Appendix F Port Chester Schools Over- crowding and Mitigation Analysis

PORT CHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OVERCROWDING AND MITIGATION ANALYSIS

4,900

4,724 4,700 4,711 4,728 4,700 4,692 4,681 4,657 4,629 4,632 4,613 4,589 4,567 4,562 4,546 4,500 4,412 4,372

4,300 4,216 4,183

4,057 4,100 3,955

3,900 3,801

3,700

3,500

Baseline Enrollment Pipeline Enrollment

PHASE ONE REPORT

Prepared for Village of Port Chester IDA

Submitted by Urbanomics, Inc. November 10, 2014 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 Key Findings ...... 1 Analysis of Existing Studies and Forecasts ...... 2 Data Collection and Preparation of Enrollment Forecasts ...... 2 Baseline Forecasts ...... 3 School District Data ...... 5 Development of Mitigation Formula ...... 7 PUMS Public School Child Multipliers ...... 7 Comparison of Port Chester Multipliers to Rutgers’ ...... 8 Test Case: The Mariner ...... 8 Pipeline Projects ...... 10 Quantify Hard/Soft Costs ...... 12 New Construction Costs ...... 13 Mitigation Formula Results ...... 14 Spreadsheet Structure ...... 14 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Introduction

Unlike much of the rest of Westchester County, the Village of Port Chester has experienced a renaissance in recent years. In response, the new comprehensive plan and consequent zoning changes allow for higher density mixed- use development in strategic areas with the intent of creating additional economic opportunities. Several proposals have already been put forth and, as with any new residential development, there is concern that the already crowded school system will be stressed beyond capacity by additional children. To better understand and deal with this challenge, the Port Chester Industrial Development Agency (IDA) retained Urbanomics, Inc. and BFJ Planning to analyze the changing demographics and countervailing child generation rates of Port Chester and to develop a mechanism that allows the Village of Port Chester to accommodate new school children without excessively taxing existing residents.

The objective is to set in place a mechanism that is fair to existing and future property owners, that is relatively easy to administer and reasonable in terms of its economic impacts on developers and new property owners. The purpose of this mechanism is not to control growth, but to establish a funding mechanism that allows the Village to improve school conditions and that is also predictable and understandable for the developers and property owners.

The development of this mechanism followed a process of literature review, data collection and forecasting, definition of the costs of education and new school construction, development of the mitigation formula, as well as opportunities for the tool’s implementation. A description and the results of this process follow.

Key Findings

 The number of public school children in Port Chester has continued to rise over the last decade unlike the surrounding municipalities in Westchester County due to demographic differences.  The number of public school children will continue to increase through the 2019-20 school year before leveling off and beginning to decline.  The capacity analysis prepared by Ross Haber and Associates for the Port Chester Rye School District showed a district-wide classroom deficit of 3 classrooms1 in 2011 o The elementary classroom deficit in the elementary peak year of 2016-2017 will be 6, excluding any potential new residential construction o The additional deficit due to projects in the pipeline is 2 classrooms  Child generation rates in Port Chester are generally lower than State and Regional averages for studios and one-bedroom units, and higher than the averages for two or more bedroom units.  Educational and operational (soft) costs per child are estimated at $17,292 o Minus government aid, the soft cost per child is $13,723  New Construction costs per child are estimated at $35,000 o Minus State Aid, the New Construction cost per child is $18,370  Applying the mitigation formula to projects in the pipeline at current unit mix yields: o 34 Children o $1,091,257 in costs per child adjusted for State Aid . $466,677 in soft/education costs . $624,580 in hard/new construction costs

1 Assumes an average class size of no more than 25 students. 1 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Analysis of Existing Studies and Forecasts

Urbanomics reviewed several existing studies and forecasts at the outset of the project to provide context. These studies included the Village of Port Chester Housing Study, which provided information on the predominant existing housing by type and income level of residents. The Village of Port Chester Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS provided information on what future housing development will be like in the Village, in particular in the areas rezoned to higher densities.

The primary source for School District information was the Ross Haber Associates Enrollment Study prepared for the Port Chester Public Schools in June, 2011. This study included both a forecast of student enrollment to 2015 as well as a classroom capacity analysis of the District’s elementary schools. The capacity analysis showed a district-wide classroom deficit of 3 classrooms in 2011, assuming a maximum class size of 25 students.

Data Collection and Preparation of Enrollment Forecasts

The graphic to the right shows the progression of the School

District Enrollment Forecasts. Historical data and assumptions •School District Enrollment by Grade 2007 to Present for the enrollment forecasts are as follows: Data •State Department of Health Births per School District Inputs  Births: o Historical births for all mothers residing in the Port Chester/Rye School District available from •Retention Rates by Grade from Year to Year •Percentage of Births (lagged by 5 years) to Enter New York State Department of Health for Retention Kindergarten 2000-2012; projected to 2017 Rates o K enrollment dependent upon annual births of 5 years prior to school year •Average of kindergarten entrance rates applied to new birth data to determine next year’s kindergarten class size . Actuals for calendar years (CY) 2002 to •Average historical retention by grade applied to 2007 (historical period school years (SY) determine the subsequent grades class size in the next Forecasts year. 2007-08 to 2013-14) . Actuals for CYs 2008 to 2012 (projected period SYs 2014-15 to 2022-23)  Total Enrollment: o Public School enrollment collected for mid-October from NYS Department of Education and the Port Chester Rye School District reports of all students on roll by grade.  Survival Rates: o For grades K-12, forecast survival rates are computed as the average of six year historical survival rates. o All survival rates are applied to prior year and prior grade enrollment, with the exception of K grade levels for which survival rates are applied to corresponding row birth rates.  Ungraded (Grades 13 and 14) o A ratio of special education students to regular students was computed on an historical basis by year of enrollment for K-12. The ratios were forecasted by a least squares linear regression to provide future school year percentages of special education students to be applied to the regular student forecast.  Pending Development School Child Generation o All housing units proposed and under construction in the forecast period were obtained from the Village of Port Chester Department of Planning by tenure, building type, cost and unit size. The Port Chester Specific PUMS multipliers (as described in the following section) were applied to housing developments on a unit size basis.

2 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Baseline Forecasts

What follows is an image of the Cohort-Survival Forecast worksheet. Cohort-Survival Enrollment Projection Worksheet

DISTRICT NA ME: PORT CHESTER-RYE UFSD

COUNTY : Westchester

Births 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th School 5 Yrs. K Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Total Gr. Gr. Year Ago "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s" "s"

HISTORIC DATA

2007-08 521 0.681 355 321 307 279 285 267 253 270 263 357 274 232 246 3801 91 1

1.017 1.028 1.000 1.018 1.028 1.090 1.040 0.937 1.323 0.840 0.996 0.931 0.044 0.001

2008-09 552 0.670 370 361 330 307 284 293 291 263 253 348 300 273 216 3955 66 0

0.989 1.003 0.994 1.003 0.965 1.031 1.024 1.004 1.308 0.899 0.917 0.861 0.030 0.000

2009-10 536 0.660 354 366 362 328 308 274 302 298 264 331 313 275 235 4057 46 1

0.986 0.986 1.008 0.979 1.013 1.040 0.993 1.003 1.174 0.982 0.885 0.967 0.020 0.001

2010-11 529 0.686 363 349 361 365 321 312 285 300 299 310 325 277 266 4183 45 5

1.003 1.023 0.981 1.025 0.978 0.971 0.968 1.000 1.134 0.919 0.874 0.953 0.019 0.004

2011-12 491 0.760 373 364 357 354 374 314 303 276 300 339 285 284 264 4216 18 11

1.019 0.992 0.986 0.980 0.981 0.978 0.997 1.025 1.240 0.923 0.986 1.028 0.007 0.009

2012-13 500 0.760 380 380 361 352 347 367 307 302 283 372 313 281 292 4372 18 17 1.000 0.976 0.970 0.963 0.991 1.016 0.967 1.026 1.269 0.871 0.974 0.940 0.007 0.014

2013-14 476 0.754 359 380 371 350 339 344 373 297 310 359 324 305 264 4412 23 14

1.003 0.966 0.946 0.989 0.994 1.023 1.024 1.000 1.352 0.827 0.963 0.951 0.009 0.011

2014-15 507 0.702 356 360 367 351 346 337 352 382 297 419 297 312 290 4518 44 8

Average 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006 Survival Rate 0.709 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

PROJECTIONS 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2015-16 475 0.709 337 357 359 361 349 344 344 353 382 373 375 280 296 4562 48 6 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2016-17 484 0.709 343 338 355 353 359 346 351 345 352 480 334 353 265 4629 48 7 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2017-18 464 0.709 329 344 336 350 351 356 354 352 345 443 429 315 335 4692 47 7 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2018-19 460 0.709 326 330 343 331 347 348 364 354 351 433 396 405 298 4681 47 7 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2019-20 452 0.709 321 327 329 337 329 345 355 364 354 442 388 374 383 4700 46 7 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2020-21 445 0.709 316 322 326 323 335 327 352 356 364 445 395 365 354 4632 45 7 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2021-22 438 0.709 311 316 320 320 321 333 333 353 356 458 398 372 346 4589 44 7 1.002 0.996 0.983 0.994 0.993 1.021 1.002 0.999 1.257 0.895 0.942 0.947 0.019 0.006

2022-2023 431 0.709 305 311 315 315 318 319 340 334 353 448 410 375 353 4546 43 7 3 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study As shown in the preceding table and charted below, between 2007-08 and 2014-15 the number of public school children in the Port Chester Rye UFSD increased from 3,801 to 4,518 or by 18.9 percent (717 students) or by almost 2.7 percent each year.

5,500 Historic and Projected Port Chester‐Rye SD Enrollment 5,300 2007‐08 to 2022‐2023

5,100 History Forecast 4,900 4,692 4,681 4,700 4,629 4,632 4,700 4,589 4,518 4,562 4,546 4,412 4,500 4,372

4,300 4,183 4,216 4,057 4,100 3,955

3,900 3,801

3,700

3,500

Source: Port Chester Rye UFSD, NYS Department of Health, Urbanomics

The number of public school children is expected to continue to rise through school year 2019-20, when it will peak at 4,700 students. This is an increase of 182 students or 4.0 percent over the 2014-15 school year. This increase averages to roughly 0.8 percent each year. After SY 2019-20, the number of school children enrolled in the Port Chester Rye UFSD will begin to slowly decrease.

4 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study The relatively slower growth to 2019 and the subsequent decrease in the number of students will be due to an overall declining birth rate in the District. As shown in the chart to the right, the number of District births peaked in 2003 at 552 live births. These children entered public school in the 2008-2009 school year. The projection of births used to extend the enrollment forecasts to the year 2022-23 reflects this trend.

Port Chester School District Resident Births 2002-2012

560 552

540 536 529 521 520 507 500 500 491 484

480 476 475

464

460

440

420 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: New York State Department of Health

In terms of grade levels, the forecasts show that middle school enrollment will peak with 1,079 students in 2015-16 and high school enrollment will reach its peak for this forecast period in 2019-202 with 1,639 students. Elementary enrollment reached its peak in 2012-13 and will slowly decline throughout the forecast period as shown in the chart that follows.

5 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study

Historic and Projected Port Chester-Rye SD Enrollment by Grade Level 2007-08 to 2022-2023

5,000

4,500

4,000 1,576 1,370 1,378 1,487 1,586 1,639 1,611 1,293 1,289 1,626 1,635 1,228 1,201 3,500 1,201 1,203 1,201 3,000

892 980 1,031 1,079 1,048 879 1,050 1,070 1,074 High School 2,500 884 1,073 1,043 807 864 1,027 786 Middle 2,000 Elementary

1,500

2,187 2,143 1,000 1,992 2,071 2,136 2,117 2,106 2,094 2,066 2,025 1,987 1,814 1,945 1,948 1,921 1,884

500

-

Source: Port Chester Rye UFSD, NYS Department of Health, Urbanomics

It should be noted that these forecasts reflect only Public School Enrollment. Only 87 percent of Port Chester children ages 3-17 enrolled in school, attend public school. There are an additional 600 children who attend private school, who could potentially end up in the Public School System due to parochial school closures or changes in family economic circumstance.

This is further evidenced by the fact that the student retention rate between 8th and 9th grade increases to 1.257, demonstrating that many children enter the public school system for the first time as high school students, likely after attending parochial and other private elementary schools. One in every five 9th graders did not come through the public school feeder system. If the private schools were to close, the demand for space in the public schools would increase greatly.

6 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study School District Data

Urbanomics and two representatives of the Village Planning Department met with Superintendent Kliszus, Deputy Superintendents McAward and Fannelli and members of the School Board on July 10, 2014 to provide an overview of our scope of work and discuss current conditions and expectations of capacity demand. In addition, we discussed Urbanomics’ assumptions for child generation and construction costs, as well as the preliminary baseline forecasts. The School District representatives were very receptive and forthcoming with adjustments based on current circumstances.

New information, by topic, included:  Soft Costs: 2014-15 detailed budget  Hard Costs: They are in the process of planning an addition to the middle school that will allow them to house the 300+ students for whom they are currently renting the Catholic school. Construction costs for the addition are estimated by their architect at $350 psf. They are using the NYS standard for number of required sf per child.  Child generation: In order to check the generation rates, the District provided an electronic copy of their enrollment by address for 2012. In particular, the Deputy Superintendents were particularly concerned about new developments such as the Mariner, which generated many more public school children than estimated.  Forecasts: They had no qualms about the forecasting methodology, but had several suggestions for improvements. o The students from the closed catholic school are already included in the enrollment totals and therefore I need to adjust the forecasts downward. o Many Port Chester students take 5 years to finish high school. (They refer to it as Grade 14 in their records.) Another grade was added to the model. o The numbers reported to the State, which Urbanomics had used for the historical record, have specific requirements and do not necessarily include the 2nd year seniors. Frank Fannelli will provided their historical enrollment, including Grade 14.

In addition, the District shared a data file listing all students enrolled in the District for the 2012 school year by address. This file was invaluable in allowing the testing of the various iterations of multipliers developed for the school mitigation formula as described in the following section.

A second briefing on this project was presented at the School District Liaison Meeting on November 4th, 2014. Maura McAward, Assistant Superintendent for Business attended this meeting and expressed concern about the soft cost assumptions; in subsequent days, she shared the official 2014-15 enrollment count and worked with Urbanomics to refine the cost assumptions.

7 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Development of Mitigation Formula

It details the key components and assumptions used to create the Mitigation Formula spreadsheet as well as the current status of the project. The key components of the formula are the public school child multipliers and school costs per student. In preparing the analysis for the Village and the IDA, it is important to take into consideration the changes likely to occur not only in the short term from the children in the new developments, but also in the long term from the changing socioeconomic patterns in the Village. The child generation patterns of the new market rate housing will be different than that of the more affordable housing traditionally in Port Chester—so as current residents with children age in place and the area becomes more affluent, it is likely that the number of children may start to decline in Port Chester as it has throughout the majority of Westchester County.

PUMS Public School Child Multipliers

The child generation rate standard for developers is the New York State Multipliers prepared in 2006by Drs. Robert Burchell and David Listokin for the Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research. These multipliers are an excellent body of work based on the 2000 US Census 5% Sample Public Use Microdata (PUMS); however, as Urbanomics was told throughout the research process, “Port Chester is different.” This holds true both economically and demographically and in terms of recent development patterns.

To prepare the best possible new public school child generation rates for the various cost levels, as well as tenure, structure and unit types of Port Chester, Urbanomics ran many iterations of cross-tabulations, including several other geographic areas as described below. However, the PUMA 3504 multipliers gave the best results.

Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA)  PUMA 3504:  Port Chester, Rye City, Rye Brook, Harrison, Mamaroneck  Other Geographies:  Southern Westchester (PUMAs 3400, 3503, 3504, 3505)  All Westchester (PUMAs 3400, 3501 through 3505)  Southern Westchester excluding Yonkers (PUMAs 3503, 3504, 3505)  Westchester excluding Yonkers (PUMAs 3501 through 3505)

The public school child multipliers are based on the 2012 American Community Survey Microdata for the PUMA 3504 that includes Port Chester, Rye Brook, Rye, Mamaroneck and Harrison. While it is quite true that Port Chester is demographically quite different from the surrounding areas, new construction is likely to mirror that of the more affluent neighbors.

8 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study The final cross-tabulations2 include the number of public school children 18 and under by tenure, structure type, number of bedrooms, by household income level of all units as meet the following definitions:

Tenure  Own  Rent

Structure type  Single Family (single family attached, detached, mobile home, etc.)  Townhouse (2-4 units in structure)  5+ units

Bedrooms:  Studio  One  Two  Three or more

Income level3  Affordable (80% of median income or less)  Workforce (80-120% of median income)  Market (120% of median income or more)

Comparison of Port Chester Multipliers to Rutgers’

The resulting multipliers differ from the oft-used Rutgers’ 2006 estimates as highlighted in the table below. Generally, the customized multipliers yield greater numbers of public school children in Single-Family homes as well as in Multi-Unit structures with 2 or more bedrooms, but lower numbers in 1-bedroom units, regardless of tenure or structure type.

Single Family Market Rate Multi-Unit Market Rate Renter Owner Renter Owner Formula Rutgers Formula Rutgers Formula Rutgers Formula Rutgers 1 Bdrm4 NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.10 2 Bdrms 0.82 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.31 0.16 0.12 0.05 3+ Bdrms 1.85 0.50 0.65 0.50 1.47 0.63 0.61 0.49 Source: Urbanomics, Rutgers CUPR

Test Case: The Mariner

Because the Village of Port Chester is notably different from surrounding communities, it was desirable to test the multipliers, both Rutgers and the different geographic iterations of Urbanomics work, against a real case study. The best example was The Mariner—recent construction for which the unit mix as well as the number of school children enrolled in the Port Chester Rye UFSD was known.

2 Other factors considered but disguarded due to small sample size included year built and housing costs. 3 Income level was used instead of rents/values because programmatic designations are based on income. 4 The multiplier for 1 Bedroom Single Family Homes is because single family homes almost always have multiple bedrooms. 9 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study The school board provided data on students by place of residence for the 2013 school year that indicated that 15 students live in the Mariner, while they state that 18 students from that development registered for 2014-15—exceeding the developer’s estimates based upon comparable structures and unit mix by almost 50%. While investigating why this could be, it was discovered that many of the units in the Mariner have rooms that are intended for use as dens, but are likely used by residents as additional bedrooms.

Given these conditions, a comparison was prepared using the Rutgers Multipliers as well as the Port Chester specific multipliers prepared for the Mitigation formula for the five geographic areas described previously. The mulitpliers were run against the stated building mix as well as the unit mix of occupied units as determined from the Mariner’s website assuming that dens are being used as bedrooms.

Unit Mix • Reported: 60 1-, 40 2-Bedroom • Dens counted as Bedrooms: 35 1-, 52 2-Bedroom, 3 3-Bedrooms

Children in the Port Chester Rye SD • Fifteen in 2013 (PCR SD enrollment data) • Eighteen in 2014 (anecdotal enrollment from 7/10/14 meeting)

Public School Children Generated: Rutgers and PUMA Geographic Area multipliers

Rutgers Port Southern All Westchester Southern Westchester Chester Westchester (PUMAs 3400, Westchester Minus Yonkers Area (PUMAs 3400, 3501 through Minus Yonkers (PUMAs 3501 PUMA 3503, 3504, 3505) 3505) (PUMAs 3504, through 3505) (3504) 3503, 3505)

Reported Unit 11 14 6 5 6 6 Mix

Occupied Units 13 21 9 8 9 8 (Dens counted as bedrooms)

Source: Urbanomics, Rutgers CUPR, ACS PUMS data, The Mariner development website

Using Rutgers statewide multipliers yields an estimate of between 11 and 13 students, an undercount of 2-4 students for the 2013 school year and 5-7 students for the 2014-15 school year. The Port Chester specific formula multipliers for PUMA 3504 alone project between 14 and 21 students, depending upon unit mix scenario—a much better fit to the actual reported number of students.5 The other Westchester-specific geographies grossly underestimated the number of students, regardless of unit mix assumptions and were therefore disregarded.

5 It should be noted that the Mariner’s unit mix includes many 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units with “dens”—effectively creating 2- bedroom and 3-bedroom units, respectively. 10 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Pipeline Projects

The total number of units in the pipeline was provided by the Village of Port Chester Planning Department as shown in the table below. All of these units are market-rate rental housing in structures with 5 or more units. There are a total of 336 studios, 209 1-bedrooms, and 125 2-bedrooms. The Port Chester specific formula multipliers were then applied to determine the number of school children likely to be generated by each development.

Unit Mix Applied Multipliers Children Children Children Children in in One in Two in Three One Two Three Studios Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms Total Studios Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms (x 0.00) (x 0.03) (x 0.31) (x 1.47) Children United Hospital 300 100 100 0 0 3 31 0 34 Source: Village of Port Chester, Urbanomics, ACS PUMS data

Using the formula multipliers, the projects currently in the pipeline would yield 34 additional public school students6, effecting the school enrollment forecasts as shown in the chart below.

Historic and Projected Port Chester‐Rye SD Enrollment

4,900 2007‐08 to 2022‐2023

4,724 4,700 4,711 4,728 4,700 4,692 4,681 4,657 4,629 4,632 4,613 4,589 4,567 4,562 4,500 4,412 4,546 4,372

4,300 4,216 4,183

4,057 4,100 3,955

3,900 3,801

3,700

3,500

Baseline Enrollment Pipeline Enrollment

6 As an example of a single project, the United Hospitals development would yield 34 public school students, compared to the Rutgers-based estimate of 22. 11 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Quantify Hard/Soft Costs

The next step in the developing the mitigation formula is to determine the education and new construction costs per student.

Urbanomics worked with Maura McAward, Assistant Superintendent for Business of the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District to determine the share of operational costs that are applicable on a per student basis. A line item depiction of the 2014-15 school budget, with applicable costs is shown in the table below.

Applicable Items 2014-2015 2014-2015 Budget Category Budget Budget Board of Education $64,469 Central Administration $379,669 Finance $898,989 Legal Services $94,750 $48,875 Public Information $53,250 Operations of Plant $3,904,926 $3,904,926 Maintenance of Plant $2,165,568 $2,165,568 Other Central Services $130,832 Insurance $92,721 $36,954 Judgments and Claims $15,000 Refund of Taxes $350,000 Other Special Items $444,907 $380,907 Curriculum and Development $399,799 Supervision-Regular School $3,746,376 $3,746,376 Instruction (Net of Supervision) $47,191,137 $47,191,137 Other District Transportation $500 $500 Contract Transportation $3,152,584 $3,152,584 Community Service $27,000 $27,000 Employee Benefits $21,070,727 $17,277,996 Transfer to Special Aid $175,000 $175,000 Transfer of Debt Service $3,962,074 Other Transfers $100,000

Total Budget $88,420,278 $78,107,822 Total Enrollment (10-1-14) 4,518 4,518 Cost Per Student $19,571 $17,288

Total State Aid $19,671,054 $19,671,054 Minus High Tax Aid $845,434 Minus Building Aid 2,717,152 State Aid Per Student $4,354 $3,565 Cost Per student, Net of Aid $15,217 $13,723 Source: Port Chester Rye UFSD Budget 2014-15

12 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study The final budget total was divided by the official count of students for that school year. The soft cost total per student was then reduced to reflect the share of costs supported by property taxes rather than Federal and State Aid, yielding soft costs of $13,723 per student.

New Construction Costs

Given the results of the Haber report stating that the School District was already operating at a classroom deficit in 2011, as well as the knowledge, based on the information that the School District is currently planning an extension that would house the students for whom they are currently renting space, each additional child is estimated to require new construction.

New construction costs are based on the quote received from the School Board of $350 psf for their new addition7 and State Building Aid Unit (BAU) requirements of a minimum of 100 sf per student in K-12 institutions. The new construction cost per student on this basis is $35,000.

Estimating State Aid in construction is problematic. State reimbursement varies widely based upon a number of external and internal factors, some of which are impossible to quantify without a building plan. However, the School District has provided information that the current State reimbursement percentage for new construction stands at 55.9 percent of 85 percent of total construction costs. So, for a cost of $35,000, reimbursement would apply to only $29,750 of total costs and at 55.9%, reimbursement would stand at $16,630.25. Following this logic, the construction cost per student minus state aid would be $18,369.75.

7 This is slightly higher than the regional elementary average of $216psf, but is in line with the State’s assessment that school construction in Westchester County has a multiplier of 1.5618 (compared with 1.8414 in NYC and 1.0 statewide). 13 Port Chester IDA School Mitigation Study Mitigation Formula Results

Applying the school costs assumptions to the 34 children likely to be generated by developments in the pipeline, these additional students will result in $587,797 in operating/soft expenses and, if new construction is required, some $1.19 million in new construction costs.

Adjusting to reflect costs minus State and Federal Aid, the soft costs would total $466,573 in soft cost mitigations and $624,580 in construction costs or a grand total of $1,091,153.

Spreadsheet Structure

The spreadsheet was designed so that it’s best to enter the number of units by tenure, physical characteristics, and income level. However, if the income distribution is not available, one can enter the total units by number of bedrooms and get school child projection based solely on tenure, structure type, and number of bedrooms or even tenure and structure type alone.

14 Appendix G Natural Resources

Appendix G Geotechnical Report CARLIN  SIMPSON & ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers Geotechnical & Environmental

MEMO

DATE: 23 October 2014

TO: Mr. Jeremy Sedrish FROM: Robert B. Simpson, P.E. Starwood Capital Group Meredith R. Anke, P.E. RE: Port Chester Gateway JOB NO: 14-144 Port Chester, New York

In accordance with our proposal dated 8 August 2014, we have performed a Subsurface Soil and Foundation Investigation at the referenced site. The following is a summary of the preliminary geotechnical design recommendations for the referenced project. The recommendations below are considered preliminary in nature and are intended to give guidance in the planning and designing of the new construction. The recommendations below are not intended for final design and construction. Once the planned building elevations are known and the site grading plan is available, they should be forwarded to this office for review. The final geotechnical report will be completed once this information is available.

We understand that the planned construction will consist of a new mixed use development. During this study, 25 borings and one (1) borehole permeability test were performed at the site. The boring locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The boring observations are summarized in the following table.

Summary of Boring Data

Depth to Bedrock Approximate Depth to Depth to Bottom or Auger Refusal Boring Ground Completely of Existing Fill on Probable No. Surface Weathered Rock (Elevation) Bedrock Elevation (Elevation) (Elevation) B-1 +107.0 2’0” (+105.0) 5’6” (+101.5) 26’6” (+80.5) B-2 +106.0 6’0” (+100.0) 10’0” (+96.0) NE to 17’0” B-3 +90.0 NE 5’0” (+85.0) NE to 15’2” B-4 +95.0 8’0” (+87.0 13’0” (+82.0) 24’0” (+71.0)* B-5 +98.0 8’0” (+90.0) 13’0” (+85.0) 26’6” (+71.5) B-6 +101.5 NE 10’0” (+91.5) 11’0” (+90.5)* B-7 +93.5 8’0” (+85.5) 13’0” (+80.5) 17’6” (+76.0) B-8 +98.0 5’6” (+92.5) 9’6” (+88.5) 15’0” (+83.0)* B-9 +95.0 4’0” (+91.0) 15’0” (+80.0) 18’0” (+77.0) B-10 +88.0 2’0” (+86.0) 2’0” (+86.0) 5’0” (+83.0)* B-11 +95.0 2’0” (+93.0) 2’0” (+93.0) 21’0” (+74.0) B-12 +93.0 NE 5’0” (+88.0) 10’0” (+83.0)* B-13 +91.5 5’0” (+86.5) 5’0” (+86.5) 10’0” (+81.5)* 2

Depth to Bedrock Approximate Depth to Depth to Bottom or Auger Refusal Boring Ground Completely of Existing Fill on Probable No. Surface Weathered Rock (Elevation) Bedrock Elevation (Elevation) (Elevation) B-14 +82.5 NE 10’6” (+72.0) 16’0” (+66.5) B-15 +77.0 NE NE 8’0” (+69.0)* B-16 +86.0 NE NE 5’0” (+81.0)* B-17 +79.5 NE 5’0” (+74.5) 8’0” (+71.5)* B-18 +106.0 2’0” (+104.0) 6’0” (+100.0) 28’0” (+78.0) B-19 +102.0 2’0” (+100.0) NE 6’0” (+96.0)* B-20 +94.0 5’6” (+88.5) 15’6” (+78.5) 23’0” (+71.0) B-21 +93.0 5’0” (+88.0) NE NE to 22’6” B-22 +89.0 3’0” (+86.0) NE 10’0” (+79.0)* B-23 +106.0 4’0” (+102.0) NE 4’0” (+102.0)* B-24 +106.0 2’0” (+104.0) 2’0” (+104.0) 5’0” (+101.0)* B-25 +99.0 NE NE 10’0” (+89.0) NE – Not Encountered (*) – Bedrock was cored

Soil Conditions

1. Asphalt – The surface layer in borings B-1 through B-10, B-12, B-13, B-15, and B-18 through B-25 is asphalt pavement that varies from approximately 0’2” to 0’3” in thickness and is underlain by gravel that ranges from approximately 0’3” to 0’6” in thickness at the boring locations.

2. Topsoil – The surface layer in borings B-11, B-14, B-16, and B-17 is topsoil that varies from approximately 0’5” to 0’11” in thickness at the boring locations.

3. Existing Fill – Beneath the surface layers at several boring locations is existing fill that generally consists of loose to medium dense brown coarse to fine SAND, little Silt, trace (to some) coarse to fine Gravel. The fill layer continues to depths ranging from 2’0” to 8’0” below the existing ground surface at the boring locations.

4. Sand with Silt and Gravel or Sandy Silt with Gravel – Underlying the fill is virgin soil that consists of medium dense to dense brown coarse to fine SAND, little (to some) Silt, trace (to some) coarse to fine Gravel or SILT and, coarse to fine Sand, little coarse to fine Gravel that transitions to completely weathered or decomposed rock.

5. Gneiss Bedrock – Gneiss bedrock or auger refusal on the probable bedrock surface was encountered in 22 of the 25 test borings at depths ranging from 4’0” to 28’0” below the existing ground surface. The upper 4’0” to 10’0” of the bedrock was cored at 13 locations. The rock core recoveries ranged from 40% to 100% and the rock quality designation (RQD) of the recovered cores ranged from 0% to 3

70%. This indicates that the upper portion of the bedrock ranges from very poor to fair quality in a blocky and seamy, shattered, or crushed condition.

Groundwater

- Groundwater was encountered in boring B-7 at a depth of 12’0” (+81.0) and in boring B-9 at a depth of 9’0” (+86.0) below the existing ground surface. The observed groundwater appears to be perched above the completely weathered bedrock layer.

- Groundwater was not encountered in any of the remaining test borings that were performed during this investigation.

- Groundwater on this site will be controlled by topography and the underlying bedrock surface.

- Dewatering with sumps and pumps will be required in the event that trapped or perched water is encountered during construction.

Bedrock

- Completely weathered bedrock was encountered in 18 of the 25 test borings at depths ranging from 2’0” to 15’6” below the existing ground surface, as indicated in the table above.

- Harder bedrock or auger refusal on the probable bedrock surface was encountered in 22 of the 25 test borings at depths ranging from 4’0” to 28’0” below the existing ground surface, as indicated in the table above.

- The completely weathered bedrock may be “rippable” to some extent using large construction equipment. However, penetration into the completely weathered bedrock and the underlying harder bedrock with excavation equipment will depend of the degree of weathering and fracturing in the rock. We anticipate that the “rippability” of the bedrock will be variable and may be limited. Zones of harder rock may be present at shallower depths and zones of weathered rock may be present at deeper intervals. Depending on the proposed grades, rock blasting and/or the use of hydraulic hammers may be required to excavate bedrock at the subject site.

Existing Fill

- During this investigation, existing fill was encountered in 17 of the test borings and extended to depths ranging from 2’0” to 8’0” beneath the existing ground surface.

- The existing fill observations from this study are summarized in the table above.

4

- The existing fill is not suitable for support of the proposed building foundations and floor slabs. Therefore, the existing fill shall be completely removed from the proposed building areas and replaced with new structural fill.

New Building Foundations

- The virgin soils, weathered bedrock, and new compacted fill are suitable for supporting the new building foundations.

- The new building foundations may be designed as spread footing type foundations bearing on the virgin soil, weathered bedrock, or new compacted fill.

- Net design bearing pressure = 2 TSF for virgin soil and new compacted fill.

- Net design bearing pressure = 5 TSF for completely weathered bedrock.

- Minimum depth for frost protection = 42 inches.

Floor Slab

- The virgin site soils, weathered bedrock, and new compacted fill are suitable for supporting the new floor slabs.

- Floor slab on grade using a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of 200 pci. A six (6) inch layer of 3/4-inch crushed stone is recommended beneath the concrete slab for additional support and drainage.

- Sump pits and pumps should be provided for all basement levels.

Foundation Wall Design Parameters

- The soil adjacent to the foundation walls will exert a horizontal pressure against the walls. This pressure is based on the soil density and the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (ko) which is applicable to non-yielding foundation walls.

- For preliminary design, the following values may be used:

a. In-place soil density = 130 pcf b. Angle of internal friction (phi) = 30 degrees c. Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (ko) = 0.50 d. Equivalent fluid pressure = 65 pcf e. Soil/concrete friction factor = 0.45

Seismic

- The new building shall be designed to resist stress produced by lateral forces computed in accordance with the New York State Building Code. The project site can be classified as Site Class C – Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock Profile. 5

Stormwater

- We understand that a stormwater management system is planned for the western portion of the site. The type of system and the proposed invert elevation were unknown at the time of this study.

- During this investigation, one (1) borehole permeability test was performed in the area of the proposed stormwater management system. The test depth was 6’0”, which corresponds to elevation +84.0.

- Based on the field permeability test, the virgin soil in this area has a permeability rate of approximately 3 inches per hour. For design, a factor of safety of two (2) must be applied to the field permeability rate.

- The stormwater management system shall be designed in accordance with the applicable New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations and the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (August 2010). The testing requirements are outlined in Appendix D of the manual. The testing that was performed during this study was for initial feasibility testing. Therefore, additional testing within the proposed stormwater management area will be required to confirm the soil conditions and infiltration rates at the bottom of the system and to finalize the design of the system.

- Should stormwater management areas be planned in other areas of the site, they must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Suitability of Site Soils for Use as Compacted Fill

- Asphalt and topsoil are not suitable for use as compacted fill.

- The existing fill may be used as new compacted fill provided that the fill material is free of organic material and debris, and that it has not become too wet for proper compaction.

- The virgin site soils may be reused as compacted fill provided that the material has not become too wet for proper compaction.

- Proper moisture conditioning of the soil will be required. New compacted fill should be within 2% (+/-) of its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. In the event that the on-site material is too wet at the time of placement and cannot be adequately compacted, the soil should be aerated and allowed to dry or the material removed and a drier fill material used. In the event that the on-site material is too dry at the time of placement and cannot be adequately compacted, water may be needed to increase the soil moisture content for proper compaction.

Appendix G TRC Letter to NYS Natural Heritage

March 2, 2015

Information Services New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757

RE: United Hospital Redevelopment Village of Port Chester, New York

Dear Sir/Madam:

TRC Engineers, Inc. (TRC) is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Study for the proposed redevelopment of the United Hospital site, located at the intersection US Route 1 and High Street in the Village of Port Chester, Westchester County, NY. The project site is a 15.5-acre parcel of land of which over 13 acres is presently impervious. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing hospital complex and construction of a mixed use development. TRC requests a review of your Department’s records to determine if any threatened or endangered plant or animal species have been identified in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Attached is a Site Location map consisting of the combined USGS Mamaroneck, NY-Conn and Glenvville Conn-NY quadrangles with the location of the site indicated. We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you for your attention.

Very truly yours,

TRC Engineers, Inc.

Thomas Holmes

Thomas Holmes Project Manager

Encs. Q:PROJECTS200\218434 - Gateway\Ltr\NYSNaturalHeritage.doc 0 2000’

C R O S S W ES TC HES TER

EX PR ES SW AY

SITE 1 TE ROU US

GILBERT PL

AD RO T OS P N TO S O B

Exhibit II-1 SITE LOCATION United Hospital Redevelopment Port Chester, New York

BASE MAP SOURCES: USGS - Mamaroneck, NY-Conn. and Planning and Development Advisors Glenville, Conn.-NY Quadrangles Appendix H Phase 1A Historical Evaluation

United Hospital Site Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis

406 Boston Post Road (US 1) Village of Port Chester, Westchester County New York

Prepared for: Starwood Capital Group 591 West Putnam Avenue Greenwich, CT 06830

By: CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants 166 Hillair Circle White Plains NY 10605

June 2010

UNITED HOSPITAL SITE Boston Post Road (US 1) Village of Port Chester, Westchester County, New York

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management Summary Map List Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis

Introduction ...... 1

Project Area Description ...... 4

Environmental Information ...... 4

Potential for the site to contain Prehistoric or Historic Cultural Resources ...... 5

Review of National Register Listed or Eligible Properties ...... 7

History of the Site ...... 7

Additional Research ...... 20

Sensitivity Assessment and Site Prediction ...... 21

Summary and Conclusions ...... 21

Bibliography ...... 22

APPENDICES: Appendix A: Photographs Appendix B: Soil Description and Map

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Management Summary

SHPO Project Review Number (if available): Involved State and Federal Agencies (DEC, CORPS, FHWA, etc): Phase of Survey: Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis Location Information:

Location: Boston Post Road (US 1) Minor Civil Division: Village of Port Chester County: Westchester Survey Area (Metric & English) Length: Width: Depth (when appropriate): Number of Acres Surveyed: Number of Square Meters & Feet Excavated (Phase II, Phase III only): N/A Percentage of the Site Excavated (Phase II, Phase III only): USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Port Chester

Archaeological Survey Overview

Number & Interval of Shovel Tests Number & Size of Units: N/A Width of Plowed Strips: N/A Surface Survey Transect Interval: N/A Results of Archaeological Survey

Number & name of prehistoric sites identified: 0 Number & name of historic sites identified: 0 Number & name of sites recommended for Phase II/Avoidance: N/A

Results of Architectural Survey

Number of buildings/structures/cemeteries within project area: 0 Number of buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to project area: 0 Number of previously determined NR listed or eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: Number of identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: N/A Report Author (s): Stephanie Roberg-Lopez M.A., R.P.A. Gail T. Guillet and Beth Selig

Date of Report: June 2010

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

MAP LIST

Maps Map 1: 1986 USGS Topographical Map including United Hospital Project Area. Port Chester Quadrangle. Scale: 1"=840’

Map 2: 2001 Hagstrom's Street Atlas including the project area. Scale: 1"= 2015’

Map 3: 1829 Burr Map of the Westchester County New York. Not to Scale. Approximate Location of the Project Area

Map 4: 1851 Sidney & Neff Map of Westchester County New York. Scale: 1"=2015’

Map 5: 1858 F .C. Merry Map of Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"= 2015’

Map 6: 1867 F.W. Beers County Atlas of Westchester New York. Scale: 1"=2520’

Map 7: 1872 J.B. Beers County Atlas of Westchester New York. Scale: 1"=1120’

Map 8: 1881 G. W. Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New York . Scale: 1"=1260’

Map 9: 1893 Joseph R. Bien Village Port Chester Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"=500’

Map 10: 1901 Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"=530’

Map 11: 1910 Bromley Westchester County Atlas. Scale: 1"=560’

Map 12: 1914 Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"=590’ Figures Fig. 1: Aerial Image including the United Hospital Site project area. Source Google Earth. Scale: 1”=630’

Fig. 2: Aerial Image including the United Hospital Site project area Photographic Views. Source Google Earth. Scale: 1”=630’ (Appendix A)

Fig. 3: Soil Map for the United Hospital Site (Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey ). Scale on Map

UNITED HOSPITAL SITE

406 Boston Post Road (US Route 1) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Introduction

The following report presents the results of a Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for the United Hospital site prepared for Starwood Capital Group by CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants. The property, containing ±15.4 acres (6.2 hectares), is located on the west side of US 1 (Boston Post Road) at the intersection with High Street in the Village of Port Chester, Westchester County, New York. (Map 1-2 & Fig. 2) The former United Hospital site contains a 720,000 square foot (66,890 sq. m) abandoned hospital and ancillary buildings that are situated on two parcels identified on the Village Tax Maps as Section 141.052, Block 1, Lot 2 and 2.1; Lot 2 is the location of the former hospital buildings, while Lot 2.1 is the location of the high-rise staff residence. There are a total of nine (9) existing structures with related parking areas connected by an internal roadway system. There are ±10 acres (4 hectares) of impervious surface on the site, including several asphalt and concrete parking areas. The hospital closed in 2005; however, the United Hospital Staff Residence continues to be occupied.

The project area is situated in an area of commercial and residential development, with an apartment complex located adjacent to the northern property boundary. (Photo 18) At the western boundary there is a small public park (Abendroth Park), and beyond the corporate boundary line of the Village of Port Chester is a Roman Catholic cemetery. Interstate 287 is located a short distance to the south. On the south, the property is bounded by High Street, while on the east it is bounded by US 1 (Boston Post Road) and a commercial plaza. There is a residential enclave located southwest of I-287 in the Town of Rye, and residential and commercial development to the north and east in the Village of Port Chester. There are also a number of older buildings in the general vicinity of the United Hospital site, including a number that are listed or are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The visual inspection of the area surrounding the United Hospital site indicates that none of these NR listed or eligible buildings will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment of the United Hospital site.

The following permits are required for the United Hospital redevelopment: New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for improvements to US 1 (Boston Post Road), and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) permits for stormwater and site disturbance permits.

The Phase 1A was performed in accordance with the guidelines established by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archeological Collections published by the New York Archeological Council (2005 & 1994). The materials presented in the report meet the specifications of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register 48:190:44716-44742) (United States Department of the Interior 1983). All work performed meets the requirements of the relevant federal standards (36 CFR 61) and of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6NYCRR, part 617 of the New York State Environmental

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 2 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Conservation Law. In addition, the qualifications of the Principal Investigator, who oversaw the project, meet or exceed the qualifications described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (Federal Register 48:190:44738-44739) (United States Department of the Interior 1983).

Project Area

Map 1: 1986 USGS Topographical Map including United Hospital Project Area. Port Chester Quadrangle. Scale: 1"=840’ unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 3 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Project Area

Map 2: 2001 Hagstrom's Street Atlas including the project area. Scale: 1"= 2015’

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 4 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Project Area

Figure 1: Aerial Image including the United Hospital Site project area. Source Gooogle Earth. Scale: 1”=630’

Project Area Information It is proposed to construct a mix of low-rise commercial buildings, consisting of ±254,000 sq. ft. (23,597 sq. m) of retail and office space, with 5 low-and high-rise residential structures, consisting of approximately 762 residential dwelling units. There will be approximately 2,000 parking spaces on three levels to be located beneath a proposal plaza and courtyard. The existing vacant and underutilized former hospital buildings and a 13-story residential structure will be replaced by a mixed-use project containing twice as much open space as currently exists on the site.

For the purposes of the Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis the area of potential effect (APE) is considered to be the entire property.

Environmental Conditions

The land within the project area is set on a hill overlooking US 1 (Boston Post Road) to the east and High Street to the south. Elevations on the United Hospital site range between ±82’ feet (24.9 m) above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northeastern entrance to the site to ±111’ (33.8 m) AMSL in the northwestern portion of the site at the rear of the main hospital complex. The elevation along High Street ranges from 90’ (27.4 m) AMSL at the intersection with US 1 to 95’ (28.9 m) AMSL at the point where I-287 crosses under High Street.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 5 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

The site is geologically part of the New England Uplands, a physiographic province that was subjected to regional metamorphism. The underlying bedrock is Cambrian/Ordovician in age; geologists are still debating the underlying rock components, but much of the bedrock in the area is Hartland formation schist (Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties 1994). Over the bedrock lies moderately deep and compact glacial till.

The soils on the site are an important indicator of prehistoric potential. On United Hospital site the soils are without exception identified as urban soils, meaning that they have been significantly altered by construction, grading, cutting grading and filling. The soils along US 1 (Boston Post Road) are identified as Urban Land (Uf). This soil complex is described as consisting of area where at least 60% of the land surface is covered with buildings or other structures, in this case the highway and highway edge. While there may be areas of undisturbed soil associated with Urban Land (Uf), it is most likely that virtually all of the land along US 1 has been over the years impacted by road widening and road realignments. The balance of the United Hospital site is identified as Udorthents, smoothed (Ub), which is described as soils that are very deep, excessively drained to moderately well drained, and have been altered by cutting and filling. Like Urban Land (Ub), some of the areas within the Udorthents, smoothed (Ub) complex may be undisturbed, but on the United Hospital site the majority of the land has been altered by the construction of the numerous buildings, parking areas, infrastructure, and the grading and filling required to create level surfaces within the site. Soil descriptions are taken from the Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties published in 1994 (USDA 1994:65-66).

Currently, the site is heavily developed with nine existing buildings and numerous parking areas and associated interior roadways. (Photos 1-3, 5-6, 8-24) The open areas are planted with trees, some of which are mature specimens, and shrubs. Historically, the project area lies within the Northern Hardwood Forest Zone, where sugar maple, birch, beech and hemlock are the predominant species of trees (Küchler 1964).

Drainage on the site has been altered by the construction of US 1 (Boston Post Road) and I-287; however, drainage on the site would ultimately be into Long Island Sound, which is located a short distance to the east of the United Hospital site.

The walkover of the site indicates, as noted above, that there are a number of structures on the site. The main hospital complex appears to have been built in several stages, but it may be that several free-standing buildings were later joined together by connecting structures. In addition to the main hospital complex, there is a high-rise apartment building that was occupied by staff members; a portion of the building is still occupied. (Photo 2 7 24) There is a power station at the northwest corner of the site (Photo 14), and a garage and security office located to the east of it. (Photo 16) There is a one story building to the west of the main hospital building with dormer windows on the northern side of the building. (Photos 13 & 15) To the east of that building is another multi-story structure built on a cut stone base. (Photos 12 & 17) There are a number of parking areas that cover much of the open land (Photos 11, 12, 18-23), as well as infrastructure that includes connections between the power house and the hospital complex, underground utility and water and sewer lines, as well as the internal roadway that encircles the main building complex. (Photos 5, 6 & 8-9) There are areas on the site that have clearly been graded and terraced (Photo 21); stone retaining walls associated with the hospital have been built east of the entrance to the main building.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 6 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Potential for Site to Contain Prehistoric or Historic Cultural Resources

As part of the initial research for the Phase 1A Literature Review, CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants examined the archaeological site maps housed at Peebles Island. These files indicate that several prehistoric sites had been identified within a mile (5280’/1609.3 m) of the project area. With one possible exception (Boesch 2005), none of the sites were identified as the result of a professional archaeological excavation, and are either anecdotal in nature or identified as the result of a literature review. Along the shoreline in Port Chester are three Parker sites, two of which are identified as village sites (NYSM 5212 & 76993), and one as a shell midden site (NYSM 5225). To the southeast, on the east side of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, is a site that has been designated “Blind Creek” (NYSM 5480); it is likely that the “Blind Creek” site is also OPRHP A119-15- 0003. In 2005, Eugene J. Boesch completed a Phase 1B survey of the New England Thruway Reconstruction Project during which he located what he described as an historic shell midden that possibly dated to the 1830-1850 period (A11944.000440). In the same survey he also recovered four quartz flakes, which he determined was a prehistoric camp site in a disturbed context (A11944.000441). These sites and one historic site are presented in tabular form below:

NYSM Site OPRHP Site Distance from APE Time Period Site Type NYSM 7693 A11944.000440 <1320’/402 m Historic Shell middens (ACP WEST No #) A11944.000441 <1,320'/402 m Prehistoric Camp site NYSM 5480 A119-15-0003 <1,320'/402 m Prehistoric Unknown A119-15-0002 <2630’/804.6 m Historic Tavern NYSM 5212 <2,640'/804.67 m Prehistoric Village (ACP WEST 76) NYSM 5225 <2,640’/804.67 m Prehistoric Village (ACP WEST No #)

Based on the presence of several prehistoric sites in the vicinity of the project area, it is concluded that if there undisturbed areas existed within the United Hospital site, those areas would have a moderate potential to contain a prehistoric site or sites. The rationale for this determination is as follows:

• prehistoric sites identified within ¼ mile (1320’/402 m) of the project area;

• the fact that the site is located overlooking Long Island Sound, an area that is known to have been utilized by prehistoric peoples for habitation sites and special use camps, specifically shell middens;

• and, the identification of prehistoric sites in environments and at elevations similar to those within the project area.

Our understanding of prehistoric use patterns makes it abundantly clear that the shoreline of Long Island Sound was utilized over a long period of time. The rising ground overlooking Long Island Sound could also have been utilized as a habitation site or as special use camps, such as short-term hunting camps. Although water may have been available nearby, the lack of water on the site itself reduces the potential that the United Hospital site was used as a long-term habitation site. However, despite the lack of water, it is the fact that virtually the entire site has been modified and built upon over the last 150 years that leads to the conclusion that the potential of the site to contain intact prehistoric resources is vanishingly small.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 7 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

With respect to historic cultural resources, map research indicates that the site contained a number of structures in the years between 1858 and the present. By 1914, when United Hospital owned the property, none of the historic dwellings remained on the site, but the outbuildings at the rear of the property remained until sometime after that date. The date at which the stables and other outbuildings were demolished is not known, but, with one possible exception, it does not appear than any remnants of the earlier buildings remain. If the site had not been so heavily impacted by construction, infrastructure, and the manipulation of the landscape, it might be possible that some historic cultural resources related to the earlier structures might remain, but the same impacts that have reduced the potential for prehistoric sites to be present, have equally affected the potential for historic cultural resource deposits such as shaft features (i.e., privies, cisterns or wells) or sheet middens to be present.

Review of National Register Listed and/or National Register Eligible Properties

The examination of the site files at OPRHP indicates that there is a National Register District, as well as numerous National Register Listed and National Register Eligible structures located in the general vicinity of the United Hospital site. The NRL, which includes the buildings within the National Register District, and NRE lists were examined for the Village of Port Chester, the Town and City of Rye, and the Town of Harrison, all of which are within a 1 mile (5280’/1609.3 m) radius of the project area. The lists of buildings were examined to determine whether any were likely to be impacted by the proposed redevelopment of the United Hospital site. Without exception our examination of the relevant lists indicates that none of the buildings are located in areas that will be physically or visually impacted by the proposed project.

History of the Site

Port Chester, located on the west side of the Byram River that separated New York from Connecticut, was likely settled in the early 18th century, when it was known as Saw Pits, because of the many saw pits established there to cut lumber for the ship builders who had located near “Saw Pitts landing” (Scharf 1886:698). Although the Boston Post Road existed in that time, overland travel was slow and difficult, and much of the produce grown in southern Westchester County, as well as people traveling along Long Island Sound, would have been transported to New York City on ships. Scharf reports that until the time of the American Revolution, Port Chester, as it is now called, contained only a few boatmen’s houses and a tavern or two, but over the years the population of the area increased. Saw Pit was renamed Port Chester in 1837, and was incorporated as a village in 1868. In 1880, Port Chester had a population of just over 3000 people, the increase in population being the result of the construction of the railroad though the village, which in turn drew a number of industries there. In the late 19th century, heavy industry was represented by several iron works, including the Eagle Foundry, which was owned by the Abendroth family, along with a nut and bolt manufacturer, two planing mills, several apparel factories and a candy manufacturer (Scharf 1887:706). The industry required workers, but it also provided the financial means for the owners of the mills to build for their families large homes, which lined the Boston Post Road.

The first map examined was David H. Burr’s 1829 Map of the County of Westchester. (Map 3) The Burr map shows the Boston Post Road running through Mamaroneck and Rye, both of which are indicated as villages by a series of dark dashed lines on either side of the highway, but “Saw Pitts”, which is located some distance north of

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 8 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

the highway, while named, did not rise even to the level of a village. At that time there was, however, a ferry running from the Connecticut side of the Byram River, and it was on the New York side of the Byram River that the village of Port Chester would be located. We know from Scarf that there was a landing on the New York side, and that the farmers in the area brought their produce there for shipment to New York City. The Burr map does not, however, provide any sense that there was settlement along the Long Island Sound shoreline.

Project Area

Map 3: 1829 Burr Map of the Westchester County New York. Not to Scale Approximate Location of Project Ares

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 9 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Project Area

Map 4: 1851 Sidney & Neff Map of Westchester County New York. Scale: 1"=2015’

In 1851 Sidney & Neff published a Map of Westchester County, New Yorrk. (Map 4) This map indicates the

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 10 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York location of Port Chester, the name having been changed from Saw Pit in 1837. At this time the village had not been incorporated, but there was an indication that area was already a significant settlement. There was a school house, a Methodist Episcopal Church, a Presbyterian Church, a Catholic Church, a hotel, and Abendroth & Bros Iron Foundry, later called the Eagle Foundry. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad had by 1851 been built through Port Chester, which, as Scharf states, was an impetus for industry to come to the village (Scharf 1886). Examining the 1851 map, South Regent Street had been established, but it does not appear that High Street had been opened between the Boston Post Road and Ridge Street. On the south side of the highway, opposite the land on which the United Hospital was to be built, there were several residences including two owned by the Loder family. Later 19th century maps indicate that the Loder family owned land just to the south of the Boston Post Road and High Street intersection: this allows us to locate the project area with some degree of certainty, and to know that in 1851 there were no buildings on the United Hospital site.

Project Area

Map 5: 1858 F .C. Merry Map of Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"= 2015’ unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 11 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

By 1858, when F. C. Merry’s Map of Westchester County was published, High Street had been opened, however, the alignment of High Street differed from the present, with the intersection with Boston Post Road being a short distance to the easts of the present day intersection. (Map 5) No lot lines are shown on the 1858 map, but a dwelling occupied by Redfield was located on the northwest corner of the intersection with Boston Post Road. This house appears to have had an entrance from the Boston Post Road, rather than from High Street, but the house would have been located in the central portion of the United Hospital site. The Merritt family lived to the north along the street. The Loder family occupied two dwellings on the south side of Boston Post Road, while the dwelling of R. Wetmore was located directly across the highway from the Redfield house.

Project Area

Map 6: 1867 F.W. Beers County Atlas of Westchester New York. Scale: 1"=2520’

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 12 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

In 1867 F. W. Beers' published the County Atlas of Westchester, N. Y., which indicates that the project area was owned by L. D. Redfield, and that the land to the west along High Street was occupied by G. E. Waring. T. Bent still lived at the intersection of the Boston Post Road and South Regent Street, and S. S. Bent owned the land to the northwest on South Regent Street. (Map 6) As in 1858, the house occupied by L. D. Redfield was located close to the Boston Post Road, and was accessed from it, rather than from High Street. High Street still intersected the Boston Posst Road a short distance to the east of the present intersection. It appears that in 1867 the alignment of the Boston Post Road meant that it then crossed the southeastern portion of the United Hospital site.

Project Area

Map 7: 1872 J.B. Beers County Atlas of Westchester New York. Scale: 1"=1120’

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 13 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

J. B. Beers published the County Atlas of Westchester, New York in 1872. (Map 7) Port Chester had been incorporated as a village in 1868, and the village boundary is shown on the 1872 map. Examining the map, it appears that the house that had been owned by L. D. Redfield in 1867 was no longer standing, and that the land had been divided, with a new house fronting on High Street owned by Mrs. Catlin, and two other buildings fronting on, but set back from, the Boston Post Road owned by W. P. Abendroth. The house formerly occupied by T. Bent was now occupied by W. E. Everett. To the north on South Regent Street was the dwelling of S. S. Bent.

William P. Abendroth, for whom Abendroth Park is named, had important business interests in Port Chester, being the owner with his brothers and brother-in-law of the Abendroth & Bros. foundry, which was later know as the Eagle Foundry. W. P. Abendroth was German by birth, arriving in the United States with his parents at the age of 14. Soon after their arrival in New York, the family moved to Albany, where William P. Abendroth became apprenticed to the owner of a foundry. When the foundry relocated to New York City, he moved with it, but upon completing his apprenticeship in 1836 he moved to another firm in Jersey City. Over the next several years he traveled as a journeyman, working in New Orleans, St. Louis and Cincinnati, before becoming employed in a foundry owned by George W. Waring in Stamford, Connecticut. By 1840, Abendroth had come to Port Chester, where, with Philip Rollhaus, he began a “gigantic enterprise which at present furnishes support to more of its inhabitants than any three or four establishments in the village” (Scharf 1886:707). In purchasing the Redfield property, W. P. Abendroth came to occupy a house in the same neighborhood as his former employer, G. W. Waring, who in 1867 had occupied a house on High Street.

In 1881 Bromley published an Atlas of Westchester County, New York that included a map of “Parts of Towns of Harrison & Rye”. (Map 8) In 1881, the alignment of High Street had been changed, so that the road now had a slight bend to the south, which caused it to intersect the Boston Post Road a short distance south of the intersection shown on the 1872 map. This map, the first to show lot lines, indicates that the land between High Street and South Regent Street had been divided into three lots. The smallest, owned by W. E. Everett was located at the intersection of the Boston Post Road and South Regent Street; it was this house that was occupied by T. Bent in 1867. To the south was the property of William P. Abendroth. This lot was the largest, extending west and north to property owned by Mrs. Merritt. The house was set back from the highway, with a second building to the rear that was not identified, but may have been a stable or carriage house. South of the Abendroth property was a dwelling that was now identified as part of the Mrs. Catlin Estate. This lot was wedge shaped with the broadest end of the wedge being the northern boundary of the Catlin land. It is the majority of this lot, plus approximately 6 acres (2.4 hectares) of the land then owned by William P. Abendroth that would become the current United Hospital site. Three structures are shown on the site, and based on the way they are portrayed on the map, it is not entirely clear which of the buildings was the dwelling. Assuming that it is the L-shaped structure shown in the center of the property, the house was set on rising ground overlooking the Boston Post Road. The lot to the west, which had in 1867 been occupied by G. W. Waring, was now vacant. This lot abutted St. Mary’s Cemetery, the Roman Catholic Cemetery located in the Town of Rye, which is now known as Our Lady of Carmel Cemetery. On the south side of High Street, and outside the village boundary line, was an area identified as Rye Park. To the east of the highway there were several lots owned by the Wetmore and Loder families

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 14 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Project Area

Map 8: 1881 G. W. Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New York . Scale: 1"=1260’

Joseph R. Bien made a survey of Westchester County in 1893 that included the Village of Port Chesteer. (Map 9) At that time the southern portion of the United Hospital property was owned by George R. Read. The entrance to the property was, as it had been in 1881, from High Street with a drive leading to the entrance to the house. The drive continued to the northern edge of the site where there was a structure identified as a stable or carriage house. To the north of the house, which was rectangular in shape, were two buildings that hugged the lot line between the Read property and that of W. P. Abendroth. The Abendroth property, which at the time contained 5 acres (2 hectares), was accessed from the Boston Post Road. It was a more highly developed property than that of George R. Read, with a cruciform dwelling, at least one stable or carriage house, and several other smaller buildings.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 15 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

To the north of the Abendroth property was the home of H. T. Bronson, at the intersection of the Boston Post Road and South Regent Street; this property had been owned by W. E. Everett in 1881. To the north on South Regent Street was the home of S. S. Bent, which was called “Oak Grove.” On the south side of the Boston Post Road there were several dwellings, including that of George S. Loder, Gilbert Merritt, and G. W. Quintard.

Project Area

Map 9: 1893 Joseph R. Bien Village Port Chester Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"=500’

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 16 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Project Area

Map 10: 1901 Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"=530’

The map of the Village of Port Chester from the 1901 Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New Yorrk still identifies the United Hospital site as the property of George R. Read. (Map 10) It appears that the entrance to the property was located north of the current entrance, but it may be that the widening of the Boston Post Road explains the apparent difference. The drive that led to the house, which was oriented to the southeast, had a broad turnaround at the front door, then continued to three buildings at the rear of the property, two of which were identified as stables. The third was a wooden structure, the purpose of which is not indicated, located immediately south of the

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 17 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

larger of the two stables. At the rear of the house, along the northern lot line, were two small structures. The land to the north, now containing 30 acres (12 hectares), was owned by the Estate of W. P. Abendroth, the family for whom Abendroth Park is named. To the west, outside the village boundary was St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. To the north of the Abendroth property was land owned by the S. S. Bent Estate, with two small lots occupied by H. T. Bronson and A, More. Beyond the Bend property, to the northwest were two small ponds, one of which was apparently used as a source of ice, since a narrow structure located on the lot was identified as an “Ice House”. On the south side of the Boston Post Road, there were several houses, each on long lots running east to the railroad. Naming them from south to north was the Reverend M. Dowling, G. S. Loder, Gilbert Merritt, and several smaller lots owned by Wetmore, Vaughn, Raymond and Arnold. Some, if not all, of these properties would now be the location of the commercial plaza that is opposite the United Hospital site.

Project Area

Map 11: 1910 Bromley Westchester County Atlas. Scale: 1"=560’

In 1910, the Bromley Westchester County Atlas indicates that the United Hospital site was owned by John C. Sheehan. The property contained 9 acres (3.6 hectares). (Map 11) The entrance to the property was located on High Street north of the current entrance. The drive led to the house, with a turnaround at the front door, then led to three buildings at the rear of the property, where, as on earlier maps, two were identified as stables. The third was a wooden structure, the purpose of which is not indicated, located immediately south of the larger of the two stables. At the rear of the house, along the northern lot line, were two small structures. On the land owneed by the Abendroth

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 18 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Estate, called “Uplands” and containing 30 acres, there was an access drive from the Boston Post Road leading to the dwelling. This drive extended west to a carriage house or stable that would have been located along the northern boundary of the United Hospital site. The structures shown on both the Read and Abendroth properties would be within the current boundaries of the United Hospital site. To the west, outside the village boundary, was St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Cemetery, while to the north of the Abendroth estate, on land that had been owned by the Merritt family, was a subdivision with small lots on either side of streets called Gilbert Place, Tourain Avenue, Grandview Avenue, Grant Avenue, and Inwood Avenue. The land to the south along High Street was owned by Jessie P. Cornwall, H. L. Hotchkiss, Jr. and Charles H. Hoag. The land to the east combined a number of larger estate properties with several smaller lots.

Project Area

Map 12: 1914 Bromley Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Scale: 1"=590’

The Bromley 1914 Atlas of Westchester County, New York indicates that by that date the land formerly owned by John C. Sheehan, containing nine acres, was owned by United Hospital. (Map 12) The entrance to the property was still from High Street. (See Photo 4) The entrance led to the main building, which was a rectangular brick structure oriented north-south, with a smaller building to the west that was joined to the larger building by a narrow connecting structure. The configuration of these buildings is different than those seen on earlier maps, suggesting that the dwelling occupied by the Catlin family had been demolished and a new structure built to house the hospital. At the rear of the property were three outbuildings, the largest of which was made up of three separate structures identified as a stable. To the west of the stable, and toward the rear lot line, was a second large stable, while a third wooden structure, not otherwise identified, was located immediately south of the larger of the two

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 19 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York stables. The larger of the stables and the unidentified building appear on earlier maps. To the east of the United Hospital site was the 30 acre (12 hectares) site, called “Uplands”, that was now owned by Charles A. Gould. To the east, across the Boston Post Road (here called South Main Street) was property owned by Lounsbury & Pontey, George S. Loder and Gilbert Merritt. On the south side of High Street was a property owned by Jessie P. Cornwall with a small pond in the extreme northeastern corner adjacent to High Street. North of the Gould property was the small subdivision that had been built on land owned by the Merritt family; this area was called Ridgeland. Access to Ridgeland was from South Regent Street, which was to the north of the Gould property.

In the years between 1914 and 1941, the acreage of the United Hospital site expanded to include additional frontage along the Boston Post Road that had formerly been part of the Abendroth property, which was later purchased by Charles Gould. The balance of the Gould land become dedicated parkland, now called Abendroth Park. The Hagstrom map of 1947 indicates that the hospital occupied the same land, as does the 1953 map. (Map 13) Only the 1953 map is included in this report, however, by 1953, the park, not identified by name, had acquired a small additional parcel that provided access from Touraine Avenue. The individual structures located on the United Hospital site are not shown on the maps from 1941, 1947 or 1953.

The examination of the historic maps indicates that since 1858 several structures have stood on the United Hospital site, including a house adjacent to the Boston Post Road owned by the Redfield family that was no longer standing in 1872, having been replaced by a house owned by Mrs. Catlin that was located on the southern boundary of the property with an entrance on High Street near the intersection with the Boston Post Road. In 1881, the arrangement of the structures on the lot appears to have changed again: the house near High Street was no longer shown, and the house and outbuildings were now located in the center of the lot. The entrance to the property, which had been located nearer to the intersection with the Boston Post Road, was now located west of the high-rise apartment building at 999 High Street. Over the years, the house may have been enlarged or otherwise altered, but in 1901 the organization of the buildings on the lot was essentially the same as it was in 1881 and 1893. However, by 1914 the land had been acquired by the United Hospital. At the rear of the lot, the stable buildings and the unidentified structure that was south of the stable buildings were still standing, but the house occupied by the Read family had been demolished and replaced by two buildings, one rectangular and oriented north-south and a second smaller square structure connected to the larger building by a narrow corridor or passageway. From the location and configuration of the hospital buildings is appears that this was new construction, rather than a re-use of a domestic structure. In 1914 the hospital was limited to the 9 acres (3.6 hectares) lot fronting on High Street, but sometime between then and 1941 the hospital acquired a portion of the Gould estate, including land that fronted on the Boston Post Road. The Gould’s had acquired the property from the estate of William P. Abendroth sometime between 1901 and 1910. As noted above, the Abendroth family was an important one in the Village of Port Chester, being the owners of the Eagle Foundry. Once the hospital had acquired the approximately 6 acres (2.4 hectares) from the Gould family, the balance of the property became Abendroth Park. There is no indication that the original hospital buildings are still standing on the United Hospital site; it appears that the hospital was expanded in a number of building episodes, with new wings and connecting structures, and that the entire main hospital complex is relatively modern. One possible exception is one of the free standing structures are the rear of the hospital complex that is built on a cut stone basement. This is the only building on the site that appears to have any historic elements, and it is suggested that the modern high-rise building was constructed on the foundation of an older structure. The stone gates at the eastern entrance to the hospital are also historic elements that would date to the mid-19th century, when the orientation of the property was changed from the Boston Post Road to High Street.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 20 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

The alignment of High Street also changed between 1858 and 1881, with the intersection of High Street and the Boston Post Road being moved a short distance to the south. Until the change in the alignment of High Street and the Boston Post Road, the highway crossed the southern portion of the United Hospital site. From 1953 to the present day, the western portions of High Street was realigned, due to the construction on I-287 and the exit ramps that connect to Boston Post Road south of the United Hospital site.

Based on map research and the visual inspection of the United Hospital site, it appears that, with the possible exceptions noted above, none of the historic structures formerly located on the site have survived. The expansion of the hospital, including the construction of the stone retaining wall on the east side of the main hospital complex, the construction of the power plant, garage/security office, high-rise buildings, and the associated parking have impacted virtually the entire property. Considering the construction episodes and the fact that significant portions of the site have been terraced and graded to create level ground for buildings and parking lots, it is most unlikely that any portions of the site have not been impacted.

Additional Research Undertaken

As part of our research, a number of archaeological surveys completed in the vicinity of the project area were examined. The earliest was a Stage 1A and Stage 1B survey completed for the Port Chester Marina Development Project (Greenhouse Consultants, Inc.:1990). The Port Chester Marina Development Project is located approximately ½ mile (2640’/804 m) to the northeast of the United Hospital site in an area. Forty-two shovel tests, four backhoe trenches and soil borings were used to test the site for prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Historic cultural resources were identified within the project area, but no prehistoric material of any kind was encountered. In 1998, Ernest Wiegand prepared a Phase 1A and Phase 1B survey of the Rye Country Day School, located in the City of Rye, less than ¼ mile (2640’/402m) to the southwest of the project area (Wiegand 1998). The Phase 1B identified historic cultural material dating to the 19th and early 20th century, but no prehistoric cultural material of any kind. In 2000, John Milner Associates, Inc. completed a Stage 1B/II archaeological investigation of the Port Chester Redevelopment Project in the Village of Port Chester, based on the recommendation of Eugene Boesch, who completed the Phase 1A research (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2000). No significant cultural resources of any kind were recovered in the Phase 1B/II investigation and the consultants determined that no additional work was required. Arnold Pickman completed a Phase 1b archaeological survey of the Fox Island Townhouse Project in the Village of Port Chester in 2006; no prehistoric resources of any kind were recovered, and only modern historic material was identified (Pickman 2006). The final survey was completed by Eugene Boesch in 2006 (Boesch 2006). The survey was completed for the New England Thruway Reconstruction Project, Mile Post NE 14 to NE 15, and the Grace Church Street Ramps B and L intersection in the City of Rye. The field survey covered an area on the south side of the New England Thruway (I-95) within a ½ mile (2640’/804 m) of the United Hospital site. Two sites were identified in the Phase 1B survey: an historic shell midden, which Boesch dated to the early to mid-19th century, and a small prehistoric camp site a short distance southeast of the shell midden that was determined to be located in a disturbed context. As noted in the report, the project area was “. . . included within a larger area identified in the New York State Museum NYSM) archaeological site files as the location of a series of Native American shell middens” (Boesch 2006:1). Based on the material recovered, no further investigation of either site was recommended. These surveys are fully referenced in the Bibliography.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 21 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Sensitivity Assessment and Site Prediction

Prehistoric Sensitivity

The Phase 1A research indicated that there are prehistoric sites located within a 1 mile (5280’/1609.3 m) radius of the United Hospital site. Environmental conditions on the site, described above, suggest that if there were undisturbed areas on the site, they would have the potential to contain prehistoric cultural resources. However, the site has experienced significant disturbance from the construction of the modern hospital complex and the ancillary structures, as well as the infrastructure and internal roadways. Most of the land that is not covered with buildings has been graded and leveled to create parking areas. Other areas have been terraced. The land along the Boston Post Road has experienced a number of impacts associated with the widening and realignment of the roadway over the past 200 years. The area west of and upslope from the highway has been manipulated, with the hillside held in place by a stone retaining wall. The visual inspection of the United Hospital site indicates that virtually the entire ground surface has been impacted by construction of one kind or another; for this reason, the potential for the United Hospital site to contain intact prehistoric cultural resources is considered to be low.

Historic Sensitivity

With respect to the potential for the United Hospital site to contain historic cultural material, our research indicates that it is unlikely that any intact historic cultural resources are present on the site. The map research indicates that a number of buildings have been located on the site, but these have been removed to allow the development of the United Hospital complex. There are nine buildings on the United Hospital complex, and the construction associated with each of them would have significantly impacted any subsurface cultural resources that might have been present. In addition, those areas that are not covered with buildings have been graded and leveled to allow the construction of parking areas that cover almost all of the open space not occupied by buildings. It is considered, based on the past history of the site, that the potential for the United Hospital site to contain intact historic cultural resources is low.

Summary and Conclusions

The Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis completed for United Hospital site in the Village of Port Chester, Westchester County, New York included a comprehensive examination of historic maps and research undertaken to determine the potential for the project area to contain either prehistoric or historic subsurface historic archaeological deposits. Our research determined that, because of the level of disturbance on the site, it is unlikely that intact prehistoric or historic cultural resources eligible for National Register listing are located within the project area. Our examination of the site during the walkover reconnaissance suggested that the majority of the project area had been impacted by the construction of the hospital complex, installation of infrastructure and internal roadways, installation of expansive parking lots, and the manipulation of the landscape required to create level surfaces for buildings and parking areas. Based on the research completed and our examination of the United Hospital site, it is the recommendation of CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants that no further investigation of the United Hospital site is required, and that the redevelopment of the United Hospital site is allowed to proceed without further consideration of archaeological resources.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 22 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Bibliography

Beauchamp, William 1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. In Bulletin of the New York State Museum, vol. 7, No. 32. University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.

Boesch, Eugene 2006 Phase 1B Archaeological Investigation of the New England Thruway Reconstruction Project Area, Mile Post NE 14 to ME 15. Grace Church Street to Ramps B and L Intersection. City of Rye and Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York.

Bolton, Robert. 1881 The History of Several Towns, Manors and Patents of the County of Westchester from its First Settlement to the Present Time. (2 vols.) Charles F. Roper: New York, NY.

CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants 2002a Stage 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis. Titus Mill Subdivision. Davenport Neck. City of New Rochelle. Westchester County, New York. 2002b Stage 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Rockwell Terrace. City f New Rochelle. Westchester County, New York. 2002c Stage 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Forest City Daly. Town of Mamaroneck. Westchester County, New York.

Eisenberg, Leonard 1981 Hutchinson River Parkway Cultural Resource Survey: In-Field Investigation (PIN 8101.23) Prepared for Edwards and Kelcey, New York. 1978 "Paleo-Indian Settlement Pattern in the Hudson and Delaware River Drainages." In Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology. vol. 4. Archaeological Services: Bethlehem, CT.

Funk, Robert E. 1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum Memoir 22. Albany, NY.

Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. 1990 Stage 1B Archaeological Survey of the Port Chester Marina Development Project. Port Chester. Town of Rye. Westchester County, New York. (Prepared to Office of Planning and Development, Village of Port Chester)

Hufeland, Otto 1982 Westchester County during the American Revolution 1775-1783. Harbor Hill Books: Harrison, NY. [Reprint of 1926 Edition]

Kraft, Herbert C. (editor) 1991 The Archaeology and Ethno history of the Lower Hudson Valley and Neighboring Regions: Essays in Honor of Lewis A. Brennan. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Archaeology. No. 11. Archaeological Services: Bethlehem, CT.

Milner Associates, John 2000 Stage 1B/II Archeological Investigation. Port Chester Development Project. Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York. (Prepared for G. & S. Investors, Old Bethpage, NY)

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 23 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

New York State Archaeological Council (NYAC) 1995 Cultural Resource Standards Handbook. Guidance for Understanding and Applying the New York State Standards for Cultural Resources. The New York State Archaeological Council (NYAC). Standards adopted by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). 1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State. The New York State Archaeological Council (NYAC). Standards adopted by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) 2005 New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Archaeological Report Format Requirements. Prepared by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).

Parker, Arthur 1920 The Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin. No. 237 and 238. The University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.

Pickman, Arnold 2006 Phase 1b Archaeological Survey. Fox Island Townhouse Project. Village of Port Chester, Town of Rye. Westchester County, New York. (Prepared for Lazz Development Corporation)

Ritchie, William A. 1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press: Garden City, NY. 1965 "The Stony Brook Site and Its Relation to Archaic and Transitional Cultures on Long Island." New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. No. 372. University of the State of New York: Albany, NY. [Reprint of 1959 edition] 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20. New York State Museum and Science Service. Albany, NY.

Sanchis, Frank E. 1977 American Architecture: Westchester County, New York. North River Press: Valhalla, NY.

Salwen, Bert 1975 "Post-Glacial Environments and Cultural Change in the Hudson River Basin" in Man in the Northeast: 10. 1978 "Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period." Handbook of North American Indians. edited by Bruce G. Trigger. v. 15. Smithsonian Institute: Washington, DC. p. 160 - 176.

Scharf, J. Thomas (editor) 1886 History of Westchester County, NY, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms which have been annexed to New York City. L. E. Preston & Co., Philadelphia, PA.

Schuberth, Christopher J. 1968 The Geology of New York City and Environs. The Natural History Press: Garden City, NY

Shaver, Peter D. 1993 The National Register of Historic Places in New York State. Rizzoli: New York, NY.

Snow, Dean R. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic press: New York, NY.

Thompson, John H. (editor) 1966 Geography of New York State. [revised edition] Syracuse University Press: Syracuse, NY.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 24 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

United States Department of the Interior 1985 National Register Bulletin # 24: Technical Information on Comprehensive Planning, Survey of Cultural Resources, and Registration in the National Register of Historic Places. Reprint. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division.

Weigand, Ernest A. 1998 Stage 1-B Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey. Rye Country Day School. City of Rye, New York. (Prepared for Rye Country Day School, Rye, NY).

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 25 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

Maps Consulted

Beers, Frederick W. 1867 Village of Port Chester in Atlas of New York and Vicinity. F. W. Beers, A. D. Ellis & G. G. Soule: New York, NY. Current scale: unknown.

Beers, J. B. 1867 County Atlas of Westchester, New York. J. B. Beers & Co.: New York, NY. Current scale unknown.

Bien, Joseph R. 1893 Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Julius Bien & Company, New York, NY. Current scale unknown.

Bromley, G. W. & Co. 1881 Atlas of Westchester County, New York. George W. & Walter S. Bromley: New York, NY. Current scale unknown.

Bromley, George W. & Walter S. 1901 Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Plate 27. G. W. Bromley and Co.: Philadelphia, PA. Current scale unknown.

Burr, David H. 1829 Map of the County of Westchester. Current scale: ½” = 1 Mile.

Dolph & Stewart 1941 Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Map 4. Dolph & Stewart: New York, New York. Current scale: ¾” = ½ Mile. Location Map including Project Area. (taken from Hagstrom’s) . Hagstrom Map Company 1999 Westchester County Street Atlas . Plate xxx. Scale: 1” = 1800’ or 3” = 1 Mile

Hagstrom Map Company 1947 Street, Road & Land Ownership. Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Map 4. Hagstrom Map Company: New York, New York. Scale unknown.

Hagstrom Map Company 1953 Street, Road & Land Ownership. Atlas of Westchester County, New York. Map 4. Hagstom Map Company: New York, New York. Scale unknown.

Hyde, E. Belcher 1908 Atlas of the Rural Country District North of New York City embracing the entire Westchester County, New York. Plate 4.

Merry, F. C. 1858 Map of Westchester County, New York. M. Dripps: New York, NY. Original scale: 1½” = 1 Mile. Current scale: 3½” – 1 Mile.

Sidney & Neff 1851 Map of Westchester County, New York. Newell S. Brown: White Plains, NY. Current scale: 2¾” = 1 Mile.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Phase 1A Literature Review & Sensitivity Analysis 26 United Hospital Site. US 1 (Boston Post Road) Village of Port Chester. Westchester County, New York

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1967 Mamaroneck, New York-Connecticut. 7.5 Minutes Series. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Photo revised 1971. Scale: 1:50,000.

Figures Fig. 1: Aerial Image of the Project Area. Source: Google Earth. Scale on map. Fig. 2: Aerial Image of the Project Area Showing Photographic Locations . Source: Google Earth. Scale on map. (Appendix A) Fig. 3: Soils Map. (Soil Survey of Putnam & Westchester Counties, New York 1994) Plate xx. Scale: 1:12,000 (2⅝" = ½ Mile) (See Appendix C)

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

APPENDICES

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photographs Appendix B: Soil Description and Map

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs Figure 2: Aerial image including the United Hospital Site Photographic Views (Source:: Google Earth ) Scale: 1”=315’ United Hospital Site. Boston Post Road (US 1) Village of Port Chester Westchester County, New York

unitedhopsital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 1: Looking northwest across US 1 (Boston Post Road) to main building on United Hospital site.

Photo 2: View looking west across US 1 (Boston Post Road) to United Hospital Staff Residence. High Street is to left. Main building on United Hospital site is to the right.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 3: Nursing and Rehabilitation Center is located on south side of High Street. Entrance to I-287 is south of this building. View to southwest.

Photo 4: Entrance to United Hospital site from High Street is marked by two stone pillars that date to the 19th century, when the site as occupied by a private residence. View to northwest.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 5: Main building on United Hospital site from High Street entrance. View to north.

Photo 6: Entrance to United Hospital. Entrance is covered by white modular canopy. Building overlooks US 1 and commercial plaza on east side of highway. Building is now abandoned and protected from trespassers by cyclone fencing. View to northwest.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 7: Looking southeast from entrance to United Hospital’s main building. Commercial plaza is located on east side of US 1 (Boston Post Road).

Photo 8: Looking southwest at north end of main building on United Hospital site.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 9: United Hospital was constructed in several building episodes with in-fill structures, such as this ambulance entrance. View to southwest.

Photo 10: Hospital has several buildings that are joined together. Building at left is rear of building see to right in Photo 9. View to south.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 11: Rear of United Hospital main building. Several parking areas have been built around the sides and rear of hospital.

Photo 12: One of several buildings on United Hospital site. This structure is built on a base of cut stone, different from the other structures on the site. View to southeast.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 13: Small building located west of building seen in Photo 12. View south.

Photo 14: Power plant located in northwest corner of United Hospital site. View to northwest.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 15:. Rear of building seen in Photo 13.

Photo 16: Garage and security office located on north side of United Hospital’s main building to east of power plant. Here, as on other areas of the site, aprons of asphalt have been installed to create parking areas. The parking areas represent areas of significant disturbance on the United Hospital site. View to southeast.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 17: Rear of United Hospital Staff Residence (see Photo 2) to south of main United Hospital buildings. View to southeast.

Photo 18: Almost all of the space around the hospital buildings has been used for parking areas. This lot is located at northeast corner of main building. Photographer is standing at top of entrance to the United Hospital site from US 1 (Boston Post Road). View to northwest.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 19: Entrance to parking area located to west of main hospital buildings. View to west.

Photo 20: Parking area located immediately west of main hospital building. Entrance at right is to lower lot. View to southwest.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 21: Lower parking lot. Lawn to right has been terraced and ground leveled for parking lot. Here, as in other areas on the site, grading, filling and terracing have significantly altered the landscape from its prehistoric form. View to west.

Photo 22: Parking area located south of building seen in Photo 14 and 15). View to northeast.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix A: Photographs United Hospital Site. High Street & US1 (Boston Post Road). Westchester County, New York

Photo 23: Parking area located west of United Hospital Staff Residence. View to southwest.

Photo 24: Bus shelter on High Street at entrance to United Hospital Staff Residence. View to northeast.

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

APPENDIX B

SOIL DESCRIPTION AND MAP

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix B: Soil Descriptions Figure 3: Soil Map for the United Hospital Site (Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey . Scale on Map United Hospital Site. Boston Post Road (US 1) Village of Port Chester Westchester County, New York

unitedhopsital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants

Appendix B: Soil Description United Hospital Site. Boston Post Road (US 1). Village of Port Chester Westchester County, New York.

Slope Name Soil Horizon Depth Texture / Inclusions Drainage Landform (Percent) Udorthents Smoothed Surface: 0-4” (0-10cm) Gravelly loam 0 to 8% Moderately well Made land (Ub) Substratum: 4-70” (10-175cm) Very gravelly loam drained

Urban Land (Uf) Varies Varies Varies Varies Made land

Urban land - Charlton- Chatfield Complex rolling very rocy (UIC) Varies Varies Varies Varies Made land Urban Land Charlton Surface: 0-8” (0-20 cm) Loam 2 to 15% Well Drained Hill, Ridges & Till Subsoil: 8-24” (20-60 cm) Sandy Loam Plains Substratum: 24-60” (60-175 Sandy Loam cm) Loam Chatfield Surface: 0-7” (0-20 cm) Flaggy Silt Loam Subsoil: 7-24” (20-50 cm) Unweathered Bedrock Subsoil: 24-28”(50-77 cm)

Rock Outcrop Surface: 0-60”(0-175cm) Unweathered Bedrock 3 to 15% Poorly Drained

unitedhospital1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants