60

16 60 48

16 40 48 4

8 40 48 4

8 12 24 48 8

24 48 8

24 64 8

24 64 12

36 64 12

36 72 12

36 72 12

48 72 12

48 72 8 30

48 64 8 30

48 64 8 30

24 48 8 30

24 48 4 30

24 12 4 30

24

24

30

30

60 6 443 2027 4Q 149

60 6 413 2027 1Q 104

60 6 389

60 6 517

60 6 460

60 6 479

60 6 463

60 6 541

60 6 505

60 6 525

60 6 494

60 6 493

60 6 510

16

16

16

16

16

441

453

539

555

501

453

440

400

366

366

218

218

184

160

160

128

104

104

CORNELLNYC TECH PHASE 2B MANPOWER PROJECTIONS

May-34 Site Utilities, Civil & Landscaping Supervision Utilities Landscaping 30 30 30 Mixed-Use Building (Academic and Residential; Academic Portion) General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation & Foundation Super Structure Elevators Exterior Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 32 32 12 64 8 64 8 64 8 64 8 40 72 12 40 72 12 16 8 16 8 8 6 8 6 40 64 8 32 50 50 8 50 72 12 50 8 6 48 8 48 8 48 8 48 8 32 16 6 32 16 8 16 32 12 12 12 20 20 4 20 4 48 8 Mixed-Use Building (Academic and Residential; Residential Portion) General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation & Foundation Superstructure Elevators Exterior Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 120 8 16 60 48 4 48 8 48 8 48 8 48 8 48 16 16 60 16 60 16 60 8 60 8 50 8 49 60 48 16 120 8 40 32 48 4 120 8 50 12 12 12 60 64 16 Corporate Co-location General Carpenters & Laborers Excavation & Foundation Superstructure (Steel) Elevators Exterior Faade Interior Development MEP Fire Protection FF&E 24 36 12 12 12 32 4 DAILY WORKER AVERAGE: 2034 2Q 38 2034 3Q 71 2034 4Q 119 2035 1Q 137 2035 2Q 319 2035 3Q 360 2035 4Q 349 2036 1Q 460 2036 2Q 452 2036 3Q 467 2036 4Q 529 2037 1Q 477 2037 2Q 402 2037 3Q 224 2037 4Q 129 38 52 80 80 110 124 124 136 124 152 260 298 398 434 322 324 352 344 4 8 4 8 8 24 8 24 8 24 8 24 8 24 8 8 8 8 24 8 8 8 40 8 16 48 4 8 36 16 16 48 8 8 24 16 22 48 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 6 24 6 24 6 24 8 36 8 36 8 36 8 24 8 24 8 8 100 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 6 8 8 16 8 16 8 36 8 36 8 36 8 36 8 8 16 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 16 10 16 10 16 10 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 20 16 30 20 16 30 20 16 30 20 16 30 20 16 30 20 20 20 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 20 30 Jun-34 Jul-34 2034 Aug-34 Sep-34 Oct-34 Nov-34 Dec-34 Jan-35 Feb-35 Mar-35 Apr-35 May-35 Aug-35 Sep-35 Oct-35 Nov-35 Dec-35 Jan-36 Feb-36 Mar-36 Apr-36 May-36 Aug-36 Sep-36 2035 Jun-35 Jul-35 2036 Jun-36 Jul-36 Oct-36 Nov-36 Dec-36 Jan-37 Feb-37 Mar-37 Apr-37

May-37

2037 Jun-37 Jul-37

Aug-37

Sep-37

Oct-37

Nov-37

Dec-37

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

30

30

30

56 72 12

60 72 12

60 64 12

60 64 12

60 48 8 30

60 48 8 30

60 12 8 30

56 12 8 30

56 12 4 30

40 12 30

40

40

30

30

60 64 16

60 64 16

70 72 16

70 72 16

70 72 16

80 72 8

80 64 8 40

80 64 8 40

80 48 8 40

70 48 8 40

70 12 4 40

60 12 4 40

60

60

40

40

16 22 48 8

16 22 48 8

16 22 48 8

16 22 48 8

16 22 48 8

8 16 64 8

8 8 40 64 10

40 64 10

60 64 10

80 72 10

80 72 8

80 72 8

80 72 8

80 64 8 60 352 424 481 474 448 448 460 466 470 466 532 526 530 512 466 452 416

80 64 4 60

80 64 4 60

80 48 4 60

80 48

60 12

40

40

60

60

60

60

456

334

256

210

206

150

118

118

CORNELLNYC TECH PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION TRUCK TRIP PROJECTIONS

Months 1 3
Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41
May-17

42
Jun-17

Activity General Site

Jan-14

Feb-14

Site & Civil 11 161 44 179 61 27 71 88 36 36 36 36 36 36 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 36 36 36 36 36 36 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 27 27 27 27 27 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 44 44 44 44 44 44 161 161 161 161 161 11 11 11

Organic Material

11

11

Roof Removal & Interior Demolition

161

161

Abatement

44

44

Excavation for Proposed Building Foundations

Off Site Utilities

Allowances

Loop Road Construction

Material Source

Landscaping

Material & Equipment Deliveries 86 43 28 25 3 3 16 16 16 3 3 3 16 16 19 16 19 8 16 19 8 16 19 8 16 19 8 16 19 8 16 19 8 2 2 16 19 3 3 3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 28 25 25 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86

Material & Equipment Deliveries Site Utilities

Loop Road

Geothermal

Photovoltaic

Site Drainage

Irrigation

Site Development

Softscape

Site Furnishings

Site Signage

Central Utility Plant 13 50 5 6 5 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 50 50 50 50 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 10 5 125 10 125 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 5 50 50 50 13 13 13

Steel

Concrete

Spray Fireproofing

Curtainwall

Roofing

MEP

Misc & FF&E

Sitework & Landscaping

Academic Building 40 240 15 30 20 15 10 10 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 10 10 10 10 20 100 10 60 60 60 15 15 60 100 30 20 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 15 240 240 240 40 40 40 40

Steel

Concrete

Spray Fireproofing

Curtainwall

Roofing

Elevators

MEP

Finishes

MISC & FF&E

Sitework/Landscaping

Corporate Co-location 40 240 15 30 240 240 15 30 40 40 40 40 240 15 30 20 20 15 10 10 30 30 30 30 10 30 10 30 10 10 30 60 10 30 60 20 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Steel

Concrete

Spray Fireproofing

Curtainwall

Roofing

Elevators

MEP

Finishes

MISC

Sitework/Landscaping

Residence 417 417 417 40 417 40 417 40 417 40 20 15 10 20 30 30 30 30 20 30 20 30 10 20 30 60 20 30 60 20 30 40 20 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 15 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 60 30 100 60 30 100 60 30 100 60 30 100 60 30 100 60 30 40

Concrete

Curtainwall

Roofing

Elevators

MEP

Finishes

MISC

Sitework/Landscaping

Executive Education Center 300 300 300 20 300 20 300 20 300 20 20 20 10 20 30 30 30 30 20 30 20 30 10 20 30 60 20 30 60 20 30 20 20 20 60 100 30 20 60 100 30 20 60 100 30 20 60 100 30 20 60 100 30 20 60 100 30 60 100 30 27 216 2014 3Q 15 19 25 34 67 65 66 2014 4Q 2015 1Q 2015 2Q 2015 3Q 2015 4Q 2016 1Q 2016 2Q 59 216 216 395 384 384 223 369 2016 3Q 49 396 2016 4Q 37 467 2017 1Q 31 499 2017 2Q 29 549 614 660 655 923 1,152 1,633 1,658 1,288 1,568 1,438 1,597 1,345 1,426 1,446 1,226 1,226 1,089 1,089 1,069 909 854 654 670 60 150 60 27 690 60 150 60 27 690 60 150 60 27 690 150 60 27 632 150 60 27 623 20

Concrete

Curtainwall

Roofing

Elevators

MEP

Finishes

MISC

Sitework/Landscaping

Monthly Average

216

216

2014 1Q

2014 2Q

Daily Average by Quarter

10

13

CORNELLNYC TECH PHASE 2A CONSTRUCTION TRUCK TRIPS PROJECTIONS

Months 1 2
Feb-24 Mar-24 Apr-24 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Apr-26 May-26 Jun-26 Jul-26 Aug-26 Sep-26

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34
Oct-26

35
Nov-26

36
Dec-26

37
Jan-27

38
Feb-27

39
Mar-27

40
Apr-27

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Activity General Site

Jan-24

May-27

Jun-27

Jul-27

Aug-27

Sep-27

Oct-27

Nov-27

Dec-27

Jan-28

Feb-28

Site & Civil Organic Material Utilities Loop Road Material Source Landscaping Academic Building Excavation/Foundation Steel Concrete Spray Fireproofing Curtainwall Roofing Elevators MEP Finishes MISC & FF&E Sitework/Landscaping Corporate Co-Location Building Excavation/Foundation Steel Concrete Spray Fireproofing Curtainwall Roofing Elevators MEP Finishes MISC & FF&E Sitework/Landscaping 10 10 10 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 16 16 80 16 82 16 82 15 30 18 82 15 30 18 82 15 30 82 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 15 60 30 20 15 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 10 20 10 10 60 60 60 60 60 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 15 60 15 15 15 30 20 15 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 100 60 100 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 190 190 190 190 190 30 30 30 30 32 32 32 32 32 334 334 334 334 334 334 334 334 334 26 26 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 12 12 13 13 35 35 35 35 100 26 35 100 26 35 100 26 100 26 26 20 26 20

26

26

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

20

20

20

20

20

22

22

22

22

22

100

100

30

30

30

30

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

20

20

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Mixed-Use Building (Corporate Co-loaction Residential) Excavation Concrete Curtainwall Roofing Elevators MEP Finishes MISC & FF&E Sitework/Landscaping Central Utility Plant Steel Concrete Spray Fireproofing Curtainwall Roofing MEP Sitework & Landscaping Monthly Avearge 334 2024 2Q 15 444 2024 3Q 20 444 2024 4Q 22 444 2025 1Q 21 457 2025 2Q 22 507 2025 3Q 35 512 2025 4Q 30 512 2026 1Q 27 610 2026 2Q 25 263 2026 3Q 18 528 2026 4Q 28 448 2027 1Q 29 477 2027 2Q 22 736 2027 3Q 11 861 2027 4Q 11 696 2028 1Q 10 696 724 535 481 20 20 20 13 13 50 13 50 5 13 50 5 13 50 5 6 50 5 6 5 6 6 5 50 6 5 50 50 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 30 603 125 30 693 125 30 555 125 30 555 125 30 547 125 30 450 300 406 486 666 706 691 636 556 556 15 15 10 15 10 15 10 15 10 15 60 15 60 15 60 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 180 180 180 180 40 180 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 20 15 60 40 20 15 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 100 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30

100

100

30

30

30

30

446

446

240

240

270

272

272

212

212

212

Daily Average by Quarter

CORNELLNYC TECH PHASE 2B CONSTRUCTION TRUCK TRIPS PROJECTIONS

Months 1 2
Jun-34 Jul-34 Aug-34 Sep-34 Oct-34 Nov-34 Dec-34 Jan-35 Feb-35 Mar-35 Apr-35 May-35 Jun-35 Jul-35 Aug-35 Sep-35 Oct-35 Nov-35 Dec-35 Jan-36 Feb-36 Mar-36 Apr-36 May-36 Jun-36 Jul-36 Aug-36 Sep-36

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30
Oct-36

31
Nov-36

32
Dec-36

33
Jan-37

34
Feb-37

35
Mar-37

36
Apr-37

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Activity General Site

May-34

May-37

Jun-37

Jul-37

Aug-37

Sep-37

Oct-37

Nov-37

Dec-37

Site & Civil Organic Material Utilities Loop Road Material Source Landscaping Mixed-Use Building (Academic and Residential: Academic Portion) Excavation/Foundation Steel Concrete Spray Fireproofing Curtainwall Roofing Elevators MEP Finishes MISC & FF&E Sitework/Landscaping Mixed-Use Building (Academic and Residential: Residential Portion) Excavation Concrete Curtainwall Roofing Elevators MEP Finishes MISC & FF&E Sitework/Landscaping Corporate Co-location Excavation/Foundation Steel Concrete Spray Fireproofing Curtainwall Roofing Elevators MEP Finishes MISC & FF&E Sitework/Landscaping Monthly Avearge 0 334 444 444 444 2034 2Q 15 444 2034 3Q 20 444 2034 4Q 20 444 2035 1Q 23 444 2035 2Q 29 635 2035 3Q 26 433 2035 4Q 22 658 2036 1Q 21 580 2036 2Q 16 690 2036 3Q 18 720 2036 4Q 24 495 2037 1Q 24 505 2037 2Q 21 587 2037 3Q 13 513 2037 4Q 9 376 468 488 443 366 292 367 379 381 401 546 511 511 519 502 542 10 10 10 10 15 20 15 20 15 20 15 20 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 32 32 92 34 92 34 94 15 30 34 94 15 30 34 94 15 30 94 15 30 15 30 30 30 30 30 20 15 60 30 20 15 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 20 60 20 10 10 10 60 15 15 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 15 60 40 40 40 225 225 225 225 40 40 40 40 40 20 15 60 40 20 15 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 100 30 30 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 10 10 10 10 60 60 60 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 60 15 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 20 15 60 10 60 10 60 10 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 20 60 100 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 60 100 30 30 60 100 30 30 20 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 124 32 32 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 334 334 334 334 334 334 334 334 334 12 14 14 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 5 5 5 5 22 22 22 25 14 22 25 14 22 25 14 22 25 14 8 14 8 14 8 14 8

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

100

100

100

30

30

30

30

30

30

100

30

30

60

60

60

60

60

60

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

482

532

372

372

242

243

243

183

183

Daily Average by Quarter

Projected Equipment List

Projected Equipment List

Trade/Activity: Interior Demolition Abatement Structural Demolition Civil/Site Work Utility Work General Construction Excavation Steel Concrete SOFP Curtain Wall Elevators MEP Iron (Misc.) Metal (Ornamental) Equipment Total: *Mult = Multiple (where needed) 8 8 4 4 8 1 1 2 6 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 4 6 1 6 8 3 2 2 1 8 40 8 4 40 20 20 140 8 8 Mult* Mult* 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mult* Mult* Mult* 3 2 2 1 4 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 4 4 8

Horespower

Engine Type

Equipment Type: 60 60 100 Diesel Diesel Diesel Manual 150 Diesel Electric Electric 600 400 400 150 150 300 150 150 150 200 100 125 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Electric 350 350 50 Diesel Diesel Diesel Electric 20 20 20 20 350 50 400 Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Bobcats Mini Excavator Air Compressors Hand Chopping Tools Compactor Barrel Fans Decontamination Chamber Komatsu PC1250 Hitachi 750 (With Shear) Catepillar D9 Loader 973 Crushing Wheel Loader Crushing Cat D 4 Dozer Cat 550 Wheel Harvester Cat 450 Backhoe Loader Roadway Cold Planer Soil Compactor Cat AP555E Asphalt Paver Hydraulic Excavator Hoist Tower Tower Crane Crawler Crane LULL 944 E Welding Rigs Generators Pumps Ejector Pumps Dewatering Pumps Concrete Pumps Setting Rig (mini floor crane) Swing Rig

Construction Traffic

Table 1 Construction Phase 1 (Weekday )-Level 1 Screening Vehicle PCE Trips (Auto + Truck) 2014 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM In / Out Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Daily Total
65 17 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 57 10 0 172 86 26 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 78 13 0 236 96 28 8 8 8 8 4 0 5 80 15 0 260 103 29 8 8 8 4 8 4 9 87 16 0 284 134 40 12 12 12 8 8 4 11 114 21 0 376 186 50 12 12 12 12 12 12 17 158 29 0 512 342 96 28 28 28 24 28 12 29 286 51 0 952 397 111 28 28 28 24 24 12 33 345 62 0 1092 374 104 28 28 28 24 28 8 31 318 57 0 1028 370 101 24 24 24 24 24 8 31 322 58 0 1010 369 100 20 20 20 20 20 12 28 329 60 0 998 380 102 16 16 16 12 16 4 30 352 64 0 1008 365 95 12 12 12 12 12 4 29 341 62 0 956 283 76 12 12 12 12 12 8 20 259 48 0 754 86 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 86 16 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2015 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2016 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2017 2Q 3Q 4Q

2Q

3Q

Construction Phase 1 (Weekday )-Auto only Vehicle PCE Trips (Auto only) 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In / Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 2014 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 110 0 110 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 110 110 0 21 21 0 0 0 138 138 276 2015 2Q 3Q 150 0 150 38 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 150 150 0 29 29 0 0 0 188 188 376 274 0 274 68 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 0 274 274 0 51 51 0 0 0 342 342 684 4Q 333 0 333 83 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 333 333 0 62 62 0 0 0 416 416 832 1Q 306 0 306 76 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 0 306 306 0 57 57 0 0 0 382 382 764 2016 2Q 3Q 310 0 310 77 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 0 310 310 0 58 58 0 0 0 387 387 774 321 0 321 80 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 321 321 0 60 60 0 0 0 401 401 802 4Q 344 0 344 86 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 0 344 344 0 64 64 0 0 0 430 430 860 1Q 333 0 333 83 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 333 333 0 62 62 0 0 0 416 416 832 2017 2Q 3Q 255 86 0 0 255 86 64 21 0 0 64 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 16 5 0 0 255 86 255 86 0 0 48 16 48 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 107 319 107 638 214 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

53 74 80 83 0 0 0 0 53 74 80 83 13 18 20 21 0 0 0 0 13 18 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 53 74 80 83 53 74 80 83 0 0 0 0 10 13 15 16 10 13 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 66 92 100 104 Out 66 92 100 104 Total 132 184 200 208

Construction Phase 1 (Weekday )-Truck only Vehicle PCE Trips (Truck only) 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In / Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 40 2014 2Q 3Q 6 6 12 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 52 8 8 16 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 60 4Q 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 76 1Q 2015 2Q 3Q 4Q 32 32 64 14 14 28 14 14 28 14 14 28 14 14 28 12 12 24 12 12 24 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 130 260 1Q 2016 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2017 2Q 3Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

12 18 34 12 18 34 24 36 68 6 6 14 6 6 14 12 12 28 6 6 14 6 6 14 12 12 28 6 6 14 6 6 14 12 12 28 6 6 14 6 6 14 12 12 28 4 6 12 4 6 12 8 12 24 4 6 14 4 6 14 8 12 28 2 6 6 2 6 6 4 12 12 2 4 6 2 4 6 4 8 12 2 4 6 2 4 6 4 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 68 134 50 68 134 100 136 268

34 30 24 18 16 14 34 30 24 18 16 14 68 60 48 36 32 28 14 12 10 8 6 6 14 12 10 8 6 6 28 24 20 16 12 12 14 12 10 8 6 6 14 12 10 8 6 6 28 24 20 16 12 12 14 12 10 8 6 6 14 12 10 8 6 6 28 24 20 16 12 12 14 12 10 8 6 6 14 12 10 8 6 6 28 24 20 16 12 12 12 12 10 6 6 6 12 12 10 6 6 6 24 24 20 12 12 12 14 12 10 8 6 6 14 12 10 8 6 6 28 24 20 16 12 12 4 4 6 2 2 4 4 4 6 2 2 4 8 8 12 4 4 8 6 6 4 4 4 2 6 6 4 4 4 2 12 12 8 8 8 4 6 6 4 4 4 2 6 6 4 4 4 2 12 12 8 8 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 118 98 74 62 58 132 118 98 74 62 58 264 236 196 148 124 116

Weekday Phase 1 Vehicle Trips Table 2 Construction Phase 1 -Weekday Hourly Total Vehicle Trip Projection Vehhicle Trips (Auto + Truck) 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 56 3 59 14 1 15 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 54 55 0 10 10 0 0 0 76 76 152 77 3 80 20 2 22 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 7 1 75 76 0 13 13 0 0 0 105 105 210 84 4 88 22 2 24 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 80 80 0 15 15 0 0 0 115 115 230 88 5 93 23 2 25 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 6 7 1 84 85 0 16 16 0 0 0 123 123 246 116 6 122 31 3 34 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 8 9 1 111 112 0 21 21 0 0 0 163 163 326 159 9 168 41 3 44 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 11 13 2 152 154 0 29 29 0 0 0 222 222 444 291 17 308 75 7 82 7 7 14 7 7 14 7 7 14 6 6 12 7 7 14 3 3 6 3 20 23 3 277 280 0 51 51 0 0 0 409 409 818 349 16 365 90 7 97 7 7 14 7 7 14 7 7 14 6 6 12 6 6 12 3 3 6 3 24 27 3 336 339 0 62 62 0 0 0 481 481 962 323 17 340 83 7 90 7 7 14 7 7 14 7 7 14 6 6 12 7 7 14 2 2 4 3 22 25 3 309 312 0 57 57 0 0 0 448 448 896 325 15 340 83 6 89 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 3 22 25 3 313 316 0 58 58 0 0 0 446 446 892 333 12 345 85 5 90 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 3 3 6 2 22 24 2 323 325 0 60 60 0 0 0 450 450 900 353 9 362 90 4 94 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 3 3 6 4 4 8 1 1 2 2 24 26 2 346 348 0 64 64 0 0 0 467 467 934 341 8 349 86 3 89 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 2 23 25 2 335 337 0 62 62 0 0 0 447 447 894 262 7 269 67 3 70 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 1 17 18 1 256 257 0 48 48 0 0 0 348 348 696 86 0 86 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 86 86 0 16 16 0 0 0 107 107 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2015 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2016 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2017 2Q 3Q 4Q

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

Vehicle PCE Trips (Auto + Truck in PCEs) 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In / Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 59 6 65 15 2 17 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 55 57 0 10 10 0 0 0 86 86 172 2014 2Q 3Q 80 6 86 22 4 26 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 7 9 2 76 78 0 13 13 0 0 0 118 118 236 88 8 96 24 4 28 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 80 80 0 15 15 0 0 0 130 130 260 4Q 93 10 103 25 4 29 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 7 9 2 85 87 0 16 16 0 0 0 142 142 284 1Q 122 12 134 34 6 40 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 9 11 2 112 114 0 21 21 0 0 0 188 188 376 2015 2Q 3Q 168 18 186 44 6 50 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 13 17 4 154 158 0 29 29 0 0 0 256 256 512 4Q 1Q 2016 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 349 16 365 89 6 95 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 4 25 29 4 337 341 0 62 62 0 0 0 478 478 956 2017 2Q 3Q 269 14 283 70 6 76 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 2 18 20 2 257 259 0 48 48 0 0 0 377 377 754 86 0 86 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 86 86 0 16 16 0 0 0 107 107 214 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

Total

06:00 PM

308 365 340 340 34 32 34 30 342 397 374 370 82 97 90 89 14 14 14 12 96 111 104 101 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 12 28 28 28 24 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 12 28 28 28 24 14 14 14 12 14 14 14 12 28 28 28 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 24 24 24 14 12 14 12 14 12 14 12 28 24 28 24 6 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 12 12 8 8 6 6 6 6 23 27 25 25 29 33 31 31 6 6 6 6 280 339 312 316 286 345 318 322 0 0 0 0 51 62 57 58 51 62 57 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 546 514 505 476 546 514 505 952 1092 1028 1010

345 362 24 18 369 380 90 94 10 8 100 102 10 8 10 8 20 16 10 8 10 8 20 16 10 8 10 8 20 16 10 6 10 6 20 12 10 8 10 8 20 16 6 2 6 2 12 4 4 4 24 26 28 30 4 4 325 348 329 352 0 0 60 64 60 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 499 504 499 504 998 1008

Phase 1: Weekday Auto Trips Auto Auto Occupancy Auto Trips Regular Shift Workers Time
Temporal

58.0% 1.17 Regular Shift 2014 1Q 133 53 0 53 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% In Out Total 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 53 53 0 10 10 0 0 0 66 66 132 2Q 186 74 0 74 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 74 74 0 13 13 0 0 0 92 92 184 3Q 201 80 0 80 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 80 80 0 15 15 0 0 0 100 100 200 4Q 209 83 0 83 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 83 83 0 16 16 0 0 0 104 104 208 1Q 279 110 0 110 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 110 110 0 21 21 0 0 0 138 138 276 2015 2Q 379 150 0 150 38 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 150 150 0 29 29 0 0 0 188 188 376 3Q 689 274 0 274 68 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 0 274 274 0 51 51 0 0 0 342 342 684 4Q 839 333 0 333 83 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 333 333 0 62 62 0 0 0 416 416 832 1Q 770 306 0 306 76 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 0 306 306 0 57 57 0 0 0 382 382 764 2016 2Q 781 310 0 310 77 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 0 310 310 0 58 58 0 0 0 387 387 774 3Q 808 321 0 321 80 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 321 321 0 60 60 0 0 0 401 401 802 4Q 867 344 0 344 86 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 0 344 344 0 64 64 0 0 0 430 430 860 1Q 840 333 0 333 83 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 333 333 0 62 62 0 0 0 416 416 832 2017 2Q 644 255 0 255 64 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 0 255 255 0 48 48 0 0 0 319 319 638 3Q

Table 3 Construction Phase 1 -Weekday Hourly Total Auto Trip Projection

4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ph-1 Worker Projection--> In 100% 0%

215 86 0 86 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 86 86 0 16 16 0 0 0 107 107 214

06:00 AM

07:00 AM

80%

Out Total In

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

20%

Out Total In

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

0%

Out Total In

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

0%

Out Total In

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

0%

Out Total In

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

0%

Out Total In

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

0%

Out Total In

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

0%

Out Total In

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

5%

Out Total In

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

80%

Out Total In

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

15%

Out Total In

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

0%

Out Total

Phase 1: Weekday Truck Trips Table 4 Construction Phase 1 -Weekday Hourly Truck Trip Projection Regular Shift 2015 2016 2017 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4A Construction Phase 1 -Weekday Hourly Truck Trip Projection (PCE) Regular Shift 2015 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 25 6 6 12 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 50 34 67 65 66 59 9 17 16 17 15 9 17 16 17 15 18 34 32 34 30 3 7 7 7 6 3 7 7 7 6 6 14 14 14 12 3 7 7 7 6 3 7 7 7 6 6 14 14 14 12 3 7 7 7 6 3 7 7 7 6 6 14 14 14 12 3 7 7 7 6 3 7 7 7 6 6 14 14 14 12 3 6 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 3 7 6 7 6 3 7 6 7 6 6 14 12 14 12 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 6 6 6 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 6 6 6 6 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 67 65 66 59 34 67 65 66 59 68 134 130 132 118 49 12 12 24 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 49 98 37 9 9 18 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 3 3 6 4 4 8 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 37 74 31 8 8 16 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 31 62 29 7 7 14 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 58

Truck Trips Regular Shift 2014 Trucks 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Ph-1 Truck Temporal Projection--> 10 13 15 19 In 100% 3 3 4 5 25% Out 100% 3 3 4 5 Total 6 6 8 10 In 100% 1 2 2 2 10% Out 100% 1 2 2 2 Total 2 4 4 4 In 100% 1 1 2 2 10% Out 100% 1 1 2 2 Total 2 2 4 4 In 100% 1 1 2 2 10% Out 100% 1 1 2 2 Total 2 2 4 4 In 100% 1 1 2 2 10% Out 100% 1 1 2 2 Total 2 2 4 4 In 100% 1 1 2 1 10% Out 100% 1 1 2 1 Total 2 2 4 2 In 100% 1 1 1 2 10% Out 100% 1 1 1 2 Total 2 2 2 4 In 100% 0 1 0 1 5% Out 100% 0 1 0 1 Total 0 2 0 2 In 100% 0 1 0 1 5% Out 100% 0 1 0 1 Total 0 2 0 2 In 100% 1 1 0 1 5% Out 100% 1 1 0 1 Total 2 2 0 2 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 100% In 10 13 15 19 Out 10 13 15 19 Total 20 26 30 38

Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

Total

06:00 PM

PCE Truck PCE Trips

2.00 Regular Shift 2014 Trucks 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Temporal In / Out In 100% 6 6 8 10 25% Out 100% 6 6 8 10 Total 12 12 16 20 In 100% 2 4 4 4 10% Out 100% 2 4 4 4 Total 4 8 8 8 In 100% 2 2 4 4 10% Out 100% 2 2 4 4 Total 4 4 8 8 In 100% 2 2 4 4 10% Out 100% 2 2 4 4 Total 4 4 8 8 In 100% 2 2 4 4 10% Out 100% 2 2 4 4 Total 4 4 8 8 In 100% 2 2 4 2 10% Out 100% 2 2 4 2 Total 4 4 8 4 In 100% 2 2 2 4 10% Out 100% 2 2 2 4 Total 4 4 4 8 In 100% 0 2 0 2 5% Out 100% 0 2 0 2 Total 0 4 0 4 In 100% 0 2 0 2 5% Out 100% 0 2 0 2 Total 0 4 0 4 In 100% 2 2 0 2 5% Out 100% 2 2 0 2 Total 4 4 0 4 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 In 20 26 30 38 Out 20 26 30 38 Total 40 52 60 76 2016 2Q 3Q 2017 3Q 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1Q

4Q

1Q

2Q

Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

Total

06:00 PM

12 18 34 32 34 30 24 18 16 14 12 18 34 32 34 30 24 18 16 14 24 36 68 64 68 60 48 36 32 28 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 12 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 12 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 12 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 6 6 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 6 12 12 28 28 28 24 20 16 12 12 4 6 12 12 12 12 10 6 6 6 4 6 12 12 12 12 10 6 6 6 8 12 24 24 24 24 20 12 12 12 4 6 14 12 14 12 10 8 6 6 4 6 14 12 14 12 10 8 6 6 8 12 28 24 28 24 20 16 12 12 2 6 6 6 4 4 6 2 2 4 2 6 6 6 4 4 6 2 2 4 4 12 12 12 8 8 12 4 4 8 2 4 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 4 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 4 8 12 12 12 12 8 8 8 4 2 4 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 4 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 4 8 12 12 12 12 8 8 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 68 134 130 132 118 98 74 62 58 50 68 134 130 132 118 98 74 62 58 100 136 268 260 264 236 196 148 124 116

Table 5 Construction Phase 2 (Weekday )-Level 1 Screening Vehicle PCE Trips (Auto + Truck) 2024 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM In / Out Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Daily Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 15 8 8 8 4 4 0 2 33 5 0 132 72 21 8 8 8 8 8 4 7 56 10 0 210 82 27 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 62 11 0 234 102 33 8 8 8 8 8 4 9 86 16 0 290 163 47 8 8 8 8 8 4 13 143 26 0 436 209 59 16 16 16 12 12 4 15 181 32 0 572 213 57 12 12 12 12 12 4 15 189 34 0 572 224 61 12 12 12 12 12 4 12 200 37 0 598 226 62 12 12 12 12 12 0 13 206 37 0 604 210 56 8 8 8 8 8 0 12 194 36 0 548 233 63 12 12 12 12 12 4 17 209 38 0 624 213 58 12 12 12 12 12 8 16 189 34 0 578 174 45 8 8 8 8 8 8 13 154 28 0 462 94 25 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 86 16 0 250 71 19 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 63 11 0 192 54 14 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 46 7 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 12 8 8 8 4 4 0 1 19 3 0 98 48 15 8 8 8 8 8 4 6 32 5 0 150 67 20 8 8 8 8 8 4 7 51 9 0 198 78 22 8 8 8 8 8 8 11 58 11 0 228 154 44 12 12 12 12 12 8 12 130 24 0 432 170 48 12 12 12 8 8 4 13 146 27 0 460 162 43 8 8 8 8 8 8 13 142 26 0 434 202 54 8 8 8 8 8 8 15 186 35 0 540 195 53 8 8 8 8 4 0 11 183 34 0 512 206 54 8 8 8 8 8 0 12 190 34 0 536 234 60 8 8 8 8 12 8 21 214 39 0 620 213 55 8 8 8 8 12 8 20 193 35 0 568 179 48 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 163 30 0 482 101 26 4 4 4 4 8 4 10 93 16 0 274 59 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 51 10 0 164

2025 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2026 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2027 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2028 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2034 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

2035 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q

2036 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q

2037 3Q 4Q

2Q

3Q

Construction Phase 2 (Weekday )-Auto only Vehicle PCE Trips (Auto only) 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In / Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 2Q 3Q 29 0 29 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 29 29 0 5 5 0 0 0 36 36 72 52 0 52 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 52 52 0 10 10 0 0 0 65 65 130 4Q 58 0 58 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 58 58 0 11 11 0 0 0 73 73 146 1Q 82 0 82 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 82 82 0 16 16 0 0 0 103 103 206 2025 2Q 3Q 139 0 139 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 139 139 0 26 26 0 0 0 174 174 348 173 0 173 43 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 173 173 0 32 32 0 0 0 216 216 432 4Q 181 0 181 45 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 181 181 0 34 34 0 0 0 226 226 452 1Q 196 0 196 49 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 196 196 0 37 37 0 0 0 245 245 490 2026 2Q 3Q 202 0 202 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 202 202 0 37 37 0 0 0 252 252 504 190 0 190 48 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 190 190 0 36 36 0 0 0 238 238 476 4Q 205 0 205 51 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 205 205 0 38 38 0 0 0 256 256 512 1Q 185 0 185 46 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 185 185 0 34 34 0 0 0 231 231 462 2027 2Q 3Q 150 0 150 37 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 150 150 0 28 28 0 0 0 187 187 374 82 0 82 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 82 82 0 16 16 0 0 0 103 103 206 4Q 59 0 59 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 59 59 0 11 11 0 0 0 74 74 148 1Q 42 0 42 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 42 42 0 7 7 0 0 0 52 52 104 2028 2Q 3Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2034 2Q 3Q 15 0 15 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 15 15 0 3 3 0 0 0 19 19 38 28 0 28 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 28 28 0 5 5 0 0 0 35 35 70 4Q 47 0 47 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 47 47 0 9 9 0 0 0 59 59 118 1Q 54 0 54 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 54 54 0 11 11 0 0 0 68 68 136 2035 2Q 3Q 126 0 126 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 126 126 0 24 24 0 0 0 158 158 316 142 0 142 36 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 142 142 0 27 27 0 0 0 178 178 356 4Q 138 0 138 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 138 138 0 26 26 0 0 0 173 173 346 1Q 182 0 182 46 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 182 182 0 35 35 0 0 0 228 228 456 2036 2Q 3Q 179 0 179 45 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 179 179 0 34 34 0 0 0 224 224 448 186 0 186 46 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 186 186 0 34 34 0 0 0 232 232 464 4Q 210 0 210 52 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 210 210 0 39 39 0 0 0 262 262 524 1Q 189 0 189 47 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 189 189 0 35 35 0 0 0 236 236 472 2037 2Q 3Q 159 0 159 40 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 159 159 0 30 30 0 0 0 199 199 398 89 0 89 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 89 89 0 16 16 0 0 0 111 111 222 4Q 51 0 51 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 51 51 0 10 10 0 0 0 64 64 128

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

Construction Phase 2 (Weekday )-Truck only Vehicle PCE Trips (Truck only) 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In / Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 2Q 3Q 8 8 16 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 60 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 80 4Q 12 12 24 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 88 1Q 10 10 20 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 84 2025 2Q 3Q 12 12 24 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 88 18 18 36 8 8 16 8 8 16 8 8 16 8 8 16 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 140 4Q 16 16 32 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 120 1Q 14 14 28 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 108 2026 2Q 3Q 12 12 24 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 100 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 72 4Q 14 14 28 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 56 112 1Q 14 14 28 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 58 116 2027 2Q 3Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 88 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 4Q 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 1Q 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 40 2028 2Q 3Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2034 2Q 3Q 8 8 16 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 60 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 80 4Q 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 80 1Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 46 92 2035 2Q 3Q 14 14 28 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 58 116 14 14 28 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 52 104 4Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 88 1Q 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 84 2036 2Q 3Q 8 8 16 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 64 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 72 4Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 96 1Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 96 2037 2Q 3Q 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 84 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 52 4Q 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 36

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

Weekday Phase 2 Vehicle Trips

Table 6 Construction Phase 2 -Weekday Hourly Total Vehicle Trip Projection Vehhicle Trips (Auto + Truck) 2024 2028 3Q 85 3 88 22 1 23 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 5 5 1 83 84 0 16 16 0 0 0 114 114 228 62 3 65 16 1 17 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 4 4 1 60 61 0 11 11 0 0 0 85 85 170 45 3 48 11 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 43 44 0 7 7 0 0 0 62 62 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 19 4 23 6 2 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 16 17 0 3 3 0 0 0 34 34 68 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 4 37 9 2 11 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 30 31 0 5 5 0 0 0 51 51 102 57 5 62 15 2 17 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 4 5 1 53 54 0 10 10 0 0 0 85 85 170 64 6 70 18 3 21 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 5 6 1 59 60 0 11 11 0 0 0 95 95 190 87 5 92 24 3 27 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 6 7 1 83 84 0 16 16 0 0 0 124 124 248 145 6 151 38 3 41 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 10 11 1 140 141 0 26 26 0 0 0 196 196 392 182 9 191 47 4 51 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 12 13 2 175 177 0 32 32 0 0 0 251 251 502 189 8 197 48 3 51 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 12 13 2 183 185 0 34 34 0 0 0 256 256 512 203 7 210 52 3 55 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 0 12 12 1 197 198 0 37 37 0 0 0 272 272 544 208 6 214 53 3 56 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 13 13 1 203 204 0 37 37 0 0 0 277 277 554 195 5 200 50 2 52 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 12 12 1 191 192 0 36 36 0 0 0 256 256 512 212 7 219 54 3 57 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 14 15 1 206 207 0 38 38 0 0 0 284 284 568 192 7 199 49 3 52 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 1 13 14 1 186 187 0 34 34 0 0 0 260 260 520 156 6 162 39 2 41 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 10 11 1 151 152 0 28 28 0 0 0 209 209 418 33 5 38 9 2 11 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 29 30 0 5 5 0 0 0 55 55 110 52 5 57 14 2 16 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 4 5 1 48 49 0 9 9 0 0 0 79 79 158 60 6 66 16 2 18 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 5 7 1 55 56 0 11 11 0 0 0 91 91 182 133 7 140 35 3 38 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 1 9 10 1 127 128 0 24 24 0 0 0 187 187 374 149 7 156 39 3 42 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 10 11 1 143 144 0 27 27 0 0 0 204 204 408 144 6 150 37 2 39 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 10 11 1 139 140 0 26 26 0 0 0 195 195 390 187 5 192 48 2 50 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 12 13 1 183 184 0 35 35 0 0 0 249 249 498 183 4 187 47 2 49 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 11 1 180 181 0 34 34 0 0 0 240 240 480 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 2025 2026 2027 2034 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 2035 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 2036

2037

3Q

4Q

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

06:00 PM

191 5 196 48 2 50 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 12 12 1 187 188 0 34 34 0 0 0 250 250 500

216 6 222 54 2 56 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 15 17 1 211 212 0 39 39 0 0 0 286 286 572

195 6 201 49 2 51 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 14 16 1 190 191 0 35 35 0 0 0 260 260 520

164 5 169 42 2 44 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 11 12 1 160 161 0 30 30 0 0 0 220 220 440

92 3 95 23 1 24 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 7 8 1 90 91 0 16 16 0 0 0 124 124 248

53 2 55 14 1 15 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 3 3 0 51 51 0 10 10 0 0 0 73 73 146

Vehicle PCE Trips in PCEs) 2014 1Q Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM Total 06:00 PM 37 8 45 11 4 15 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 31 33 0 5 5 0 0 0 66 66 132 62 10 72 17 4 21 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 5 7 2 54 56 0 10 10 0 0 0 105 105 210 70 12 82 21 6 27 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 6 8 2 60 62 0 11 11 0 0 0 117 117 234 In / Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 92 10 102 27 6 33 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 7 9 2 84 86 0 16 16 0 0 0 145 145 290 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 151 12 163 41 6 47 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 11 13 2 141 143 0 26 26 0 0 0 218 218 436

(Auto + Truck 2015 3Q 191 18 209 51 8 59 8 8 16 8 8 16 8 8 16 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 13 15 4 177 181 0 32 32 0 0 0 286 286 572 4Q 197 16 213 51 6 57 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 13 15 4 185 189 0 34 34 0 0 0 286 286 572 1Q 210 14 224 55 6 61 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 0 12 12 2 198 200 0 37 37 0 0 0 299 299 598 2Q 214 12 226 56 6 62 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 0 0 0 0 13 13 2 204 206 0 37 37 0 0 0 302 302 604 2016 3Q 200 10 210 52 4 56 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 12 12 2 192 194 0 36 36 0 0 0 274 274 548 4Q 219 14 233 57 6 63 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 15 17 2 207 209 0 38 38 0 0 0 312 312 624 1Q 199 14 213 52 6 58 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 2 14 16 2 187 189 0 34 34 0 0 0 289 289 578 2Q 162 12 174 41 4 45 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 11 13 2 152 154 0 28 28 0 0 0 231 231 462 2017 3Q 88 6 94 23 2 25 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 5 5 2 84 86 0 16 16 0 0 0 125 125 250 4Q 65 6 71 17 2 19 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 4 4 2 61 63 0 11 11 0 0 0 96 96 192 1Q 48 6 54 12 2 14 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 44 46 0 7 7 0 0 0 72 72 144 2Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 3Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Q 23 8 31 8 4 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 17 19 0 3 3 0 0 0 49 49 98 2034 3Q 38 10 48 11 4 15 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 4 6 2 30 32 0 5 5 0 0 0 75 75 150 4Q 57 10 67 16 4 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 5 7 2 49 51 0 9 9 0 0 0 99 99 198 1Q 66 12 78 18 4 22 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 7 11 2 56 58 0 11 11 0 0 0 114 114 228 2Q 140 14 154 38 6 44 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 2 10 12 2 128 130 0 24 24 0 0 0 216 216 432 2035 3Q 156 14 170 42 6 48 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 11 13 2 144 146 0 27 27 0 0 0 230 230 460 4Q 150 12 162 39 4 43 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 11 13 2 140 142 0 26 26 0 0 0 217 217 434 1Q 192 10 202 50 4 54 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 13 15 2 184 186 0 35 35 0 0 0 270 270 540 2Q 187 8 195 49 4 53 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 11 11 2 181 183 0 34 34 0 0 0 256 256 512 2036

2037

3Q

4Q

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

196 10 206 50 4 54 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 12 12 2 188 190 0 34 34 0 0 0 268 268 536

222 12 234 56 4 60 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 17 21 2 212 214 0 39 39 0 0 0 310 310 620

201 12 213 51 4 55 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 16 20 2 191 193 0 35 35 0 0 0 284 284 568

169 10 179 44 4 48 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 12 14 2 161 163 0 30 30 0 0 0 241 241 482

95 6 101 24 2 26 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 8 10 2 91 93 0 16 16 0 0 0 137 137 274

55 4 59 15 2 17 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 3 3 0 51 51 0 10 10 0 0 0 82 82 164

Phase 2: Weekday Auto Trips Auto Auto Occupancy Auto Trips Regular Shift 2024 2028 3Q 207 82 0 82 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 196 181 0 32 32 0 0 0 174 103 206 174 348 0 0 216 216 432 34 34 0 0 0 226 226 452 196 0 37 37 0 0 0 245 245 490 0 202 202 0 37 37 0 0 0 252 252 504 0 12 12 0 190 190 0 36 36 0 0 0 238 238 476 0 0 0 13 13 0 205 205 0 38 38 0 0 0 256 256 512 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 185 185 0 34 34 0 0 0 231 231 462 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 150 150 0 28 28 0 0 0 187 187 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 82 82 0 16 16 0 0 0 103 103 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 59 59 0 11 11 0 0 0 74 74 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 42 42 0 7 7 0 0 0 52 52 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 59 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 42 0 0 0 149 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 38 15 0 15 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 15 15 0 3 3 0 0 0 19 19 38 1Q 72 0 0 0 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% In Out Total 0 72 130 146 0 36 65 73 0 36 65 73 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 11 16 26 0 5 10 11 16 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 52 58 82 139 173 0 29 52 58 82 139 173 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 5 9 11 11 12 0 2 3 4 5 9 11 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 15 21 35 43 45 49 50 48 51 46 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 15 21 35 43 45 49 50 48 51 46 37 29 52 58 82 139 173 181 196 202 190 205 185 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 52 58 82 139 173 181 196 202 190 205 185 150 131 147 207 352 435 455 494 508 481 516 465 377 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 2025 2026 2027 Workers Time
Temporal

58.0% 1.17 Regular Shift 2034 3Q 71 28 0 28 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 28 28 0 5 5 0 0 0 35 35 70 4Q 119 47 0 47 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 47 47 0 9 9 0 0 0 59 59 118 1Q 137 54 0 54 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 54 54 0 11 11 0 0 0 68 68 136 2Q 319 126 0 126 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 126 126 0 24 24 0 0 0 158 158 316 2035 3Q 360 142 0 142 36 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 142 142 0 27 27 0 0 0 178 178 356 4Q 349 138 0 138 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 138 138 0 26 26 0 0 0 173 173 346 1Q

Table 7

Construction Phase 2 -Weekday Hourly Total Auto Trip Projection

2036

2037

2Q

3Q

4Q

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

Ph-2 Worker Projection--> In 100% 0%

460

452

467

529

477

402

224

129

182

179

186

210

189

159

89

51

06:00 AM Total In 07:00 AM 08:00 AM Total In 08:00 AM 09:00 AM Total In 09:00 AM 10:00 AM Total In 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Total In 11:00 AM 12:00 PM Total In 12:00 PM 01:00 PM Total In 01:00 PM 02:00 PM Total In 02:00 PM 03:00 PM Total In 03:00 PM 04:00 PM Total In 04:00 PM 05:00 PM Total In 05:00 PM 06:00 PM Total 200% 0% Out 15% Out 80% Out 5% Out 0% Out 0% Out 0% Out 0% Out 0% Out 0% Out 20% Out -

07:00 AM

80%

Out

182

179

186

210

189

159

89

51

46

45

46

52

47

40

22

13

46

45

46

52

47

40

22

13

11

11

12

13

12

10

11

11

12

13

12

10

182

179

186

210

189

159

89

51

182

179

186

210

189

159

89

51

35

34

34

39

35

30

16

10

35

34

34

39

35

30

16

10

228

224

232

262

236

199

111

64

228

224

232

262

236

199

111

64

456

448

464

524

472

398

222

128

Phase 2: Weekday Truck Trips Table 8 Construction Phase 2 -Weekday Hourly Truck Trip Projection Truck Trips Regular Shift 2024 Trucks 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Ph-2 Truck Temporal Projection--> 15 20 22 In 100% 0 4 5 6 25% Out 100% 0 4 5 6 Total 0 8 10 12 In 100% 0 2 2 3 10% Out 100% 0 2 2 3 Total 0 4 4 6 In 100% 0 2 2 2 10% Out 100% 0 2 2 2 Total 0 4 4 4 In 100% 0 2 2 2 10% Out 100% 0 2 2 2 Total 0 4 4 4 In 100% 0 2 2 2 10% Out 100% 0 2 2 2 Total 0 4 4 4 In 100% 0 1 2 2 10% Out 100% 0 1 2 2 Total 0 2 4 4 In 100% 0 1 2 2 10% Out 100% 0 1 2 2 Total 0 2 4 4 In 100% 0 0 1 1 5% Out 100% 0 0 1 1 Total 0 0 2 2 In 100% 0 0 1 1 5% Out 100% 0 0 1 1 Total 0 0 2 2 In 100% 0 1 1 1 5% Out 100% 0 1 1 1 Total 0 2 2 2 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 100% In 0 15 20 22 Out 0 15 20 22 Total 0 30 40 44 1Q 21 5 5 10 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 6 6 12 3 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 35 9 9 18 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 70 30 8 8 16 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 60 27 7 7 14 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 54 25 6 6 12 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 50 18 5 5 10 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 36 28 7 7 14 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 56 29 7 7 14 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 58 22 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 11 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 22 11 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 22 10 3 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 15 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 30 20 5 5 10 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 40 2025 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 4Q 1Q 2028 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 4Q 20 5 5 10 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 40 2034 2Q 3Q 2026 2Q 3Q Regular Shift 2027 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2035 2Q 3Q 1Q 2036 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2037 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q

4Q 23 29 26 22 21 16 18 24 24 21 13 9 6 7 7 6 5 4 5 6 6 5 3 2 6 7 7 6 5 4 5 6 6 5 3 2 12 14 14 12 10 8 10 12 12 10 6 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 4 6 4 4 4 2 4 6 6 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 2 4 4 0 0 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 4 2 2 2 2 0 0 4 4 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 29 26 22 21 16 18 24 24 21 13 9 23 29 26 22 21 16 18 24 24 21 13 9 46 58 52 44 42 32 36 48 48 42 26 18 Table 8A Construction Phase 2 -Weekday Hourly Truck Trip Projection (PCE)

Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM Total

06:00 PM

PCE Truck PCE Trips

2.00 Regular Shift 2024 Trucks 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Temporal In / Out In 100% 0 8 10 12 25% Out 100% 0 8 10 12 Total 0 16 20 24 In 100% 0 4 4 6 10% Out 100% 0 4 4 6 Total 0 8 8 12 In 100% 0 4 4 4 10% Out 100% 0 4 4 4 Total 0 8 8 8 In 100% 0 4 4 4 10% Out 100% 0 4 4 4 Total 0 8 8 8 In 100% 0 4 4 4 10% Out 100% 0 4 4 4 Total 0 8 8 8 In 100% 0 2 4 4 10% Out 100% 0 2 4 4 Total 0 4 8 8 In 100% 0 2 4 4 10% Out 100% 0 2 4 4 Total 0 4 8 8 In 100% 0 0 2 2 5% Out 100% 0 0 2 2 Total 0 0 4 4 In 100% 0 0 2 2 5% Out 100% 0 0 2 2 Total 0 0 4 4 In 100% 0 2 2 2 5% Out 100% 0 2 2 2 Total 0 4 4 4 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 In 100% 0 0 0 0 0% Out 100% 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 In 0 30 40 44 Out 0 30 40 44 Total 0 60 80 88 2025 2Q 3Q 1Q 10 10 20 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 84 2026 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 12 18 16 14 12 12 18 16 14 12 24 36 32 28 24 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 12 16 12 12 12 4 8 6 6 6 4 8 6 6 6 8 16 12 12 12 4 8 6 6 6 4 8 6 6 6 8 16 12 12 12 4 8 6 6 6 4 8 6 6 6 8 16 12 12 12 4 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 8 12 12 12 12 4 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 6 8 12 12 12 12 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 4 4 4 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 8 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 70 60 54 50 44 70 60 54 50 88 140 120 108 100 Regular Shift 2027 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 4Q 1Q 10 14 14 10 14 14 20 28 28 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 4 8 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 56 58 36 56 58 72 112 116 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 88 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 40 2028 2Q 3Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2034 2Q 3Q 4Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 16 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 60 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 80 2035 2Q 3Q 4Q 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 80 1Q 12 14 14 12 14 14 24 28 28 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 12 12 4 6 4 4 6 4 8 12 8 4 6 4 4 6 4 8 12 8 4 4 2 4 4 2 8 8 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 8 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 58 52 46 58 52 92 116 104 2036 2Q 3Q 4Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 88 1Q 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 84 8 8 16 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 64 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 72 2037 2Q 3Q 4Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 96 1Q 12 12 24 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 96 10 10 20 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 84 6 6 12 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 52

4Q 4 4 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 36

Time 06:00 AM 07:00 AM

07:00 AM

08:00 AM

08:00 AM

09:00 AM

09:00 AM

10:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

01:00 PM

01:00 PM

02:00 PM

02:00 PM

03:00 PM

03:00 PM

04:00 PM

04:00 PM

05:00 PM

05:00 PM

Total

06:00 PM

Construction Noise

CornellNYC Tech

Detailed construction mobile source noise analysis dBA

Noise Receptor Sites (See Appendix Figure 20-1)

Nearest Measurement Location

Time

Measured Exising Leq 63.1 63.4 64.8 64.3 64.7 70.5

TNM Measured Calculated Exising L10 Existing Leq 64.5 66.2 66.3 65.4 66.3 72.9 57.0 58.7 59.9 59.5 62.1 68.0 52.9 53.0 60.3 41.6 42.7 45.7 42.1 47.4 44.4 52.5 38.8 49.6 53.8 40.9 44.3 41.5 47.8 43.0 49.4 42.8 53.8 55.1 55.7 50.5 57.2 49.7 66.1 42.1 53.1 39.4 69.3 42.3 45.0 56.4 42.7 45.4 63.8 44.9 42.6 48.4 57.8 51.6 60.6 45.7 60.7 49.8 47.0 46.8 50.0 60.7 43.1 43.8 15.4 63.1 33.7 46.9 53.4 50.0

Existing TNM Adjustment Factor at Meas Loc 6.1 4.7 4.9 4.8 2.6 2.5 4.9 2.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 2.6 4.9 4.8 2.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.6 4.8 2.6 4.8 4.8 2.6 4.8 4.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Min Level (avg Measured L90) 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4

Existing Leq 63.1 63.4 64.8 64.3 64.7 70.5 57.8 56.4 65.2 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 59.9 60.5 56.4 62.0 56.4 68.6 56.4 56.4 56.4 71.8 56.4 56.4 58.9 56.4 56.4 66.3 56.4 56.4 56.4 60.3 56.4 63.1 56.4 63.2 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 63.2 56.4 56.4 56.4 65.6 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4

Existing L10 64.5 66.2 66.3 65.4 66.3 72.9 59.3 58.0 66.7 57.9 57.9 57.9 57.9 57.9 57.9 58.0 57.9 57.5 58.0 57.5 57.5 57.5 57.5 57.5 58.0 57.5 58.0 61.0 61.6 58.0 63.1 57.5 71.0 58.8 58.8 58.8 74.2 58.8 58.8 61.3 58.8 58.8 68.7 58.8 58.8 58.8 62.7 58.8 65.5 58.8 65.6 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 65.6 58.8 58.8 58.8 68.0 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8

Construction Total Leq During Construction Constructi Construction Traffic Leq on Increment Total L10 62.0 43.0 64.8 64.0 65.3 69.5 59.2 61.5 67.6 50.5 51.9 54.0 50.0 54.9 51.6 60.4 48.2 56.8 61.2 48.4 51.7 48.8 54.5 49.9 56.2 49.9 61.4 61.8 60.2 56.4 60.2 53.7 69.1 48.2 57.1 47.4 71.8 48.5 50.7 61.1 48.5 50.9 68.5 51.7 48.3 54.6 62.5 56.2 65.6 51.3 65.5 55.5 53.3 53.1 55.7 65.5 49.7 50.3 21.0 67.7 39.8 52.7 57.9 58.4 65.6 63.4 67.8 67.2 68.0 73.0 61.6 62.7 69.6 57.4 57.7 58.4 57.3 58.7 57.7 61.9 57.0 59.6 62.5 57.1 57.7 57.1 58.6 57.3 59.3 57.3 62.6 64.0 63.4 59.4 64.2 58.3 71.9 57.0 59.8 56.9 74.8 57.1 57.5 63.1 57.1 57.5 70.5 57.7 57.1 58.6 64.5 59.3 67.5 57.6 67.5 59.0 58.2 58.1 59.1 67.5 57.3 57.4 56.4 69.8 56.5 58.0 60.2 60.5 2.5 0.0 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.5 3.8 6.2 4.4 1.0 1.3 2.0 0.9 2.3 1.2 5.4 0.6 3.2 6.0 0.6 1.3 0.7 2.2 0.9 2.9 0.9 6.2 4.1 2.9 3.0 2.2 1.9 3.3 0.6 3.4 0.5 3.0 0.6 1.0 4.2 0.6 1.1 4.2 1.3 0.6 2.2 4.2 2.9 4.4 1.2 4.3 2.6 1.7 1.7 2.7 4.3 0.8 0.9 0.0 4.2 0.1 1.5 3.8 4.1 67.0 66.2 69.3 68.3 69.6 75.4 63.1 64.3 71.1 58.9 59.2 59.9 58.8 60.2 59.2 63.5 58.5 60.7 64.1 58.2 58.8 58.2 59.7 58.4 60.9 58.4 64.2 65.1 64.5 61.0 65.3 59.4 74.3 59.4 62.2 59.3 77.2 59.5 59.9 65.5 59.5 59.9 72.9 60.1 59.5 61.0 66.9 61.7 69.9 60.0 69.9 61.4 60.6 60.5 61.5 69.9 59.7 59.8 58.8 72.2 58.9 60.4 62.6 62.9

2 3 5 6 7 8 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 C38 C39 C40 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47 C48 C49 C50 C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 C57 C58

2 3 5 6 7 8 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

7AM - 8:30 AM

6AM - 7AM

7.19.12

WEST RD
C3 5 C6 C8 C5 C7 C11 C9 C58 7 C15 C14 C13 C10 C12 6 C17 C16 C18 C20 C19 C21 C24 C30 C38 C23 C22 C24 C25 C26 C27 C31 C40 C28 C1 C2 3 1 4 C4 C32 C35 C36 C33 C37 C37 8 C39 C44 C42 C41 C43

C47

C51 C52 C48

C46 C45

MAIN ST

C56

C44 C53 C50 C57

EAST RD
2

C56

EAST RD
ROOSEVELT ISLAND BR

QUEENSBO RO BR

Project Site Rezoning Area (Special Southern Roosevelt Island District) Study Area Boundary
2 1

Industrial and Manufacturing Transportation and Utility Public Facilities and Institutions Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Parking Facilities Vacant Land Vacant Building Under Construction

1000 FEET

SCALE

Noise Receptor Elevated Noise Receptor Residential Residential with Commercial Below Hotels Commercial and Ofce Buildings

Construction Noise Receptor Locations

CornellNYC Tech

Figure 20-3

Appendix 26 Written Comments Received on the DEIS