Anable Basin Rezoning Proposal

Home , Anable Basin, MoMA PS1, Noguchi Museum, Tower 28

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1

City Environmental Quality Review ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT (EAS) FULL FORM Please fill out and submit to the appropriate agency (see instructions) Part I: GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT NAME Anable Basin Rezoning 1. Reference Numbers CEQR REFERENCE NUMBER (to be assigned by lead agency) BSA REFERENCE NUMBER (if applicable) 18DCP057Q ULURP REFERENCE NUMBER (if applicable) OTHER REFERENCE NUMBER(S) (if applicable) (e.g., legislative intro, CAPA) 2a. Lead Agency Information 2b. Applicant Information NAME OF LEAD AGENCY NAME OF APPLICANT City Planning Commission Design Center Realty, LLC NAME OF LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON NAME OF APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE OR CONTACT PERSON Robert Dobruskin Jonathan Drescher, President, Plaxall Inc. ADDRESS 120 Broadway, 31st Floor ADDRESS 5‐46 46th Avenue CITY New York STATE NY ZIP 10271 CITY Long Island City STATE NY ZIP 11101 TELEPHONE 212‐720‐3423 EMAIL TELEPHONE 718 784‐4800 EMAIL [email protected] [email protected] 3. Action Classification and Type SEQRA Classification UNLISTED TYPE I: Specify Category (see 6 NYCRR 617.4 and NYC Executive Order 91 of 1977, as amended): 617.4(b)(3); 617.4(b)(5)(v); 617.4(b)(6)(iii); 617.4(b)(6)(v) Action Type (refer to Chapter 2, “Establishing the Analysis Framework” for guidance) LOCALIZED ACTION, SITE SPECIFIC LOCALIZED ACTION, SMALL AREA GENERIC ACTION 4. Project Description A private applicant—Design Center Realty, LLC (the "Applicant"), an affiliate of Plaxall Inc.—is proposing a series of discretionary actions, including a zoning text amendment to create the Special Anable Basin (AB) District, zoning map changes, changes to the Northern Hunters Point Waterfront Access Plan (WAP), and a zoning text amendment to establish a Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) designated area (the "Proposed Actions"). A state permit may also be necessary for development, and financial support for development may come from a variety of private and public (local, state, and federal) sources. The Rezoning Area is located in Community District 2 of Long Island City, Queens. The Proposed Actions would facilitate the redevelopment of several blocks surrounding Anable Basin in Long Island City with residential uses (including affordable housing), office, retail, and community facility uses, production/light‐industrial uses, and arts and cultural/placemaking uses. The Proposed Actions would also facilitate the development of approximately 5.8 million gross square feet (gsf) in new buildings with a range of uses and new public waterfront esplanade that would connect to Gantry Plaza State Park's waterfront open space. See Page 11a for a detailed project description. Should the discretionary actions be approved, they would control the parameters for development and allow for a range of development scenarios within those parameters but would not mandate a specific development project. The environmental review will analyze two different Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenarios (RWCDSs) that will enable the assessment fo the proposed rezoning's reasonable worst‐case potential for environmental effects. The two RWCDSs represent two reasonable approaches to maximizing the range of uses and development envelopes that would be achievable with the Proposed Actions. Project Location BOROUGH Queens COMMUNITY DISTRICT(S) 2 STREET ADDRESS See Page 11a TAX BLOCK(S) AND LOT(S) See Page 11a ZIP CODE 11101 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY BY BOUNDING OR CROSS STREETS Proposed Special AB District: area west of Vernon Boulevard between 46th Road and 44th Drive, extending to 5th Street south of Anable Basin and to the East River north of the Basin; Proposed School Site: east side of 11th Street between 47th Avenue and 46th Road EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT, INCLUDING SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION, IF ANY M1‐4, ZONING SECTIONAL MAP NUMBER 9b, M1‐4/R6A, Special Long Island City Mixed‐Use District (Hunters Point Subdistrict) 8D EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1a

Project Description

A. INTRODUCTION A private applicant— Design Center Realty, LLC (the “Applicant”), an affiliate of Plaxall, Inc.—is proposing a series of discretionary actions, including zoning map changes and zoning text amendments, that would allow for the redevelopment of the Anable Basin portion of Long Island City, Queens (the “Proposed Actions”). The Proposed Actions would facilitate the development of approximately 5.8 million gross square feet (gsf) in new buildings with a range of uses and a new public waterfront esplanade that would connect to Gantry Plaza State Park’s waterfront open space. The proposed Rezoning Area, located in Community District 2 in Long Island City, Queens, is generally located west of Vernon Boulevard between 46th Road and 44th Drive, extending to 5th Street south of Anable Basin and to the East River north of the Basin, and is composed of sites owned by the Applicant and its affiliates (Block 25, Lot 15; Block 26, Lots 17 and 21; and Block 27, Lots 5, 15, 17, 23, 25, and 37) and sites owned by other entities (Block 25, Lots 1, 9, 10, and 11; and Block 26, Lots 4, 8, and 10). To facilitate the proposed development, the Proposed Actions would include a zoning text amendment to create the Special Anable Basin (AB) District, zoning map changes, and changes to the Northern Hunters Point Waterfront Access Plan (WAP). A state permit may also be necessary for development, and financial support for development may come from a variety of private and public (local, state, and federal) sources. The Proposed Actions would facilitate the redevelopment of several blocks surrounding Anable Basin in Long Island City with residential uses (including affordable housing), office, retail, and community facility uses, production/light industrial uses, and arts and cultural/placemaking uses. Should the discretionary actions be approved, they would control the parameters for development and allow for a range of development scenarios within those parameters but would not mandate a specific development project. The environmental review will analyze two Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenarios (RWCDSs) that will enable the assessment of the proposed rezoning’s reasonable worst-case potential for environmental effects. Thus, pursuant to City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared that will consider the environmental impacts based on the RWCDSs. The Draft Scope of Work for the Preparation of an EIS for the Anable Basin Rezoning is attached to this Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS).

REQUIRED APPROVALS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES To facilitate the Proposed Actions, the following discretionary actions would be required:  A Zoning text amendment to create a new Special AB District;  A Zoning map amendment to Zoning Map 9b to change underlying zoning districts from M1-4 and M1-4/R6A to M1-5/R7-2, M1-5/R8, and M1-5/R9 and to map a new AB District;

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1b

 A Zoning text amendment to Appendix F of the Zoning Resolution to map a MIH- designated area coterminous with the Special AB District; and  A Zoning text amendment to ZR Section 62-951 (Northern Hunter’s Point WAP [Q-1: Northern Hunters Point][Northern HP WAP]) to cross reference to requirements in the proposed Special AB District text. B. AREA AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIONS The area affected by the Proposed Actions includes the Rezoning Area and an Applicant-owned site outside the Rezoning Area that the Applicant proposes to transfer to the City for use as a school site (the “Proposed School Site”). As described further below and as shown on Figure 8, the Special AB District text would identify eight Parcels (Parcels A through H) to which the Special AB District regulations would apply. Parcels A, B, and C are owned by the Applicant and its affiliates (the “Applicant’s Sites,” described below), while Parcels D, E, F, G, and H are seven lots owned by others adjacent to the Applicant’s Sites along Vernon Boulevard (the “Additional Affected Area,” described below). The Special AB District text would also identify Sub-Parcels within Parcels A, B, and C (Sub-Parcels A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, C1, and C2), the dimensions of which would be somewhat flexible. The properties included in the affected area are summarized in Table 1. The existing conditions of the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site are described below. Table 1 Properties in Area Affected by the Proposed Actions Block Lot Address Applicant’s Sites 25 15 44-68 5th Street 26 17 5-37 46th Avenue 26 21 5-29 46th Avenue 27 5 5-35 46th Road 27 15 5-21 46th Road 27 17 5-17 46th Road 27 23 5-01 46th Road 27 25 46-01 5th Street 27 37 5-38 46th Avenue Additional Affected Area 25 1 45-10 Vernon Boulevard 25 9 45-08 Vernon Boulevard 25 10 45-06 Vernon Boulevard 25 11 45-04 Vernon Boulevard 26 4 45-40 Vernon Boulevard 26 8 45-28 Vernon Boulevard 26 10 45-24 Vernon Boulevard Proposed School Site 56 18 11-15 47th Avenue 56 35 11-18 46th Road

REZONING AREA The approximately 15-acre Rezoning Area includes parts of the three blocks along and in the vicinity of Anable Basin in Long Island City, Queens. It consists of 16 lots: Block 25, Lots 1, 9, 10, 11, and 15; Block 26, Lots 4, 8, 10, 17, and 21; and Block 27, Lots 5, 15, 17, 23, 25, and 37. The Rezoning Area consists of the Applicant’s Sites, which consist of parcels owned by the

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1c

Applicant and its affiliates, and the Additional Affected Area, which is composed of parcels owned by other entities. The majority of the Rezoning Area is currently zoned M1-4 (2.0 Floor Area Ratio [FAR] commercial and manufacturing uses; 6.5 FAR community facility uses). M1-4 districts allow low-density light industrial uses in Use Groups 16 and 17 that comply with stringent performance standards, retail uses (with some restrictions on size of establishment), and limited community facility uses. Offices and hotels are permitted as a matter of right and residential uses are not permitted. As shown in Figure 2, a portion of Anable Basin outside of the Rezoning Area is also currently zoned M3-1. In addition, the Rezoning Area is mapped within Area C of the area governed by the Special Parking regulations of the Zoning Resolution (Article I, Chapter 6, Section 16-03); no parking is required for any uses within this area. These regulations applicable to this area provide that accessory parking may be provided for not more than 100 percent of the total number of dwelling units (DUs) for residential developments; up to 50 percent of the number of new transient hotel rooms for hotels; one space per 4,000 sf for new community facility, commercial, or manufacturing floor area or 100 spaces, whichever is less; and not more than 225 spaces for mixed-use developments. The western end of Block 27 (Lot 23 and portions of Lots 17 and 25) is in the Hunter’s Point Subdistrict of the Special Long Island City (LIC) Mixed Use District, and it is zoned M1-4/R6A, which allows a variety of uses at densities of 3.0 FAR for residential and community facility uses and 2.0 FAR for commercial and manufacturing uses. Within the M1-4/R6A district, residential uses are permitted, with additional performance standards to ensure the compatibility of residential and non-residential uses. Limited community facility uses are also permitted. Mixed-use buildings in this district have a maximum FAR not exceeding the maximum FAR for residential, commercial, or manufacturing uses, whichever is greater. The Rezoning Area is located within the coastal zone boundary. It is mapped within Zone AE of the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 100-Year Floodplain, representing a 1 percent annual chance of flood hazard, and the waterfront sites have a base flood elevation of 12 feet. Many of the adjacent street elevations are between 5 and 8 feet. Portions of the Rezoning Area are also subject to the requirements of the Northern Hunters Point WAP found in Section 62-951 of the New York City Zoning Resolution. The Northern Hunter’s Point WAP covers the waterfront area from Anable Basin north to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, and was designed to create appropriate regulations for waterfront access given the manufacturing and warehousing nature of the area when the WAP was adopted in 1997. The WAP subdivides the area into 12 parcels based on existing and anticipated ownership patterns. Certain elements of the WAP apply to all parcels; specific requirements are set on parcel-by- parcel basis, depending upon the parcel’s size, configuration, and use and on the presence of existing buildings. A visual corridor and upland connection is required at the southerly prolongation of 5th Street from 45th Avenue to the northern shoreline of Anable Basin. On Vernon Boulevard, a designated location for an upland connection and visual corridor is set within a flexible location zone between 45th Road and 45th Avenue. In October 2015, the Rezoning Area and the neighboring waterfront sites extending north to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge were identified by the de Blasio administration as an opportunity area to cultivate a range of uses to comprise a new innovation district. Distinctive Long Island City Waterfront Design Guidelines were created for bulk and use guidance in this area, and they have informed the bulk requirements of the proposed Special AB District. EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1d

APPLICANT’S SITES The Applicant’s light industrial properties in the vicinity of Anable Basin range in height from one to three stories and were built between the early 1900s and 1963. Anable Basin, also known as the Eleventh Street Basin, is a 1,000-foot long artificial inlet built in 1868 for ship access to oil refineries and factories. Block 25, Lot 15 (proposed Parcel A) is bounded by the East River (to the west), Anable Basin, 44th Drive, 5th Street, and 45th Avenue. It contains a one-story approximately 139,000-sf brick building and two paved, surface lots used for parking and vehicle storage. The existing building contains warehouse and storage uses. An outdoor café (the Anable Basin Sailing Bar & Grill) is located at the western end of the building. Use Groups on Block 25, Lot 15 include 6A and 9A (commercial/production/light industrial uses), and 16D (storage and warehousing). Block 26, Lots 17 and 21 (proposed Parcel B) are bounded by Anable Basin (to the north), 5th Street, and 46th Avenue. Lot 17 contains a one-story approximately 23,000-sf concrete building that provides printing services (Use Group 17B) and storage (Use Group 16D). Lot 21 contains a one-story approximately 45,000-sf brick building and a paved, surface parking lot on 5th Street. The brick building houses artist studio, fitness studios, fabricators, and a window display builder (Use Groups 9, 9A, 16A, and 17B). The parking lot also provides vessel storage for the Long Island City Community Boathouse and access to the Boathouse’s Anable Basin Launch (Use Group 14A). On select weekends, the parking lot hosts the Long Island City Flea Market, a seasonal open air market. Block 27, Lots 5, 15, 17, 23, 25, and 37 (proposed Parcel C) front on 46th Avenue, 5th Street, and 46th Road. These portions of the Applicant’s Sites contain 11 brick and concrete buildings that range in height from one to four stories. In total, these buildings contain approximately 177,000 sf. Lot 5 contains the offices and plastics manufacturing facility owned and operated by Plaxall, Inc. Additional office and production/light industrial tenants on these portions of the Applicant’s Sites include artists, architects and engineers, a brewery, woodworking, plumbing, electricians, film and photography, storage, the Long Island City Community Boathouse storage space, a decorative glass warehouse and conservator, neon light production, and set construction. Use Groups on Block 25, Lots 5, 15, 17, 23, 25, and 37 include 6B, 6C, 9, 9A, 10A, 14A 16A, 17B and 18A (commercial/production/light industrial uses); and 16D (storage and warehousing). In total, there are approximately 42 firms currently located on the Applicant’s Sites, employing an estimated total of approximately 299 employees on-site.

ADDITIONAL AFFECTED AREA In addition to the Applicant’s Sites, the Rezoning Area consists of seven lots along Vernon Boulevard: Block 25, Lots 1, 9, 10, and 11; and Block 26, Lots 4, 8, and 10. Lot 1 on Block 25 and Lots 4 and 10 on Block 26 also have frontage on Anable Basin. Block 25, Lot 1 (proposed Parcel F) contains a one-story warehouse used by a tempered glass business, a two-story building that houses a general contractor and construction management firm, and a paved, surface parking area, one-story garage, and gasoline pumps under a shed used by a taxi service. In total, the buildings on Lot 1 contain approximately 17,225 sf. Lot 9 (proposed Parcel E) contains an approximately 3,250-sf two-story building with a “gentleman’s club” on the ground floor and a DU on the second floor. Lots 10 and 11 (proposed Parcel DA) contain an approximately 8,846-sf three-story building with five DUs and a vacant ground floor that was formerly occupied by a dry cleaning establishment. Use Groups on Block 25 include 2, 16A, 16B, and 16C.

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1e

Block 26, Lots 4 and 8 (proposed Parcel H) are the site of the proposed Paragon Paint development, a project seeking a variance from the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) under Calendar Number 233-15-BZ (described below in Section V: No Action Scenario). Lot 4 contains a vacant four-story concrete loft building on Vernon Boulevard and a vacant three-story brick warehouse on 46th Avenue; these two buildings total approximately 69,550 sf. Lot 8 contains an approximately 5,500-sf one-story brick warehouse used to store street vendor food carts (Use Group 16D). Block 26, Lot 10 (proposed Parcel G) contains an approximately 11,200-sf one-story brick manufacturing building used by a print shop (Use Group 17B).

PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE The Applicant owns a site located outside of the Rezoning Area that would be transferred to the New York City School Construction Authority (SCA) for the site of a future school as part of the Proposed Actions. The Proposed School Site comprises Lots 18 and 35 on Block 56 and is located on the east side of 11th Street between 47th Avenue and 46th Road. Lot 18 contains two paved, surface parking lots and a two-story approximately 20,000-sf office building. That building is primarily leased to the New York State Department of Education’s Adult Career and Continuing Education offices. Lot 35 contains a one-story approximately 2,500-sf café. The existing zoning for the Proposed School Site is M1-4/R6B and M1-4/R7A, within the Hunters Point Subdistrict of the Special LIC Mixed Use District. Lot 18 is mapped partially within an M1-4/R7A district and partially within an M1-4/R6B district, while Lot 35 is mapped entirely within an M1-4/R6B district. This zoning generally permits a range of residential, commercial, community facility, and manufacturing uses at a density of 2.0 FAR in the M1- 4/R6B district and 4.0 FAR in the M1-4/R7A district.

C. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

BACKGROUND The Applicant and its affiliates have owned and operated businesses in Long Island City for over 70 years. Originally focused on plastics thermoforming, the Applicant’s interests have diversified over time to include the acquisition, leasing, and management of real estate. As described above, the current tenants of the Applicant’s properties within the Rezoning Area include uses typical of manufacturing districts, such as storage and warehousing, as well as firms in creative and emerging business sectors, especially technology, design, and advanced manufacturing. The Applicant has been an active participant in local institutions and non-profits such as the Long Island City Partnership, Long Island City Artists and LIC Arts Open, Recycle- A-Bicycle, and the Long Island City Community Boathouse. As described above, the Rezoning Area consists largely of low-density industrial buildings, built between the early 1900s and 1963, reflecting the needs of 20th century industrial firms that once occupied much of Long Island City. Since the 1960s, when the newest industrial buildings were constructed, Long Island City has undergone significant changes with the arrival of new businesses whose needs are different from those of the past century. Amid the mixed industrial and residential Long Island City of the 1970s, local artists transformed a former public school into the exhibition space now known as MoMA PS1. This is just one example of the neighborhood’s longstanding and growing arts scene, which includes other major institutions such as the Museum of the Moving Image and the Noguchi Museum, as well as numerous galleries, theaters, and other spaces dedicated to arts and culture. EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1f

In the 1990s, the launch of the Queens West redevelopment transformed the Long Island City waterfront to the south with the 12-acre Gantry Plaza State Park, a new road network, high- density residential development, and associated environmental remediation. In 2001, the Special LIC Mixed Use District was established to promote the further development of the mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and community facility uses that had long characterized the neighborhood. In the ensuing years, over 9,500 new DUs have been built in Long Island City. Approximately 1.4 million sf of new Class A office space has also been built in the neighborhood’s core. Nearly all of the Class A office space delivered to date has been supported by discretionary or enhanced as-of-right public subsidies and has been concentrated in the Court Square-Queens Plaza core of Long Island City. The Rezoning Area was not included in the Special LIC Mixed Use District and, as noted above, no new development has occurred in the Rezoning Area since the 1960s. In 2008, part of the original State-owned Queens West property, south of 50th Avenue, was transferred to the City. The Special Southern Hunter’s Point District was created to allow for the development of approximately 3,000 affordable and 2,000 market-rate DUs on project completion, as well as commercial and community facility uses, and open space. The first buildings were completed in 2015, and include approximately 900 affordable DUs and approximately 20,000 sf of ground-floor local retail uses. In addition, a public school campus located at the base of the mixed-use building at 1-51 51st Avenue contains a middle school and a high school. A third building is currently in the pre-construction phase, and New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for two additional sites in 2016, the selected developers of which have not yet been announced. The Queens West and Hunters Point South projects create a continuously accessible network of waterfront parks and esplanades from the southwestern edge of the Rezoning Area south to Newtown Creek. In 2010, the City launched the Applied Sciences NYC initiative to create jobs in growing sectors to expand the City’s global competitiveness. A joint proposal from Cornell University and Technion-Israel Institute was selected to build a world-class applied sciences institution on Roosevelt Island, with strong links to entrepreneurship. The first phase of the Cornell Tech campus opened in 2017, bringing 300 graduate students and 30 faculty to Roosevelt Island, located directly across the river from the Rezoning Area. Upon full build-out (currently projected for 2043), 2 million sf of development will house an academic community of close to 2,500 across 12 acres of the site. Cornell Tech is projected to produce 600 spin-off companies over the next 30 years. In 2017, the City launched a number of significant initiatives aimed at promoting Long Island City as a dynamic neighborhood for both living and working. The City published the New York Works job creation plan, which highlighted Long Island City as a regionally connected core and growing center of employment. The New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) also launched the Long Island City Core Neighborhood Study to explore the land use, zoning, and infrastructure actions necessary to promote housing for households with a wide range of incomes, and employment opportunities for New Yorkers. Finally, the City reduced the NYC Ferry fare to equal that of a subway ride, and expanded service to include a new ferry stop within 1,000 feet of the Rezoning Area, bringing passengers to Roosevelt Island or East 34th Street in 10 minutes or less, or to Wall Street in less than 30 minutes. These efforts express the de Blasio administration’s clear interest in supporting residential, commercial, and industrial growth in Long Island City.

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1g

As mentioned above, the City administration has identified the Rezoning Area and waterfront sites to the north as a potential future innovation district, where a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development in a dynamic urban environment fosters productive creativity and growth in emerging economic sectors. In developing a vision for the future of the Rezoning Area, the Applicant examined a number of comparable innovation districts in major cities throughout the United States and Europe that matched the following criteria:  Multiphase, large-scale redevelopment projects;  Revitalized districts proximate to existing business centers;  Significant presence of innovation economy firms;  A mixed-use character including residential; and  A distinct sense of place. Innovation districts considered for comparison as part of this analysis include Mission Bay, San Francisco; South Lake Union, Seattle; Kings Cross, London; and Battersea Power Station, London. Each of these districts was supported by significant public actions and investments, and each had a large anchor business or institution that played a critical role its success. However, the precise mix of uses varied between districts as well as between phases of development. This suggests that there is a need for flexibility to respond to changing conditions.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES Consistent with the Applicant’s long-term commitment to the economic development of Long Island City, as well as a range of City initiatives, including the New York Works plan to create good-paying jobs, the Housing New York Plan to create affordable housing, and the Vision 2020 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan to guide responsible waterfront development, the Proposed Actions seek to allow for the redevelopment of the Anable Basin portion of Long Island City. To meet an ambitious set of objectives, the development framework is based on the following principles:  Flexibility. Allowing for as-of-right growth within the Rezoning Area over the coming years within parameters that are carefully planned to guide development over a large area and long development timeline, consistent with the Applicant’s vision for vibrant waterfront development connected to the existing adjacent communities. Such flexibility, within these specific parameters, is necessary for development to respond to changing conditions while ensuring project objectives are achieved.  Appropriate Density. Allowing a level of density that can support the numerous public benefits included among the project objectives while being appropriately distributed throughout the Rezoning Area. Such density is in character with waterfront development to the south and is, in the Applicant’s view, necessary to support the costs of constructing and maintaining the desired amounts of affordable housing and light industrial space, especially considering the high costs of constructing public open space and buildings along the waterfront. These principles will support the following set of project objectives:  Diverse employment and business opportunities. Promoting employment and creative/innovative small businesses in the Rezoning Area through the construction of modern, efficient spaces for production/light industrial firms, as well as commercial uses, including existing uses in the Rezoning Area and Surrounding Area; EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1h

 Mixed-income housing. Meeting the City’s housing goals, including goals for affordable housing pursuant to the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program, through the development of mixed-income residential space;  Waterfront access. Enhancing public access to the Anable Basin waterfront, most of which has been inaccessible to the public since the 19th century, through the creation of a waterfront esplanade and a continuously and publicly accessible waterfront circulation system; and  Arts and culture. Supporting the arts and cultural sector, comprising a thriving mix of Western Queens institutions, galleries, and studios, which is an important and growing part of the local character and economy. The urban design framework upon which the proposed Special AB District is based seeks to integrate new mixed-use development into the existing neighborhood context. The proposed Special AB District text is based on the following design concepts developed by the Applicant:  Porous circulation grid that fosters an active ground plane and links the public to the shoreline. The existing street grid would be enhanced by means of publicly accessible lanes that will connect to streets and waterfront public access areas.  Active building frontages and streetscapes. Active uses would be required along building frontages including lanes. This would further enhance ground plane activity and encourage a dynamic streetscape overall.  Climate resilient design. The text would require use of salt-tolerant plantings and flood- resistant materials within waterfront public access areas.  Harmonious building forms. Building heights and densities would be set so as to permit the tallest structures within the development along the East River shoreline, with lower building heights permitted to the south and east to step down towards Vernon Boulevard, and with high bases to reflect the bulk of historic Long Island City industrial lofts. The proposed building bases would allow functional floorplates that are appropriate for production, commercial, retail, and residential uses.  Central focus on a unique waterfront experience. Except for its southwestern quadrant, which is part of Gantry Plaza State Park, the approximately 1,000 feet of Anable Basin’s shoreline is inaccessible to the public. The Proposed Actions would create new waterfront open space design requirements that are appropriate for an active urban canal, with spaces for social gatherings.

D. PROPOSED ACTIONS The Applicant is seeking the following discretionary actions from New York City Planning Commission (CPC) and the New York City Council:

ANABLE BASIN REZONING  Zoning text amendment to create a new Special AB District;  Zoning map amendment to Zoning Map 9b to change underlying zoning districts from M1-4 and M1-4/R6A to M1-5/R7-2, M1-5/R8, and M1-5/R9 and to map a new Special AB District;  Zoning text amendment to Appendix F of the Zoning Resolution to map an MIH-designated area coterminous with the Special AB District; and  Zoning text amendment to ZR Section 62-951 (Northern Hunter’s Point WAP Q-1: Northern Hunters Point) to cross-reference to requirements in the proposed Special District text.

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1i

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Development that would be facilitated by the Proposed Actions may also require or make use of discretionary actions from other agencies. The environmental review for the Proposed Actions would be coordinated with other State, federal, and local agencies as appropriate. There is potential that a Tidal Wetlands permit may be needed from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), pursuant to New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 25. Construction financing for residential development pursuant to the Proposed Actions may come from a variety of private and public (local, State, and federal) sources, including, but not limited to funding from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), the New York City Housing Development Corporation, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, potential construction funding and/or financing may be provided by New York State Homes and Community Renewal and the New York State Housing Finance Agency. As described above, the Applicant would transfer the Proposed School Site to the SCA as part of the Proposed Actions for the site of a future school. Development of a new school would be subject to the approvals and requirements of the SCA, including site selection for the school by the SCA and site plan approval by the Mayor and City Council pursuant to the requirements of the New York City School Construction Authority Act. Other potential land use approvals (e.g., mayoral zoning override) may be necessary in order to accommodate the school as contemplated by test fit plans prepared by SCA, as described further below.

SITE REMEDIATION UNDER NEW YORK STATE BROWNFIELD CLEANUP PROGRAM The Applicant’s Sites have been accepted into the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP), a voluntary program pursuant to which contaminated sites are investigated and remediated with the oversight of NYSDEC, in consultation with the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). The Applicant has undertaken remedial investigations of the Applicant’s Sites pursuant to NYSDEC-approved work plans. These investigations have identified contamination of soil, groundwater, and soil vapors related to historical uses of the Sites as well as historically placed fill. The primary contaminants of concern are petroleum-related compounds and several metals. Under the BCP, the Applicant will submit remedial work plans to NYSDEC for review and remediate the Applicant’s sites in accordance with approved work plans. Remediation activities may occur in advance of and/or in conjunction with site redevelopment.

E. FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Proposed Actions would change the regulatory controls governing land use and development in the Rezoning Area and would allow the Rezoning Area and Proposed School Site to be redeveloped. The EIS will analyze the Proposed Actions’ potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts. The EIS will consider alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the technical analyses, if any, and identify mitigation for such impacts, to the extent practicable. The Proposed Actions would permit a range of development options; from among these, the EIS will examine the anticipated RWCDSs. The approach to the analysis framework is further discussed below. EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1j

REASONABLE WORST CASE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO For environmental analysis purposes, the RWCDS will classify development sites within the Special AB District Parcels as projected development sites and a potential development site. On the Applicant’s Sites, the projected development sites used in the RWCDS correspond with nomenclature used for sub-Parcels in the proposed special district text (e.g., Parcel A contains Projected Development Sites A1, A2, A3, and A4). In the Additional Affected Area, the projected and potential development sites used in the RWCDS are coextensive with the Parcels designated in the proposed special district text (e.g., Projected Development Site D1 is equivalent to Parcel D, and Potential Development Site E1 is equivalent to Parcel E). For environmental review purposes, the RWCDS will classify the Proposed School Site as Projected Development Site I1. The 13 projected development sites are considered likely to be developed by the Build Year. While Parcel D currently contains five DUs, according to the Applicant’s research, the DUs are not rent stabilized (and they are not individually owned condominium DUs); thus, Parcel D is considered a projected development site (Projected Development Site D1), because it is susceptible to redevelopment under the proposed rezoning. The potential development site (Potential Development Site E1) is a small, 2,500-sf site and is considered less likely to be developed in the foreseeable future, as it contains a business that is unlikely to vacate the property due to the difficulty of relocating that particular type of establishment. See Figure 9 for a demonstrative site plan. The Proposed School Site is classified as Projected Development Site I1 because the Proposed Rezoning would require its conveyance to the SCA specifically for construction of a school. The SCA would be responsible for any additional actions necessary for the construction of a school on this site. As a result of the Applicant’s transfer of the Proposed School Site to the SCA, a School Site Credit would allow a 0.15 FAR increase in the maximum allowable density in the M1-5/R9 and M1-5/R7-2 districts of the AB District, in which the Applicant’s Sites are located.

ANALYSIS YEAR Assuming that the Proposed Actions would be approved in 2018, and that any necessary approvals are obtained by that time or within ordinary and reasonable timeframes as development progresses, it can reasonably be expected that design and construction pursuant to the proposed rezoning would be undertaken over a span of 15 years with a full build-out in place by 2034.

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTIONS (NO ACTION SCENARIO)

REZONING AREA

Applicant’s Sites—Projected Development Sites A1–A4, B1–B2, and C1–C2 It is possible but not likely new construction could occur under existing zoning on Projected Development Sites A1-A4, B1, B2, C1, and C2. As noted above, the existing M1-4 zoning generally allows low-density (2.0 FAR), light industrial, office, and hotel1 uses, as well as retail uses with restrictions on the size of establishments. The value of the existing buildings on Projected Development Sites A1-A4, B1, B2, C1, and C2 under present conditions is greater than with new construction of production/light industrial, office, or retail space, given the

1 DCP is currently considering a zoning text amendment that would require a special permit for any hotel use in an M1 district.

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1k

potential revenues of allowed uses and the costs associated with demolition, building construction, and provision of required waterfront public access areas. Therefore, it is the Applicant’s assessment that it would not be economically feasible redevelop these sites as production/light industrial, office, or retail space under existing zoning. While new hotel development may be economically feasible on portions of the sites under existing zoning, there are no plans for such development, and the Applicant believes it is therefore unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, it is more conservative for environmental analysis purposes to assume that no redevelopment would occur. Therefore, it is assumed that no new construction would take place on these projected development sites in the No Action scenario, and the buildings and parking areas would continue to be used as in existing conditions by the existing or similar tenants. See Table 2 for the No Action scenario program. Table 2 No Action Scenario1 Commercial, # Public # Accessory Block, Lot Site Retail Production/Light Heavy Storage/ Residential # Public Open Parking Parking Site(s) Number Area sf Total gsf gsf Industrial gsf Industrial Warehousing gsf DUs Space Spaces Spaces Projected Development Sites A1-A4 B25, L15 324,157 138,833 23,041 115,792 144 B26, L17, B1-B2 124,245 68,0912 57,091 2,000 21 B27, L5, C1- 15, 17, 23, 100,150 177,0143 90,472 44,000 36,246 C2 25, 37 B25, L10 D1 4,777 8,846 2,949 5,897 5 B25, L11 F1 B25, L1 41,000 17,225 17,225 G1 B26, L10 12,080 11,200 11,220 B26, L4 69,9504 H1 33,150 B26, L8 5,500 5,500 B56, L18 20,000 20,000 I1 28,750 B56, L35 2,500 2,500 Potential Development Site E1 B25, L9 2,500 3,250 1,625 1,625 1 Total 670,809 522,429 5,449 226,174 44,000 154,038 7,522 6 0 208 Notes: 1 No change from existing conditions. 2 Approximately 9,000 sf are vacant. 3 Approximately 6,296 sf are vacant. 4 This floor area is vacant.

Additional Affected Area— Projected Development Sites D1, F1, G1, and H1, and Potential Development Site E1 It is assumed, for purposes of a conservative analysis, that no new construction would take place on Projected Development Site F1 (Block 25, Lot 1), Potential Development Site E1 (Block 25, Lot 9), Projected Development Site D1 (Block 25, Lots 10, and 11), Projected Development Site H1 (Block 26, Lots 4 and 8), and Projected Development Site G1 (Block 26, Lot 10), and the buildings and parking areas would continue to be used as in existing conditions by the existing or similar tenants (see Table 2). As noted above, the owners of Projected Development Site H1 (Block 26, Lots 4 and 8) are seeking a variance from the BSA to permit residential use in a M1-4 district, modify underlying waterfront and bulk and floor area regulations, and waive the requirements to provide required loading berths for developments with commercial floor area. Although the owner proposes to redevelop the site with 203,857 sf of residential use and 9,010 sf of retail use for a total development of 212,867 sf (5.5 FAR) pursuant to the requested variance, the BSA application is still in process and approval cannot be assumed. Therefore, for the purposes of a conservative analysis, the No Action scenario will assume that no new construction would take place on Projected Development Site H1 and that the buildings on Lot 4 would remain vacant as in existing conditions and the buildings on Lot 8 would continue to be used as in existing EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1l

conditions by the existing or similar tenants. Should the BSA application be granted prior to the completion of the CEQR process for the Proposed Actions, the environmental review documents would be accordingly modified.

PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE For a more conservative analysis, it is assumed that no new construction would take place on Projected Development Site I1 in the No Action scenario, and the buildings and parking area would continue to be used as in existing conditions by the existing or similar tenants. While a school would be permitted on Projected Development Site I1 under the existing zoning, there are currently no plans, absent the Proposed Actions, for a school. As described above, the Proposed Actions include the applicant’s transferring of the site to the SCA for the specific purpose of constructing a school and do not include rezoning of the site. Table 2 shows the square footage of each use expected within the Rezoning Area and on the Proposed School Site in the No Action Scenario.

FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ACTIONS (WITH ACTION SCENARIO) As noted above, it is proposed that the EIS will study two RWCDS programs that demonstrate what would be allowed under the Proposed Actions. Both RWCDSs are primarily residential, with one having a larger commercial component representing the maximum amount of commercial use that the market would reasonably be expected to absorb under certain conditions. While the two scenarios described below are being analyzed for the purposes of environmental review, the proposed rezoning framework is flexible and would allow for a range of development programs within specified parameters. As the Proposed Actions include a zoning text amendment to map an MIH-designated area coterminous with the proposed Special AB District, all new development with DUs would be subject to the MIH program. For the CEQR purpose of assessing potential demand for publicly funded day care to be generated by the Proposed Actions, the RWCDS programs assume that 20 percent of the overall residential floor area would be set aside for DUs affordable for households earning 80 percent (or below) of the Area Median Income (AMI). However, to comply with the MIH program, development pursuant to the Proposed Actions would be required to follow one of the MIH program options applied to the Rezoning Area. These options would include one or both of Option 1 or Option 2, and may additionally include one or both of the Deep Affordability or Workforce Options. Option 1 requires that at least 25 percent of the overall residential floor area be affordable at an average of 60 percent AMI, including at least 10 percent of the overall residential floor area to be affordable at 40 percent AMI. Option 2 requires that at least 30 percent of the overall residential floor area be affordable at an average of 80 percent AMI. The Deep Affordability Option requires that at least 20 percent of the overall residential floor area be affordable at an average of 40 percent AMI. Finally, Workforce Option requires that at least 30 percent of the overall residential floor area be affordable at an average of 115 percent AMI, with at least 5 percent of the area affordable at 70 percent AMI and at least 5 percent affordable at 90 percent AMI.

SCENARIO 1

Applicant’s Sites—Projected Development Sites A1–A4, B1–B2, and C1–C2 The proposed special district and zoning map amendment would facilitate the development of up to approximately 5.0 million gsf of mixed-use development on Projected Development Sites A1- A4, B1, B2, C1, and C2, comprising production/light industrial space; commercial space, including retail, office, and/or arts and cultural/placemaking space; community facility uses; and

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1m

mixed-income DUs on land abutting and near the Anable Basin. Under the RWCDS, Parcels A– C would be classified as Projected Development Sites A1-A4, B1 and B2, and C1 and C2, some of which would front on Anable Basin, and which would provide active ground-floor uses including commercial, arts and culture, and production/light industrial with retail operations. A new waterfront esplanade would be accessible to the public for active and passive programming and would connect Gantry Plaza State Park to a publicly accessible open space expected to be developed north of 44th Drive as part of a future waterfront development pursuant to a NYCEDC RFP. Required midblock pedestrian lanes would be constructed between new development on Projected Developments Sites A1 and A2, between A3 and A4, between B1 and B2, and between C1 and C2, creating additional pedestrian connections between existing streets and Anable Basin. The height, setback, and yard restrictions in the proposed Special AB District text and underlying zoning districts result in a maximum building envelope for each Projected Development Site, which is the three-dimensional space on the site within which a structure can be built. Each of the maximum zoning envelopes is larger in terms of height, massing, and tower size than the structures could actually be, since the amount of floor area permitted is not sufficient to fill out the envelopes. The building forms would be further reduced and shaped by additional bulk requirements, such as maximum base heights, setbacks, limitation on floor plate size, and tower top requirements. The text would also limit the number of 695-foot-tall towers to one on Sub-parcels A1 and A2; the other tower must be lower. Under RWCDS 1, the development allowed by the Proposed Actions would produce eight new mixed-use buildings on the Projected Development Sites A1-C2 totaling 3,767,107 gsf of residential space and up to 4,428 DUs (with up to 885 DUs affordable to households earning 80 percent AMI or below) (see Table 3). The buildings would range in height from 185 feet (approximately 17 stories) up to 695 feet (approximately 62 stories). EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1n

Table 3 With Action Scenario—Scenario 1 Production/ Arts/ Light Site Retail Office Cultural Comm. Industrial Public Open # Accessory Pkg. Site Area sf Total gsf gsf gsf gsf1 Fac. gsf gsf Res. gsf # DUs2 Space Spaces Projected Development Sites Site A13 885,670 16,030 — 5,550 — — 744,740 876 22,491 350 Site A23 921,070 18,470 52,380 5,550 5,600 103,700 582,220 684 22,815 450 324,157 Site A33 673,402 9,450 44,100 5,500 5,100 49,890 495,362 582 20209 180 Site A43 561,757 — — 5,500 5,000 25,000 463,557 545 15,630 170 Site B13 615,638 21,450 — 5,500 6,000 — 503,288 592 16,210 225 124,245 Site B23 558,014 6,550 23,280 5,500 — 68,300 373,284 439 8,592 225 Site C13 591,555 13,320 — 5,500 16,300 — 493,835 580 7,000 170 100,150 Site C23 197,808 9,750 11,802 5,500 — 47,935 110,821 130 30 Sites A1-C2 548,552 5,004,914 95,020 131,562 44,000 38,000 294,825 3,767,107 4,428 112,947 1,8004 Total Site D1 4,777 19,108 3,438 — — — — 15,669 15 — — Site F13 41,000 325,670 8,952 10,186 5,556 — 22,089 278,888 278 — — Site G1 12,080 48,319 7,799 — — — — 40,521 40 — — Site H13 33,150 264,380 5,612 8,798 5,556 — 17,860 226,554 226 — 244 Site I1 28,750 102,662 102,662 Potential Development Site Site E1 2,500 10,000 1,830 — — — — 8,171 8 — — With Action 670,809 5,782,553 122,651 150,546 55,111 140,662 334,7746 4,336,909 4,995 134,695 1,824 Scenario 1 Total Notes: The gross square footage is derived from zoning floor area plus an additional percentage to account for mechanical space which is not included in zoning floor area. On Sites A1–C2, for residential space, this is equal to 5 percent of zoning floor area, and for all other space it is equal to 10 percent of zoning floor area. On Sites D1–H1, whose smaller footprints and programs do not allow for as efficient use of space, the additional mechanical space represents a larger percentage of zoning floor area. For residential space, this is equal to 10 percent of zoning floor area, and for all other space it is equal to 15 percent of zoning floor area. 1 As defined in the Special AB District zoning text amendment. 2 On Sites A1–C2, DUs were calculated at 850 sf/DU. On Sites D1–H1, DUs were calculated at 1,000 sf/DU. 3 This site would be an AB Development. 4 The total parking floor area would be 634,400 sf. 5 Parking floor area on Site H1 would be 7,500 sf. 6 For all AB Developments, 7 sf of production/light industrial floor area is required for every 100 sf of other floor area, except floor area generating arts and cultural/placemaking incentive. Where an AB Development includes at least 10 sf of commercial office floor area for every 100 sf of total floor area, the production/light industrial requirement would be reduced to 5 sf for every 100 sf of other floor area other than arts/cultural placemaking floor area (this option does not apply to Scenario 1). This required production/light industrial floor area may be located anywhere within the same zoning lot. For the purposes of this RWCDS, Sites A1–A4, Sites B1–B2 and C1–C2 are each assumed to be a single zoning lot, and uses generating the production/light industrial requirement include retail, office, community facility, and residential. This requirement is based on floor area (zsf), rather than gsf which, as noted above, may be approximately 5 to 15 percent greater than zsf depending on the specific development.

Under RWCDS 1, commercial floor area within the Applicant’s Sites would total 226,582 gsf, of which 95,020 gsf would be retail. There would be 44,000 gsf of arts and cultural/placemaking uses. Arts and cultural/placemaking uses would include both retail and community facility uses and will conservatively be analyzed as retail uses for purposes of the environmental review. This scenario would also include 38,000 gsf of community facility space. Production/light industrial space would be developed on Projected Development Sites A2, A3, A4, B2, and C2. The total production/light industrial floor area would be 294,825 gsf. This scenario would provide a total of 1,800 accessory parking spaces on Projected Development Sites A1–C2. On Projected Development Sites A1 and A2, parking would be located on one below-grade level, on a portion of the ground floor (the other ground floor uses would wrap the parking area), and on two stories screened above the ground floor. On Projected Development Sites A3, A4, B1, and B2, parking would be located on one below-grade level and one level screened above the ground floor; the ground floors of the buildings would not contain any parking, but would contain ramps connecting the parking levels. On Projected Development Site C1, parking would be located in a wrapped level on the ground floor and on two screened levels above the ground floor. The parking structures would be accessed by new curb cuts proposed on 44th Drive (Projected Development Sites A1 and A2), 45th Drive (Projected Development Sites A3 and A4), and 46th Avenue (Projected Development Sites B1, B2, C1, and

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1o

C2). Secondary exits for the parking structures on Projected Development Sites C1 and C2 would be located on 46th Road. This scenario would provide 112,947 sf of publicly accessible open space on Projected Developments Sites A1-C2. This open space would consist of bi-level waterfront esplanades along the north and south sides of the Anable Basin and along the East River and lanes bisecting the Rezoning Area blocks to create more connections to the street grid, active ground floors, and enhanced access to the waterfront esplanades. The waterfront esplanades would total approximately 88,517 sf, and the lanes would total approximately 24,430 sf. In addition, as a requirement of the Special AB District, a widened sidewalk along 45th Avenue would provide approximately 5,654 sf of publicly accessible open space. Additional Affected Area—Projected Development Sites D1, F1, G1, and H1, and Potential Development Site E1 For the Additional Affected Area, the development framework which will be used in analyses of both Scenarios 1 and 2 is described below, following Scenario 2). Proposed School Site—Projected Development Site I1 Under the proposed actions (both Scenarios 1 and 2), the Applicant would offer to deed Projected Development Site I1 at 11th Street and 47th Avenue, outside of the Rezoning Area, to the City as the location of a future school (described below, following Scenario 2).

SCENARIO 2 As the proposed special district would allow a range of uses, the environmental review will also evaluate a scenario that includes more commercial floor area in lieu of some of the residential space (see Table 4). As noted above, the development assumptions for the Additional Affected Area and the Proposed School Site will be the same for both RWCDSs. While Scenario 1 maximizes residential development on the Applicant’s Sites, which is reasonable given current market conditions, Scenario 2 includes increased commercial office development, beyond what would be likely to occur under current conditions on the Long Island City waterfront. Such commercial office development would be in line with current City policy priorities as expressed in the New York Works job creation plan, and could be catalyzed through incentives such as tax credits or capital investments. In Scenario 2, Projected Development Sites A1–C2 contain more than 10 sf of office floor area for every 100 sf of other floor area, and therefore require only 5 sf of production/light industrial floor area for every 100 sf of other floor area (except floor area generating arts and cultural/placemaking incentive area). EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1p

Table 4 With Action Scenario—Scenario 2 Production Arts/ /Light Public Site Retail Hotel Cultural Comm. Industrial Open # Accessory Site Area sf Total gsf gsf Office gsf gsf gsf1 Fac. gsf gsf Res. gsf # DUs2 Space Pkg. Spaces Projected Development Sites Site A13 894,312 16,030 61,170 — 5, 500 — — 692,212 841 22,491 350 Site A23 929,480 18,470 278,075 123,000 5, 500 5,600 74,050 271,584 319 22,815 450 324,157 Site A33 683,358 9,450 210,632 — 5, 500 5,100 30,920 357,756 420 20, 209 180 Site A43 569,447 — 240,533 — 5, 500 5,000 25,000 230,714 271 15,630 170 Site B13 622,214 62,450 41,619 — 5, 500 6,000 — 427,245 502 16,210 225 124,245 Site B23 561,095 37,350 136,802 — 5, 500 — 49,720 250,623 294 8,592 225 Site C13 493,443 13,320 — — 5, 500 16,300 — 395,723 465 7,000 170 100,150 Site C23 270,475 49,350 204,170 — 5, 500 — 34,890 — — 30 Sites A1- 548,552 5,059,259 206,4204 1,173,000 123,000 44,000 38,000 214,580 2,625,859 3,085 112,947 1,8005 C2 Total Site D1 4,777 19,108 3,438 — — — — — 15,669 15 — —

Site F13 41,000 325,670 8,952 10,186 — 5,556 — 22,089 278,888 278 — — Site G1 12,080 48,319 7,799 — — — — — 40,521 40 — — Site H13 33,150 264,380 5,612 8,798 — 5,556 — 17,860 226,554 226 — 246 Site I1 28,750 102,662 102,662 Potential Development Site Site E1 2,500 10,000 1,830 — — — — — 8,171 8 — — With Action 670,809 5,836,898 234,051 1,191,984 123,000 55,111 140,662 254,5297 3,195,661 3,652 134,695 1,824 Scenario 2 Total Notes: The gross square footage is derived from zoning floor area plus an additional percentage to account for mechanical space which is not included in zoning floor area. On Sites A1–C2, for residential space, this is equal to 5 percent of zoning floor area, and for all other space it is equal to 10 percent of zoning floor area. On Sites D1–H1, whose smaller footprints and programs do not allow for as efficient use of space, the additional mechanical space represents a larger percentage of zoning floor area. For residential space, this is equal to 10 percent of zoning floor area, and for all other space it is equal to 15 percent of zoning floor area. 1 As defined in the Special AB District zoning text amendment. 2 On Sites A1-C2, DUs were calculated at 850 sf/DU. On Sites D1–H1, DUs were calculated at 1,000 sf/DU. 3 This site would be an AB Development. 4 For environmental review purposes, 132,200 sf of the retail space on the Applicant’s Sites will be assumed to be destination retail and 101,851 sf will be assumed to be local retail. The destination retail will be assumed to occupy larger retail spaces on Parcels B and C. 5 The total parking floor area would be 634,400 sf. 6 Parking floor area on Site H1 would be 7,500 sf. 7 For all AB Developments, 5 sf of production/light industrial floor area is required for every 100 sf of other floor area, except floor area generating arts and cultural/placemaking incentive. Where an AB Development includes at least 10 sf of commercial office floor area for every 100 sf of total floor area, the production/light industrial requirement would be reduced to 5 sf for every 100 sf of other floor area other than floor area generating the arts/cultural placemaking incentive. This required production/light industrial floor area may be located anywhere within the same zoning lot. For the purposes of this RWCDS, Sites A1–A4, Sites B1–B2 and C1–C2 are each assumed to be a single zoning lot, and uses generating the production/light industrial requirement include retail, office, hotel, community facility, and residential. This requirement is based on floor area (zsf), rather than gsf which, as noted above, may be approximately 5 to 15 percent greater than zsf depending on the specific development.

Applicant’s Sites—Projected Development Sites A1–A4, B1–B2, and C1–C2 Development under Scenario 2 would also produce new mixed-use buildings, but there would be 2,625,859 gsf of residential use and up to 3,085 DUs (with up to 617 DUs affordable to households earning 80 percent AMI or below). Under this development scenario, commercial floor area would total 1,502,420 gsf, composed of 206,420 retail sf, 1,173,000 office sf, and a 123,000-gsf hotel (see Table 4).2 Production/light industrial floor area would total 214,580 gsf. The amount of arts and cultural/placemaking uses, community facility uses, publicly accessible open space, and parking spaces would be the same as with Scenario 1. There is not currently an established market for commercial office space on the Long Island City waterfront, with under 700,000 sf of current inventory. Therefore, to determine the amount of

2 Scenario 2 includes a hotel for the purposes of a conservative environmental analysis. The proposed zoning text for the Special AB District would include a provision that would allow Hotel Special Permits to be granted in the future, but the Proposed Actions do not include an application for a Hotel Special Permit for a specific site within the AB District.

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1q

commercial office space to be included in Scenario 2, the Applicant analyzed the innovative districts described above in the Purpose and Need section. Commercial office land uses composed between 20 and 50 percent of the development program in these districts, and each district was anchored by a large business or institution. For additional context, the Applicant analyzed the space utilization of 10 major innovation economy businesses and institutions located in New York City. These businesses and institutions could be envisioned as potential “anchor tenants” for development pursuant to the Proposed Actions. Examples in New York City include Alexandria Center for Life Science (1,000,000 sf), BioBAT (500,000 sf), Etsy (200,000 sf), Microsoft (200,000 sf), and PayPal (95,000 sf). Among the 10 businesses and institutions analyzed, average space utilization is 435,000 sf. Based on the above analysis, Scenario 2 assumes an office program of 1,173,000 sf. This amount would be sufficient to accommodate an anchor business or institution, as well as a critical mass of additional innovation economy tenants in the bases of buildings, while still allowing the tower portions to be primarily dedicated to residential uses. The office program in Scenario 2 would be distributed throughout the proposed special district. This would be the likely distribution of office program in such a scenario since it would minimize the risk associated with building a single large office building that would need to be absorbed (leased) in a short period of time in an area without an established market for major new office space. The 1,173,000 sf of office in Scenario 2 represents approximately ten percent of the current Long Island City office inventory, and 186 percent of the existing Long Island City waterfront office inventory. Additional Affected Area—Projected Development Sites D1, F1, G1, and H1, and Potential Development Site E1 As noted above, for the Additional Affected Area, the following framework will be used in analyses of both Scenarios 1 and 2. Because this area would also be subject to MIH requirements, the RWCDS assumes that 20 percent of the overall residential floor area in the Additional Affected Area would be set aside for residents or families earning 80 percent AMI or below. This framework assumes that development on Projected Development Site F1 and Projected Development Site H1, which would be AB Developments, would include production/light industrial uses, as required by the special district text for AB Developments. No parking would be provided on Projected Development Sites D1, F1, and G1 and Potential Development Site E1 as parking is not required in the Long Island City area. An upland waterfront connection would be required on Projected Development Site H1. As shown in Table 4, the Additional Affected Area would be developed with 569,802 gsf of residential use (totaling 567 units, of which 20 percent would be affordable to households earning 80 percent AMI or below), 27,631 gsf of retail, 18,984 gsf of office, 11,112 gsf of arts and cultural/placemaking uses, 39,949 gsf of production/light industrial uses, and 24 accessory parking spaces. There would be 21,748 sf of publicly accessible open space on Projected Development Sites F1, G1, and H1. While Scenario 2 includes more commercial office development on Projected Development Sites A1–C2 compared to Scenario 1, the smaller lot sizes on Projected Development Sites D1, F1, G1, and H1, and Potential Development Site E1, suggest that they are less likely to be developed with larger office programs. Proposed School Site—Projected Development Site I1 As noted above, under the proposed actions, the Applicant would transfer to deed Projected Development Site I1 at 11th Street and 47th Avenue, outside of the Rezoning Area, to the City as the location of a future school. The site has a lot area of 28,750 sf, and the RWCDS assumes that the school to be provided would be a 728-seat elementary school. Based on program EAS FULL FORM PAGE 1r

discussions with and a test fit prepared by the SCA for the Proposed School Site, the school could be a 102,662-gsf, five-story building. Further detailed programming and design for the school would be undertaken after the completion of the environmental review process for the proposed actions. Separate discretionary actions such as site selection and funding by the SCA would be required. Other potential land use approvals (e.g., a mayoral zoning override) may be necessary in order to accommodate the school as contemplated by the test fit plans. For the purposes of this environmental review, the RWCDS will reflect a larger building envelope that exceeds the current bulk regulations, to reflect the plans prepared by the SCA. The potential development on the Proposed School Site is the same under RWCDS Scenario 1 and RWCDS Scenario 2.

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 2

5. Required Actions or Approvals (check all that apply) City Planning Commission: YES NO UNIFORM LAND USE REVIEW PROCEDURE (ULURP) CITY MAP AMENDMENT ZONING CERTIFICATION CONCESSION ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZONING AUTHORIZATION UDAAP ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ACQUISITION—REAL PROPERTY REVOCABLE CONSENT SITE SELECTION—PUBLIC FACILITY DISPOSITION—REAL PROPERTY FRANCHISE HOUSING PLAN & PROJECT OTHER, explain: SPECIAL PERMIT (if appropriate, specify type: modification; renewal; other); EXPIRATION DATE: SPECIFY AFFECTED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION New Special AB District; 62‐951 (Northen Hunters Point WAP); Appendix F (Mandatory Inclusionary Housing) Board of Standards and Appeals: YES NO VARIANCE (use) VARIANCE (bulk) SPECIAL PERMIT (if appropriate, specify type: modification; renewal; other); EXPIRATION DATE: SPECIFY AFFECTED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION Department of Environmental Protection: YES NO If “yes,” specify: Other City Approvals Subject to CEQR (check all that apply) LEGISLATION FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION, specify: Potential financing for residential development (see page 11a) RULEMAKING POLICY OR PLAN, specify: CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FUNDING OF PROGRAMS, specify: 384(b)(4) APPROVAL PERMITS, specify: OTHER, explain: Other City Approvals Not Subject to CEQR (check all that apply) PERMITS FROM DOT’S OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVAL AND COORDINATION (OCMC) OTHER, explain: State or Federal Actions/Approvals/Funding: YES NO If “yes,” specify: See page 11a 6. Site Description: The directly affected area consists of the project site and the area subject to any change in regulatory controls. Except where otherwise indicated, provide the following information with regard to the directly affected area. Graphics: The following graphics must be attached and each box must be checked off before the EAS is complete. Each map must clearly depict the boundaries of the directly affected area or areas and indicate a 400‐foot radius drawn from the outer boundaries of the project site. Maps may not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size and, for paper filings, must be folded to 8.5 x 11 inches. SITE LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP SANBORN OR OTHER LAND USE MAP TAX MAP FOR LARGE AREAS OR MULTIPLE SITES, A GIS SHAPE FILE THAT DEFINES THE PROJECT SITE(S) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE TAKEN WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF EAS SUBMISSION AND KEYED TO THE SITE LOCATION MAP Physical Setting (both developed and undeveloped areas) Total directly affected area (sq. ft.): 670,809 Waterbody area (sq. ft.) and type: 130,694 (Anable Basin) Roads, buildings, and other paved surfaces (sq. ft.): 540,115 Other, describe (sq. ft.): 0 7. Physical Dimensions and Scale of Project (if the project affects multiple sites, provide the total development facilitated by the action) SIZE OF PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED (gross square feet): 5.8 million (see page 11a) NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: See Page 11a GROSS FLOOR AREA OF EACH BUILDING (sq. ft.): See Page 11a HEIGHT OF EACH BUILDING (ft.): TBD NUMBER OF STORIES OF EACH BUILDING: TBD Does the proposed project involve changes in zoning on one or more sites? YES NO If “yes,” specify: The total square feet owned or controlled by the applicant: 577,302 The total square feet not owned or controlled by the applicant: 93,507 Does the proposed project involve in‐ground excavation or subsurface disturbance, including, but not limited to foundation work, pilings, utility lines, or grading? YES NO If “yes,” indicate the estimated area and volume dimensions of subsurface disturbance (if known): AREA OF TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE: TBD sq. ft. (width x length) VOLUME OF DISTURBANCE: TBD cubic ft. (width x length x depth) AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE: TBD sq. ft. (width x length) 8. Analysis Year CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 2 ANTICIPATED BUILD YEAR (date the project would be completed and operational): 2034 EAS FULL FORM PAGE 3

ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION IN MONTHS: TBD in EIS WOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED IN A SINGLE PHASE? YES NO IF MULTIPLE PHASES, HOW MANY? TBD in EIS BRIEFLY DESCRIBE PHASES AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: TBD in EIS 9. Predominant Land Use in the Vicinity of the Project (check all that apply) RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURING COMMERCIAL PARK/FOREST/OPEN SPACE OTHER, specify: 27 AVENUE 10/2/2017 3 AVENUE

EAST END AVENUE

BROADWAY

MANHATTAN

1 AVENUE

EAST 59 STREET Roosevelt Island 11 STREET

E E D V D I K R R O A QUEENS D CH V E R Q L UE U D EN O F SB B OR N 39 AVENUE O O B N R R ID E GE V

Q UE United EN S P EAST 42 STREET Nations LA ZA Long 11 STREET Island 46 AVE City UE EAST EN AV RIVER N SO CK JA

5 STREET

HU NTE RS P OI NT AV EN UE Source: New York City Department of City Planning; New York ofCity Department City Finance Department of City Planning; York New New York Source: 0 2,000 FEET Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary Proposed School Site

Project Location ANABLE BASIN Figure 1 43 AVE

11/6/2017 R7-2

43 RD

9 ST R9 R7A M1-4

44 AVE

12 ST

10 ST ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 44 RD

! 2 5 ! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! 15

! 44 DRIVE

! ! !

M3-1 ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!11!

! 10

! !

! 9

! !

! ! M1-4/R7A

1 !

! ! !

PAR K ! PAR K ! 45 AVE

PARK !

! 17 10 !

! M1-4/R6B 21 ! ! 8

2 6 ! R6A

! 4

! ! !

! ! ! !

D 46 AVE ! PARK ! V 45 RD

L 25 !

! B ! R ! 37

E 23

T ! !

N 17 2 7

E ! 15

! !

PARK !

! M1-4/R6A !

! 5

! VERNON BLVD ! !

! !

! PARK ! 46 RD M1-4/R6A

11 ST R6A M1-4/R6B 56 35 47 AVE 18 M3-1 5 ST M1-4/R6B PARK M1-4/R6B M1-4/R7A ARCH ST M1-4/R7A 47 RD

M1-4/R6B 21 ST R6A 48 AVE M1-4/R7A 49 AVE M1-4/R6A JACKSON AVE R10 R7X PARK M1-5/R7X 50 AVE M3-1 2 ST M1-5/R8A 51 AVE

Source: NYC of CityDept. Planning Source: M1-4/R6B R7X M1-4/R 6B

! 0 400 FEET !!! ! ! ! !

!! Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary Zoning Districts Study Area (400-foot boundary) C1-5 Commercial Overlay District Applicant's Sites C2-5 Commercial Overlay District Additional Affected Area Special Long Island City Mixed Use District (Hunters Point Subdistrict)

Proposed School Site 16124 Tax Block

33 Tax Lot Existing Zoning ANABLE BASIN Figure 2 9/25/2017

9 STREET

10 STREET

44 AVENUE 11 STREET

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 44 ROAD

! ! ! !! !

! ! 44 DRIVE !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

CENTER BOULEVARD! ! ! !

! ! 45 AVENUE !

! !

! 45 ROAD

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! 46 AVENUE

! ! ! !

46 ROAD

47 AVENUE

47 ROAD

48 AVENUE

49 AVENUE 50 AVENUE Source: NYCeditedby16v2,AKRF. of CityDept. v. Planning Source: MapPLUTO

0 400 FEET

!!! ! ! ! ! Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary Parking Facilities ! Applicant's Sites Public Facilities and Institutions Additional Affected Area Residential Proposed School Site Residential with Commercial Below Study Area (400-foot boundary) Transportation and Utility Commercial and Office Buildings Vacant Land Hotels Vacant Building Industrial and Manufacturing Under Construction Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Existing Land Use ANABLE BASIN Figure 3 1 3 7 3 4 5 6 1 5 5 4 5 5 1 26 5 24 114 25 20 14

9/25/2017 12 1 4 8 8 22 4 43 RD 1 4 8 6 39 10 21 24 2 9 ST 29 13 8 6 17 20 26 5 3 23 28 12 5 1 4 5 4 1 1 4 5 3 35 3 1 4 4 5 14 15 13 4 5 2 1 10 14 5 1 11 44 AVE 6 1 46 4 5 1 8 23 1 4 8 9 4 4 9 12 ST 4 4 3 10 ST 1 13 30 ! ! 1 ! ! 23 34 ! ! ! 39 ! 6

! ! ! 44 RD 26 4 4 6 !! 2 4 5 0

! 23 21 18 10 ! 24

! 1 4 4 8 1

! 13

!! 2 5 11

! 7

! 44 DRIVE 14 12 9 ! 8 21

! ! 2 4 6 5 30

! 15 ! ! 111 35

! ! 1 13

! ! ! 4 4 7

! ! !

! ! ! 42 36

!! ! 11 40

! 10

9 33 28 25

! CENTER BLVD !

! 1

6 ! ! 15 5 1 24 1 11

13 28 ! 16 35 10 ! 20 33 41 20 38 ! 36 39 42 44

20 ! 17 12 ! 45 17 45 AVE 8 ! 10 28 5

! 1 127 5 2 7

! 1 21 ! 26 1 2 6 8 5 0 25 ! 17 24 124

120 ! 23

110 ! 4

! !

! ! 44 21 1 35 ! ! 30 5 3

! 2 3 4 9 37 45 RD ! 25 1 6

VERNON BLVD 5 35 ! 1 127 2 1 ! 27 500 37 46 AVE 10 26

! ! 124

23 35

17 15 24 20 2 7 ! 46 45 13

! ! 15

! 5 22

100 ! 46 43

! 45 40 !

! 4 47 21

! 5 4

! 3 48 37 35 6 5 ! 40

! 31 ! 2 2 8 ! 29 25 4 1 1 5 21 121 8 4 8 30 4 1 45 12 3 17 40 14 29 18 44 20 8 1 47 46 48 21 33 70 12 10 9 49 47 46 RD 65 15 4 48 50 45 41 5 5 11 6 17 7 5 3 51 42 39 132 1 46 44 30 13 1 60 26 2 3 36 34 11 ST 1 6 8 40 32 28 1 9 30 35 37 1 24 34 5 7 9 31 25 36 38 42 10 14 16 17 23 18 41 19 35 21 22 17 39 46 15 36 7 5 2 9 48 21 40 43 16 8 45 47 AVE 21 13 12 10 48 47 50 5 6 47 49 20 5 ST 4 43 47 41 18 11 9 6 3 51 37 51 19 29 7 44 39 38 34 14 1 5 4 32 12 10 30 1 2 42 36 131 26 2 3 6 33 30 13 32 10 11 31 6 31 1 5 8 28 1 15 38 42 46 7 12 4 6 27 28 10 37 40 47 RD 17 19 30 2 39 9 16 26 27 29 5 16 47 18 18 31 1 41 43 13 14 20 24 25 3 0 49 48 47 46 23 5 40 1 9 44 16 5 7 38 2 51 5 45 39 22 17 3 1 8 3 4 49 36 15 14 4 1 2 40 32 12 3 4 30 13 8 9 3 1 1 4 5 38 34 11 8 2 35 33 31 28 31 1 6 7 11 12 17 27 3 29 15 19 16 19 4 1 7 25 1 1 21 19 13 16 18 21 14 10 48 AVE 23 24 8 6 5 28 17 27 20 7 21 ST 11 4 4 22 31 18 15 6 3 9 1 12 9 5 49 AVE 2 104 5 19 29 37 105 11 32 33 1 3 28 35 39 2 80 138 42 1 5 7 1 24 21 3 2 48 10 19 JACKSON AVE 19 17 6 5 22 16 22 6 1 6 8 20 18 49 23 50 AVE 23 51 50 15 13 12 6 11 7 2 2 ST 17 4 4 2 14 6 16 80 1 6 38 3 5 18 1 25 28 31 20 33 1 3 4 36 17 19 1 55 27 32 36 39 37 35 26 34 38 1 2 28 27 26 6 2 46 Source: New York City Department of City Finance, New2017April York Source: 8 44 24 21 41 43 45 47 38 7 6 50

!!! ! ! ! ! Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary 16124 Tax Block Boundary 0 400 FEET ! Study Area (400-foot boundary) Tax Lot Boundary

Applicant's Sites 33 Tax Lot Number Additional Affected Area 33 Condo Tax Lot Number Proposed School Site C: 40 Condo Flag/Condo Number Easement Other Tax Boundary

Tax Map ANABLE BASIN Figure 4 10/2/2017

43 ROAD EAST ROAD

9 STREET

44 AVENUE

! ! ! ! ! 10 STREET

! ! ! ! ! ! 44 ROAD ! !

! !

! ! 44 DR

! ! ! IVE

! !

! ! !

! !

! D !

! ! ! R

! A !

! V

! E !

L ! ! U

O ! 45 AVENUE !

B ! ! N

O ! ! N

! ! R

E ! !

! 45 ROAD !

! !

! ! 46 AVENUE !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

46 ROAD

47 AVENUE 11 STREET

5 STREET CENTER BOULEVARD

47 ROAD

48 AV ENUE 49 AVENUE

50 AVENUE JACKSON AVENUE Source: New York City Department 2016of City Finance, March New York Source:

!!!! ! ! ! Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary 0 500 FEET ! Applicant's Sites Additional Affected Area Proposed School Site Aerial View ANABLE BASIN Figure 5 9/25/2017

43 ROAD EAST 9 STREET CHANNEL 10 STREET 44 AVENUE

2 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3

! ! ! !! !

! ! 4 44 ROAD

! !

! 6

! 2 5 ! 5 44 DRIVE

! ! ! 7

! ! !

! 15 ! !

24 ! ! ! !

! 8

! ! ! ! ! ! 11

! 10

23 ! 9 !

! ! 1 9

22 ! 45 AVENUE !

EAST !

! ! 10 RIVER 21 ! 10

46 AVENUE 17 ! !

21 8 ! 11

! 19 2 6

18 17 4 ! !

20 ! !

16 ! 12 ! ! !

25 ! 25 15 2 7 ! 26 ! 37 14

! 23 !

17 13 !

! ! 15

! !

! 5 !

27 !

11 STREET !

! !

! 28 ! 29 30 46 ROAD 32 31

VERNON BOULEVARD 47 ROAD 33 35 D R A 18 V 56 E L U O 47 AVENUE B 34 R E 35 T N E C 48 AVENUE 21 STREET 49 AVENUE

5 STREET

JACKSON AVENUE HUNTERS POINT

50 AVENUE

0 500 FEET

!!!! ! ! ! Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary 16124 Tax Block !

Applicant's Sites 33 Tax Lot Additional Affected Area Proposed School Site

1 Photograph View Direction and Reference Number Project Location and Key to Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 6 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7a 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7b 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7c 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7d 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7e 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7f 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7g 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7h 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7i 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7j 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7k 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7l 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7m 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7n 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7o 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7p 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7q 10.2.17

Photographs ANABLE BASIN Figure 7r 11/8/2017 EAST RIVER

44 DRIVE A1

A2 A A3 D D1 A4 E E1

E N

T F E F1 R

U L B1 G G1 E V B A B2 R 45 ROAD D H H1

C1 C C2

VERNON BOULEVARD

47 AVENUE 46 ROAD

0 400 FEET

!!!! ! ! ! Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary 16124 ! Tax Block Boundary A Parcels Tax Lot Boundary A1 Sub-parcels 33 Tax Lot Number

Proposed Special Anable Basin District Parcels ANABLE BASIN Figure 8 10.18.17 EAST RIVER

150' 60' 100' A 50' MIN140' 90° LANE 1 65' MIN A 60' 210' A D LANE 2 A 160'

170' E 105'

C 160' F E N

T E R

B 180' O U 100' L 120' G E V A R B 45 ROAD D

LANE 3 B H

190' 180'

200' 120' C

LANE 4 C

VERNON BOULEVARD 47 AVENUE 46 ROAD

0 200 FEET Proposed Special Anable Basin District Boundary Upland Connection (5th Street)

Parcel Boundary Upland Connetion (ﬂexible zone) Flexible Lane Zone (min. lane width 35’, max. lane width 45’) Shore Public Walkway Proposed Special Anable Basin District Parcels, Lanes and Public Access Area ANABLE BASIN Figure 9 EAS FULL FORM PAGE 4

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS

The information requested in this table applies to the directly affected area. The directly affected area consists of the project site and the area subject to any change in regulatory control. The increment is the difference between the No‐ Action and the With‐Action conditions. EXISTING NO‐ACTION WITH‐ACTION INCREMENT CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION LAND USE Residential YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: Describe type of residential structures Walk‐up Walk‐up High‐rise No. of dwelling units 6 6 4,995 (RWCDS 1) +4,989 (RWCDS 1) 3,652 (RWCDS 2) +3,646 (RWCDS 2) See Draft Scope No. of low‐ to moderate‐income units 999 (RWCDS 1) +999 (RWCDS 1) 730 (RWCDS 2) +730 (RWCDS 2) For families earning 80% AMI or below. See Draft Scope Gross floor area (sq. ft.) 7,522 7,522 4,336,909 (RWCDS 1) +4,329,387 (RWCDS 1) 3,195,661 (RWCDS 2) +3,188,139 (RWCDS 2) See Draft Scope Commercial YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: Describe type (retail, office, other) Office, Retail, Office, Retail, Office, Restaurant, Restaurant, Restaurant, Retail, Production/Light Production/Light Production/Light Industrial, Arts and Industrial, Storage Industrial, Storage Cultural; Hotel (RWCDS 2 only) Gross floor area (sq. ft.) 385,661 385,661 663,082 (RWCDS 1) +277,421 (RWCDS 1) 1,858,675 (RWCDS 2) +1,473,014 (RWCDS 2) See Draft Scope Manufacturing/Industrial YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: Type of use Plastics Manufacturing Plastics Manufacturing Heavy Industrial Gross floor area (sq. ft.) 44,000 44,000 0 ‐44,000 Open storage area (sq. ft.) If any unenclosed activities, specify: Community Facility YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: Type School and medical, child care, etc. Gross floor area (sq. ft.) 140,662 (RWCDS 1 and +140,662 (RWCDS 1 and 2) 2) See Draft Scope Vacant Land YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” describe: Publicly Accessible Open Space YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify type (mapped City, State, or Public Open Space +134,695 sf Public Open Federal parkland, wetland—mapped or 134,695 sf (RWCDS 1 Space otherwise known, other): and 2) Other Land Uses YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” describe: PARKING Garages YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: No. of public spaces EAS FULL FORM PAGE 5

EXISTING NO‐ACTION WITH‐ACTION INCREMENT CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION No. of accessory spaces 1,824 (RWCDS 1 and 2) +1,824 (RWCDS 1 and 2) See Draft Scope Operating hours 24 hours Attended or non‐attended Attended Lots YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: No. of public spaces No. of accessory spaces 208 208 ‐208 See Draft Scope Operating hours 8AM–6PM 8AM‐6PM Other (includes street parking) YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” describe: POPULATION Residents YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify number: 16 16 12,937(RWCDS 1) +12,921 (RWCDS 1) 9,459 (RWCDS 2) +9,442 (RWCDS 2) See Draft Scope Briefly explain how the number of residents Residential population estimates based on average household size of 2.59 residents per unit (average was calculated: household size of Queens Community District 2 as of 2010 Census) Businesses YES NO YES NO YES NO If “yes,” specify the following: No. and type Varies; 42 firms on Varies; 42 firms on Varies; to be described Applicant's Sites. To be Applicant's Sites. To be in EIS described in EIS described in EIS No. and type of workers by business Applicant's Sites: 299 Applicant's Sites: 229 [RWCDS 1‐Total: 2,744] Total: +TBD (RWCDS 1); employees employees Residential: 200 +TBD (RWCDS 2) Additional Affected Additional Affected Retail: 368 See Draft Scope Area: TBD Area: TBD Office: 602 Proposed School Site: Proposed School Site: Arts/Cultural: 55 TBD TBD Comm. Facility: 114 School: 66 Production/Industrial: 1,339 [RWCDS 2‐Total: 6,870] Residential: 146 Retail: 703 Office: 4,768 Arts/Cultural: 55 Comm. Facility: 114 School: 66 Production/Industrial: 1,018 Hotel: 308 No. and type of non‐residents who are not workers Briefly explain how the number of Existing no. of businesses and workers on Applicant's Sites provided by applicant businesses was calculated: With Action Worker population estimates based on industry standard rates provided by DCP (1 employee per 25 dwelling units; 1 employee per 250 sf of office space; 1 employee per 333 sf of retail and community facility space; 1 employee per 400 sf of hotel space; 1 employee per 1,000 sf of arts/cultural; 1 employee per 11 school seats; 1 employee per 250 sf of production/industrial space Other (students, visitors, concert‐goers, YES NO YES NO YES NO etc.) If any, specify type and number:

Briefly explain how the number was calculated: EAS FULL FORM PAGE 6

EXISTING NO‐ACTION WITH‐ACTION INCREMENT CONDITION CONDITION CONDITION ZONING Zoning classification M1‐4, Special LIC Mixed‐ M1‐4, Special LIC Mixed‐ M1‐5/R6A, M1‐5/R7‐2, Use District (Hunters Use District (Hunters M1‐5/R9, Special Anable Point Subdistrict); M1‐ Point Subdistrict); M1‐ Basin District 4/R6A 4/R6A Maximum amount of floor area that can be 2.0 FAR commercial = 2.0 FAR commercial = Approx. 5,740,000 sf Incremental increase of developed 1,302,614 sf 1,302,614 sf up to 4,437,386 sf 3.0 FAR residential (M1‐ 3.0 FAR residential (M1‐ 4/R6A only)= 60,000 sf 4/R6A only)= 60,000 sf 6.5 FAR community 6.5 FAR community facility = 4,233,496 sf facility = 4,233,496 sf Predominant land use and zoning Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, classifications within land use study area(s) manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing, or a 400 ft. radius of proposed project residential, open space; residential, open space; residential, open space; M1‐4, R6A, M3‐1, M1‐4, R6A, M3‐1, M1‐4, R6A, M3‐1, Hunter's Point Hunter's Point Hunter's Point Subdistrict Subdistrict Subdistrict Attach any additional information that may be needed to describe the project.

If your project involves changes that affect one or more sites not associated with a specific development, it is generally appropriate to include total development projections in the above table and attach separate tables outlining the reasonable development scenarios for each site. EAS FULL FORM PAGE 7

Part II: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS: For each of the analysis categories listed in this section, assess the proposed project’s impacts based on the thresholds and criteria presented in the CEQR Technical Manual. Check each box that applies.  If the proposed project can be demonstrated not to meet or exceed the threshold, check the “no” box.  If the proposed project will meet or exceed the threshold, or if this cannot be determined, check the “yes” box.  For each “yes” response, provide additional analyses (and, if needed, attach supporting information) based on guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual to determine whether the potential for significant impacts exists. Please note that a “yes” answer does not mean that an EIS must be prepared—it means that more information may be required for the lead agency to make a determination of significance.

 The lead agency, upon reviewing Part II, may require an applicant to provide additional information to support the Full EAS Form. For example, if a question is answered “no,” an agency may request a short explanation for this response.

YES NO 1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 4 (a) Would the proposed project result in a change in land use different from surrounding land uses? (b) Would the proposed project result in a change in zoning different from surrounding zoning? (c) Is there the potential to affect an applicable public policy? (d) If “yes,” to (a), (b), and/or (c), complete a preliminary assessment and attach. To come in EIS (e) Is the project a large, publicly sponsored project? o If “yes,” complete a PlaNYC assessment and attach. (f) Is any part of the directly affected area within the City’s Waterfront Revitalization Program boundaries? o If “yes,” complete the Consistency Assessment Form. To come in EIS 2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 5 (a) Would the proposed project: o Generate a net increase of more than 200 residential units or 200,000 square feet of commercial space? . If “yes,” answer both questions 2(b)(ii) and 2(b)(iv) below. o Directly displace 500 or more residents? . If “yes,” answer questions 2(b)(i), 2(b)(ii), and 2(b)(iv) below. o Directly displace more than 100 employees? . If “yes,” answer questions under 2(b)(iii) and 2(b)(iv) below. o Affect conditions in a specific industry? . If “yes,” answer question 2(b)(v) below. (b) If “yes” to any of the above, attach supporting information to answer the relevant questions below. If “no” was checked for each category above, the remaining questions in this technical area do not need to be answered. i. Direct Residential Displacement o If more than 500 residents would be displaced, would these residents represent more than 5% of the primary study area population? o If “yes,” is the average income of the directly displaced population markedly lower than the average income of the rest of the study area population? ii. Indirect Residential Displacement o Would expected average incomes of the new population exceed the average incomes of study area populations? o If “yes:” . Would the population of the primary study area increase by more than 10 percent? . Would the population of the primary study area increase by more than 5 percent in an area where there is the

potential to accelerate trends toward increasing rents? o If “yes” to either of the preceding questions, would more than 5 percent of all housing units be renter‐occupied and unprotected? iii. Direct Business Displacement o Do any of the displaced businesses provide goods or services that otherwise would not be found within the trade area, either under existing conditions or in the future with the proposed project? o Is any category of business to be displaced the subject of other regulations or publicly adopted plans to preserve, EAS FULL FORM PAGE 8

YES NO enhance, or otherwise protect it? iv. Indirect Business Displacement o Would the project potentially introduce trends that make it difficult for businesses to remain in the area? o Would the project capture retail sales in a particular category of goods to the extent that the market for such goods would become saturated, potentially resulting in vacancies and disinvestment on neighborhood commercial streets? v. Effects on Industry o Would the project significantly affect business conditions in any industry or any category of businesses within or outside the study area? o Would the project indirectly substantially reduce employment or impair the economic viability in the industry or category of businesses? 3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 6 (a) Direct Effects o Would the project directly eliminate, displace, or alter public or publicly funded community facilities such as educational facilities, libraries, health care facilities, day care centers, police stations, or fire stations? (b) Indirect Effects i. Child Care Centers o Would the project result in 20 or more eligible children under age 6, based on the number of low or low/moderate income residential units? (See Table 6‐1 in Chapter 6) o If “yes,” would the project result in a collective utilization rate of the group child care/Head Start centers in the study area that is greater than 100 percent? o If “yes,” would the project increase the collective utilization rate by 5 percent or more from the No‐Action scenario? ii. Libraries o Would the project result in a 5 percent or more increase in the ratio of residential units to library branches? (See Table 6‐1 in Chapter 6) o If “yes,” would the project increase the study area population by 5 percent or more from the No‐Action levels? o If “yes,” would the additional population impair the delivery of library services in the study area? iii. Public Schools o Would the project result in 50 or more elementary or middle school students, or 150 or more high school students based on number of residential units? (See Table 6‐1 in Chapter 6) o If “yes,” would the project result in a collective utilization rate of the elementary and/or intermediate schools in the study area that is equal to or greater than 100 percent? o If “yes,” would the project increase this collective utilization rate by 5 percent or more from the No‐Action scenario? iv. Health Care Facilities o Would the project result in the introduction of a sizeable new neighborhood? o If “yes,” would the project affect the operation of health care facilities in the area? v. Fire and Police Protection o Would the project result in the introduction of a sizeable new neighborhood? o If “yes,” would the project affect the operation of fire or police protection in the area? 4. OPEN SPACE: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 7 (a) Would the project change or eliminate existing open space? (b) Is the project located within an under‐served area in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, or Staten Island? (c) If “yes,” would the project generate more than 50 additional residents or 125 additional employees? (d) Is the project located within a well‐served area in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, or Staten Island? (e) If “yes,” would the project generate more than 350 additional residents or 750 additional employees? (f) If the project is located in an area that is neither under‐served nor well‐served, would it generate more than 200 additional residents or 500 additional employees? (g) If “yes” to questions (c), (e), or (f) above, attach supporting information to answer the following: o If in an under‐served area, would the project result in a decrease in the open space ratio by more than 1 percent? o If in an area that is not under‐served, would the project result in a decrease in the open space ratio by more than 5 EAS FULL FORM PAGE 9

YES NO percent? o If “yes,” are there qualitative considerations, such as the quality of open space, that need to be considered? Please specify: To come in EIS 5. SHADOWS: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 8 (a) Would the proposed project result in a net height increase of any structure of 50 feet or more? (b) Would the proposed project result in any increase in structure height and be located adjacent to or across the street from a sunlight‐sensitive resource? (c) If “yes” to either of the above questions, attach supporting information explaining whether the project’s shadow would reach any sunlight‐ sensitive resource at any time of the year. To come in EIS 6. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 9 (a) Does the proposed project site or an adjacent site contain any architectural and/or archaeological resource that is eligible for or has been designated (or is calendared for consideration) as a New York City Landmark, Interior Landmark or Scenic Landmark; that is listed or eligible for listing on the New York State or National Register of Historic Places; or that is within a designated or eligible New York City, New York State or National Register Historic District? (See the GIS System for Archaeology and National Register to confirm) (b) Would the proposed project involve construction resulting in in‐ground disturbance to an area not previously excavated? (c) If “yes” to either of the above, list any identified architectural and/or archaeological resources and attach supporting information on whether the proposed project would potentially affect any architectural or archeological resources. To come in EIS 7. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 10 (a) Would the proposed project introduce a new building, a new building height, or result in any substantial physical alteration to the streetscape or public space in the vicinity of the proposed project that is not currently allowed by existing zoning? (b) Would the proposed project result in obstruction of publicly accessible views to visual resources not currently allowed by existing zoning? (c) If “yes” to either of the above, please provide the information requested in Chapter 10. To come in EIS 8. NATURAL RESOURCES: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 11 (a) Does the proposed project site or a site adjacent to the project contain natural resources as defined in Section 100 of Chapter 11? o If “yes,” list the resources and attach supporting information on whether the project would affect any of these resources. To come in EIS (b) Is any part of the directly affected area within the Jamaica Bay Watershed? o If “yes,” complete the Jamaica Bay Watershed Form and submit according to its instructions. 9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 12 (a) Would the proposed project allow commercial or residential uses in an area that is currently, or was historically, a manufacturing area that involved hazardous materials? (b) Does the proposed project site have existing institutional controls (e.g., (E) designation or Restrictive Declaration) relating to hazardous materials that preclude the potential for significant adverse impacts? (c) Would the project require soil disturbance in a manufacturing area or any development on or near a manufacturing area or existing/historic facilities listed in Appendix 1 (including nonconforming uses)? (d) Would the project result in the development of a site where there is reason to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, contamination, illegal dumping or fill, or fill material of unknown origin? (e) Would the project result in development on or near a site that has or had underground and/or aboveground storage tanks (e.g., gas stations, oil storage facilities, heating oil storage)? (f) Would the project result in renovation of interior existing space on a site with the potential for compromised air quality; vapor intrusion from either on‐site or off‐site sources; or the presence of asbestos, PCBs, mercury or lead‐based paint? (g) Would the project result in development on or near a site with potential hazardous materials issues such as government‐ listed voluntary cleanup/brownfield site, current or former power generation/transmission facilities, coal gasification or gas storage sites, railroad tracks or rights‐of‐way, or municipal incinerators? (h) Has a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment been performed for the site? ○ If “yes,” were Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) identified? Briefly identify: To come in EIS (i) Based on the Phase I Assessment, is a Phase II Investigation needed? 10. WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 13 (a) Would the project result in water demand of more than one million gallons per day? (b) If the proposed project located in a combined sewer area, would it result in at least 1,000 residential units or 250,000 square feet or more of commercial space in Manhattan, or at least 400 residential units or 150,000 square feet or more of commercial space in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, or Queens? EAS FULL FORM PAGE 10

YES NO (c) If the proposed project located in a separately sewered area, would it result in the same or greater development than that listed in Table 13‐1 in Chapter 13? (d) Would the project involve development on a site that is 5 acres or larger where the amount of impervious surface would increase? (e) If the project is located within the Jamaica Bay Watershed or in certain specific drainage areas, including Bronx River, Coney Island Creek, Flushing Bay and Creek, Gowanus Canal, Hutchinson River, Newtown Creek, or Westchester Creek, would it involve development on a site that is 1 acre or larger where the amount of impervious surface would increase? (f) Would the proposed project be located in an area that is partially sewered or currently unsewered? (g) Is the project proposing an industrial facility or activity that would contribute industrial discharges to a Wastewater Treatment Plant and/or contribute contaminated stormwater to a separate storm sewer system? (h) Would the project involve construction of a new stormwater outfall that requires federal and/or state permits? (i) If “yes” to any of the above, conduct the appropriate preliminary analyses and attach supporting documentation. To come in EIS 11. SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 14 (a) Using Table 14‐1 in Chapter 14, the project’s projected operational solid waste generation is estimated to be (pounds per week): 411,095 (RWCDS 1); 419,551 (RWCDS 2) o Would the proposed project have the potential to generate 100,000 pounds (50 tons) or more of solid waste per week? (b) Would the proposed project involve a reduction in capacity at a solid waste management facility used for refuse or recyclables generated within the City? o If “yes,” would the proposed project comply with the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan? 12. ENERGY: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 15 (a) Using energy modeling or Table 15‐1 in Chapter 15, the project’s projected energy use is estimated to be (annual BTUs): 926 billion (RWCDS 2) (b) Would the proposed project affect the transmission or generation of energy? 13. TRANSPORTATION: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 16 (a) Would the proposed project exceed any threshold identified in Table 16‐1 in Chapter 16? (b) If “yes,” conduct the appropriate screening analyses, attach back up data as needed for each stage, and answer the following questions:

o Would the proposed project result in 50 or more Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs) per project peak hour? If “yes,” would the proposed project result in 50 or more vehicle trips per project peak hour at any given intersection? **It should be noted that the lead agency may require further analysis of intersections of concern even when a project generates fewer than 50 vehicles in the peak hour. See Subsection 313 of Chapter 16 for more information. o Would the proposed project result in more than 200 subway/rail or bus trips per project peak hour? If “yes,” would the proposed project result, per project peak hour, in 50 or more bus trips on a single line (in one

direction) or 200 subway/rail trips per station or line? o Would the proposed project result in more than 200 pedestrian trips per project peak hour? If “yes,” would the proposed project result in more than 200 pedestrian trips per project peak hour to any given

pedestrian or transit element, crosswalk, subway stair, or bus stop? 14. AIR QUALITY: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 17 (a) Mobile Sources: Would the proposed project result in the conditions outlined in Section 210 in Chapter 17? (b) Stationary Sources: Would the proposed project result in the conditions outlined in Section 220 in Chapter 17? o If “yes,” would the proposed project exceed the thresholds in Figure 17‐3, Stationary Source Screen Graph in Chapter 17? (Attach graph as needed) (c) Does the proposed project involve multiple buildings on the project site? (d) Does the proposed project require federal approvals, support, licensing, or permits subject to conformity requirements? (e) Does the proposed project site have existing institutional controls (e.g., (E) designation or Restrictive Declaration) relating to air quality that preclude the potential for significant adverse impacts? (f) If “yes” to any of the above, conduct the appropriate analyses and attach any supporting documentation. To come in EIS 15. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 18 (a) Is the proposed project a city capital project or a power generation plant? (b) Would the proposed project fundamentally change the City’s solid waste management system? (c) Would the proposed project result in the development of 350,000 square feet or more? (d) If “yes” to any of the above, would the project require a GHG emissions assessment based on guidance in Chapter 18?

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 11a

Part II: Technical Analysis

A. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY The Proposed Actions include proposed modifications to zoning regulations applicable to the Rezoning Area, and would result in new uses in the Rezoning Area (in particular residential, production/light industrial, retail, community facility, and arts and cultural/placemaking uses, as well as public open space). The Proposed Actions would also result in a change in use on the Proposed School Site with the development of a new school. An assessment of the Proposed Actions’ potential impacts on land use, zoning, and public policy will be provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (see the Draft Scope of Work). In addition, the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site are located within the City’s Coastal Zone boundaries, therefore, an evaluation of the Proposed Actions’ consistency with the relevant policies of the City’s Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) will be provided in the EIS. B. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS The Proposed Actions would result in development exceeding 200 dwelling units (DUs) and 200,000 square feet (sf) of commercial space. Therefore, in accordance with 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual guidelines, an analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts due to indirect displacement of residents and businesses will be provided in the EIS. The Proposed Actions are not expected to result in the direct displacement of 500 or more residents; therefore, an analysis of direct residential displacement is not warranted. However, the Proposed Actions could result in the direct displacement of existing tenants in the Rezoning Area, and the total direct business displacement under the Proposed Actions could exceed the 100-employee CEQR threshold, warranting assessment of direct business displacement, which analysis will be provided in the EIS. Finally, the EIS will include an assessment of effects on specific industries which will determine whether the Proposed Actions could significantly affect business conditions in any industry or category of businesses within or outside the study area, or whether the Proposed Actions would substantially reduce employment or impair viability in a specific industry or category of businesses (see the Draft Scope of Work). C. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Proposed Actions would not result in the direct displacement of, or alteration to, any existing community facilities (i.e., educational facilities, libraries, health care facilities, day care centers, police stations, or fire stations). However, the Proposed Actions would result in development exceeding the CEQR Technical Manual thresholds for indirect effects on schools and libraries (in Queens, increases of 124 or more DUs require analysis of elementary and intermediate schools; increases of 1,068 or more DUs require analysis of high schools; and increases of 622 or more DUs require analysis of libraries). The Proposed Actions would also result in development of affordable DUs exceeding the threshold (139 DUs affordable to families earning 80 percent Area Median Income [AMI] or less) for analysis of publicly funded

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 11b

child care. The development facilitated by the Proposed Actions could constitute a sizable new neighborhood which may result in increased demand for health care, fire, and police services. Analyses of the Proposed Actions’ potential impacts on these community facilities will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). D. OPEN SPACE The Proposed Actions would not result in the direct displacement of, or alteration to, any existing open space resource. However, the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site are located in an area that is neither under-served nor well-served by open space, and the Proposed Actions would result in development exceeding the thresholds warranting an analysis of indirect open space effects (200 residents and/or 500 workers). An analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse indirect open space impacts due to new residents and workers will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). E. SHADOWS The Proposed Actions would facilitate development of new structures which would exceed 50 feet in height, which would also be located adjacent to sunlight-sensitive resources (sunlight- sensitive resources are defined as publicly accessible open spaces, sunlight-sensitive features of historic resources, and natural features such as the East River). A detailed analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts due to new shadows affecting sunlight-sensitive resources will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). F. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The CEQR Technical Manual identifies historic and cultural resources as districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects of historical, aesthetic, cultural, and archaeological importance. This includes designated NYC Landmarks (NYCLs); properties calendared for consideration as landmarks by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC); properties listed on the State/National Register of Historic Places (S/NR) or contained within a district listed on or formally determined eligible for S/NR listing; properties recommended by the New York State Board for listing on the S/NR; National Historic Landmarks; and properties not identified by one of the programs listed above, but that meet their eligibility requirements. Regarding archaeological resources, LPC determined—in letters dated April 21, 2017 and May 9, 2017— that the Rezoning Area and Proposed School Site do not possess any archaeological significance. Therefore, no further consideration of archaeological resources is warranted. The Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts on any architectural resources near the Rezoning Area or the Proposed School Site, including visual and contextual impacts and impacts relating to significant new shadows on sunlight-sensitive resources, will be analyzed in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). G. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Proposed Actions would facilitate the construction of new buildings which would substantially alter the streetscape in the Rezoning Area; in particular, the Proposed Actions would modify zoning regulations relating to built form (e.g., bulk, height and setback, and yards), which would result in changes beyond those allowable by existing zoning that could be observed by a pedestrian. The development facilitated by the Proposed Actions may also result in obstruction of publicly accessible views to visual resources (e.g., the waterfront) that are not currently allowed by existing zoning. A detailed analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 11c

result in significant adverse impacts to urban design and visual resources will be provide in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). H. NATURAL RESOURCES The Rezoning Area is located adjacent to at least one natural resource (the East River) as defined by the CEQR Technical Manual. The potential for the Proposed Actions to result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). In particular, the analysis will evaluate the potential impact the Proposed Actions may have on the marine environment and endangered or threatened species associated with the marine environment (or otherwise occurring near the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site). I. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous materials are known to be present on the Applicant’s Sites and may be present on other sites in the Rezoning Area and on the Proposed School Site, due to the historic uses in the area. As the Proposed Actions would facilitate the redevelopment of the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site, which would both result in new subsurface disturbance and introduce new residential and worker populations to the area, an analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts relating to hazardous materials will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). This analysis will include documentation of known or potential hazardous materials of concern occurring in the Rezoning Area and on the Proposed School Site, and will identify measures to avoid impacts, including institutional controls such as (E) Designations. J. WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE Based on the Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) programs to be analyzed for the Proposed Actions, the Proposed Actions would result in an increase in water demand of more than 1 million gallons per day (gpd). In addition, the Proposed Actions would result in development exceeding the thresholds of analysis of sewer infrastructure: the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site are located in an area served by a combined sewer system, and the RWCDSs would exceed the applicable thresholds for Queens (400 DUs and/or 150,000 sf of commercial space). An analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts on the water supply system and on wastewater and stormwater conveyance and treatment will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). K. SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES Based on the RWCDSs, the Proposed Actions would result in generation of over 400,000 pounds per week of solid waste, which exceeds the CEQR Technical Manual thresholds (100,000 pounds per week/50 tons per week). An analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts to solid waste and sanitation services will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). L. ENERGY The RWCDSs for the Proposed Actions are estimated to have an energy demand of over 800 billion British Thermal Units (BTUs) annually. Following CEQR Technical Manual guidance, a detailed analysis of energy impacts is only warranted for projects that may significant affect the transmission or generation of energy. As the Proposed Actions would not affect the transmission or generation of energy, a detailed analysis is not warranted. However, an assessment of the EAS FULL FORM PAGE 11d

RWCDSs’ energy needs will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work; see also “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” below). M. TRANSPORTATION Based on the RWCDSs, the Proposed Actions are expected to result in more than 50 vehicle trips in a peak hour and more than 200 peak hour transit/pedestrian trips. Detailed analyses of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse impacts will be performed and provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). The analysis will include preparation of a Travel Demand Factors (TDF) memo summarizing the trips (by auto/taxi, transit, or walk/bike, and deliveries, etc.) projected to occur as a result of the Proposed Actions, and will assign those trips to the transportation network to identify specific transportation elements that would be subject to further detailed analyses. Quantified analyses of traffic, pedestrians, and transit (subway stations and bus routes) are expected to be warranted. Analyses will also be performed to determine whether trips and changes resulting from the Proposed Actions would adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian safety and whether the Proposed Actions would have the potential to result in a parking shortfall. N. AIR QUALITY The number of vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Actions will likely exceed the CEQR Technical Manual analysis thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), therefore an analysis of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse air quality impacts due to mobile source emissions is warranted. In addition, the Proposed Actions would result in new developments with fossil fuel-fired heating and hot water systems, and the projected development would be at a scale that exceeds the stationary source screening thresholds of the CEQR Technical Manual (Figure 17-3), therefore, a detailed stationary source analysis is warranted. The detailed stationary source analysis will also evaluate the potential for the multiple buildings and the mix of residential, non-residential, and light industrial uses to result in impacts at receptor locations on the projected development itself (i.e., project-on-project impacts). As the Rezoning Area and the Proposed School Site are located within a manufacturing zoning district, an analysis of emissions from existing industrial sources is warranted. These analyses of the Proposed Actions’ potential to result in significant adverse air quality impacts will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). O. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Proposed Actions would facilitate development exceeding 350,000 sf, the CEQR Technical Manual development threshold requiring an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A GHG analysis will be prepared in the EIS to quantify the GHG emissions generated by the RWCDS and assess the Proposed Actions’ consistency with the City’s established GHG reduction goal (see the Draft Scope of Work). In addition, since the Rezoning Area and Proposed School Site are located in a current and future flood hazard zone, the potential impacts of climate change (e.g., seal level rise and changes in storm frequency) on the RWCDS will be evaluated in the EIS. P. NOISE The Proposed Actions would generate vehicular traffic (see “Transportation,” above), which has the potential to result in a significant increase in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, parks, and schools), therefore, a mobile source noise analysis is warranted. The Proposed Actions would also facilitate the development of new sensitive receptors near heavily

EAS FULL FORM PAGE 11e

trafficked roadways, which would require building noise attenuation to meet CEQR interior noise requirements. In accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, a noise study will be prepared in the EIS that addresses whether the Proposed Actions would result in a significant increase in noise levels and what level of building noise attenuation is necessary to maintain acceptable interior noise levels (see the Draft Scope of Work). Q. PUBLIC HEALTH As noted above and discussed in the Draft Scope of Work, the EIS will include detailed analyses of the Proposed Actions’ potential impacts in several areas related to public health (i.e., air quality, hazardous materials, and noise). If any of these analyses identify potential unmitigated environmental impacts, the EIS will include an assessment to determine if there would be any resulting public health impacts as defined by the CEQR Technical Manual (see the Draft Scope of Work). R. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER As noted above and discussed in the Draft Scope of Work, the EIS will include detailed analyses of the Proposed Actions’ potential impacts in areas related to the character of a neighborhood, as defined by the CEQR Technical Manual (e.g., land use, zoning, and public policy, socioeconomic conditions, urban design, and visual resources). According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, an assessment of neighborhood character is generally needed when a project has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts in one of the relevant technical areas, or when a project may have moderate effects on several of the elements that define a neighborhood’s character. Therefore, the EIS will include an assessment of the Proposed Action’s impacts on neighborhood character, drawing on the other analyses (see the Draft Scope of Work). S. CONSTRUCTION The Proposed Actions would result in phased construction of developments over an extended period of time, as well as construction activities in proximity to sensitive receptor locations such as residences and open space. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the Proposed Action’s potential to result in construction-related impacts will be provided in the EIS (see the Draft Scope of Work). The EIS analysis will describe the construction schedule and logistics, discuss anticipated on-site activities, and provide estimates of construction workers and truck deliveries. The analysis will also describe measures to be implemented during construction and Best Management Practices for construction activities to prevent and/or mitigate construction-related impacts. EAS FULL FORM PAGE 12

Part Ill: DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To Be Completed by Lead Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: In completing PartIll, the lead agency should consult 6 NYCRR 617.7 and 43 RCNY § 6-06 (Executive Order 91 or 1977, as amended), which contain the State and City criteria for determining significance. 1. For each of the impact categories listed below, consider whether the project may have a significant Potentially adverse effect on the environment, taking into account its (a) location; (bl probability of occurring; (c) Significant duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. Adverse Impact IMPACT CATEGORY YES NO Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy � D Socioeconomic Conditions � D Community Facilities and Services � D Open Space � D Shadows � D Historic and Cultural Resources � D Urban Design/Visual Resources � D Natural Resources � D Hazardous Materials � D Water and Sewer Infrastructure � D Solid Waste and Sanitation Services � D Energy � D Transportation � D Air Quality � D Greenhouse Gas Emissions � D Noise � D Public Health � D Neighborhood Character � D Construction � D 2. Are there any aspects of the project relevant to the determination of whether the project may have a significant impact on the environment, such as combined or cumulative impacts, that were not fully � D covered by other responses and supporting materials? If there are such impacts, attach an explanation stating whether, as a result of them, the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 3. Check determination to be issued by the lead agency:

� Positive Declaration: If the lead agency has determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, and if a Conditional Negative Declaration is not appropriate, then the lead agency issues a Positive Declaratipn and prepares a draft Scope of Work for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). D Conditional Negative Declaration: A Conditional Negative Declaration (CND) may be appropriate if there is a private applicant for an Unlisted action AND when conditions imposed by the lead agency will modifythe proposed project so that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result. Th� CND is prepared as a separate document and is subject to the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617. D Negative Declaration: If the lead agency has determined that the project would not result in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, then the lead agency issues a Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration may be prepared as a separate document (see temglate) or using the embedded Negative Declaration on the next page. 4. LEAD AGENCY'S CERTIFICATION TITLE LEAD AGENCY Director, Environmental Assessment and Review Division New York City Department of City Planning NAME DATE Robert Dobruskin, AICP November 14, 2017 SIGNATURE