sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alley Pond Park, Arlington Yard, Battery Weed, Bronx Kill, Bronx Terminal Market, City Club of New York

NEW YORK CITY CoMPREHENSWE WATERFRONT PLAN

Reclaiming the City's Edge

For Public Discussion Summer 1992

DAVID N. DINKINS, Mayor City of New lVrk

RICHARD L. SCHAFFER, Director Department of City Planning

NYC DCP 92-27 CITY COMPREHENSIVE WATERFRONT PLAN

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY

1 INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE COURSE 1

2 PLANNING FRA MEWORK 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 LEGAL CONTEXT 7 REGULATORY CONTEXT 10

3 THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 17 WATERFRONT RESOURCES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 17 18 Significant Coastal 21 Beaches and Coastal Erosion Areas 22 26 THE PLAN FOR THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 33 Citywide Strategy 33 Special Natural Waterfront Areas 35

4 THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 51 THE EXISTING PUBLIC WATERFRONT 52 THE ACCESSIBLE WATERFRONT: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 63 THE PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 70 Regulatory Strategy 70 Public Access Opportunities 71

5 THE WORKING WATERFRONT 83 HISTORY 83 THE WORKING WATERFRONT TODAY 85 WORKING WATERFRONT ISSUES 101 THE PLAN FOR THE WORKING WATERFRONT 106 Designation Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas 107 JFK and LaGuardia Airport Areas 114 Citywide Strategy fo r the Wo rking Waterfront 115 6 THE REDEVELOPING WATER FRONT 119 THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT TODAY 119 THE IMPORTANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT 122 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 125 REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 127 THE PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 128

7 WATER FRONT ZONING PROPOSAL 145 WATERFRONT AREA 146 ZONING LOTS 147 CALCULATING FLOOR AREA ON WATERFRONTAGE loTS 148 DEFINITION OF WATER DEPENDENT & WATERFRONT ENHANCING USES 148 WATERFRONT USE REGULATIONS 152 FLOATING (IN-WATER) STRUCTURES 154 OVERWATER STRUCTURES (PIERS AND PLATFORMS) 156 WATERFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS 162 VISUAL CoRRIDORS 166 HEIGHT AND SETBACK, OPEN SPACE AND YARD REQUIREMENTS 168 PARKING WITHIN THE WATERFRONT AREA 182

8 NEXT STEPS: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 185 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 185 ZONING REFORM 185 CITY MAP CHANGES 186 WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM REFORM 187 PUBLIC INVESTMENT 187 COORDINATION 189

APPENDICES A Summary of Reach Recommendations

B Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies

Bibliography

Acknowledgements

Credits MAPS

2.0 Coastal Zone Boundary 12

3.0 Wetlands 19 3. 1 Significant Coastal Fish & Designations 23 3.2 Erosion Hazard Areas 25

3.3 New York Water Quality Goals 27

3.4 Control Plants 29

3.5 Overflow Abatement Program 31 3.6 Jamaica Special Natural Waterfront Area 37

3.7 Staten Special Natural Waterfront Area 43 3.8 Special Natural Waterfront Area 46

4.0 Existing Waterfront Public Access/ 54

4. 1 Existing Waterfront Public Access/ 56

4.2 Existing Waterfront Public Access/ 59

4.3 Existing Waterfront Public Access/ 60

4.4 Existing Waterfront Public Access/ 62

4.5 Waterfront Greenways 67

4.6 Public Waterfro nt Recommendations/The Bronx 73

4.7 Public Waterfront Recommendations/Manhattan 75

4.8 Public Waterfront Recommendations/Queens 77 4.9 Public Waterfront Recommendations/Brooklyn 79

4. 10 Public Waterfront Recommendations/Staten Island 81

5.0 Existing Waterfront Manufacturing Zoning Districts 86

5. 1 Maritime and Water Dependent Industrial Uses 89

5.2 Marina Uses 92 5.3 Commercial Cruise and Excursion Uses 94

5.4 Water�Dependent Tr ansportation 96

5.5 Highway/Rail/Intermodal Network 98

5.6 Utilities and Municipal Wa ter-Dependent Uses 100

5.7 Harbor Drift Project 105

5.8 Significant Maritime/Industrial Areas 108

En o.v Existing Waterfront Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts and Approved Redevelopment Projects 120

6. 1 The Plan for the Redeveloping Wa terfront/The Bronx l35

6.2 The Plan for the Redeveloping Wa terfront/Brooklyn 137

6.3 The Plan fo r the Redeveloping Wa terfront/Manhattan l39 6.4 The Plan for the Redeveloping Wa terfront/Queens 141 6.5 The Plan fo r the Redeveloping Wa terfront/Staten Island 143 FIGURES

2.0 WRP Consistency Review 13

7. 1 Waterfront Area 147 7.2 Waterfront Zoning Lot 149 7.3 Calculating Floor Area 149 7.4 Piers/Platforms: Configuration 157 7.5 Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development: High Coverage 159 7.6 Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development: R1-R6 Zones 159 7.7 Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development: R7- R8 Zones 161 7.8 Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development: R9- RlO Zones 161 7.9 Waterfront Public Access (Higher-Density Development) 165 7. 10 Waterfront Access Plan with Visual Corridors 165 7. 11 Waterfront Yard (Lower Density Development) 167 7. 12 Visual Corridors 167 7. 13 Urban Design Case Study: Existing R6A Regulations 170 7. 14 Urban Design Case Study: Existing R6 Height Factor Development Regulations 171 7.15 Urban Design Case Study: Proposed R6 Height & Setback Regulations 173 7. 16 Waterfront Zoning Lot 176 7. 17 Bulk Diagrams: R6 Districts 177 7.18 Bulk Diagrams: R7 Districts 178 7.19 Bulk Diagrams: R8 Districts 179 7.20 Bulk Diagrams: R9 Districts 180 7.2 1 Bulk Diagrams: RIO Districts 181

TABLES

6.0 Bronx: Existing Projects & Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities 134 6. 1 Brooklyn: Existing Projects & Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities 136

6.2 Manhattan: Existing Projects & Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities 138 6.3 Queens: Existing Projects & Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities 140 6.4 Staten Island: Existing Projects & Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities 142

7. 1 Water Dependent Uses 150 7.2 Waterfront Enhancing Uses 151 7.3 Parking for Docks, Sightseeing and Excursion Vessels, and 154 7.4 Height Controls for Developments Requiring a Special Permit on Floating Structures 155 7.5 Height and Setback Regulations for Piers 158 7.6 Waterfront Public Access Requirements 163 7.7 Lot Coverage, FAR and Density 172 7.8 Maximum Height and Packing Requirements 175 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NEW YORK CITY COMPREHENSIVE WATERFRONT PLAN

New York City's waterfront is a valuable but still untapped resource. Decades of declining maritime activity have left much of the city's waterfront dormant. Today, after years of neglect and revitalization attempts stalled by the clash of competing interests, New Yorkers are coming together to fulfill the public's claim to productive use and increased enjoyment of this resource.

The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan proposed by the Department of City Planning responds to this extraordinary planning opportunity. For the first time in the city's history, it provides a framework to guide land use along the city's entire 578-mile shoreline in a way that recognizes its value as a natural resource and celebrates its diversity. The plan presents a long­ range vision that balances the needs of environmentally sensitive areas and the working port with opportunities for waterside public access, open space, housing and commercial aC1'ivity.

The plan envisions a 21st century waterfront where:

• parks and open spaces with a lively mix of activities are within easy reach of communities throughout the city;

• people once again swim, fish and boat in clean waters;

• natural habitats are restored and well cared for;

• maritime and other industries, though reduced in size from their heyday, thrive in locations with adequate infrastructure support;

• ferries crisscrossing the city's harbor and rivers, and interconnected systems of bikeways and pedestrian pathways help lessen traffic congestion and ;

• panoramic water views of great beauty are preserved or created; and

• the city's needs for new housing and jobs for people of diverse income levels are satisfied in attractive and safe surroundings.

Fortunately, all of these needs and opportunities can be accommodated in suitable locations on what is arguably the longest and most diverse municipal waterfront in the nation. The city's waterfront encompasses coastal beaches and pristine habitats, small homes set beside lagoons and creeks, high-rise apartments and office buildings with magnificent views of bridges and skylines, parks and espla.1Jades, airports a..1Jd heliports, and bulkheaded areas active with shipping, industry and a variety of municipal uses.

The plan capitalizes on the size and diversity of the city's waterfront to address the historic competition between commerce and recreation for use of waterfront land. It seeks to balance these competing interests by recognizing the importance of environmental values, by adjusting to the decline of traditional working waterfront uses, by protecting the city's important maritime assets, and by identifying new opportunities for expanding public. use of the waterfront and for increasing its economic value.

i The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan builds on the experience of the past. At the same time, the plan addresses today's conditions and works within a myriad of legal and regulatory parameters affecting the use and development of the city's waterfront. The concept of "public trust", which establishes that certain waterfront benefits are held in trust for all the people, is fundamental to the plan. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which led to the creation of the city's Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP), is another important legal basis for the waterfront plan. Although WRP has been a positive influence on waterfront development for almost a decade, a revised and enhanced WRP would better articulate the city's goals for differing sections of the waterfront.

The plan is organized around the four principal functions of the waterfront:

• The Natural Waterfront, comprising beaches, wetlands, wildlife habitats, sensitive ecosy&tems and the water itself.

• The Public Waterfront, including parks, esplanades, piers, street ends, vistas and waterways that offer public open spaces and waterfront views.

• The Working Waterfront, where water dependent, maritime and industrial uses cluster or where various transportation and municipal facilities are dispersed.

• The Redeveloping Waterfront, where land uses have recently changed or where vacant and underutilized properties suggest potential for beneficial change.

The plan for each of these waterfront uses describes its goals, resources and major issues, and proposes short� and long-term strategies to guide land use change, planning and coordina­ tion, and public investment. Each plan, though presented separately, is interwoven with the others so that, together, they create a comprehensive vision for the entire waterfront.

The plan highlights three of the city's preeminent natural areas - encompassing roughly 30 percent of the waterfront - and proposes public policies to preserve and enhance their outstanding natural features. All over the city, neighborhoods would be reconnected to the waterfront. More than 100 sites are recommended for new or improved waterside public spaces: nearly 50 new public parks and existing parks where new attractions could be created at the water's edge; 25 public street ends that, with modest improvements, could provide points of access for nearby residents and workers; and another 40 sites where public access would be a mandatory component of new residential or commercial development.

In response to the decline in manufacturing and the derelict condition of many waterfront industrial properties, the plan recommends that some 500 acres of manufacturing-zoned land be rezoned for residential, commercial and recreational use. Based on proposed densities, 50,000 to 75,000 housing units could be built on the parcels recommended for rezoning and

on those that have already been approved (e.g., Hunters Point and Arverne). Even with these bold initiatives, the plan ensures that sufficient land will be available to meet the needs of industry and the working waterfront. Thirty percent of the city's shoreline is presently zoned for industrial use. Most of that zoning would remain in place, particularly in six Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas with an estimated total of 4,000 waterfront acres, where land use and public investment strategies would support and promote working waterfront uses.

ii .As an essential counterpart to land use guidelines, the plan proposes an unprecedented set of zoning reforms that address the unique qualities of waterfront property. Waterfront zoning regulations, to be incorporated in a new section of the Zoning Resolution, would streamline the waterfront regulatory process, increase public access, facilitate water dependent uses, and encourage appropriately scaled waterfront development with a compatible and lively mix of uses.

A summary of the plan's principal recommendations follows.

THE NATURAL WAT ERFRONT

To protect and enhance the city's natural resources, the plan for the Natural Waterfront distinguishes between waterfront areas characterized by a convergence of significant natural features andthose with less environmental value which serve important social and economic functions. The plan presents a set of strategies to address natural waterfront issues citywide, and it designates three natural areas with special significance, which merit heightened attention and strategies tailored to their unique environments. WRP policies would be modified to give added weight and greater specificity to natural resource values in these areas.

Citywide Strategies For the city's tidal and freshwater wetlands, enhanced regulatory coordination and management strategies are proposed to establish wetland acquisition priorities; consider appropriate development controls; reduce illegal dumping; and develop realistic mitigation alternatives for actions that would adversely affect existing wetlands.

The plan supports designation, as proposed by the Department of State, of 15 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and suggests the development of specific buffer and runoff controls adjacent to these areas.

To combat coastal erosion, the plan calls for continuation of the federal government's beach nourishment program for Rockaway and , including Seagate and Plumb Beach, and recommends the city's participation in the Long Island South Shore Monitoring Program.

The plan endorses continuation of the city's water quality improvement programs including upgrading water pollution control plants, advancing the Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement and Floatables Programs, and increasing water conservation efforts. It advocates a contaminated sediment program to clean up , Gowanus and ; and a coordinated citywide strategy to address non-point stormwater runoff pollution.

Special Natural Waterfront Areas is one of the few remaining intact natural ecosystems in New York City. The plan for JaInaica Bay recommends policy and program coordination in cooperation with the public-private Jamaica Bay Task Force to deal with buffer and non-point stormwater runoff standards, tidal circulation within the bay and illegal dumping in wetland and buffer areas. . Disposition strategies are proposed for seven large city-owned sites. Parkland designation is recommended for much of this land; where development is proposed, guidelines would be imposed to protect natural features.

iii The Harbor Herons Complex, in the industrial northwest corner of Staten Island, is comprised of an interconnecting network of tidal and freshwater wetlands along the Arthur . The plan proposes establishment of a management and research program, continued acquisition of sensitive ecosystems, development of specific buffer and stormwater runoff standards, and development of additional land use controls within this area, if determined to be necessary.

The /Upper area is characterized by natural intertidal rocky shorelines, shallow bays, and tidal and freshwater wetlands. The plan calls for transfer of the most sensitive city-owned property to the Department of Parks and Recreation, limited acquisition of private property, street demapping in wetland areas and the development of specific buffer and stormwater runoff guidelines. ,The plan also acknowledges the potential for environmental restoration of .

THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT

Waterfront views and easy access to the waterside for recreation and relaxation are eagerly sought amenities in cities everywhere. New York City is fortunate to have a vast, unique system of public parks that cover more than 40 percent of its shoreline. Another legacy­ undeveloped waterfront parkland, derelict harborfronts, and unevenly distributed waterfront access opportunities - has left many of the city's communities with little or no connection to the water's edge.

One of the overriding principles of the waterfront plan is to reestablish the public's connection to the waterfront by creating opportunities for visual, physical and recreational access. New waterfront public access can be created throughout the city as a result of redevelopment, along with improved access at existing waterfront parks, and limited opportunities for new waterfront parks.

Regulatory Strategy To ensure development of a more publicly accessible waterfront, the Zoning Resolution would be amended to establish mandatory waterfront access requirements in all medium- and high­ density residential and commercial developments, and in large, low-density developments in multifamily zoning districts. It would also allow for the mapping of Waterfront Access Plans where local conditions warrant special consideration.

The public access provisions would require:

• continuous access parallel to the shore;

• upland connectors perpendicular to the shoreline;

• additional publicly accessible open space as part 'of large developments;

• no-build setbacks along all residential and commercial shoreline development;

• minimum design standards; and

• view corridors located to· ensure visual access to the water.

iv Public Access Opportunities

The plan calls for waterfront access improvements in all five boroughs. The improvements would:

• provide public waterfront access for adjacent underserved communities;

• create linkages to extend the existing network;

• promote tourism and provide visual relief in densely developed areas;

• promote use of the water as a recreational resource; and

• provide safe, usable and well-maintained waterside public spaces.

In the Bronx, linear public access corridors are proposed along the , the , and Point Park. A new connection to Randalls Island would increase access to this underutilized recreational resource. Development of point access, in the form of street ends and waterfront park nodes, is recommended along and at strategic locations in the industrial .

The plan for Brooklyn proposes waterfront access along the East River and Upper Bay in conjunction with new waterfront development, and the use of public land and street ends to create public open spaces for communities that are presently cut off from their waterfronts. To the south, the plan recommends the eventual completion of a waterfront greenway along Shore Parkway, Coney Island, and Jamaica Bay. No public access is proposed along Newtown Creek or , major industrial areas.

Manhattan would be the most highly developed public shoreline owing to its density and the extent of its existing parks and esplanades. Continuous public access is recommended around virtually the entire borough. Gaps in the East Side public access systep1 would be addressed by interim and long-term strategies. The plan recognizes the impracticality of continuous public access along the Harlem River and proposes bridge connections to an esplanade on the Bronx side of the river.

The plan for Queens, particularly along the East River, would incorporate new public access opportunities in redevelopment, and would link existing open spaces. Additional waterfront opportunities are possible at several locations along Flushing Bay and Long Island Sound. Along Jamaica Bay and the Rockaways, where most of the waterfront is public beach or environmentally-sensitive, there are nevertheless some opportunities to extend public access.

Several redevelopment opportunities along Staten Island's north shore would facilitate development of the North Shore Esplanade proposed by City Planning in 1988. Staten Island's public access system may also benefit from combined rail/trail use of the North Shore and Travis railroad rights-of-way and the eventual closure of the . Improvements to the Island's south shore beachfront from to will enhance this important recreational resource.

v THE WORKIN G WATERFRONT

The city's working and industrial waterfront uses include four categories of water dependent uses: maritime, maritime support and industrial; marina and marina support; commercial excursion and boating; and transportation uses (ferries, airports, heliports and rail facilities). The working waterfront also includes municipal and utility uses, some of which are water dependent, and industrial uses that are not water dependent.

Certain water dependent uses tend to cluster in particular areas because of locational criteria or hydrographic conditions. Others are dispersed along the waterfront according to market or service catchment areas. Industrial uses for the most part are concentrated in areas with manufacturing zoning and good access to Manhattan.

Most of the port's ocean-going shipping is centered in . Only portions of the Staten Island and Brooklyn waterfronts remain useful for this purpose. However, the city's side of the harbor contains several marine terminals, many of the port's maritime support services, and an increasing number of commercial excursion boats, marinas and ferries.

Fundamentalobjectives of the waterfront plan are to facilitate and encourage water dependent uses and to ensure the retention of sufficient manufacturing-zoned land to accommodate future needs. In support of these goals, the plan identifies infrastructure improvements necessary to sustain working waterfront uses, and opportunities for waterborne transportation of goods and people and for intermodal connections involving water, rail, highway and airport linkages.· Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas Based upon criteria relating to the present and future needs of water dependent industries, the plan designates six Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas to protect and encourage concentrated working waterfront uses.

• The Kill Van Kuli in Staten Island from Howland Hook to Snug Harbor

• The Brooklyn waterfront from Erie Basin to Owls Head

• The Brooklyn waterfront from Pier 6 through the Red Hook Containerport

• The

• The Queens and Brooklyn shores of Newtown Creek

• The South Bronx (Port Morris and Hunts Point)

A number of actions are recommended for the Significant Areas to guide land use decisions, land disposition policy and public investment strategies, and to promote better interagency coordination to facilitate intermodal development. Maintaining the manufacturing zoning in these Significant Areas would ensure sufficient land to accommodate the future needs of the working waterfront. Disposition of publicly-owned property and municipal facilities proposed for locations within the Significant Are�" should encourage the inclusion of water dependent elements and use of intermodal facilities. Access improvements are identified to provide better connections to the region's highway network for the movement of goods.

vi Airports The plan recognizes the importance of Kennedy and LaGuardia airports to the local and regional economy and the need to ensure their safe operation. It calls for improvements that would support their operations and air facilities, including better ground access and waterborne transportation of goods and people.

Citywide Strategy In addition to strategies for the Significant Areas and Airports, the plan recommends capital investment, financing, and regulatory strategies for other waterfront industrial areas and for dispersed working waterfront uses. A proposed inter-agency task force would develop a long­ range port improvement and investment program, including development priorities for port­ related infrastructure. The Zoning Resolution would be amended to facilitate new water dependent developments by increasing the number of locations in which ferries, excursion ' boats, marinas and marina support facilities would be permitted. Public access in waterfront industrial areas would be encouraged only for public projects where safety could be assured and access designed to avoid interference with industrial uses.

THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT

With the decline of industrial and maritime uses on the waterfront, some areas currently zoned for manufacturing, as well as areas zoned for residential and commercial development, offer opportunities for redevelopment that would revitalize the waterfront. Redevelopment of these areas for residential, office, retail and community facility uses could create important opportunities for public access and open space.

In addition to identifying locations where new residential or commercial development is currently permitted and no further discretionary planning approvals are needed, the plan proposes changes in land use for large vacant or underutilized sites where new development would be appropriate. Many of these sites are in manufacturing zones where the land is not needed for industrial development and where reuse would generate jobs, revenues and new residential communities.

Past rezonings and other discretionary actions for waterfront redevelopment have highlighted the inadequacies of the Zoning Resolution in regulating waterfront development, particularly with respect to public access and open space, design controls, and view corridors. Waterfront revitalization also has been constrained by regulations that limit water-related uses such as ferries, accessory marinas, floatingrestaurants, and seasonal commercial uses along esplanades.

Regulatory review and infrastructure capacity also affect the timing, location, use and density of new waterfront development. The waterfront plan can facilitate redevelopment by establishing land use policies and zoning controls that provide a predictable framework for new construction.

Redevelopment Opportunities The goals of waterfront redevelopment can be achieved in large part by two mechanisms: amending the text of the Zoning Resolution to better regulate waterfront development, and applying the amended regulations to specific areas appropriate for rezoning.

vii The land use criteria considered in determining areas appropriate for reuse include the presence of substantial amounts of vacant or underutilized land; absence of unique or significant natural features or, if present, the potential for compatible development; proximity to residential or commercial uses; the potential for strengthening upland residential or commercial areas and for opening up the waterfront to the public; the availability of neighborhood services; and the number of jobs potentially displaced balanced against the new opportunities created by redevelopment.

In the Bronx, several sites on vacant or underutilized land along the Harlem River would be suitable for medium-density residential development. There are fewer redevelopment opportunities along the East Bronx waterfront which is lined with major parks, natural areas and built-upresidential neighborhoods. Previously approved lower-density residentialprojects in the East Bronx include Shorehaven and Castle Hill Estates.

The Brooklyn waterfront from Newtown Creek south to Owls Head Park is zoned for manufacturing. Although the zoning would be retained along most of this waterfront, several privately-owned sites in Greenpoint and Williamsburg meet the criteria for residential reuse. Brooklyn Piers 1 through 5 and a portion of the Red Hook peninsula also provide redevelopment opportunities. To the south, opportunities include the rebuilding of Steeplechase Amusement Park and housing development in Coney Island, and commercial development to complement the " village" character of Sheepshead Bay.

In Manhattan, specific redevelopment opportunities along the West Side and in will be shaped largely by several planning efforts under way. Redevelopment nodes on the West Side have been designated to allow for a balanced revitalization program. The East Side and Lower Manhattan offer locations for a mixof water-related and publicly-oriented uses, for example, a reconstructed ferry terminal with stores and restaurants. Feasibility studies are being conducted for the proposed Harlem on the Hudson project at West , and a portion of the Sherman Creek industrial area is recommended for rezoning.

In western Queens, the Hunters Point mixed use project and the nearby East River Tennis Club project were previously approved, and residential reuse of selected sites north of these projects is recommended. On the , a portion of underutilized M3 land presents opportunities to extend the downtown to the waterfront and provide open space. In addition to the approved Arverne residential project in the Rockaways, redevelopment and revitalization is recommended in the Edgemere section through construction of housing, support services and infrastructure improvements.

Along Staten Island's north shore, the St. George Ferry Te rminal and the adjacent Chessie Rail Yard site provide opportunities for a new civic, transportation and visitor center, as well as medium-density residential and commercial development. Several lower-density projects are under way or have been approved for the Outerbridge area and the south shore near Tottenville. Sections of the industrially-zoned area south of the may be suitable for lower-density housing and water-related uses.

The redevelopment opportunities identified in each borough represent a diversified mix of uses and densities. The choice of areas balances waterfront planning objectives by taking into consideration the needs and goals of the working, natural and public waterfronts.

viii WAT ERFRONT ZONING PROPOSAL

In accordance with comprehensive plan recommendations, the waterfront zoning proposal would introduce mandatory public access requirements, encourage water dependent and waterfront-enhancing uses, and ensure that the scale of development is appropriate for the waterfront. The proposed regulations, which would apply primarily on waterfront blocks, would require public access and view corridors in most non-industrial developments. They would establish specific height and setback requirements and regulate uses, bulk and height on piers and platforms. Many of the specific controls would exempt water dependent and industrial uses; others would be modified to foster water dependent uses like ferries and marinas and water-enhancing recreation and commercial activities in more locations.

The proposed changes generally would be applicable only when areas are rezoned or redeveloped for residential or commercial use. To the extent possible, the proposal incorporates as-of-right regulations to streamline the regulatory process, make zoning more predictable, and minimize the cost of development and city regulation.

Waterfront Use Regulations The proposal would foster waterdependent and water-enhancing uses by expanding the range of zoning districts in which they are permitted. For example, sightseeing or excursion boats, now permitted only in manufacturing districts, would also be permitted in several commercial districts. Ocean-going passenger ships would be permitted in central business districts as well as manufacturing districts, to expand the uses permitted where the ship terminals are presently located or where they would be desirable. To broaden opportunities for marina development, the proposal would permit marinas constructed as part of a residential development to be used by non-residents as welL

Floating Structures Water dependent uses, small restaurants and cultural activities would be encouraged on floating structures. Special permits would be required for other water-enhancing uses and such uses as government facilities and power plants.

Waterfront Public Access The proposal would establish mandatory requirements for public access on waterfront zoning lots in mid- to high-density residential and commercial developments, and in large residential developments in lower-density zoning districts permitting multifamily development. Public access requirements would not be imposed on industrial uses. Although public access generally would not be required in lower-density residential developments, developments would be required to maintain a no-build zone along the waterfront for future public access should the city choose to provide it.

Residential and commercial developments would be required to provide public open space at the water's edge at the time of development, and public access and visual connections to these areas from the first upland street. Additional public open space would be required in certain instances. The generic requirements could be modified by mapping waterfront public access plans where the local context warrants a site-specific plan (e.g., to enhance a significant scenic view or to connect public parks).

ix Floor Area

To control the scale of waterside development, floor area would no longer be generated by lands under water beyond the bulkhead line, except for .that portion of the lot coveted by existing piers and platforms. Most of the underwater land, particularly in Manhattan, is owned by the city. The possible transfer of bulk generated by piers and platforms to the upland portion of the zoning lot would be limited. . \

Piers and Platforms

New bulk controls and public access requirements would limit height, achievable floor area, and the placement of development on existing piers. Water dependent uses would be exempt from these requirements. Existing platforms would be subject to the same use, public access, visual corridor and bulk regulations as the upland lot. New piers and platforms would be permitted only for the development of water dependent and waterfront enlivening uses.

Height and Setback

In lower-density (RI through RS) districts, the existing zoning regulations, which limit height to 40 feet, would ensure appropriately scaled waterfront development. In mid- to high-density (R6 through RlO) zones, two options would be available: either the existing Quality Housing contextual zoning which encourages relatively low buildings, or a new set of bulk regulations tailored to the unique conditions of a waterfront setting. The existing "height factor" zoning in non-contextual R6 through RIO districts permits towers that might be excessively tall at the water's edge. If contextual regulations were used exclusively, however, they might not produce an interesting, varied and visually open waterfront.

The proposed waterfront bulk regulations would replace height factor zoning in non­ contextual mid- to high-density residential districts and their commercial equivalents. The new mandatory regulations would be flexible enough to permit the lower building forms of contextual zoning, but would also allow taller buildings of varied designs that maintain an urban context. Unlike height factor zoning, maximum height limits would be established and at least one-half the floor area in each building would have to be located below a certain height to reinforce the traditional street wall character and provide "eyes on the street". The proposed regulations would require building setbacks at specified levels to place the tower

elements (if included) further from streets, visual corridors and public areas on the waterfront.

Parking

Parking regulations would exclude parking from public access areas and open spaces, and parking areas on waterfront blocks would have to be screened from public spaces. To provide greater site planning flexibility, the proposal would permit accessory parking to be located off­ site if it met certain location, size and screening conditions.

x Permitted development under the CURRENT R6 zoning regulations

Permitted development under the PROPOSED R6 zoning regulations with public access indicated in gray

CONCLUSION Taken together, the land use changes, zoning text amendments, public investment strategies and regulatory revisions recommended in this plan signal a new beginning for the city's waterfront. The collaborative process that guided development of the plan will continue this fall when the Department of City Planning convenes a series of public meetings with ., , 1 l' roc. communIty Doaras, PUDllC OIllCl'-'alS anu-1 agenCies, • anu;!" CIVIC an� rI nelgu�or..OOQ'hh h � orgamzatlOns... In response to the ensuing dialogVe, the Department will modify the plan as appropriate, file zoning text amendments for public review, and revise the Waterfront Revitalization Program.

The challenge ahead is to set a realistic course of action that will preserve our natural resources, strengthen our economy by providing new housing and jobs, and reclaim the city's edge for public use and enjoyment.

xi

SETTING THE COURSE

"The waterfront is so important to New York City that a plan for the water­ front's future is a plan for the city'sfuture," Report of the Commission on the Year 2000.

It has been widely accepted fo r some time framework to guide land use along the city's that New Yo rk City's waterfront is a vast, entire shoreline in a way that recognizes its untapped resource. Some have called it our value as a natural resource and celebrates its last frontier, a place where change is possible diversity. The plan presents a long-range and the promise of public benefit is great. For vision that balances the needs of environmen­ decades, ever since the emergence of the tally sensitive areas and the working port with nation's environmental movement and the opportunities fo r waterside public access, concurrent decline of traditional maritime open space, housing and commercial activity. and industrial activity along our shores, planners and policy makers have called fo r The plan envisions a 21st century waterfront revitalization of this valuable resource. where:

• parks and open spaces with a lively mix Yet, despite an incomparable legacy of public parkland and some notable successes like of activities are within easy reach of communities throughout the city; and the South Street Sea­ port, many sections of the city's waterfront • people once again swim, fish and boat remain dormant and derelict, or inaccessible in clean waters; fo r public use and enjoyment. • natural habitats are restored and well I The reasons for the slow pace of revitalization cared fo r; are complex: obsolete zoning regulations that ignore the unique qualities of the city's edge • maritime and other industries, though and inadequately address waterfront planning reduced in size from their heyday, issues; an often confusing, lengthy and uncer­ thrive in locations with adequate tain regulatory process that adds to the cost of infrastructure support; both public and private redevelopment; a • ferries crisscrossing the city's harbor and chronic shortage of public funds, even in the rivers, and interconnected bikeways and best of economic climates, fo r waterfront pedestrian pathways help lessen traffic infrastructure and recreational improvements.; congestion and air pollution; and a longstanding tensioh between competing needs and uses for waterfront land that can • panoramic water views of great beauty stalemate revitalization plans. lhese complexi­ are preserved or created; and ties result in a great missed opportunity to create new employment, housing and recre­ • the city's needs fo r new housing and jobs ational benefits fo r all the people of this city. for people of all income levels are satis­ fied in attractive and safe surroundings. The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan pro­ posed by the Department of City Planning Fortunately, all these needs and opportunities addresses this missed opportunity. For the can be accommodated in suitable locations on first time in the city's history, it provides a what is probably the longest and certainly

I among the most diverse municipal water In 1982, New Yo rk City became the first frontages in the nation. The commonly ac­ locality in the state to adopt a Waterfront cepted estimate of its length is 578 miles, and Revitalization Program (WRP) to guide zoning it is unusually varied in both use and physical and land use actions on the waterfront. The setting. The city's waterfront encompasses program established a Coastal Zone Boundary coastal beaches and pristine wetland habitats, within which all discretionary actions are small homes set beside lagoons and creeks, reviewed fo r consistency with WRP coastal high-rise apartments and officebuil dings with policies. Administered by the Department of magnificent views of bridges and skylines, City Planning fo r the past ten years, the pro­ parks and esplanades, airports and heliports, gram has had a substantial positive effect on waterfront development in the city. and bulkheaded areas active with shipping, industry and a variety of municipal uses. Under WRP auspices, the Department under­ took a number of studies and plans that ex­ The comprehensive plan capitalizes on the panded its knowledge and understanding of size and diversity of the city's waterfront to waterfronts throughout the city. These studies, address the historic competition between ranging from an analysis of trends in the commerce and recreation fo r use of water­ Maritime Support Services Industry to an front land. It seeks to balance these compet­ examination of the inadequacies of the 196 1 ing interests by recognizing the importance of Zoning Resolution with respect to the water­ environmental resources, by coming to grips front, have contributed to the development of with the decline of traditional working water­ this plan. Other City Planning studies (analyses front uses, by protecting the city's important of industrial trends and open space needs, fo r maritime assets, and by identifying opportu­ example) were also valuable sources of infor­ nities for expanding public use of the water­ mation. These studies informed and were front and fo r increasing its economic value. informed by land and water use studies of local waterfront segments. For study purposes, As an essential counterpart to land use guide­ the entire waterfront was divided into 22 lines, the plan proposes a set of zoning re­ "reaches" (a nautical term suggesting distance fo rms that can streamline the waterfront sailed), each with common characteristics. (See regulatory process and encourage appropri­ Appendix A fo r summaries of the Reach Stud­ ately scaled waterfront development with a ies. Other pertinent works are listed in the lively and compatible mix of uses. selected Bibliography.)

A plan of this scope would not have been The plan has been informed as well by the possible \Vithout a fo undation of programs, ideas, expertise and guidance of a broad range plans, and policies that have been evolving of public and private participants in the plan­ over the past 25 years. Federal legislation in ning process. A citywide Waterfront Advisory the early 1970s was the first step in arousing Committee, established a year ago, brought the public's waterfront conscience. The Water together a panel of 35 representatives of city, Pollution Control Act of 1972 required con­ state and fe deral agencies, public officials and struction of treatment facilities; the civic organizations with interests in natural city invested billions to upgrade its plants and resources, parks and open space, maritime and build new ones; and soon the waters of the industrial uses, and housing and economic development. The committee worked with the harbor improved. In the same year, Congress Department throughout the year to identify passed the Coastal Zone Management Act . and debate issues and opportunities affecting which encouraged state and local participa­ the future of the city's waterfront. tion in programs to preserve, protect and enhance coastal resources.

2 On the local level, consultation with borough Each chapter sets fo rth the goals fo r that and community boards throughout the plan's waterfront use, describes its existing resources development brought an understanding of and major issues, and proposes a plan of community concerns and opportunities fo r action with short- and long-term strategies. change along specific segments of the water­ Though presented separately, each plan is front. A variety of task fo rces, such as the interwoven with the others. Together they Jamaica Bay Task Force and the Manhattan create a comprehensive plan fo r all of the 's Waterfront Task Force, city's waterfront. were especially helpfulin shaping the strategies for those portions of the shoreline. Chapter 7 presents an innovative proposal fo r waterfront zoning reform, the chief tool fo r The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, the advancing many of the plan's recommenda­ 'culmination of a two-year effort, was made tions. The proposed zoning text amendments possible by generous grants from the United aim to enliven the city's edges with appropri­ Nations Development Corporation and the ately scaled development and a harmonious New Yo rk State Department of State Coastal mix of uses and public spaces. Management Program. The final chapter sums up the strategies fo r The plan starts with the framework upon realizing the plan's recommendations. fo r which it rests' - the historical, legal and land use change, zoning text reform, public regulatory contexts shaping the futureuse and investment, and program and policy coordi­ development of waterfront land. The concept nation. It sets out the next steps fo r public of "public trust," which establishes that certain review and discussion of the plan so that it waterfrontbene fits are held in trust fo r all the may be modified to reflect diverse public people, and other legal regimes are described views and concerns. to illuminate current public protections, pri­ vate rights, and municipal powers. The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan pro­ posed in this report is presented for public Chapters 3 through 6 synthesize the citywide discussion. By continuing the public and plan fo r each of the waterfront's principal private collaboration that has guided its functions. development, a consensus can emerge to put an end to years of indecision and wasted • The Natural Waterfront, comprising potential. It is an ambitious plan that will beaches, wetlands, wildlife habitats, sensi­ take decades to realize, but its vision can tive ecosystems and the water itself. become a catalyst fo r the changes needed to reclaim the city's edge. • The Public Waterfront, including parks, esplariades, piers, street ends, vistas and waterways that offer public open spaces and waterfront views.

• The Wo rking Waterfront, where water­ dependent, maritime and industrial uses cluster or where various transportation and municipal facilities are dispersed.

• The Redeveloping Waterfront, where land uses have changed recently or where va­ cant and underutilized properties suggest ,potential fo r beneficial change.

3

[!] PLA NNING FRAMEWOR K

The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan builds quins, the Karnisi, the Rockaways and the on the history of New Yo rk Harbor. At the Siwanoys, lived for thousands of years sus­ same time, the plan addresses today's condi­ tained by the natural bounty of the region. tions and works within a myriad of legal and regulatory parameters affecting the use and The Dutch who settled the area in the 1620s development of the city's waterfront. This began to alter the natural shoreline by filling chapter summarizes the history of our ever­ in lowlands and constructing wharfs and docks changing waterfront; briefly describes the to ease transport between the new world and major federal, state and local laws and regula­ the old. Wooden piers grew in size and num­ tions that affect its development; and outlines ber as industries like shipbuilding and com­ the planning process fo r projects within the mercial fishing became mainstays of the local coastal zone, to illustrate the complexities of economy. The harbor bottom and the courses the approval process. of and rivers were altered continually to accommodate more and larger ships. The The historical concept of "public trust," which natural shoreline began to disappear, mainly establishes that certain waterfrontben efitsare along the eastern and western shores of lower held in trust fo r all the people, is fundamen­ Manhattan, and in Brooklyn and Queens along tal to the plan's objectives fo r public access the East River. and recreational use of the water's edge. The fe deral Coastal Zone Management Act of By the mid-1 800s, the Port of New Yo rk had 1972, which led to the creation of state and become the nation's largest. Its vast expanse local Coastal Zone Management Programs, of shoreline provided tremendous growth provides another important legal basis fo r the potential fo r port and industrial facilities that waterfront plan. Coastal zone management imported raw materials and exported manu­ establishes a variety of policy guidelines on factured products. The harbor bustled with natural resources, waterfront public access, activity; fe rries carried passengers and goods maritime and water-dependent uses, and across the rivers and the bay. In the mid-1 9th economic development in the coastal zone. and early 20th centuries, the waterways served as the means of entry fo r waves of immi­ grants to this country. The Port expanded HISTORICAL CONTEXT beyond Manhattan to Brooklyn, Staten Island and New Jersey; it included hundreds of miles Throughout its history, New Yo rk Harbor has of developed facilities accommodating thou­ played an important role in the region's ecolo­ sands of vessels. gy and its physical and economic development. Over the last 50 years, however, this pattern Thousands of years ago, glaciers created much of waterfront and port use has changed of the as they scraped and scoured the radically. The invention of the automobile region. As the glaciers receded, they leftbe hind and the growth in trucking diminished the , barrier beaches and along the importance of waterways fo r transporting shoreline. The ocean, rivers and sound con­ goods. Construction of bridges and tunnels verged to fo rm an environment that became linking New Yo rk City and New Jersey sharply home to a wide variety of flora and fauna, reduced the need fo r ferries. Air transportation establishing the estuary as a place of unique replaced ocean liners fo r intercontinental biological diversity. Native American tribes, travel. Changes in maritime technology, specif- including the Wieckquaesgecks, the Algon-

5 View of East River, c.1859, looking west from Brooklyn to Manhattan Source: Brooklyn Historical Society ically , increased the speed and soon the public was clamoring fo r more and efficiency of cargo shipment. Fewer but waterfront open space. Rowing clubs along the larger sites were required fo r shipping, con­ Harlem Riverbe gan to use the water for active tributing to the change in land use patterns recreation and, by the turn of the century, along the waterfront. As water-dependent Coney Island and Rockaway had become uses declined, large areas of the industrial booming seaside resorts. waterfront became dormant. The recreational waterfront again underwent During the 19th century, New Yo rk City's dramatic change beginning in the 1930s as waterfront became a place of "health and , then the parks commissioner, pleasure" as well as a place fo r "the conve­ created or rebuilt scores of parks, beaches and nience of commerce." The idea of the water­ parkways along the city's waterfront, which front as recreational space did not come easily significantly expanded public access in all five given the shoreline's importance for commer­ boroughs. Sometimes, however, the new park­ cial ventures. in lower Manhattan ways limited access to the water's edge. emerged in the early 1800s as one of the first waterfront parks where residents could take in In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the envi­ the sights and fresh air of the harbor. Until the ronmental quality of the waterfront became mid-1800s, further attempts to reserve water­ part of the nation's agenda. The fe deral front acreage for public amenities met resis­ Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 required tance on the ground oflost commercial oppor� the construction of facili­ tunity. In the 1860s, however, Frederick Law ties, and the waters of the harbor began to Olmsted began planning fo r Riverside Park improve afterde cades of unconstrained pollu­ between West 72nd and We st 129th Streets, tion. City residents once again began to view

6 the water as a valuable resource fo r open the fo rm of a trust held by the state fo r the space and recreation. Improved water quality, common public good. Members of the public combined with large tracts of vacant land, were permitted to occupy the wet sand and fueled the desire to live, work and play near water fo r fishing, navigation and water-related the waterfront. commerce, and the state was responsible fo r preserving water and shoreline resources fo r To day, the city's waterfront - more than 500 the common enjoyment. The public right of miles of oceanfront and land along diverse access to and use of the fo reshore and wa­ bays, inlets, rivers and tributaries - is still ters - the public trust doctrine as it has been used chiefly fo r recreation and commerce. termed - is based on the conviction that this Fully 42 percent of the waterfront is city, type of property has unique characteristics state or fe deral parkland which includes associated with a public purpose. hundreds of acres of natural or undeveloped land, active recreation areas and narrow strips When the concept of public trust embodied along highways and rail lines. Another 31 in English common law moved to the Ameri­ percent, or more than half the city's non­ cas, trusteeship of the waters went to the parkland waterfront, is zoned fo r industrial colonies and then to the newly fo rmed states. use, a figure that has remained relatively Over time, states have deeded parts of the constant since the zoning amendments of shoreline to municipalities, so that New Yo rk 1961 were adopted. The steady decline since City, for example, holds title to the greater then in industrial and maritime uses has left part of its waterfront. portions of these areas vacant and underuti­ Concurrent with the state's trust, the riparian lized. The remaining waterfront is divided between residential and commercial zoning owner (the owner ofland adjoining the water) districts: 20 percent residential, primarily had the right to use the wet sand and water lower-density districts; and about six percent for purposes of fishing, navigation and water­ commercial, primarily C3 zoning which per­ related commerce. The riparian owner did not mits water-related uses and lower-density hold title to the lands under water. The ripari­ residential development. an right of the upland owner consisted chiefly of the right of access to the lands under water to build a dock or pier from the upland, and LEGAL CONTEXT the right to make other improvtments that would allow navigation, fishing or recreation. The law governing use of the New Yo rk City waterfront is an amalgam of common law, The common law recognized that the public regulatory and statutory regimes that were trust and the riparian rights of private owners fo rmulated over the course of the city's histo­ often were in conflict. As riparian owners ry. A review of these legal regimes and their made more elaborate improvements to the interactions clarifies current municipal pow­ shorefront fo r their private purposes, public ers, private rights and public protections. access to the wet sand and water diminished. When cases of conflict came to the courts) the THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE AND courts weighed, case by case, whether the PRIVAT E RIPARIAN RIGHTS primary purpose of furthering navigation, Historically, the common law provided that, commerce and fishing was better served by absent other state action, the property rights of riparian or public uses. The balance shifted private upland owners ended at the mean high with the circumstances. water line. The state had clear title (owned .the fee) to the "wet sand" between high and low In most areas, exercise of private riparian water, underwater land and the water itself. rights traditionally has been limited in order to Ownership of these lands and the water Was in preserve public access. For instance, the size of

7 piers was limited to allow public passage, and Over the years, the courts have held that the fences across the wet sand were prohibited. In state and city were powerless to alienate the urban port and manufacturing areas, however, public trust, despite the express language or riparian owners· could construct improve­ the implied intent of such grants. Thus, it can ments that effectively foreclosed public use be asserted today that residual public rights of and passage. access remain in all waterfrontlands granted as PRIVATE ACQUISITION OF WATER LoTS water lots, particularly in those areas where port improvements did not take place. English common law held that the sovereign had no authority to sell or give away water­ AND front land bound by the public trust. Soon REGULATORY BULKHEAD after American Independence, however, gov­ PIERHEAD LINES ernment recognized that urban port devel­ The city, state and federal governments opment could be encouraged by granting areas mapped bulkhead and pierhead lines along of wet sand and underwater lands to private lengthy stretches of the New York City shore­ owners who would agree to fillin the land and line, so that the waterfront could be devel­ make navigational and commercial improve­ ments such as bulkheads or piers. New York oped fo r commerce and navigation. The state and city gave numerous such "water lot" bulkhead line marks the limit of permissible grants to private upland owners. The early landfill;the pierhead line is the farthest point grants stipulated that ownership would revert to which a pier can be built without obstruct­ to the state if the private purchaser failed to ing the sea lanes. The lines limit both the make the required improvements. Later, grants common law riparian rights of private upland were given without express requirements that owners and the development rights of water improvements be undertaken, but it is usually lot owners. clear from other documents that such im­ provements were anticipated.

Passenger ship moving up Hudson River to docks Source: Municipal Archives, Department of Records and Information Services, City of New Yo rk

8 CITY-OWNED WAT ERFRONT LANDS The issue of "alienability" of city-owned water­ front land also is addressed by the City Char­ Over its history, the city retained and some­ ter. Section 383 provides that "the rights of the times reacquired waterfront lands in order to city in and to its waterfront, fe rries, wharf c accomplish specific public purposes in luding property . . . land under water . . . wharves, development and maintenance of port facili­ docks ...water [and] waterways" are inalien­ ties, preservation of open lands and park lands, able. Such properties cannot be sold without and development of residential, commercial, enabling state legislation. The provision is manufacturing and public facilities. The city consistent with the common law public trust. adopted several Charter provisions to clarify the nature of its title and to provide fo r order­ THE 1961 ZONING RESOLUTION ly administration of its waterfront lands. The Zoning Resolution, as a general regulation The major provisions appear in Chapt�rs 52 governing all development in the city, applies and 56, Sections 1150 and 1301, as amended to all waterfront lands. The 1961 Zoning and renumbered in 1991. These provisions Resolution made reference to the pierhead line describe two categories of land: as the boundary line of a "block," as definedin Section 12-10. Based on this definition, the (1) waterfront property, which is all city­ pierhead line has been viewed as the boundary owned property fronting tidal waters, line of any zoning lot that encompasses under­ including underwater land and upland to water lands. The practical effect of this defini­ the line of the first street or first adverse tion has been to allow permitted upland uses (other than city) owner; and to be placed on piers, platforms, filled lands or floatingstructur es. It also has extended "floor (2) wharf property, which is any land that was area" to land under water. under the jurisdiction of the Department of Docks (later Ports and Trade) in 1938 THE CONTEMPORARY WATERFRONT or was later assigned to that department. These various common law, regulatory and Wharf property includes all improvements statutory regimes suggest that the city's wa­ such as piers and bulkheads. terfront has four components: The intent of this distinction appears to have (1) areas that remain in close to their natural been a recognition that "wharf property" was state where the public trust doctrine pro­ needed for active port use and improvement vides fo r public access to the wet sand and and that "waterfrontprop erty" could be avail­ water fo r fishing and recreation, and where able fo r other public uses. The distinction private riparian rights are limited to the became less clear when the Department of placing of a dock or pier fo r limited boat Ports and Trade was later transformed into a launching, fishing and recreation; development agency with wider jurisdiction than port facilities. (2) areas that remain in active industrial and port-related uses where the exercise of any The Charter of 1975 (Section 704(g)) described public right of access or use is outweighed the power of the Department of Ports and by the rights of riparian owners; Trade (then Ports and Terminals) to lease (3) areas such as vacant piers and uplands in wharf property as "primarily fo r purposes of waterfront manufacturing zones where, waterfront commerce." This language implied through grants or regulation, there was an an authority to lease such property fo r other expectation of port or industrial use, but purposes. In the 1991 revision, the power of the such uses have never been established or new Department of Business Services expressly have ceased to function; and includes the power to lease "for purposes other than waterfront commerce" (Charter of 1989 (4) areas and properties under city or state Sec. 1301(f) as amended 1991). ownership.

9 In categories (3) and (4), the public right of REGULATORY CONTEXT access should be reestablished in any subse­ The regulatory framework guiding the Com­ quent redevelopment fo r residential and non­ prehensive Waterfront Plan is based princi­ water-related commercial uses. In circum­ pally on federal, state and city coastal zone stances where the "wet sand" will continue to management goals and policies. In fact, the be obliterated by bulkheads or other improve­ plan is a milestone in the continuing evolu­ ments, a walkway, esplanade or park-like area tion of coastal zone management, a set of may appropriately be required as a substitute. regulations that already has profoundly influ­ enced the use and development of New Yo rk In the past two decades, the public trust City's waterfront. doctrine has evolved to include recreation, aesthetic enjoyment and environmental COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT protection in addition to the historic con­ The Federal Coastal Zone siderations of fishing and navigation. Al­ Management Act though the New York courts have not artic­ A decade or more of fe deral concern fo r the ulated this definition of the public trust in coastal zone and its resources preceded pas­ a detailed manner, the expanded definition sage of the Coastal Zone Management Act of of public access should be recognized as 1972. A series of scientificst udies throughout part of New Yo rk law. the 1960s emphasized the need fo r protection and wise use of important national resources. Zoning on the waterfront can be changed to Concurring that a specific program was better reflect the rights of private owners needed to protect and manage the nation's under common law and the regulatory re­ coastal lands and water, Congress passed the gime. Current zoning practice, which recog­ Act by an overwhelming majority. nizes uses and counts floor area out to the pierhead line, is inconsistent with these laws The Act established the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program to encourage and assist and, in effect, has conferred upon riparian the states in preparing and implementing owners a "bonus" of rights that they could management programs to not otherwise claim. " preserve, protect, develop and, where Between the bulkhead line and pierhead line, possible, to restore or enhance the re­ the riparian owner possesses no right to make sources of the nation's coastal zone. " any use other than improvements for naviga­ In adopting the Act, Congress assigned ad­ tion, fishing or recreation (a pierhead or ministrative responsibility to the Secretary of similar structure). The Zoning Resolution Commerce who in turn designated the Na­ need not permit any other active commercial, tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra­ industrial or residential use beyond the bulk- . tion (NOAA) as the managing agency. The head line, and it need not recognize any right Act identified 30 coastal states and four to floor area based on underwater lands coastal territories as the governmental bodies stretching to the pierhead line. The Zoning that would carry out its programs, and of­ Resolution could be amended to include a fered a number of incentives fo r achieving provision that recognizes the bulkhead line as program objectives. To encourage the partici­ the line of farthest permissible development pation of coastal states, the Act stipulated (except for navigational uses). As an alterna­ that federal actions and fe derally funded tive, a new development boundary Hne could actions within the coastal zone must be, to be mapped. the maximum extent fe asible, consistent with approved state management programs.

10 A number of other federal statutes affect the New Yo rk City Waterfront Revitalization coastal zone. Among the most important fo r Program New Yo rk City are the Water Pollution Con­ The state's legislation authorized the approval trol Act, the Clean Air Act and the National of local programs to return at least partial Environmental Policy Act. control of the coastal area to the municipali­ The State Coastal Management Program ties - the level of government most familiar with and affected by local conditions. In 1982, Pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Manage­ New York City received approval from the ment Act of 1972, New York State, in 1981, state for its local Waterfront Revitalization adopted the Waterfront Revitalization and Program (WRP) which was based on state and Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA) which creat­ federal coastal zone policies. New Yo rk City's ed the New York State Coastal Management WRP contains 12 policies relating to local Program (CMP) under the direction of the issues, in addition to guidelines for local New Yo rk State Department of State (DOS). application of the 44 state policies. (See Ap­ The goal of the WRCRA is to establish a pendix B for list of WRP policies.) framework for coordinating state laws and The city's WRP established a Coastal Zone rationalizing decisions of federal, state and Boundary (Map 2.0) within which all discre­ local governments in the coastal area. That tionary waterfront actions must be reviewed framework, embodied in the Coastal Manage­ for consistency with coastal zone policies. For ment Program, is built on 44 policy statements the past ten years, this program has served as addressing problems and opportunities associ­ a framework fo r balancing the city's waterfront ated with a wide range of coastal issues includ­ ing: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, econom­ goals fo r economic development, natural ic activity, energy, fish and wildlife, flooding resource protection and public access. and erosion, development, public access, The City Planning Commission, acting as the recreation and water quality. City Coastal Commission, is the decision­ The 44 state coastal zone policies contained in making body for the local Waterfront Revital­ the CMP, and the accompanying standards, ization Program, with the Department of City express the intent of the state legislature that Planning (DCP) serving as staff.Loca l discre­ there be a balance between economic devel­ tionary actions, including those subject to the opment and preservation that will permit the city's land use, environmental and variance beneficial use of coastal resources while pre­ procedures, and other plans within the coastal venting the loss of living marine resources and zone are reviewed for consistency with the 56 wildlife, diminution of open space areas or WRP policies. Review of local actions is built public access to the waterfront, shoreline into the existing regulatory process and in erosion, impairment of scenic beauty or per­ most instances occurs concurrently. DCP and manent adverse changes to ecological systems. the City Coastal Commission also conduct consistency reviews fo r fe deral and state ac­ Many of the state policies are supported and tions, such as the issuance of a U.S. Army implemented by programs administered by the Corps of Engineers dredging permit or a state New Yo rk State Department of Environmental DEC tidal wetiands permit. If a federal action Conservation (DEC). For example, DEC regu­ is fo und inconsistent by the City Coastal latory programs seek to protect tidal and Commission and the finding is upheld by the freshwater wetlands, and air and water re­ Department of State, the permit may not be sources. Other agencies, such as the New Yo rk issued. State agency actions are required to be State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic consistent to the maximum extent practicable Preservation, administer programs that provide with the policies of approved local WRPs. coastal facilities fo r recreation, economic development or environmental protection.

11 MAP 2.0

Queens

Brooklyn

Coastal Zone

l::::l:::::::�:t:::�:::::::::J coastal zone boundary

NOTE: Upland boundaries extend to the upland limit of zoning districts, naturai area districts, parks, and natural drainage basins. Federal property is excluded.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Planning Framework FIGURE 2.0 Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Review

Federal Federal NYS " '" , Permit or AgActienconsy ,. Department of State Action . . A • Referral 1 Local WRP I

NYS Department of State A : :· Referral : · · y State State " Local RP Permit or AgActioencnsy , W , Action

Local Loca R P W � Actions 1....,_ I _ __.. ·,-I_.C.�.��.C.il_.I...... 1

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan I NYC Department of City Planning I Planning Framework The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Pro­ Because waterfront projects vary widely in the gram has played a significant role in regulat­ scope and type of actions involved, one ing waterfront development. It is, however, a project may require reviews from any number difficult program to administer because equal of federal, state or local agencies, whereas weight must be given to sometimes compet­ another may not. For example, an Army ing policies without regard to the city's objec­ Corps of Engineers permit would be required tives for differing sections of waterfront. The for a waterfront project that involves the Comprehensive Waterfront Plan provides an construction of a pier, but not for a project opportunity to enhance the WRP with a set with no in-water work. In all instances where a project within the Coastal Zone requires a of guidelines and criteria for waterfront discretionary review, however, a Waterfront development that are based upon detailed Revitalization Program consistency review is study of New York City's waterfront. The required. A project within the Coastal Zone recent report issued by the Governor's Task requiring a zoning change would be subject Force on Coastal Resources found that, after to the city's Uniform Land Use Review Proce­ nearly a decade of experience with the admin­ dure and, consequently, a WRP consistency istration of the CZM program, comprehensive review. planning and active advancement of coastal policies envisioned in the WRCRA have not The complexity of the regulatory process has fully materialized. long been criticized as an impediment to waterfront revitalization. Many of the re­ The Task Force report recommends revision quired approvals stem from federal and state of the Coastal Management Program to legislation and are beyond the city's ability to provide a clear vision for the waterfront in control or change. Nevertheless, the Compre­ each of the state's coastal regions. New York hensive Waterfront Plan proposes a number City is identified as one of six proposed of reforms aimed at creating a more predict­ coastal regions. A revised and enhanced WRP able and integrated planning process. is needed, using this plan as a foundation, to articulate the region's characteristics and Much of the inefficiency in the review process priorities and give specificity to the applica­ arises from the absence of clear priorities and tion of WRP policies. guidelines for waterfront planning and devel­ opment. This lack of clear direction to delayed and redundant project review, adding DEVEWPMENT THE WATERFRONT substantially to the cost of development on PROCESS the waterfront. The long-term vision for the city's waterfront proposed in this comprehen­ Coastal Zone Management is only one of sive plan will establish the priorities and many regulatory programs affecting water­ principles that can streamline the planning front planning and development in New York and development process. City. At the federal and state levels alone, an 50 estimated separate laws guide development Waterfront zoning text reform to allow ap­ in the coastal zone, for example, the federal propriate as-of-right development is one Flood Disaster Protection Act and Endan­ important way to simplify the regulatory gered Species Act or the state's Environmental process. This reform would reduce the fre­ Conservation Law and Navigation Law. In quency of local discretionary actions, includ­ addition, complex environmental and land ing land use and environmental reviews and use review procedures govern discretionary variance applications. Zoning text changes actions in the city. aimed at minimizing project-specific discre­ tionary review are discussed in detail in Chapter Seven.

14 Revision of the Waterfront Revitalization Program, as recommended by the Governor's Task Force, is another means of setting clear guidelines for the waterfront. Revision of the local WRP would allow for a more predict­ able application and review process by pre­ senting policies to federal, state and local regulatory agencies and to the development community in a way that clearly defines the city's priorities for differing sections of the waterfront.

Reform must include streamlining a process in which applicants must fill out numerous forms and submit applications to several different agencies, with no agency responsible for coordination and interagency communica­ tion. It must also address the issue of en­ forcement. Lack of follow-up and enforce­ ment of WRP requirements has resulted in situations where, for example, public access commitments are not fully satisfied.

The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan may be able to act as a catalyst for coordination.

15

W THE NA TURAL WA TERFRONT

New York City is a dense urban fo rest of • control the land and water uses that could steel, concrete, stone and glass. It is also a conflict with or impair natural waterfront deep water world port, white sand beaches, values; extensive tidal systems and the home of nearly eight million people who are depen­ • define areas of special environmental dent upon this complex natural, social and significance; and economic infrastructure. • bring together local, regional, state and Protecting and enhancing the city's natural fe deral programs to fo rm an effective waterfront is a paramount goal of the Com­ strategy fo r protecting and enhancing prehensive Waterfront Plan. As a result of natural areas and resources. federal and state legislative programs, wetlands and water bodies are no longer indiscriminate­ WAT ERFRONT RESOURCES AND ly filled, and dumping raw sewage into our THEIR SIGNIFICANCE waterways has been largely curtailed. Govern­ ment actions spurred by the environmental Living organisms need an abundant supply of movement have led to greatly improved water clean air, fo od, sunshine and water to survive c quality and a leaner harbor. Indeed, new in health. As responsible land stewards, we opportunities fo r waterfront recreation, hous­ need to safeguard for future generations the ing, and mixed commercial uses have been life support systems of surface and ground made possible as a result of these often dra­ water, plant communities and animal habitats. matic improvements. This is not to say that existing legislation and Natural waterfront resources are clearly pre­ programs are completely adequate or that New cious in our dense urban environment. For Yo rk City has fully integrated its environmen­ centuries New Yo rk City filled in many of its tal values with those of commerce and private wetlands and waterways, and released the by­ land use. The need to balance environmental products of business and communities directly values with other legitimate social and eco­ into surrounding waters. Until relatively re­ nomic needs still requires attention. cently, the environmental legacy of this great city was compromised without restraint. How much of the remaining natural waterfront is necessary to sustain city, regional and nation­ The reemergence of significant fish and shore al interests? What are the intrinsic values of the bird populations is evidence of water quality natural waterfrontin terms of food chain, flood improvements. Wetlands and shallow waters protection, water quality and quality of life? within Jamaica Bay, the and How are the economic, social and health values offer superb fe eding and of the naturalwaterfront factored into land use breeding habitat for vast numbers of resident decisions? Are there natural areas which merit and migratory shorebirds. The waters of the special protection? Hudson River support many fish species, including . Natural areas inter­ To address these questions, the plan for the spersed with other uses along the shore pro­ Natural Waterfront seeks to: vide important flood protection, opportunities • articulate the values of natural waterfront for commercial fishing and recreation, and resources and increase public awareness of scenes of great natural beauty. their importance;

17 We tlands in Ja maica Bay

WETLANDS

Wetlands are areas frequently inundated or It was not until the 1960s that the value of saturated by surface water or . wetlands began to be recognized. Saltwater tidal wetlands and inland freshwater wetlands are among the most productive Heightened public attention translated into environments in the world, from two to eight federal legislation in 1970 with the passage of times more productive than the most inten­ the National Environmental Policy Act and the sively farmed land. They support an amazing soon after. The State of New variety of plant and wildlife species; they Yo rk followed with its own Environmental absorb and dissipate wind-driven storm waves Conservation Law, Articles 24 and 25, which and act as flood water storage areas; and they regulate land use in both tidal and freshwater trap sediment to naturally cleanse wetlands and their adjacent buffe r zones. The of phosphorus, and other water 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act pollutants. (Map 3.0.) (Section 404) authorize fe deral regulation of the placement of dredge and fill materials. Wetlands were once viewed as wastelands and Section 404 is administered jointly by the U.S. sources of disease that were to be filled in and Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Envi­ destroyed. Of the estimated 224,000 acres of ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). freshwater wetlands in the area of New Yo rk City before the American Revolution, less than Both state and federal regulations require 3,000 acres exist today. Of the original 16,000 permits to develop within wetlands. acres of tidal wetlands in Jamaica Bay, only 4,000 acres remain.

18 MAP 3.0

"' , , I I I I ---' ( \ Queens I I I I I I I I I 1 \

Brooklyn

Wetlands

major tidal wetlands

major freshwater wetlands within the Coastal Zone

Source: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront Tidal Wetlands qumng many of Staten Island's freshwater The State Department of Environmental Con­ wetlands and corridors to control servation (DEC) regulates virtually all actions flooding and pollution and to protect impor­ in mapped tidal wetlands and within a ISO-feet tant habitats. bufferarea adjacent to them. Exceptions to the bufferrequire ment occur when the elevation of the adjacent area exceeds ten fe et above mean high water or when a man-made structure such as a bulkhead exists. DEC uses its own tidal wetland maps to determine whether a permit is required fo r any proposed activity within tidal wetland areas. A proposed action may also require an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which determines the type and level of permit review needed.

Most of New Yo rk City's tidal wetlands, which constitute almost · 20 percent of the state's 25,000 acres, are located in Jamaica Bay. Other large concentrations of tidal wetlands are found along the Arthur Kill, at Fresh Kills, at Pelham Bay Park and along the intertidal shorelines of Long Island Sound. Small areas Restricted area signage of tidal wetlands and inter-tidal mud flats are also found along the shorelines of all five Wetland Issues boroughs. In addition to tidal wetlands, lands Although wetlands are regulated by several under water support a great variety of plants and organisms that are integral to the food agencies, overlapping and often confusing chain fo r fish, shellfish and other wildlife. regulatory regimes may not adequately protect These areas are under state jurisdiction and are them. For example, the Corps of Engineers being inventoried by DEP. does not regulate adjacent areas, and DEC does not regulate upland areas adjacent to Freshwater Wetlands wetlands if they are the result of fill and are DEC regulates activities occurring within more than 10 feet above sea level. Construc­ designated freshwater wetlands and within a tion in these unregulated areas can generate 100-foot buffer area. Staten Island is the only runoffand other disturbances that may harm area within the city's coastal zone that contains adjacent wetlands. Even when regulated, some DEC-designated freshwaterwe tlands; however, buffer areas may not be deep enough to pro­ DEC recently released a draft map of fresh­ tect the wetland ecosystem which may contain water wetlands in Queens, some of which are important grassland and woodland habitats. in the coastal zone. DEC's jurisdiction covers wetland areas over 12.4 acres and smaller Although many of the city's wetlands, both wetlands of "unusual local importance." tidal and freshwater, are within parks and therefore can be managed and protected prop­ Staten Island's 2,000 acres of freshwater wet­ erly, others may warrant special attention to lands have been designated by DEC because avoid cumulative impacts from surrounding their hydrologic connections provide impor­ land uses. The effects of development on the tant storm water management benefits, en­ integrity of the larger watershed must be hance water quality, and serve as important considered, and stepped-up state and fe deral wildlife and bird habitat corridors. The city's surveillance and monitoring may be necessary Departments of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enforce regulations. and Environmental Protection (DEP) are ac-

20 Because the exact boundaries of wetlands are flourish. These areas usually provide a combi­ not always clearly definedby the agencies that nation of environmental and biological condi­ regulate them, landowners may not know how tions well-suited to the needs of threatened or much of their property can be developed and, rare species. Fisheries and aquatic habitats consequently, wetland values may be impaired include shellfish beds, surf clam areas, prime by inadvertent filling. The current wetland fishing areas and finfish migratory pathways. maps, dating back to 1974, are at a scale that Significant wildlife habitats occur within spe­ makes accurate delineation difficult. DEC is cific areas known to serve an essential role in revising the maps (by transferring them to the maintaining wildlife, particularly in wintering, State Plane mapping system) to allow fo r breeding and migrating. easier and more accurate interpretation. In response to the Department of State's com­ For · wetlands outside city, state and fe deral mitment to designate significant coastal fish parklands, the lack of clear jurisdictional re­ and wildlife habitats throughout New Yo rk, sponsibility oftenmakes them a no-man's-land DEC has identified, evaluated and recom­ subject to illegal fill, unsightly dumping and mended areas it considers significant coastal vandalism. Some of these wetlands eventually fish and wildlife habitats. DEC defines a habi­ will be annexed to adjacent parks; other isolat­ tat as significant if it exhibits one or more of ed wetlands face a continuing need fo r main­ the fo llowing characteristics: tenance and management. • It is essential to the survival of a large SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND portion of a particular fish and wildlife WILDLIFE HABITATS population.

Significantco astal fish and wildlife habitats are • It supports populations of species that areas needed by certain species, either season­ are endangered, threatened or of special ally or permanently, if they are to survive and concern.

Black-crowned Night Heron, Four Sp arrows , Brooklyn Source: Mike Feller DPR-NRG

21 • It supports fish and wildlife populations The city has raised concerns about the need to that have significant commercial, recre­ balance protection of significant coastal re­ ational or educational value. sources with economic and social goals. Desig­ nated habitats in parks and lower-density • It is of a type not commonly found in the state or the New Yo rk City region. residential areas generally do not present a problem. Where proposed habitats coincide Based on DEC's evaluation, the New Yo rk with important economic generators like JFK Department of State's Division of Coastal Airport and the West Side Passenger Ship Resources and Waterfront Revitalization has Terminal, however, a balanced approach is proposed 15 New Yo rk City coastal fish and essential. A case in point is the proposed wildlife habitat areas for designation under the Hudson River designation - a significant city's Waterfront Revitalization Program. The aquatic resource adjacent to a highly urban proposed designations are: Lemon Creek, Fresh Kills, Prall's Island, Sawmill Creek Marshes, waterfront with active port facilities, existing Pond, Shooter's Island, Lower and planned mixed use development, and Hudson River, North and South Brother opportunities for greatly expanded waterborne Islands, Pelham Bay Park Wetlands, Little transportation and waterside public access and Neck Bay, Wetlands, Udalls recreation. In response to the city's concerns, Cove, and Willow lakes, Jamaica Bay the state's draft impact assessment guidelines and Breezy Point. Breezy Point, North and for the Hudson River support habitat protec­ South Brother Islands, Prall's Island and tion goals and, at the same time, acknowledge Shooter's Island provide upland nesting and the special navigational requirements of the roosting shorebird habitat; the other designat­ passenger ship terminal. The draft guidelines ed areas are open water and wetlands. All are are also consistent with the planning goals of within the WRP Coastal Zone. (Map 3.1.) the West Side Waterfront Panel. Designation of these areas would provide locational specificity to WRP Policy ?, which In other proposed habitats, such as Lemon states that "significant coastal fish and wildlife Creek, the guidelines must be flexible enough habitats will be protected, preserved, and, to allow for recreational activity as well as where practical, restored so as to maintain habitat enhancement. To the extent that the their viability as habitats." Proposed actions guidelines fo r the Significant Coastal Fish and within the city's coastal zone boundary would Wildlife Habitat designations are sensitive to then be reviewed for their potential to harm a these distinctions, they will become a model designated habitat. for revising and refining WRP policies.

Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Issues BEACHES AND COASTAL EROSION AREAS The Department of State expects to adopt the Natural fe atures such as beaches, bluffs , dunes Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat designation program later this year. Questions and near-shore shallow waters absorb wave remain, however, as to the completeness of the energy and protect coastlines from wind and designations and the scope and interpretation of water erosion and storm-induced high water. environmental impact assessment guidelines Beaches and bluffs are a source of sand fo r which have been proposed for each area. The other beaches and for offshore sandbar and designation program employs a Habitat Impair­ shoal building. Dunes and their associated ment Test which establishes thresholds to deter­ vegetation provide additional protection from mine a proposed activity's potential to signifi­ storm-driven waves and high water, and they cantly impair or destroy a habitat. The program provide nesting sites fo r waterbirds such as provides Impact Assessment Guidelines fo r each terns and plovers. designated area, with generic examples of activi­ ties that could impair the habitat.

22 MAP 3.1

Park

Meadow & , �\} Wil low Lakes , "",,,,,, ,' .. " , < , ,

, , , , , , ,

>

, ,

Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Designations

� Area proposed for designation L.:..:..:..:..:

Source: NYS Department of State (1 991)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront Protection of these shoreline features is regu­ changing environment of shiftingsands and a lated by Article 34 of the State Environmental relatively static environment of buildings and Conservation Law, the Coastal Erosion Hazard infrastructure. Beaches, boardwalks and shore­ Areas Act. Pursuant to the act, DEC has front communities are valuable assets that mapped coastal erosion areas in New Yo rk City must be protected and maintained. If placed where coastal storm damage is likely to happen. inappropriately and without effe ctive shore protection, these assets can be destroyed or New York City is fo rtunate to have a signifi­ become prohibitively expensive to maintain. cant stretch of beachfront along the Rockaway Peninsula and Coney Island. In its August 1989 Flooding and Erosion The south shore of Staten Island also faces Report fo r the Arverne Urban Renewal Area, seaward across the wide mouth of the Raritan the Department of City Planning reviewed Bay. All three areas are characterized by erod­ techniques fo r shore and flood protection ing sand beaches buffeted by coastal storms along Rockaway's Atlantic shoreline. The and wind-blown waves; all three are state­ report found that without aggressive shore designated coastal erosion hazard areas. Other management, the shoreline would retreat shorelines in the city, though not designated hazard areas, sustain intermittent erosion considerably over the next 30 years. The damage. (Map 3.2.) Arverne report recommended a variety of nonstructural erosion control measures in­ Coastal Erosion Issues cluding beach nourishment, dune field cre­ Effective management of the city's Atlantic ation, and siting all development upland of Ocean shoreline requires a balance between a the DEC Coastal Erosion Hazard Line.

Coastal erosion at Plumb Beach, Brooklyn

24 MAP 3.2

Erosion Hazard Areas

••••••••••• designated coastal erosion hazard areas

sandy beaches

Source: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront Another important coastal erosion planning WAT ER QUALITY study, Proposed Long Island South Shore New Yo rk Harbor, or more accurately the Hazard Management Program, 1989, exam­ Hudson-Raritan estuary, lies at the center of a ined the exposure and vulnerability of Long large integrated coastal system consisting of the Island's south shore. The report called for a Hudson River, a network of tidal straits (Ar­ comprehensive, coordinated, long-term ap­ thur Kill, Kill Va n Kull, Harlem River, East proach to erosion and flooding problems, and River), open and enclosed bays (Raritan, it assessed erosion management options Jamaica and New Yo rk bays) and Long Island similar to those explored in the Arverne Sound. study. It recommended the establishment of an erosion monitoring program, including New Yo rk Harbor is subject to large loadings data base maintenance, beach profilesu rveys, of municipal and industrial wastewater and aerial photography, wave gauge deployment non-point runoff from city streets and the and shoreline response modelling. The pro­ surrounding urban complex. Water quality gram would extend from Coney Island to conditions have significantly improved in most Montauk Point. areas of the harbor in the last 20 years, pri­ marily because of the city's investment in New York City has been invited to participate enhanced control of sewage and industrial in the Long Island South Shore Monitoring discharges. Program as a member of a technical advisory committee. DCP's 1992 aerial photographs of Signs of water quality improvement include the city's entire natural coastline will provide increased striped bass stocks; increases in valuable base data for the program. The com­ dissolved ; decreases in concen­ mittee will provide advice, technical oversight, trations, PCBs and insecticides; and dramatic and coordination of action plans, interagency decreases in sewage . Wood-borer agreements and funding efforts. infestation of marine pilings, re-establishment of peregrine falcon and osprey breeding popu­ At Coney Island, the Army Corps of Engi­ lations, and the re-opening of Seagate Beach neers is proposing a beach nourishment on Coney Island after40 years provide further project, which over the next 50 years will indications that water quality is improving. deposit nearly nine million cubic yards of sand to build and maintain the beaches. The The Federal Water Pollution Control Act new beaches will provide storm protection requires all waters of the to be and recreational benefits. fishable and swimmable to the maximum extent practicable. DEC has classified the The south shore of Staten Island, though a waters of New Yo rk Harbor based on fo ur designated coastal erosion hazard area, is not categories of best usage, each with cor­ currently included in the Long Island moni­ responding water quality standards. Shellfish­ toring program. Several other areas in Staten ing is the highest use category; bathing, fishing Island, including portions of the Kill Van and fish survival require successively less Kull, and Alice Austen Park shorelines have stringent water quality standards. Bathing significant erosion problems due to unpro­ waters are called fo r in the Long Island Sound, tected and exposed shorelines. These areas are the Hudson River above Riverdale, the South affected principally by vessel-generated wakes Shore of Staten Island, Coney Island, Jamaica and by wind-driven waves and high water. Bay and the Rockaways. The city's compliance Along the , erosion is so severe with water quality standards in 1990 was the that portions of the inactive North Shore rail highest ever recorded. (Map 3.3.) track have been undermined.

26 MAP 3.3

Newark Bay (N.J.)

New York Harbor Water Quality Goals ·

1 . 1;.:f::;·::;::;·j:1 shellfish harvesting 3. fishing

2. bathing fish survival _ 4. _

Source: NYSDEC, Best UseCl assifications for (1 991)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront Recreational boating in Long Island Sound

In areas Of the city that are served by septic ment master plan, were constructed at a cost systems, Staten Island in particular, ground of $1.4 billion: the North River plant began and surface waters may be negatively affected operations in 1986 and the Red Hook plant when systems are not designed properly or in 1987. (Map 3.4.) when ground water tables are close to the surface. DEP is refining septic regulations to In fiscal year 1991, the city's 14 water pollu­ deal with this problem. tion control plants processed 1,611 million gallons per day (MGD) or 159 MGD less than Sewage Treatment their total State Pollution Discharge Elimina­ Since the 1930s, New York City has been a tion System (SPDES) permit. Although most national leader in the design and operation of of the city's plants have excess permitted wastewater treatment fa cilities. New Yo rk capacity, two of them - Wards Island and pioneered the use of modern wastewater North River - currently exceed their permit treatment technology with the construction of capacity. The Coney Island and Owls Head the Coney Island treatment plant in 1935. plants are operating at capacity. The city's Three additional plants were constructed on water conservation effo rts are beginning to the East River by 1938, and two plants dis­ show positive results. Newtown Creek flows charging into Jamaica Bay were operating by have decreased more than 20 MGD over the 1942. Five more plants, fo r a total of 11, were last 12 months, which has brought it within completed during the next 10 years. In 1967, the limits of its permit capacity. Other treat­ the Newtown Creek plant became the city's mant plant flows should show similar im­ 12th and largest plant. The 13th and 14th provements as the water conservation pro­ plants, which complete the city's sewage treat- gram is expanded citywide.

28 MAP 3.4

Water Pollution Control Plant RatedCapacity 150 MGO- Coney Island 100 Hunts o P int 200 Jamaica 100 Newtown Creek 310 North River 170 Oakwood Beach 40 Owls Head 120 Port Richmond 60 Red Hook 60 Rockaway 45 Taliman Island 80 26th Ward 85 Wards Island 250 -miiiion galions perday

Water Pollution Control Plants

• water pollution control plant

service area of plant

Source: NYCDEP, NYC's Combined Sewer OverflowProg ram, (1991)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront Eleven of the city's plants are operating at The city's DEP, in cooperation with federal, secondary treatment levels. The upgrading to state, local and private interests, initiated a secondary treatment standards of the Owls Floatables Action Program in 1989, in re­ Head and Coney Island plants is under way sponse to widely publicized beach closings the and will be completed by 1995; the Newtown previous summer. In that year almost 60 Creek plant upgrading will extend into the miles of beaches in New Yo rk and New Jersey next century. were closed several times at an estimated loss of $2 billion to marine and recreation busi­ Combined Sewer Overflows nesses. The Floatables Action Program, which Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and attempts to capture materials at their source, stormwater discharges are a major source of skims them from harbor waters and cleans and floatable material now enter­ beaches, has been successful. Virtually no ing New York Harbor. Combined sewer beaches have been closed in the last two systems (75 percent of the city's 6,000 miles summers due to floatables. of sewers) transport both stormwater and sewerage in the same pipes, which discharge Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution into the treatment plants. During heavy rainfall, however, untreated effluent bypasses Non-point pollution is caused by runoff from the plants and is discharged directly into land surfaces. Runoff comes fromres idential waterways. lawns, highways and urban streets, seeping septic tanks, leaking , construction The city's CSO abatement program is intend­ sites and chemical spills. It is a major factor ed to eliminate unacceptable levels of water in the continuing degradation of many coastal pollution in vulnerable tributaries, bays and waters. New Yo rk City's Local Law 7 (Section inlets. Retention tanks will store combined PlIO.O) sets standards fo r the design of system effluent during rainfall and pump it stormwater systems; its fo cus, however, is back to treatment plants afterthe rain. Disin­ primarily on structural systems and efficient fe cting facilities also are envisioned as part of removal of stormwater, rather than on non­ the CSO program. DEP anticipates that 12 structural methods to minimize the effects of retention facilities will be required, which will pollution on receiving waterways. take 10 to 15 years to complete at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion. Planning for two Runoff in New York City is typically captured projects, Flushing Bay and , is in stormwater systems that eventually dis­ near completion. The first CSO abatement charge through one of 448 outfalls to the facility began operation in 1972 at Spring waters of the harbor. Most of these outfall Creek in Brooklyn and has resulted in a . structures are not regulated by permit al­ measurable improvement of the Creek's water though they are conduits for much of the quality. (Map 3.5.) city's non-point pollution. DEP is embarking Floatables Action Program on a program to identify and classify storm­ water discharges resulting in water quality Floatables discharged into the harbor are a impairment and develop management stan­ problem fo r aesthetic reasons and because dards to control them. In addition, illegal they can hurt or kill marine mammals, sea­ connections to storm sewer pipes are esti­ birds and fish. It is estimated that 25,000 mated to contribute 1.9 million gallons of pounds of floatable material, much of it raw sewage per day to the harbor. DEP has plastic, is discharged from combined sewer overflows each warm weather month. This completed a Shoreline Survey Program to material is primarily street litter. identify sources of illegal discharge.

30 MAP 3.5

...... ,.'" '. FluShing " -', Bay & . , Creek , . . . ,

'II' ,.. ",� " , , <

, .. , , , ,

Paerdagat Basin Kill VanKull

Arthur Kill

Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program

East River area-wide projects Project Area

Lemon Creek tributary projects

waterway targeted for improvement

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront Stormwater outfa ll

Recognizing this important issue, in 1990 For example, two Staten Island beaches, South Congress established the Coastal Non-Point and Midland, are consistently off limits to Pollution Control Program (Section 6217) swimmers because of persistently high bacterial which requires the coastal states to implement levels. PCB and dioxin contamination have policies and management measures to control caused a ban on the consumption and sale of non-point sources of coastal pollution. Both 18 species of ,fish caught in the harbor. Except in portions of the Lower Bay, shellfishharv est­ the Department of State and DEC (in consul­ ing is severely restricted because pathogens and tation with DEP and DCP) will need to toxic chemicals may be present - a legacy of develop non-point programs by the end of past industrial practices. 1994, as required by Congress. Removal of harmfulsedim ents has been ham­ Water Quality Issues pered by lack of agreement on safe dredging The quality of New Yo rk City's waterways has practices and disposal sites. This has been a improved steadily and substantially as a result particular problem in channels like Newtown of the city's aggressive environmental leader­ Creek, where dredging is essential to the ship and billions of dollars of investment in industrhd operations along its shores. environmental infrastructure. Programs in One of the more intractable problems is the place - CSO abatement, treatment plant hundreds of small outfalls which discharge upgrading and industrial pre-treatment - are wastewater, stormwater runoff and street litter addressing the principal contributors to pollu­ into the open waters of the harbor. Existing tion in the city's harbor and tributaries. Never­ state and local laws and programs do not theless, continuing vigilance will be necessary appear adequate to control these numerous, to counter a number of outstanding problems. diverse sources of coastal pollution.

32 Public policies concerning water quality stan­ • Wetlands acquisition, though not fe asi­ dards need to be sharpened and refinedso that ble universally, is the preferred alterna­ they are better understood, more predictable, tive where management mechanisms are and better tied to goals for individual water available. A coordinated acquisition pro­ bodies. WRP policies relating to water quality, gram should include continued support for example, make no distinction between the fo r DEP's acquisition of Staten Island costs and benefits of water quality improve­ freshwater wetlands as a means of storm ments in Jamaica Bay and in the Gowanus water management and pollution con­ Canal - water bodies with vastly different trol; and, as fundingis available, DPR's uses and values. continued acquisition of valuable wet­ lands where existing natural area parks New waterfrontdev elopment willplace addition­ can be expanded or new ones created. al demands on the city's wastewater treatment In addition, DCP will explore a Transfer system. To control and reduce the quantity of of Development Rights program to shift wastewater entering the plants that exceed development from ecologically sensitive permitted capacity the city is evaluating and areas to less vulnerable sites. pursuing several methods: accelerated water conservation programs, including metering, to • A realistic and achievable strategy is reduce flow;bet ter use of excess plant capacity needed to attain the goal of "no net where available; and expanded plant capacity loss" of wetlands, which has been pro­ when necessary. Adequate wastewater treat­ posed as an amendment to the Clean ment capacity is a citywide need that is not Water Act by the National Wetlands unique to the waterfront; it is essential to the Policy Forum. DEC and interested city city's growth and prosperity and to the conser­ agencies should define acceptable miti­ vation of its valuable coastal resources. gation alternatives for proposed actions that would adversely affect an existing wetland, and develop a database and THE PLAN FOR THE NATURAL tracking system to monitor changes in WAT ERFRONT the city's wetland inventory. A mitigation program would include an inventory of The plan for the city's Natural Waterfront is potential sites and design standards for presented in two parts: a set of strategies to mitigation projects. address natural waterfrontissues citywide; and the designation of three natural areas with • City agencies, including the Departments special significance which merit heightened of Sanitation, Transportation, Parks and attention and strategies tailored to their unique Recreation, and Environmental Protec­ environments. This plan, along with the plans tion, should pursue a clean-up and for the pUblic, working and redeveloping guardrail program designed to stop waterfronts, form a balanced and comprehen­ illegal access and dumping in the most sive vision for the future of the city's entire vulnerable wetlands. The city should waterfront. explore using the Department of General Services' Program, CITYWIDE · STRATEGY which deans and greens large tracts of Wetlands inner-city vacant land, to maintain Because activities in most wetlands are already wetland areas unsuitabie fo r parkland. regulated by state and fe deral law, the appro­ priate protection strategy fo r the city's tidal and freshwater wetlands is not additional regulation. Rather, a set of management strate­ gies is needed to deal with land acquisition priorities and regulatory coordination.

33 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, DEP, DCP and DEC should Habitats reexamine minimum buffer requirements applying to tidal wetlands adjacent to • The city should support the state's pro­ posed Significant Fish and Wildlife filled land more than 10 fe et above mean Habitat designations, provided that: sea level, explore selective expansion of the 150�foot buffer area, and develop DEC, the Department of State and the "best management" practices to control Army Corps of Engineers agree on coor­ runoffand guide development of storm­ dinated, flexible and achievable stan­ water management systems. dards fo r harbor dredge and maintenance programs, which appro­ Coastal Erosion priately balance resource protection and economic development goals; and the • The fe deral government should pro­ program is refinedto clarify the scope vide uninterrupted funding cycles to and interpretation of the proposed im­ maintain beach nourishment programs pact guidelines and provide fo r reassess­ at Rockaway and Coney Island, includ­ ment of the program every five years. ing Sea Gate and Plumb Beach. The state and city should explore other approach­ • The city's Waterfront Revitalization Pro­ es, such as dune building, off-shore sand gram should be amended to incorporate bar building and other innovative pro­ the designations, and in the interim, the grams, which may reduce erosion. designations should be used to guide the

application of WRP Policy 7 relating to • The city should participate in the Long habitat preservation. Island South Shore Monitoring Program and extend such a program to eroding • For wetlands that are adjacent to or part Staten Island shorelines as well. of Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife

Wi ldlife habitat at Preserve, Queens Source: Aurora Gareiss

34 Shore protection jetties at , Rockaway

Water Quality Board, should develop a citywide strategy to address non-point sources of pollu­ • The city should continue upgrading its water pollution control plants, increase tion, including stormwater runoff guide­ lines to be incorporated in local law, as water conservation efforts to lessen the volume of wastewater entering the plants, necessary. and advance the CSO Abatement Pro­ • Water quality enhancement programs gram. Where feasible, CSO facilities including CSO and non-point runoff should be designed to accommodate abatement, should be directed to the waterfront recreation and access and, if waterways that provide coastal signifi­ appropriate, environmental education. cant fish and wildlife habitat, support recreational use, or presently impede • DEP and DCP should accelerate their redevelopment efforts. inter-agency coordination efforts by establishing a land use and infrastructure working committee to develop accurate SPECIAL NATURAL WATERFRONT AREAs demand fo recasts that would ensure ade­ Three geographic areas within New Yo rk City quate wastewater treatment capacity fo r possess special assemblages of significance fo r all development. the natural waterfront. They are the Jamaica Bay/Rockaway Peninsula; portions of the Staten • DEC, DEP, the Army Corps and the Port Island coastline; and sections of the Long Authority should develop a safe, expedi­ tious and realistic dredging program to Island Sound shorelines of Queens and the _ Bronx. Each has a combination of important remove and dispose of contaminated sedi­ natural fe atures that are recognized and pro­ ments, particularly within Newtown Creek, tected under a variety of regulatory programs, Gowanus Canal and Coney Island Creek. including proposed Significant Coastal Fish

• DCP and DEP, in coordination with the and Wildlife Habitats, Coastal Erosion Hazard New Yo rk Soil and Water Conservation Areas, and Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands.

35 Ja maica Bay and Spring Creek, Queens and Brooklyn

The Special Natural Wa terfront Areas desig­ requirements for surrounding land uses, ap­ nated in this plan are areas in which natural propriate dredging cycles to minimize impacts values assume particular importance. Major on aquatic life, access limitations during bird portions of all three areas are mapped park­ nesting periods, and restrictions on fill,excava­ land. In large parts of the remaining sections, tion and shoreline construction that would development is controlled by zoning and other result in the loss of productive habitat in regulations aimed at protecting natural re­ previously undisturbed areas. sources. The designations call attention to these enclaves of natural beauty which offer Jamaica Bay Special Natural Waterfront environmental benefits to all the city's citizens. Area It is a foundation fo r identifying gaps in protection, opportunities fo r enhanced protec­ The quality and relationship of its natural tive measures, and improved program and features, including wetlands, shallow water policy coordination. habitats and coastal beaches, make Jamaica Bay one of the few intact natural ecosystems in In addition to strategies specific to each area, New Yo rk City. The shoreline surrounding enhanced protection fo r all three would be Jamaica Bay is mostly parkland, either part of provided by modifying WRP policies to give the Gateway National Re creation Area or added weight and greater specificity to natural under the jurisdiction of the New Yo rk City resource values in these areas. For example, Department of Parks and Recreation. Low- to WRP Policy 7 would be revised to include mid-density residential uses (R2 - R6 zoning), review guidelines specific to each area with large tracts of vacant city-owned land, JFK respect to its designation as a Significant International Airport and some industrial and Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Guidelines commercial uses occupy the remainder of the would include such considerations as buffer bayfront.

36 MAP 3.6

Queens

Brooklyn

Nassau

Jamaica Bay Special Natural Waterfront Area

E- .-1 tidal wetlands • city-owned property · I·· ···· ·1 proposed Significant Coastal airport bold Fish & Wildlife Habitat name �

.,., park

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan I NYC Department of City Planning I Natural Waterfront Two of the 15 proposed Significant Coastal Despite this panoply of protective regulation, Fish and Wildlife Habitats are located in the the waters of Jamaica Bay receive pollutants Jamaica Bay/Rockaway Peninsula Area. The from various sources. Leachate enters the bay Jamaica Bay designation is the largest in the from the inactive Fountain, city. The open waters and tidal marshes of Avenue and Edgemere landfills. Untreated Jamaica Bay are within the Atlantic Flyway, stormwater entering the bay from both point one of the major pathways in the western and non-point sources contains petrochemicals hemisphere fo r migratory birds; the bay sup­ and tloatables that contribute to the overall ports more than 300 species of birds. It is also degradation of water quality. The construction a productive area fo r marine finfish and shell­ of JFK and the 1962 extension of a runway fish. It serves as a nursery and fe eding area fo r into Grassy Bay has impaired water quality by winter and bluefish, among other interfering with the bay's natural counterclock­ species, and it supports shellfish populations wise circulation. including hard clams, softclams, mussels, rock and summer feeding of Kemp Ridley DEP's Combined Sewer Abatement Pro­ turtles, an endangered species. The second gram-including the Jamaica Bay area-wide proposed habitat designation, Breezy Point, is program and the retention fa cilities planned one of the few areas of undeveloped barrier fo r its tributaries including Paerdegat Basin­ beach habitat in New Yo rk State and is home will address one of the major sources of to a number of endangered species including pollution in the bay. the and . (Map 3.6.) Further effo rts to protect and improve the The area contains one of the two coastal quality of the bay's rare ecosystem are made beaches in New Yo rk City, and much of the possible by a fortunate combination of cir­ shoreline around the bay is tidal wetland. cumstances. The first is the existence of an Many of the wetlands are on the islands in the active Jamaica Bay Task Force of public and bay's interior, which are part of the Gateway private members committed to coordinated preserve. Large expanses of fo rmer wetland policy and program development. Task Force fringing the bay have been filled to create members include fe deral, state and city agen­ developable upland. Much of the Flatlands and cies, universities and institutions, community Canarsie sections of Brooklyn, JFK Interna­ and environmental organizations, elected tional Airport, the Park Landfill and the Foun­ officials, community boards and individual tain and Pennsylvania Avenue landfills are citizens. A second important advantage is that located on filled areas originally occupied by most of the bay's natural systems are in salt marsh, meandering tidal creeks, and the public ownership, allowing greater control open waters of the bay. and sensitivity in the disposition, develop­ ment and management of these parcels. In addition to the protections offered by parkland and wetland designations, and the The strategy fo r Jamaica Bay capitalizes on proposed Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife these assets. It attempts to resolve competing habitats designations, DEC designated the bay proposals fo r the use of city-owned land, and as a Critical Environmental Area in 1990. The it looks to the Jamaica Bay Task Force as the designation requires closer scrutiny of potential principal agent fo r coordinating responses to environmental impacts (under state and city area-wide issues. environmental review procedures) fo r discre­ tionary actions within the bay or DEC-regu­ lated wetlands.

38 Illegal dumping at Edgemere, Queens

Strategyfor Jamaica Bay Special Natural • An inter-agency committee (DCP, DEP, Waterfront Area EDC and the National Parks Service) should work with the Port Authority to Policies and Programs minimize and reverse adverse water qual­ • The city in consultation with the Jamaica ity impacts caused by JFK operations. It Bay Task Force should develop specific is important, however, to balance this buffer and non-point runoffguide lines objective with the airport's safety re­ for Jamaica Bay. The guidelines would be quirements and its critical role in the incorporated into applicable WRPpoli­ city's economy. cies for review of discretionary actions in the area and, if appropriate, would be • The Department of Sanitation and Envi­ added to other local regulations. ronmental Protection should develop and initiate containment plans fo r the • The city, in consultation with the task Edgemere, Pennsylvania Av enue and force, should develop interim and long­ Fountain Av enue landfills, including range strategies to maintain and protect consideration of innovative bio-tech­ isolated vvetlands and other natural re­ nology approaches. sources inappropriate fo r parkland designa­ tion. Measures should include stepped-up Land Disposition enforcement of the Department of Sani­ As a general policy, this plan recommends tation ban on illegal dumping, installa­ consolidation and transfer of the most eco­ tion of bollards or fences to prevent logically sensitive sites, including adequate vehicles from entering the areas, and upland buffe rs, to the Department of Parks participation of community boards and and Recreation, which would serve as land local civic and homeowner associations steward. Other sites, Le., those that are highly as land stewards. disturbed wetlands or previously filled areas,

39 may be developed fo r other uses provided • Spring Creek, straddling the Brooklyn­ that care is taken to ensure that development Queens border, contains one of the is sensitive to the surrounding natural areas. most important wetlands in Jamaica Bay In accordance with the city's property dispo­ as well as extensive upland vacant par­ sition procedures fo r sites deemed "signifi­ cels. The wetlands complex, with a cant," site planning guidelines would be meandering natural creek, is about 40 developed by DCP in consultation with DPR, acres in size. The area generally south of DEP and other affected agencies. The guide­ Flatlands Avenue, which contains Old lines would ensure appropriate relationship of Mill Creek, associated tidal wetlands development and natural features by address­ and buffe r areas, should be mapped as ing such considerations as the use, density and configuration of development; adequate an addition to . To buffer areas; non-intrusive access locations; consolidate the parkland assemblage, and runoff management. several privately-owned parcels should be acquired and certain streets de­ The following strategies are recommended fo r mapped. The remaining upland parcels each bayfront area with a significant concen­ lack ecological significance and are tration of city-owned vacant land. The rec­ appropriate fo r a variety of uses. Vege­ ommendations are informed, in part, by the tated buffe rs along Hendrix Creek should 1987 Buffe r the Bay report issued by the be included in the Spring Creek Urban Society and the Trust for Public Renewal Plan and around the proposed Land, and subsequent analysis of the bay's sludge dewatering facility on the western natural systems by DCP. side of Hendrix Creek.

• Four Sparrows Marsh, a 77-acre site, con­ tains a large, vigorous and undisturbed • The Hook Creek area near JFK and the wetland along Mill Basin Creek. Because it Nassau border contains more is one of the finest natural areas in the than 100 acres of undeveloped city­ city, most of the site should be transferred owned land mapped as Public Place. to DPR and mapped as park. Develop­ The parcel is mostly undisturbed tidal ment of an elevated boardwalk along the wetlands and should be consolidated wetland edge would allow fo r non-intru­ under DPR jurisdiction. sive public access to connect to Flatbush Avenue. A 12-acre upland parcel adjacent • Mott Point in Far Rockaway offe rs an to Flatbush Avenue, zoned C-3, can be opportunity to connect valuable wetland developed for residential uses under R3-2 habitat to state and city parks that oc­ zoning regulations, provided an appropri­ cupy most of the shoreline. Acquisition ate buffer is maintained. of an intervening private parcel by the city or state and street demapping are • Paerdegat Basin has been dredged and recommended. channeled and most of its adjacent marshes filled. The quality of its badly • Conch and SommerviIIe Basins on either polluted waters will improve with the side of the are edged planned installation of a CSO facility at by tidal wetlands. The newly established the head of the basin. The remaining wetland on the southwestern shore Dubos Point wildlife sanctuary frames should be transferred to DPR as an Sommerville Basin to the west. DCP's addition to adjacent McGuire Park. Edgemere Neighborhood Land Disposi­ Once the CSO facility is in place, some tion Plan recommends the designation of of the remaining city-owned land can be additional parkland as well as natural redeveloped for housing with generous shoreline preservation areas to preserve open space buffers and public access the shorefront within the proposed provided along both banks. Edgemere Urban Renewal Area.

40 • VernamlBarbadoes Peninsula contains 24 Staten Island contains most of the city's desig­ acres of city-owned land with intertidal nated freshwater wetlands. They were once marsh along its perimeter and an upland contiguous systems, but road and rail develop­ habitat of open shrub land. The parcel, ment has separated them, impeding the flow of which is zoned for light manufacturing water between them. The wetlands continue, use, can be appropriately developed if however, to be hydrologically interconnected, development is restricted to the prev­ serve the functions of flood control and iously disturbed upland area to the ground water purification, and are important maximum extent practicable, and is marine arid bird habitats. Most of Staten buffered to preserve the wetlands and Island's freshwaterwetl ands are within city and upland habitat. state parks, and many others are being ac­ quired or transferred, if city-owned, to DEP to Staten Island Special Natural implement its "" natural storm water Waterfront Area management program. Other important wood­ land or wetland habitats are being acquired by The southern and northwestern portions of DPR as funding becomes available. Staten Island are enriched by a confluence of freshwater and tidal wetlands, coastal beaches Because much of Staten Island's shoreline was and wildlife habitats. The northwestern qua­ not bulkheaded, vast portions of it remain in drant, currently the least protected natural a relatively natural state. These natural sections area, merits designation as one of the three support a broad system of tidal wetlands Special Natural Waterfront Areas in the city. primarily along the Arthur Kill, Fresh Kills and The shoreline is predominantly the south shore, with the largest concentra­ beachfront parkland mixed with low-density tions in the northwest quadrant of the island. residential development. The western The southeastern shore contains significant along the Arthur Kill is zoned mostly for stretches of coastal beachfront including South manufacturing use and is dominated by the Beach, Midland Beach, Oakwood Beach and 3,OOO-acre and extensive . Large sections of this beach­ front are designated Coastal Erosion Hazard wetlands, with scattered residential enclaves Areas by DEe. inland. (Map 3.7.)

Con Edison power plant on the Arthur Kill, Staten Is land

41 These sensitive natural features are afforded Nursery, which has been acquired and additional protection by the city's zoning transferred to DPR, is a link between the regulations. The Special South Richmond wildlife refuge and the rookeries and Development District, encompassing the foraging grounds in the Harbor Herons southern portion of the island, regulates devel­ Complex. opment with respect to tree removal, curb cuts, pa�king lots and street trees. The special • Prall's Island is a breeding area fo r her­ district protects valuable wetlands and wood­ ons and other waterbirds. The SO-acre lands through a system of Designated Open island is under DPR jurisdiction and is Spaces intended to remain in their natural managed by the NYC Audubon. state. In addition, Special Natural Area Zoning • Saw Mill Creek Marshes, including Districts, with a required review procedure for Chelsea Marsh, contain tidal and fresh­ development, encompass the steep slopes, water wetlands which are presently ponds, lakes, swamps and creeks of the island's compromised by abandoned cars and a central section. junkyard located along the shoreline of The least protected of the island's natural the creek. Most of the city-owned marsh­ resources are in the northwest along the Ar­ es are to be transferred to DPR. thur Kill and the western portion of the Kill • Goethals Bridge Pond, a 33-acre parcel, Van Kull. This area, bounded by the Isle of consists almost entirely of freshwater in the south, Holland Avenue, South wetlands. The pond is a fe eding site for Avenue and the West Shore Expressway on the wading and waterbirds; it has been ac­ north and east, contains one of the harbor's quired by the Trust for Public Land for most extensive wetlands systems. It has recent­ conveyance to DEC, with management to ly been colonized by several species of herons, be provided by DPR. Efforts continue to egrets and ibises and is identifiedas "the single acquire privately-owned parcels in the most important colonial waterbird rookery pond's watershed. complex in New Yo rk State" by the Trust for Public Land and the Audubon Society in their • Shooter's Island, in the Kill Van KUll Harbor Herons Report. The 1990 report rec­ near Port Ivory, is a significant colonial ommends acquisition and management of the waterbird rookery. The island is unin­ most sensitive areas as the primary means of habited and surrounded by derelict ves­ protection. sels and the remains of a World War Six of the 15 Significant Coastal Fish and One "shipbuilding facility. Ownership of Wildlife Habitats proposed by the Department Shooter's Island is split: the northern of State are in Staten Island. Five of the six portion is owned by two New Jersey are located in the northwest section of the counties and the southern two-thirds by island- the Harbor Herons Complex. All or New Yo rk City, which manages the is­ portions of these proposed habitat areas are land under a Management Agreement. publicly-owned or slated for acquisition as parkland or open space, which provides The northwestern section of Staten Island is added protection. blanketed with an interlocking network of creeks, tidal and freshwater wetlands, swamps • Fresh Kills includes the William T. Davis and marshes. From north to south, they in­ Wildlife Refuge (part of the Staten Island clude: Mariner's Marsh, a fragile complex of Greenbelt) and other open water and freshwater marshes and ponds, meadows, wetland areas. The 260-acre wildlife woods and streams near the Arlington Yards; refuge sustains more than 100 different Graniteville Swamp, a mostly privately owned species of birds. The former Mohlenhoff intact swamp forest north of the Staten Island

42 MAP 3.7

Graniteville Swamp

Expressway

Staten New Island Jersey Teleport

Neck Creek Da vis Wildlife Refuge

Staten Island

Fresh Kills

Staten Island Special Natural Waterfront Area

• •• •. •;; l;: • . . /' �;:�J wetlands open water KW; shrub I grasslands I woods - highway J c:J proposedSigni ficant Coastal rail line bold Fish & Widllife Habitat n .....

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Natural Waterfront eventually drains into Saw Mill and Old Place Creeks. Development intruding into these . areas could subject the marshes of Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek to spring floods, lower summer water levels and increased pollution.

The Howland Hook Container Port and other inactive or underutilized industrial facilities occupy the northernmost portion of this special Natural Waterfront Area, and contain both fresh and tidal wetlands.

Strategyfor the ·Staten Island Special Natural Waterfront Area An array of zoning regulations, environmental regulations and land acquisition programs provide a·remar kable level of protection fo r natural features in most of Staten Island. In these areas, the strategy focuses on continued implementation of existing and planned pro­ grams. (See Appendix A, Summary of Reach Recommendations for South Shore and Arthur Kill South.) Only in the Harbor Herons Com­ plex is a more integrated approach necessary to ensure adequate protection and manage­ Howland Hook cargo cranes, Staten Island ment of its unique resources.

Expressway; Old Place Creek, a drainage outlet • The city should explore the establishment for an extensive watershed and a feeding of a natural resource management and ground for egrets and other wading birds; research program fo r the Northern Arthur Gulfport Marsh surrounded by an enormous Kill area. Va rious state and federal fund­ oil tank farm; Neck Creek, a highly productive ing sources should be examined. The tidal and freshwater marsh complex and forag­ rare mix of active maritime uses and ing link between Prall's Island and the Davies industry in this large and varied ecosys­ Wildlife Refuge; and at the tem creates a unique opportunity for coordinating best management practices mouth of Fresh Creek south of the landfill, a with resource protection and economic rookery for several species of wading birds. development. Staten Island Corporate Park (SICP) is part of • As proposed in the Harbor Herons Re­ the watershed that drains into Old Place Creek port, the city should continue active and Saw Mill Creek. The southern portion of efforts to acquire land in the areas rec­ the park, occupied by Teleport, contains signif­ ommended. The acquired land, together icant wetlands and cattail marshes. Large areas with the most sensitive portions of city­ of swamp fo rest containing rare plant species owned property, including adequate surround the marshes. At one time subject to upland buffers, should be transferred frequent dumping, the wetlands are currently to DPR or sold to private land trusts fenced off for protection. The SICP wetlands fo r care . . help control flooding and filter water that

44 • Development of city-owned property in The shores of northern Queens and southeast­ environmentally sensitive areas should be ern Bronx are lined by inlets and coves sur­ guided by "significant site" controls im­ rounded by wetlands. The rocky intertidal posed prior to disposition. Site Planning shoreline is a geological extension of the New guidelines would be developed by DCP England Coast and provides a habitat type rare in consultation with DPR, DEP and in New York State. Fragments of once exten­ other affected agencies sive swamp forest are scattered in Udalls Cove • The Department of City Planning should and Alley Pond Park in Queens and along the examine the suitability of land use con­ mouths of the Bronx and Hutchinson rivers in troIs to guide industrial development on the Bronx. In addition to its habitat value, this private land in a manner that protects special area offers a natural setting of scenic drainage corridors and natural features. and recreational value, providing opportunities

• DEP and DCP should work with the Soil for swimming, fishing, boating and wildlife and Water Conservation Board to devel­ observation. (Map 3.8.) op buffer and non-point runoffgu ide­ lines fo r the Staten Island Special Natural Like those in Jamaica Bay and Staten Island, Waterfront Area. Guidelines should be this Special Natural Area is characterized by incorporated into WRP policies and, if extensive stretches of mapped parkland, in­ appropriate, into other city regulations. cluding Pelham Bay, Soundview, Ferry Point and Pugsley's Creek parks in the Bronx and Long Island Sound/Upper East River Alley Pond, Udall's Cove and Little Bay parks Special Natural Area in Queens. The remaining shoreline is mostly The north shore of Queens and the southeast­ lower-density residential with industrial uses ern shore of the Bronx along the upper East concentrated in College Point and scattered River and Long Island Sound have a concen­ elsewhere. tration of natural features including tidal wetlands, estuarine rivers, bays and lagoons In spite of extensive land filling, small pockets that warrant designation as the city's third of tidal wetlands remain along the Queens Special Natural Waterfront Area. This portion shoreline near College Point, along Fort To t­ of the city's waterfront has regional signifi­ ten, and along the eastern edge of the Cross cance because Long Island Sound extends Island Parkway. There are also some freshwater eastward along the of and wetlands in Alley Pond Park. Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Pelham Bay Park shoreline

45 MAP 3.8

Westchester Creek

Powell's Nassau Cove County

Alley Pond ­ Park Flushing Bay & Creek

Flushing ,Meadows­ Meadow Lake Corona and Park Willow Lake

1 MILE

Long Island Sound Special Natural Waterfront Area

b ...... J wetlands o waterway targetedfor esa abatement

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Departmentof City Planning / Natural Waterfront Tidal wetlands as well as important upland left along the Queens side of the Long habitat in the Bronx are concentrated in Island Sound, providing habitat for nu­ Pelham Bay Park along Goose Creek Marsh on merous species of water and wading the Hutchinson River. birds. Most of this area is owned by New Yo rk State and the city. All pub­ This section of the waterfront contains only licly owned land is managed by DPR one beach; is a manmade under a license agreement with DEC. facility developed in the 1930s. However, degraded water quality threatens its integrity. The proposed Coastal Fish and Wildlife The Pelham Bay landfill, closed in 1978, is a Habitat fo r this area encompasses ap­ primary source of polluting leachate. DEP is proximately 120 acres of tidal shallows developing an abatement program to reduce and undeveloped upland areas. landfill leachate. • Meadow and Willow Lakes in Flushing Six of the 15 proposed Significant Coastal Fish Meadows Corona Park are one of the

and Wildlife Habitats are located within the largest expanses of freshwater in New I East River/Long Island Sound area. Four of the Yo rk City. Meadow Lake is approximate­ six - Meadow and Willow Lakes, Little Neck ly 100 acres; Willow Lake is approxi­ Bay, Alley Pond Park and Udalls Cove - are mately 40 acres. Willow Lake provides a in Queens. Two, Pelham Bay Park Wetlands combination of wildlife habitats rarely and North and South Brother Islands, are found in the metropolitan area and both located in the Bronx. lakes support a relatively productive

• , located between Fort warm weather fishery. Totten and Little Neck, comprises ap­ proximately 1,400 acres. This open water • Pelham Bay Park, the city's largest green fish and wildlife habitat extends to space, contains natural areas that sup­ Willets Point on the west and the village port a wide variety of plant and animal of Kings Point on the east. It is one of life. The park is edged by extensive five major waterfowl wintering areas on coastal wetlands; 661 of the park's 2,764 Long Island's north shore, and a produc­ acres are under water. Along its 13 tive area fo r finfish and shellfish. miles of shore are 195 acres of salt wa­ ter marsh and 161 acres of salt flat. The • Alley Pond Park, located at the southern 489-acre Thomas Pell Wildlife Sanctu­ end of Little Neck Bay, is one of the few ary, which includes Goose Creek Marsh, parks in New Yo rk City offering both supports wading birds such as herons active recreation and a natural setting of and cormorants. wetlands and wildlife habitat. The 654- acre park contains fo rests, several ponds, • North and South Brother Islands are salt marshes and Alley Creek, which is located just outside the Special Area in one of the few undisturbed marsh sys­ tems in the city. The Grand Central the East River west of Riker's Island. Parkway, Long Island Expressway, North­ South Brother Island is approximately ern Boulevard, and 10 acres in size, uninhabitated, rocky the Long Island Railroad traverse the and wooded; North Brother Island is park, severely limiting the ranges of 15 acres in size, with a mix of aban­ reptiles, amphibians and mammals. doned buildings and deciduous woods. Both islands are city-owned and togeth­ • Udalls Cove and Ravine, in the north­ er they comprise one of the three largest eastern corner of Queens includes one of waterbird rookeries in the region. the last undeveloped tidal salt marshes

47 We tlands at Hammond Cove, the Bronx

Many of the natural features in this area are outfall. DPR has proposed a waterfront park at protected by DEC wetland regulations, their the eastern end of Powell's Cove and has location in public parks and the proposed obtained 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Desig­ Act funds to purchase private parcels. With nations. In addition, the Fort To tten Special proper planning, the site could support both a Natural Area District is mapped near the waterfrontpark and natural conservation areas. mouth of Little Neck Bay. It was mapped to facilitate the orderly redevelopment and proper The city-owned Soundview Lagoons in the use of the land in the event that the fe deral Bronx are salt marshes between Soundview government disposed of the property. Its Park and the Harding Park neighborhood that natural resources include wetlands, forested support various water birds and . areas, historic sites and the steep rocky shore­ The recently upgraded sewer system in Har­ line. The district protects them through estab­ ding Park has greatly improved the water lished development guidelines fo r review of quality in the lagoons and may allow fo r the land use actions. creation of new wetlands. Hammond Cove, also known as Locust Point Harbor, has an Powell's Cove, located in the northern portion intertidal marsh on its west shore and a nar­ of College Point, covers approximately 31 acres row band of intertidal marsh and a triangle of of private and publicly owned land; 16 acres high marsh on the east shore. Mapped but are under water. The shoreline contains tidal unbuilt city streets traverse the wetlands. wetlands that appear to be in good condition but may be affected by discharge from two combined sewer overflows and a storm drain

48 Strategy for Long Island Sound! • The mapped but unbuilt streets travers­ Upper East River Special Natural ing the Hammond Cove wetlands in the Waterfront Area Bronx should be demapped.

The issues affecting natural areas in this sec­ • DPR should develop a wetlands resto­ tion of the city are typical of an urban envi­ ration and management plan for the ronment. They include degraded water quality city-owned Soundview Lagoons and caused by oil spills, leachate from closed incorporate them into Soundview Park. landfills, combined sewer discharge and run­ • DEP should finalize and begin imple­ off fromad jacent developed areas. Combined mentation of a containment program sewer discharge is of particular concern in the fo r the Pelham Bay landfill, including Flushing Bay and River where 14 combined consideration of innovative techniques sewer outfalls spill 60 million gallons or more such as using man-made wetlands to of wastewater during an average rainstorm. filterlea chate. Cleaning up these sources of pollution and providing undeveloped upland buffe rs are effe ctive ways of protecting these natural resources.

• The city should transfer the most sensi­ tive city-owned portions of Powell's Cove, including wetlands, water areas and adequate upland buffers, to DPR for preservation as coastal fishan d wildlife habitats. Waterfront park devel­ opment would be appropriate on the remaining upland portions of the site provided that there is adequate protec­ tion from runoff.

• A portion of land on the eastern side of Udalls Cove and in the Ravine should be acquired and transferred to DPR.

• City, state, and federal agencies should develop buffe r and non-point runoff guidelines for development near signif­ icant natural fe atures in the Long Island Sound/East River Special Waterfront Area. The guidelines, developed pursu­ ant to the federal 6217 program, would be incorporated into WRP policies.

• Under the auspices of the Flushing Bay Task Force, city agencies should work with the Port Authority to develop envi­ ronmental controls and mitigation strat­ egies to improve water quality in the bay, while permitting necessary safety and other operational improvements at La Guardia Airport.

49

THE PUBLIC WA TERFRONT

Waterfront views and easy access to the water­ Today, the balance between commerce and side for recreation and relaxation are eagerly public access is shifting. With the decline of sought amenities in cities everywhere. New the city's manufacturing base, the shipping Yo rk City is fortunate to have a vast, unique industry in particular, new economic uses of system of public parks that covers more than waterfront land are emerging. Most are com­ 40 percent of its shoreline. A Sunday afternoon patible with and often are enhanced by public picnic in Pelham Bay Park, a swim in the spaces and activities. Atlantic, an evening jog along the East River Esplanade, and a view of the harbor from the An overriding principle of this waterfront Promenade are among the plan is to re-establish the public's connection most inviting experiences New Yo rk City offers to the waterfront by creating new opportuni­ its residents and visitors. ties for visual, physical and recreational access. This goal can be realized in various Against this remarkable backdrop, there is ways: by extending and improving a network another legacy - undeveloped waterfront of public spaces through parks, street ends parkland, derelict harborfronts, and unevenly and numerous publicly owned properties distributed waterfront access opportunities that along the shoreline; and by enhancing and have left many of the city's communities with connecting these spaces with public access little or no connection to the water's edge. along the waterfront on private properties where compatible redevelopment is taking The west side of Manhattan south of River­ place. Consequently, the plan for the Public side Park, once a bustling shipping hub Waterfront seeks to: lined with piers, has become a virtual no­ man's-land of rotting piles and parking lots, • identify opportunities for improved cut off by highway traffic from densely linkages to and along the waterfront; populated upland communities. Vacant but inaccessible waterfrontage, which once was • ensure high quality public spaces at the port-related, lines much of the Queens and water's edge by establishing design Brooklyn East River shoreline. Even where guidelines; there is waterfront parkland - along the • encourage publicly oriented water­ Cross Island Parkway in Queens or front-dependent and waterfront­ Brooklyn's Shore Parkway, for example - enhancing uses; major transportation corridors often sepa­ rate neighborhoods from the water's edge. • preserve and enhance visual corridors from the upland to the waterfront and The conflict between developing the water­ special views seen the edge; front for commerce and developing it for from water's public use has been with us since 1811 when • retain and expand recreational oppor­ the plan fo r Manhattan was laid out. Com­ tunities that are enhanced by a water­ mercial use, considered incompatible with front location; and recreation, was given clear preference. Later, in 1835, in a discussion about the potential • plan for the development and development of Stuyvesant Cove for a park, future maintenance of the public it was argued that it would be a waste of "a waterfront. great front for shipping on the East River."

51 THE EXISTING PUBLIC New Yo rk City is more fo rtunate than many WAT ERFRONT other cities planning fo r renewal of their waterfronts because so much of its shoreline is The publicly accessible waterfront comes in in public ownership, mostly parkland. Some many forms. It may be a continuous linear parts of the waterfront are easily accessible. corridor along the water's edge fo r hiking, Other parts are difficult to reach because they strolling or cycling, from a highly urban espla­ are far from population centers or separated nade like the one at Battery Park City to a by topographical or land use barriers. The extent to which the waterfront is used by the simple trail along the or northern public depends upon its accessibility and Queens shoreline. Public access may also be physical characteristics, and the density of "point access" - a that takes people to adjacent communities. the water, most often a street that ends at a pier or small sitting area. It may be a recre­ To plan fo r the extension and enhancement of ational hub that capitalizes on a waterfront the public waterfront, it is important to under­ location or, where direct access is not possible, stand its distribution, its relation to population a vista or visual corridor that provides a broad density, the locations of water-related recre­ panoramic view over the water or a more ational activities, and the problems and oppor­ fleeting glimpse of open sky and water froma tunities associated with waterfront access in street or public way. each borough.

Fishing from a rip-rap shoreline, Brooklyn

52 THE BRONX Northeastern Bronx enjoys a rich and varied public waterfront with extensive views and many opportunities to get to the water. Most of the population in the Bronx, however, is conce�trated in the western and southwestern sections where the waterfront is dominated by industry (the South Bronx) or rendered inac­ cessible by the steep slopes and transportation corridors next to the Harlem and Hudson rivers. (Map 4.0.)

The East Bronx, from Pelham Bay Park to Soundview Park, is well served with 3,421 acres of mapped parkland covering more than 20 linear miles of waterfront, although much of it is undeveloped. The northernmost park, Pelham Bay, which includes Orchard Beach, is separated from Co-op City by the Hutchinson River, and local access points to the park are limited. City Island, a major boating center, is connected by a bridge to the mainland at Pelham Bay Park. Orchard Beach, Bronx

From Pelham Bay Park to the Soundview ational facilities, is close to the Bronx shore­ peninsula, the protected waters of Eastchester line, but the only public connection is via the Bay and the East River support numerous , more than a half mile boating facilities. Low-density residential from the nearest residential area. communities between Pelham Bay Park and can reach the waterfront Transportation corridors and steep slopes only at a few street ends and at a neighbor­ create barriers to the waterfront fo r upland · hood park. Population density increases on communities along the entire length of the the Soundview peninsula where much of the Harlem River. A notable exception is Roberto acreage along the waterfront is either unde­ Clemente which has a waterfront veloped park or in its natural state. esplanade.

West of the Bronx River and along the The 97 -acre Riverdale Park extends along Harlem River, shoreline land use changes to most of the Bronx portion of the Hudson industrial with limited public open space, River but offe rs only visual access to the except for a few mostly undeveloped street water because active railroad tracks intervene ends. Industrial uses, the railroad and the along the shore. The upland Riverdale com­ make this section of the munity is low-density residential and is well waterfront difficult to reach; The upland served by open space. communities in this part of the Bronx are among the least served by open space in the city. Randalls Island, with extensive recre-

53 I I Riverdale Park (visualaccess)

Spuyten Duyvi/ Shorefront Park

Pelham Bay Roberto Park Clemente State Park

..I' I

Oueens

Existing Waterfront Publ ic Access / The Bronx

existing continuous or general public access - existing point access (including bridges with pedestrian access) significant barrier (highway, rail, slope, etc.) upland extent of major waterfront park

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Departmentof City Planning / Public Waterfront East River piers, lower Manhattan

MANHATTAN Much of the waterfront in Manhattan is ties. However, barriers such as steep slopes, publicly owned but, as in the other bor­ the railroad on the Hudson River, and the oughs, recreation areas are unevenly distrib­ Harlem River Drive limit direct access to uted. Lower Manhattan has no extended the waterfront. linear waterfront parklands (except for ) because it was firstde veloped as Although the borough is encircled by arterial a commercial seaport. It does, however, con­ highways, it has long stretches of esplanade tain several unconnected public waterfront that link many of the waterfront parks. The spaces that are unsurpassed in historical sig­ East River Esplanade runs continuously from nificance and the variety of experiences offered East 60th Street to East 125th Street, and to the public: , Battery small sections have been completed farther Park, Battery Park City Esplanade and the south. The Battery Park City Esplanade will recently completed North Park, and the soon connect to Battery Park and the planned •• , D' A C L . , national parks at and the Statue VIsItor s center on � ler n, part 01 tIle CIty s of Liberty. (Map 4.1.) Harbor Park system. (The other Harbor Parks, part of the state's Urban Cultural Parks The northern end of the island, on the other Program, are the Snug Harbor Cultural Cen­ hand, is almost entirely ringed by waterfront ter in Staten Island, Fulton Ferry Park in parks: Riverside, Fort Washington, Inwood Brooklyn and Liberty and Ellis Islands.) Hill and Highbridge. These quite remark­ Major proposals along the west side offer the able linear parks provide much of the open promise of an almost continuous route along space for the nearby residential communi- the Hudson River shoreline.

55 Inwood Hill MAP 4.1 Park

The Bronx

Riverbank State Park

Queens

Brooklyn

Existing Waterfront Public Access / Manhattan

existing continuous or general access - existing point access (including bridges with pedestrian access and tramway)

upland extent of major waterfront park ------significant barrier (highway , rail, slope,et c.)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront Visual access to the water in Manhattan is BROOKLYN-QUEENS possible at many locations because the street grid and topography provide many streets The Brooklyn-Queens shoreline is the longest with water views and grade-level access to the continuous stretch of waterfront in the city water's edge. and serves many communities. The most common barriers to the waterfront are high­ The Roosevelt Island open space plan pro­ ways and industrial or municipal uses such as vides considerable waterfront open space, a utility and water pollution control plants. waterfront esplanade, and water views from (Maps 4.2 and 4.3.) the developed northern section. The southern part of the island contains much undeveloped Northeastern Queens has an abundance of open space with great potential fo r waterfront public open space, including an esplanade activities. Here, the aerial offers spectac­ on the west shore of Little Neck Bay along ular views of the river and skyline, as do the the Cross Island Parkway. Farther west, many East River bridges. Flushing Meadow/Corona Park, a 1,257-acre Randalls/Wards Island contains many recre­ regional facility, has a waterfront prome­ ational facilities and an opportunity fo r more. nade separated from the rest of the park by Access to the island is difficult, however, an arterial roadway. which limits its use.

Socrates Sculpture Park, Queens

57 Shore Parkway esplanade and bikeway, Brooklyn

From Flushing Meadow/Corona Park west­ Owls Head Park, overlooking the harbor, is ward to , the northern shoreline the northern terminus of the Shore Parkway is dominated by La Guardia Airport and esplanade and bicycle path, which extends industrial uses; access to the waterfront is just over four miles to . extremely limited. Astoria Park and several Several highway overpasses provide access to others with esplanades afford magnificent this important waterfront resource. Dreier views of the East River and . From Offerman Park and Coney Island Boat Basin the Queensborough Bridge to the Brooklyn have some playing fields, but large portions border, there is limited access to the water­ of the park remain unimproved. front because of its current use as industrial Coney Island's famous beaches and boardwalk land. This situation could change dramatically are heavily used public open spaces of region­ with the redevelopment approved for al and local significance. An esplanade runs Hunter's Point and the RAK Te nnis Club site, along much of Sheepshead Bay, a major both of which would provide public access. commercial and recreational boating center. From the Brooklyn boundary at Newtown The public waterfront along Jamaica Bay is a Creek south to Owls Head, access is limited mix of street ends and city, state and. federal by major roadways and industrial areas. parkland. The bay's numerous small islands, Den�ely populated upland communities have meadows and marshes are protected on the few opportunities to enjoy the water. Empire south by the Rockaway Peninsula. Although Stores State Park (Fulton Ferry) between the the sensitive ecosystems ofJamaica Bay gener­ Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges is the only ally restrict public access, the National Park sizable park directly on the waterfront, but it Service is rehabilitating the Canarsie Pier for is underutilized because of its distance from recreational use. Rockaway's Atlantic beach­ residential communities. The front offe rs magnificent white sand bathing pedestrian walk and the Brooklyn Heights beaches and a public boardwalk. The waters Promenade are well used local amenities and of the bay are a major regional fishing and tourist attractions. recreational boating resource.

58 Nassau

Brooklyn

Existing Waterfront Public Access / Queens

existing continuous or general exi�ting point access public access upland extent of major significant barrier waterfront park (highway, rail, slope, etc.)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront MAP 4.3

Manhattan

New Jersey Queens

{(} SunsetPark (visualaccess)

Existing Waterfront Public Access / Brooklyn

existing continuous or general access - existing point access

upland extent of major waterfront park significant barrier (highway, ra il, slope, etc.)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront STATEN ISLAND The waterfront from Great Kills south to Conference House Park, which extends more Staten Island's extensive public wa terfront is than two miles along the waterfront at the on the south shore of the island; the northern southern tip of the island, is relatively undevel­ and western shores are largely inaccessible. oped and natural in character. Public access is (Map 4.4.) limited from Conference House Park north along the western shore. The Arthur Kill Along the north shore, from Snug Harbor to shoreline north of the Outerbridge Crossing is Fort Wadsworth, there is limited public access both industrial and remote. Although most of to the waterfront because of barriers formed this area is zoned for manufacturing, much of by rail lines and grade changes. However, three it is in a natural state supporting valuable of the city's most dramatic waterfront parks wetlands and intertidal habitat. In general, this are located along this section: Alice Austen shoreline does not provide public access, and and Von Briesen parks and the Snug Harbor the upland is sparsely populated. Cultural Center. South of Fort Wadsworth, The Kill Van Ku ll shoreline is industrial. Public continuous public beaches line the waterfront access is limited, but unlike the Arthur Kill, it is down to Great Kills, which is part of Gateway adjacent to residential communities. Faber Park, National Recreational Area. Great Kills and serving the Port Richmond community, has Lemon Creek accommodate most of the mari­ recently been renovated and includes a swim­ nas and yacht clubs in Staten Island. ming pool and public esplanade.

Sailing off Conference House Park, Staten Island

61 MAP 4.4

AliceAusten Parle

Arthur Von Briesen Parle New Jersey

Existing Waterfront Public Access / Staten Island

existing continuous or general - existing point access public access

upland extent of major significant barrier waterfront park (highway, rail, slope, etc.)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront THE ACCESSIBLE WAT ERFRONT: Waterfront Parks ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Waterfront parks serve a variety of active and passive recreational needs, including aq:ess to The city's considerable public waterfront re­ and along the waterfront. Fully developed sources can be expanded, and more equitably parks, such as Roberto Clemente and Astoria distributed, through both public and private parks, provide many different park uses. Some redevelopment. waterfront parks, such as Ferry Point Park, are partially or totally undeveloped. Other parks The public sector can ensure that its proper­ are primarily natural preserves in which hu­ ties - parks, streets, bridges and municipal man intrusion is limited to protect sensitive facilities - maximize public access to and ecosystems. A few parks, like Alley Pond and along the waterfront. Over time, judicious Marine, combine active recreational uses with investments can fillmiss ing links in otherwise wildlife conservation areas. continuous esplanades and bikeways; provide modest street end improvements in industrial The city's waterfront parks are primarily under areas and communities with no other options the jurisdiction of the New Yo rk City Depart­ c for rea hing the water; create new water-relat­ ment of Parks and Recreation (DPR). State r ed activity centers in fo rme ly underused or parks, managed by the Office of Parks, Recre­ inaccessible parks; and improve or create ation and Historic Preservation, include pedestrian and mass transit connections to the Roberto Clemente in the Bronx, Fulton Ferry water. In certain instances, municipal agencies in Brooklyn and Riverbank in Manhattan. The that have responsibility to manage city owned oversees the extensive waterfront property may not have sufficient Gateway properties resources to respond to public access goals. on Staten Island and Jamaica Bay, as well as Criteria for establishing public expenditure the , Ellis Island and Castle priorities will be necessary in view of compet­ Clinton. Each of these agencies has devoted ing needs fo r limited public funding. considerable attention to enhancing its water­ In addition to a limited number of opportuni­ front parks. In addition to master plans fo r ties for creating new parkland, expanded individual parks, fo r example, DPR has issued public access to and along the waterfrontwill a citywide management plan for its waterfront result from the conversion of manufacturing­ parkland to promote water-related activity and zoned land to residential and mixed uses. The better connections between parks. shift away froma maritime and manufacturing As the parks are developed or redesigned, shoreline in New York City has occurred along waterfront access and water-related activity most of the nation's urban waterfronts. can be incorporated into the plans. For in­ Harbor, Baltimore's Inner Harbor, the stance, the master plan fo r Soundview , Seattle Harbor, and the Hudson shore­ will capitalize on its waterfront location by line of New Jersey are examples of this trans­ providing inland links to the shore and walk­ formation, in which public access is integrated ways along the shore. In some large, deep or with new land uses. hilly parks, the shoreline is far away or inac­ cessible from centers of activity inside or How successfully- these public spaces are joined with other land uses win depend on the estab­ outside the park. Because safety is an impor­ lishment of realistic and predictable standards tant concern, waterfrontareas must be visually for their configuration, use, design and man­ and physically connected to centers of activity, agement. As the number of privately developed with frequent, direct and safe paths to super­ public spaces increases, issues of maintenance, vised areas or public streets. In some parks, management and enforcement of public access ferries bringing people to the water could requirements will assume greater importance. enhance park usage and safety.

63 major issue. Even in the best of times, it is difficult to provide sufficient fu nding for maintenance of the city's enormous park­ land inventory. In difficulteconomic times, open space maintenance is a tempting area in which to reduce spending.

Alternative funding sources are sometimes available. Large portions of the East River Esplanade were rehabilitated with private funding and an endowment fund was estab­ lished to provide for routine maintenance under DPR direction. This technique was possible because several development projects adjacent to the esplanade were required to provide environmental mitigation. Revenue­ producing activities on waterfront public lands, the proceeds of which could be dedi­ cated to maintenance, may be another fund­ ing source. Other Publicly-Owned Waterfront Properties Aside from parkland, much of the remaining waterfront is publicly owned. Many of the properties are actively used by municipal facilities, some are partially occupied and others are vacant. Because this land is in the public domain, it presents opportunities fo r Brooklyn Bridge walkway and bicycle lane waterfront public access when municipal facilities are developed or improved. Public access suited to individual site conditions can be incorporated if it is considered early in the planning process and made an integral part of Some city parks, such as Battery Park, Astoria the design. Although it is not feasible or ap­ and Pelham Bay, offersu perb waterfront views. propriate to provide access at all municipal With suitable redesign and landscaping treat­ facilities (for example, at marine transfer ment, visual corridors can be created in other stations), some facilities, such as the Tallman waterfront parks as well, particularly those in Island Sewage Treatment Plant in Queens, which direct access to the water would be have successfully incorporated public space unsafe or excessively costly. along the water's edge. Even some inland parks can provide water­ As a general rule, public access on city-owned front views. Spectacular views of New Yo rk Harbor and lower Manhattan are the main property to be used for industrial-type func­ attraction of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade. tions should be considered only when it The view from the promenade over a highway would not compromise the fa cility's opera­ tions and security or the safety of potential a?d ,Piers is so valued that a special zoning dIstnct was created to protect it. . users. When access is feasible in connection with non-industrial facilities, however, its Financing the development and mainte­ configuration and design should be guided by nance of such waterside improvements is a the zoning standards proposed in this plan.

64 Vo lunteer clean-up at East River street end, Brooklyn

Although the city is obligated to maintain demapping proposals require a discretionary these public spaces, it does not always have the review that allows communities, planners and money to do so. Problems similar to those elected officials to consider a street's potential regarding park maintenance may develop, with value fo r visual and physicaJ access. In some only the most heavily used access points re­ areas, demapping an unimproved street ceiving attention. City-owned land that is should be considered only when an alterna­ leased to private developers also can encounter tive access system is available or can be pro­ maintenance problems. vided. In other areas, demappings are appro­ priate to protect sensitive natural areas such The Street Network as wetlands. In general, however, the city's The street network can help or hinder access street system and, in particular, streets that to the waterfront. Public roadways along the terminate at the water's edge should be con­ shoreline sometimes provide continuous water­ sidered an important public resource to be front access and sometimes prevent it. Streets preserved and enhanced. perpendicular to the shoreline provide links from points inland and connections with the Because streets are no-build areas, they func­ rest of the street system. Streets that terminate tion as visual corridors at intervals as regular at the waterfront present opportunities fo r or irregular as the street grid itself. Criteria are ; point access, or scenic overlooks. These van­ needed to provide adequate sightliness, spacing tage points may be the only fo rm of public and width for visual corridors. Where streets fi access in low-density residential areas and terminate at the rst upland property, it may waterfront manufacturing zones. be necessary to carry the vi�w corridor through the intervening property in order to Mapped but unimproved streets offer poten­ prevent "walling off" ofthe view. tial for securing access to the water. Street

65 Some large waterfront parcels with develop­ The Hudson River Trail , part of the proposed ment potential do not have a street grid. As Hudson River Greenway from New Yo rk to part of the discretionary review fo r these Albany, would run from the Battery in Man­ parcels, consideration should be given to hattan to Westchester County. The trail would increasing access by mapping public streets, be part of the proposed Boston to Washington upland public access connectors and view . Some parts of the system corridors. exist and major sections are in various stages When highways and major arterial roadways of planning, but several connectors are needed block the waterfront, access can be achieved by to complete the trail. at-grade crossings, signalization or pedestrian bridges. Even though Manhattan is surrounded The East River Tr ail in Manhattan would by arterial highways, its well used East Side create a continuous bike/pedestrian trail from Esplanade has been made accessible by a series Battery Park to . It would have of bridges and crossings. Improvements devel­ connections across the East River bridges to oped in conjunction with the proposed River­ Brooklyn, Queens and Randalls Island, and it side South project and the reconstruction· of could be linked to the proposed Bronx routes. Route 9A will enhance access to the Hudson Because of the limited width of the Esplanade, River shoreline. and significant gaps in its continuity, upland Responsibility fo r maintaining public streets alternative connections may be appropriate, at and pedestrian bridges rests with the Depart­ least in the short-term. ment of Transportation. Maintenance of these spaces must compete for funding with other The Brooklyn-Queens Greenway would pro­ transportation maintenance and improvement vide a connection between Long Island Sound needs. The identification of specificstreet ends at in Queens and the Atlantic and bridges that could provide direct or visual Ocean at Coney Island. waterfront access to neighboring communities would allow for a concerted approach to the The Shore Parkway Bikeway, one of the few improvement, signage and maintenance of remaining bike paths developed by Robert these valuable but often overlooked resources. Moses, is being upgraded by DPR with state Boroughwide and Interborough Environmental Quality Bond Act funding. Waterfront Trails One section reaches from Owls Head Park to Bay Parkway; another portion travels through Bicycling and walking are growing in impor­ tance as recreational activities. They have Gateway National Park along the shores of potential as environmentally friendly alterna­ Jamaica Bay. This trail could connect with the tives to motorized transportation. New Yo rk Brooklyn-Queens Greenway and with the State is developing a program of urban bike­ Ve rrazano Narr()ws Bridge fo r access to ways and pedestrian routes that could be Staten Island. funded under the 1991 Federal Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The Bikeway includes the To qualify fo r these funds, New Yo rk City has bike path, which could be fo rmed a bicycle and pedestrian working group extended at both ends to link the Hudson of public and private organizations to develop River with Pelham Bay Park. It would provide plan for on-road bikeways, off-road multi­ a important access to Orchard Beach and City use trails, and other programs. Some parts of Island fo r Bronx and Manhattan residents. the proposed trail system are adjacent to . the Waterfront, some provide access to waterfront The South Bronx Bikeway would include an recreational areas, and others are inland links improved bridge to Randalls Island and would connecting waterfront trails. The major com­ connect Soundview Park and the Bronx River ponents of the proposed trail system are trail with inland communities. shown on Map 4.5 and described below.

66 MAP 4.5

; ..-- .. , .....: , , " ,

\, :', " �,!.: ...... \ ,

Waterfront Greenways

existing waterfront greenway borough boundary

proposed waterfront greenway potential regional connection ------.

major upland connection • existing Harbor Park site

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront The West Queens bike route would provide a redevelopment can be a resource fo r public north-south link from northern Astoria along access to the waterfront. Under current zon­ the East River to the Queensborough Bridge ing regulations, public access areas can be and the East River Trail. achieved only case-by-case fo r discretionary actions subject to WRP consistency review. A The Staten Island Bike System would use the predictable method is needed to reestablish abandoned Staten Island North Shore rail line appropriate public access on private land that and various parks to create a loop system fo r can be redeveloped as-of-right or is suitable both transportation and recreational uses. The for rezoning from manufacturing use to rail line would be used on an interim basis residential and mixed use. and perhaps permanently if the trail could coexist feasibly with a planned commuter and freight line. The trail would connect many island institutions and provide a link to Manhattan via the ferry and to New Jersey's Delaware and Raritan Canal trail to Trenton. The city's many bridges can offe r the pedes­ trian and cyclist marvelous water views and, in some cases, fishing opportunities. However, many waterways crossings are not open to pedestrians and cyclists. Encouraging Water-Dependent Recreation Water-dependent recreational uses include boating, swimming and fishing. The city's swimming beaches are at Orchard Beach, Coney Island, Rockaway, Gateway and the south shore of Staten Island. Major boating Kayaks on the East River waters are Long Island Sound, Jamaica Bay, Lower Bay, Raritan Bay and the Upper The amount and type of public access that is Harbor. Recreational boating includes fishing, appropriate varies with land use and density. waterskiing, cruising and use of non-motorized Each land use presents its own opportunities craftsuc h as sailboats and row boats. and constraints. In general, as density of development increases, so does the need for Additional docking facilities would encourage public access and the financial feasibility of boating in residential areas. Docking facilities developing it. are limited by zoning regulations that allow docking slips in residential zones to be used In low-density residential zones, the benefits only by the residents of a development to of linear public access must be balanced with which they are an accessory use. The use of demand for public open space. The burden small boats is limited also by the lack of public on �mall property owners of requiring physi­ boat launching areas, which could be provided cal access would be high compared to the on city-owned property. benefits obtained. Visual access and point access through the street network are general­ Land-based fishing occurs in almost any New ly more appropriate. Waterfront access or Yo rk City waterbody, although areas with good connections to the upland may be necessary water quality are more popular. This activity only in the case of large-scale development. could be encouraged by providing additional In most cases, public access along the water's public piers in popular fishing areas. edge in low-density residential areas is neces­ sary only to link adjacent waterfront parks or Land Use and Public Access to bridge a small gap in an otherwise contin­ Although much of the waterfront is held in uous linear walkway. public ownership, private land undergoing

68 Higher-density residential development has a Other conditions unique to the waterfront greater need for open space and fo r access to such as development on extremely large or the waterfront. Waterfront access areas and elongated zoning lots, also can block access. A upland connectors are necessary fo r all high­ predictable means of providing visual connec­ density development. tions is needed, particularly fo r as-of right development. Waterfront public access is compatible with commercial use and often makes it more Building fo rm can enhance or detract from a successful. In some places, such as South Street visual corridor. Buildings set back from the Seaport, the waterfront is the major attraction. waterfrontand waterfrontyards would provide Similar rules should apply fo r commercial as a greater sense of openness and expanded for residential uses, i.e., selective access for visual access along the shoreline. low-density zones, mandatory physical and visual access for higher-density zones. Never­ theless, large-scale commercial uses in low­ density districts and in manufacturing districts should provide public waterfront access. Mandatory public access generally is not ap­ propriate for industrial uses because of limited demand and safety or operational consider­ ations. Street ends or nearby public land can be preserved or improved, particularly in areas where upland residential populations do not have other waterfront access options. Ensuring the Quality ofWa terfront Pub­ lic Spaces and Views To ensure that public access areas look and feel public, standards are needed fo r each type of access (such as walkways, overlooks and upland connectors), particularly when access is provided in conjunction with private develop­ ment. The standards need to establish mini­ mum dimensions, fixtures, landscaping and Queens , Queens other amenities, and permitted obstructions .. Standards related to the density of as-of-right Guidelines are required for locating floating development would set a benchmark for local structures and other in-water and over-water access plans and discretionary reviews. structures so they do not block visual corri­ dors unnecessarily. Development over the Views to and along the water add to the water, for example on piers, can have a sub­ economic value of development and to the stantial effect on views along the waterfront, quality of life in both public and private spac­ either by adding interest to a featureless area es. Skylines, bridges and landmarks are perhaps or by blocking a scenic view. Regulations to most memorable when reflected in the water establish height, setback, yard and public against a changing sky. Waterfronts are among access areas are necessary fo r new in-water the few places the city that offer wide vistas. and over-water development. The city's zoning regulations lack generic controls to preserve views and visual corridors Establishing Realistic Management to and along the waterfront. Streets generally Procedures provide visual corridors at fairly regular inter­ vals, but the standard street and block configu­ Establishing a maintenance and management rations do not exist in many waterfront areas. program fo r the public waterfront is as im­ portant as providing the space itself. To o

69 often, concern fo r the usefulness and quality public waterfront spaces, some relatively small of public spaces stops at the point of con­ or scattered, could exacerbate maintenance struction and does not take into consider­ problem and liability issues. ation day-to-day operation and maintenance. Without a well-conceived plan fo r upkeep, The gap between "paper" requirements and public spaces can fall into disrepair, and what is actually provided comes about be­ become less inviting to users. New Yo rk City cause enforcement resources are scarce. Un­ has a wealth of experience in this area as a less this problem is resolved, adding more result of its plaza programs, business im­ public space requirements to the Zoning provement districts (BIDs), and the work of Resolution could be a hollow promise. the Department of Parks and Recreation and Approaches worth exploring include the open space conservancies and advocacy orga­ creation of a privately financed public or nizations. The programs provide a solid non-profit entity with responsibility for foundation from which to develop compre­ maintaining private spaces. One financing hensive management and maintenance pro­ option would be pooled contributions of grams for waterfront public access areas. annual fees from adjoining development, Because private lands are scattered and are similar to the way a BID functions. It remains owned by many parties, it is difficult to a to be seen how these fees would affect the coordinate the documentation, enforcement broad array of development projects, many of and maintenance of privately owned public which would occur as-of-right at a small access areas. scale. The potential costs and benefits of such a program would have to be studied. The ability to enforce the right of public access across private property begins with the THE PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC ability to identify the properties and the WATERFRONT required amenities. There is now no require­ Recommended actions to increase public ment fo r registering public access spaces. A access to the waterfront include broad regula­ readily available repository of information on tory changes and site-specific proposals fo r all required access and amenities is necessary. each borough. The regulatory recommenda­ For projects that provide public access pursu­ tions would ensure that public access is ant to the Zoning Resolution, registration provided with all new mid- to high-density should be a condition fo r obtaining a certifi­ residential and commercial development. cate of occupancy. In addition, permanent on-site signage listing the access requirements REGULATORY STRATEGY can make the public aware of its rights and The city's main tool to ensure that develop­ responsibilities. ment occurs in an appropriate manner is the Zoning Resolution. The Resolution requires Maintaining private lands is the responsibility all development to meet standards that vary of the property owner. However, the city's by zoning district and establishes criteria fo r experience in enforcing access to public developments subject to discretionary review. spaces that were required in private develop­ To fo ster usable and attractive public spaces ment under incentive zoning programs is not on the waterfront, the zoning regulations encouraging. Even in , must be amended. Two zoning techniques are where open space is at a premium and has proposed: generic requirements applicable high visibility, public spaces do not always throughout the city, and local area plans where provide the required amenities. Some plazas conditions warrant special consideration. and indoor public spaces are closed, ill-main­ tained, privatized, or operated in a manner For mid- to high-density development, and that makes them uninviting to the public. large-scale multi-family development in lower­ The growing number of privately developed density areas, these revisions would include:

70 • Continuous linear waterfront public the public waterfront. The proposed arpend­ access located parallel and adjacent to the ments include height and setback requirements shore. No-build buffer zones adjacent to to ensure that, among other objectives, new these access areas would ensure privacy development allows room fo r physical and and a transition between private and visual access. The proposed design standards public uses. would help to ensure that the public area fe els public and is usable, enjoyable and safe. • Upland connectors "perpendicular" to the shoreline to allow access from the first Mechanisms for the maintenance and man­ upland street or other public area to a agement of publicly accessible areas in private linear waterfront public access area. A developments need to be developed. Relevant no-build bufferzone adjacent to this city agencies, including the Departments of access would be necessary. City Planning, Buildings and Parks and Rec­ reation, should develop guidelines fo r the • A minimum percentage of lot area (in­ clusive of all public access areas), aggre­ management of these properties, not least to gated to provide usable public open ensure that required public spaces are con­ structed as planned, properly maintained and space as part of any large development. kept open to the public. Liability issues also

• No-build setbacks along the shoreline in must be examined. low-density districts, which need not be publicly accessible, to keep development Public agencies that manage city owned water­ away from the shoreline and to allow fo r front properties should be given the necessary future public acquisition should access be resources to properly maintain and support deemed appropriate. public access goals.

• Minimum standards for the development PUBLIC ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES of all public access areas regulating di­ The waterfront reach studies, summarized in mension, paving, seating, landscaping, Appendix A, identify numerous opportunities lighting, signage and other amenities to to preserve or enhance waterfront public ensure the quality of public access. spaces and views, and to create new points of

• Minimum standards for visual corridors to access throughout the city. Some new access provide unobstructed waterfront views. areas would be integrated in new waterfront developments in accordance with the proposed The size and type of access areas would vary zoning regulations. Others would come about by land use and level of development. Public as a result of future rezonings, as recommend­ access would not be required in manufacturing ed in the plan fo r the Redeveloping Water­ districts, except fo r large commercial develop­ front. Still others are beyond the scope of ments along the shoreline. redevelopment activity and would have to be provided by the city. To determine investment Waterfront Access Plans would provide pre­ priorities for public actions, consideration dictable controls tailored to special local condi­ should be given to the extent to which each tions. These local area plans would be adopted proposed access improvement would: by the City Pianning Commission and the City Council and mapped as part of the Zoning • correct imbalances in the availability of Resolution. The plans could supplement or waterfront open space fo r adjacent com­ modify the generic requirements in zoning munities; districts that permit multi-family residential or commercial development. • extend the existing network by linking unconnected segments of the system; Chapter 7 describes the zoning revisions pro­ posed to implement the Comprehensive Wa­ • promote tourism and provide visual terfront Plan, including recommendations fo r relief in highly developed areas;

71 • improve the possibilities for in-water In the industrial waterfront of the South activities; Bronx, improved street end access is proposed at several locations. A new access route to • create safe, well-used and adequately maintained public spaces. Randalls Island would be provided through the Harlem River Ya rds site. A new park is recom­ Specificrec ommendations for the city's public mended for the Hunts Point Marine Transfer waterfront, by borough, are shown on maps Station site, when that facility is vacated by the 4.6 - 4.10 and described below and on subse­ Department of Sanitation. Along the Bronx quent pages. River, a number of improvements and exten­ sions of the existing park and parkway system Bronx are proposed. An upland bicycle path in Riverdale, and a connection over the Bridge, are Improvements, including esplanades, boat recommended for the Hudson River shoreline launches, and fishing piers, are proposed fo r as part of the Hudson River Greenway. The Soundview, Ferry Point, and Pugsley Creek Spuyten Duyvil Shorefront Park would be parks in the East Bronx. A series of street end expanded by the acquisition of the Penn access points are proposed for the lower-densi­ Central Triangle, at the mouth of the Hudson River. A Harlem River waterfrontesplanade, in ty residential neighborhoods of the East Bronx. conjunction with redevelopment, would extend (Map 4.6.) north fromHi gh Bridge.

Amtrak rail line along Riverdale Park, Bronx

72 Develop link with rest of Hudson River Greenway

Hutchinson

Develop bicycle access over and upland In Riverdale

Designate bikeway north of

Develop esplanade in Soundvlew Park, Lagoons, and Shorehaven I Castle Hill /

Queens

Public Waterfront Recommendations / The Bronx

existing continuous or general public access proposed or improved point access or crossover

...... proposed continuous or general public access upland connection

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront Children's play area at newly opened , Manhattan

Manhattan Links over the Harlem River would connect to the Hudson River Greenway and the Bronx The plan for Manhattan's public waterfront Harlem River Esplanade. South of· the envisions an espJanade encircling the island, Macombs Dan Bridge, the esplanade would consistent with the draft recommendations of continue through an improved Harlem Beach the Manahattan Borough President's water­ to the existing East River Esplanade. Gaps in front plan. A new West Side Waterfront Park the East River Esplanade would be closed by would extend from Battery Park City to 59th waterfront or upland connectors. Street. North of 59th Street, a waterfront esplanade component of the proposed River­ At the southern tip of Manhattan, access side South development would extend to improvements across West and South streets, Riverside Park at 72nd Street. The gap between renovation of existing esplanades and publicly­ the northern and southern portions of oriented waterfrontfe atures are recommended. Riverside Park would be closed by Riverbank Additionally, gaps in public access at Pier A, State Park and the Harlem-on-the-Hudson the Ferry Te rminal, the Battery Maritime development at West 125th Street. Building, and north of the South Street Seaport, should be closed. (Map 4.7.)

74 Connect A. Washington Improve bicycle 4.7 Park with Inwood HHI Park connection over MAP through new Dyckman SI. Marina Henry Hudson Bridge

Close gap in Connect to proposed Harlem A. Washington Park River Esplanade on Bronx (181 - 187 Sts.) shore over Bridge

Sherman Creek Develop Rowing Center new parkland 155th - 158th Sts.

Connect Riverside Park North and South through Harlem on theHudson and Connect to proposed Harlem alongside RiverbankState Park River Esplanade on Bronx shore over the Madison Ave., 145thSt., or

Close gap in Riverside Park esplanade (86th - 90th Sis.)

Rehab 91sl l0 New West Side 94th Sts. walerfrontpark & esplanade Adapt E.6Oth SI. MTS for open space use

Increase access across West St.

Upgrade existing portion of esplanade Esplanade connection aI ferry terminal and interim access aI East River Docks

Public Waterfront Recommendations / Manhattan

existing continuous or general proposed or improved waterfront access point access or crossover

...... proposed continuous or upland connection general waterfront access

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan/ NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront Poppenhusen Avenue street end park, Queens

Queens Redevelopment of the wa­ In Jamaica Bay, limited public access should terfront can increase public access opportuni­ be provided to the bay's natural shorelines. ties and link existing public spaces. On the New public boat-launch sites within the bay north shore, rehabilitation of the Flushing would increase recreational opportunities. Bay Marina and Esplanade should include a Public and privately owned natural areas on boat trailer ramp and improved access at Jamaica Bay's Rockaway shoreline are appro­ Harper Street. The Port Authority ballfieldat priate fo r environmentally-oriented park use. 19th Street and Bowery Bay can be enhanced (Map 4.8.) fo r recreation and public access.

Street end point access is recommended for the College Point industrial area, and new public waterfrontsp aces can be provided at a number of redevelopment sites. The fe asibility of park use of the historic batteries at Fort To tten should be explored. Expanding the existing bikeway from Northern Boulevard would improve access to the fo rt. Appropri­ ately designed public access to Udalls Cove and Ravine and the wetlands at Powell's Cove would provide opportunities fo r environmen­ tal education and passive recreation.

76 develop for access completecontinuous & recreation Brooklyn-Queens improve Greenway from Cross access add boat Island Parkway to Coney to and rehab trailer ramp Island esplanade & marina

Public Waterfront Recommendations / Queens

existing continuous or general proposed or improved public access point access or crossover ...... proposed continuous or general upland connection public access

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront Brooklyn New parks and mixed-use developments can increase public use of the East River and Upper Bay waterfront. Currently, opportunities are limited by the area's industrial nature. In Greenpoint, the WNYC Transmitter site should be developed for park use, and the Noble Street Pier, when vacated by the Sanita­ tion Department, should be rehabilitated fo r public access. Public access would also be provided at fo rmer industrial sites that are suitable for redevelopment.

Farther south, improvements to Fulton Fer­ ry/ State Park, and complemen­ tary uses on adjacent city-owned parcels, are proposed. Redevelopment of Piers 1-5 beneath Brooklyn Heights should include substantial open space. Public access should be a compo­ nent of redevelopment in Red Hook, from Van Brunt Street to Wolcott Street, including the new recreational Coffey Street Pier. There may also be opportunities for limited public access in conjunction with new industrial develop­ ment in Sunset Park.

Proposed enhancements to the Shore Road Esplanade include an improved link to Owls Head Park, development of Denyse Wharffo r Brooklyn Heights Promenade educational/recreational use, and extension of the bike path to Stillwell Avenue and Coney Island. Access to the water should be incorpo­ rated in the development of Dreier-Offerman Park, which should be linked to the bike path and to a public access component or residen­ tial development in the WhiteSand s area.

Public access along Manhattan Beach's seawall should link Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach Park. Improved signage would increase public awareness and use of Kingsborough Community College's waterfront esplanade. A new parking area and improved visual access are recommended in the Shell Bank Creek! Plumb Beach area. In the Jamaica Bay area, environmentally sensitive public access should be provided at Four Sparrows Marsh, Paerdegat Basin and Fresh Creek. (Map 4.9.)

78 MAP 4.9 Manhattan

Develop WNYC site for park

New Jersey

Queens

Transfer city-owned land at Fresh Develop public accesswhere Creek to DPR appropriate in Sunset Park

Continuous public Improve linkage: Owls access on both sides Head Park & 69th St. Pier of Paerdegat Basin "

Provide public access Reuse of through rezoning and new Denyse street system in Mill Basin Wharf

...... Link Shore Parkway bike path to Coney Is.

Public Waterfront Recommendations / Brooklyn

existing continuous or general access proposed or improved point access or crossover

••••••• proposed continuous or general access upland connection

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront Staten Island The plan recommends completion of the Public access to the environmentally sensitive North Shore Esplanade in accordance with areas of the Arthur Kill must be designed to DCP's 1987 proposal. Redevelopment of the be compatible with natural resources. Access Chessie site, adjacent to the Ferry Te rmina1, to Main Creek is proposed for the Mohlenoff should include public open spaces and visual Nursery property. Saw Mill Creek in Chelsea access from upland streets. Improvements are Marsh may be suitable fo r a passive viewing also recommended for Snug Harbor, Alice area. As areas of the Fresh Kills Landfill are Austen Park, Vo n Briesen Park, and Battery closed, they are being treated fo r eventual Weed. Along the South Shore, a new beach at park use. Cedar Grove Avenue and a series of street The city should acquire the North Shore Rail end and parkland improvements would sup­ Line and the Travis Line fo r interim trail use plement the substantial stretches of publicly and for possible re-establishment of freight accessible waterfront. and/or commuter service. Combined rail/trail use of a reactivated rail line is a possibility. Redevelopment in the Outerbridge area (Map 4.10.) would provide new public access opportuni­ ties to the Arthur Kill. A public boat launch is proposed for the end of Ellis Avenue, along with enhancement of street end access at Victory Boulevard.

Inactive rail line along Kill Va n Kull, Staten Is land

80 MAP 4.1 0

New �. Jersey link Sailors / -g i Snug Harborto develop trail � other Harbor Park explore public on North Shore sites access at and Travis lines Chelsea Marsh improve access within Von Briesen Park

developptblic develop and provide access / nature accessto Battery Weed trail at Mohienhoff Nursery improve pointaccess at end of victory Blvd.

encourage uses on major streets leading to waterfront that will make public accessmore attractive

development as park

Public Waterfront Recommendations / Staten Island

existing continuous or general proposed or improved point access public access or crossover

II •••••• proposed continuous or upland connection general public access

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Public Waterfront

� THE WORKING WA TERFRONT

Historically, New Yo rk City's growth and • identify opportunities to encourage fer­ prosperity were inseparable from its water­ ries, excursion boats, marinas and other front. As one of America's major ports of water-dependent uses; entry for people and goods, the waterfront flourished throughout the 18th and 19th • encourage waterborne transportation of centuries and well into the 20th. To day, the goods and people, and maximize inter­ working waterfront has changed dramatically modal linkages; as a result of structural changes in the econo­ • ensure that working waterfront uses are my, technological advances in maritime activi­ developed in an environmentally sound ties, changes in the movement of freight, the manner; and shift of most port operations to New Tersey, and the steady decline of manufacturing in the • provide public access where appropriate city. These changes have left many older piers and fe asible. abandoned and considerable shorefront prop­ erty vacant and derelict. Nevertheless, the port The plan fo r the working waterfront classifies remains crucial to the city's economy. working waterfront uses, analyzes their geo­ graphic concentration and dispersion, and New Yo rk City's Working Waterfront contains projects futureneeds. It then proposes citywide a range of water-dependent uses including . and area-specificstrategies fo r accommodating maritime and maritime support operations, the future needs of working waterfront uses marinas, waterborne transportation and com­ and facilitating their development. mercial recreational boating. It also contains industrial and municipal uses many of which HISTORY do not use or depend upon the water fo r their operation. One key to the economic and physical growth of New Yo rk City has been its extraordinary Although reduced in size and economic signifi­ harbor, which has provided deep water access, cance, these working waterfront activities still shelter from the open sea, and a gateway to play an important part in the city's economy. other parts of the country. These unique The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan seeks to attributes make New Yo rk Harbor one of the promote water-dependent and industrial finest in the North Atlantic. waterfront uses in areas that are well-suited to them. Specifically, the working waterfront goals The Port of New Yo rk emerged as a major are to: economic fo rce in the 18th century. To accom­ modate it, the lower Manhattan waterfront Ii retain sufficient waterfrontlan d to ac­ underwent extensive iandfill and wharf con­ commodate existing, and attract future struction. The East River and later the Hudson industrial, maritime, municipal, and River were active with shipping. Steam fe rries other working waterfront uses; moved passengers and goods between Manhat­ tan, Brooklyn and New Tersey. New Yo rk's • identify infrastructure improvements and dominance of 19th century shipping was the other investments necessary to sustain result of farsighted infrastructure investment these uses; such as the completion of the and

83 construction of railroads connecting the port Over the past 30 years there has been a steep, to the nation's interior. By 1870, the Port continuous decline in the city's industrial handled 57 percent of the nation's trade and sector! employment, in contrast with non­ was the largest port in the country. It contin­ industrial growth. The greater part of the ued to expand until the 1920s, encompassing decline, nearly 75 percent, is due to a loss of hundreds of miles of developed facilities, and manufacturing, although employment in using more than 5,000 barges, 1,000 tugs, transportation, communication and public several hundred ferries, passenger boats and , utilities (TCPU) and wholesale trade also has freight boats to handle commerce. declined. Since 1963, shortly after the current Port operations changed when trucks began to Zoning Resolution was adopted, manufactur­ capture an increasing share of commercial ing employment has declined by more than 55 traffic. As manufacturing in the port region percent, and total industrial sector employ­ declined and the interstate highway system ment by more than 42 percent. New Yo rk's emerged, the number of vessels needed to maritime industry suffered a similar decline, distribute goods decreased and ferry use de­ and certain water-dependent industrial sectors clined sharply. Airplanes replaced ocean liners showed even sharper drops. for intercontinental travel.

View of East River Wo rking Wa terfront, 1956 Source: Brooklyn Historical Society

84 Major factors in this decline were the rapid others have remained vacant. Many have growth in "containerization," which revolution­ suffered from serious neglect and deterioration. ized shipping, and the shiftof most of the port Even in strong industrial areas, such as Long operations to the New Jersey side of the har­ Island City, much of the waterfront has re­ bor. The change in maritime technology from mained underutilized. the labor-intensive break-bulk shipment to 2 containerization required fewer but larger THE WORKING WATERFRONT port facilities with modern containership piers, TODAY warehousing and distribution facilities. The Port Authority developed extensive facilities on ZONING the New Jersey side of the harbor, which had The manufacturing districts mapped on the sufficient land for these port facilities and waterfront in 1961 have remained largely superior access to the nation's rail lines and unchanged. Approximately one-third of the interstate highways. As a result, most port waterfront is zoned fo r industrial uses. Many cargo activity shifted to New Jersey. of these waterfront areas adjoin upland indus­ trial areas. Some waterfront industrial areas are With the exception of northwest Staten Island close to residential uses because housing was and portions of the Brooklyn waterfront, New built there fo r industrial workers. Some are Yo rk City was considered a poor location fo r separated from upland areas by railroad tracks, modern marine terminal development. In arterial highways or grade changes. Most 1960, the city handled 75 percent of the port's working waterfront uses require industrial cargo; by 1990 its share had dropped to 15 zoning. (Map 5.0.) percent. According to the Port Authority, the port's maritime industry contributes $18 In the Bronx, major waterfrontind ustrial areas billion to the gross regional product and are located in Port Morris and Hunts Point in supports 180,000 jobs in the region. The port the South Bronx. These areas contain concen­ is the second largest in the country (Los trations of M3 zoning (heavy industrial uses Angeles! Long Beach is the l;igest) based on perniitted). Smaller and narrower industrial volume of imports. zones with less area upland are located along the Harlem River, the lower portion of the Large sections of the city's waterfront land Bronx River and the upper portion of the deteriorated as industry declined and the role Hutchinson River. of waterborne and rail freight diminished . . Access to the waterfront or a rail line was once Manufacturing districts are mapped along the an essential requirement fo r industry; access to Brooklyn waterfront from Newtown Creek to the nation's highway system is now more Owls Head and along the Gowanus Canal. The important, which is due in part to the disper­ Sunset Park, Red Hook, Navy Yard and sion of households and businesses, both in the Newtown Creek industrial areas contain rela­ city and elsewhere, and trucking's superior cost tively deep M3 zoning districts. Portions of the competitiveness for short-haul freight. Navy Ya rd and Greenpoint-Williamsburg East River waterfront industrial area have residen­ Over the last several decades, industrial uses tial and mixed use areas in closer proximity. that often do not need waterfront locations have replaced some traditional water-depen­ Much of the waterfront and piers on the west dent maritime uses. Municipal uses, often not side of Manhattan (except for parkland), and water-dependent, have developed on some of portions of the east side, are zoned for manu­ facturing. In , waterfront these sites. In many instances, properties have areas and adjoining upland in the vicinity of been "landbanked" by both public and private West 125th Street and Sherman Creek are owners. Some of these properties have been zoned for industry. occupied by temporary uses such as parking;

85 MAP 5.0

New Jersey

, ,, 1II " , ... �

Queens (, , , < < < < , , ,, , ,, ,, Brooklyn

Existing Waterfront Manufacturing Zoning Districts

waterfront manufacturing zoning district

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront In Queens, a portion of Long Island City, one marina and marina support; commercial of the city's largest industrial areas, abuts the excursion and boating; and transportation uses East River. Industrial zoning extends along the (ferries, airports, heliports and rail car float Upper East River shoreline from Astoria to facilities). The working waterfront also in­ Flushing Bay and LaGuardia Airport. Industrial cludes municipal and utility uses, some of zoning, much of it M3, is located along the which are water dependent, and industrial uses Flushing River and Newtown Creek and in that are not water dependent. College Point. Kennedy Airport OFK), located in southern Queens near Jamaica Bay, is The geographic distribution of these uses mapped Ml. varies considerably. Certain water-dependent uses tend to cluster in specificgeogr aphic areas The north and west shores of Staten Island are because of technological requirements, loca­ zoned primarily M3. The industrial area along tional criteria, and hydrographic conditions the Kill Van Kull tends to be narrow with (water depth, currents and wave action). Other residential uses nearby. The West Shore indus­ water-dependent activities are dispersed along trial areas are considerably deeper, but large the waterfront according to market or service portions are unusable for industrial develop­ catchment areas. Industrial uses for the most ment because of concentrations of tidal and part are concentrated in areas with manufac­ freshwater wetlands. turing zoning and good access to Manhattan.

WORKING WATERFRONT USES The following sections describe these working Today's working waterfront encompasses four waterfront uses, their siting requirements, categories of water-dependent uses: maritime, future trends and space needs, the constraints maritime support and certain industrial uses; they face and opportunities ahead.

Red Hook Marine Te rminal, Brooklyn

87 Maritime, Maritime Support, and warehousing coffee and cocoa. The 25th Street Industrial Water-Dependent Uses Pier is a vacant five-acre site fo r which EDC is These uses include port facilities for the seal seeking a long-term maritime use. land transfer of cargo (e.g., containerports and Manhattan Piers 36 and 42, known as the break-bulk docks); maritime support facilities "banana piers," were used for fruit shipment such as tugs, barges, ship service and repair; until the 1970s. They have been used primarily and industrial uses that receive or deliver for warehousing and storage since then. The materials or products by water. (Map 5.1.) city recently signed a lease with an operator to use for importing and warehousing Maritime Facilities coffee. Pier 36 is expected to continue to be The city's port facilities have deep water, used for non-water dependent municipal uses. reasonably good transportation access, and available upland for storage and operations. Brooklyn Piers 1-6 are used fo r warehousing They include the Red Hook Marine Terminal, and vessel tie-up. For the past several years, the Marine Te rminal (SBMT), the Port Authority has been considering alter­ the 23rd Street Te rminal and 25th Street Pier native uses fo r Piers 1-5. in Brooklyn; the vacant Howland Hook Ma­ rine Terminal and the Homeport Naval Base The Homeport Navy Base on the eastern shore in Staten Island; and Manhattan Pier 42. of Staten Island has its operational center in Stapleton and support functions in Fort The Red Hook Marine Te rminal is the city's ::.! Wadsworth. only active containerport. The volume of cargo handled by this 118-acre facility has increased Because of excess capacity, no new port facili­ over the last decade, and it is now operating at ties are needed in the city. The city and full capacity. It handles container and break­ public agencies are seeking greater utilization bulk operations for several firms importing of existing facilities by identifying "niche" from southern , South America and markets best served by New Yo rk locations, elsewhere. Red Hook has been particularly and by targeting marketing efforts. Attracting successfulin attracting consumer commodities new development will depend on improved such as food, furniture and clothes destined transportation access. Because the reconstruc­ for the metropolitan market. tion of the Gowanus Expressway will adverse­ ly affect trucks serving the Red Hook Marine The 187-acre Howland Hook Marine Terminal Te rminal and nearby industries, the Port is the largest marine terminal on the New Authority and New Yo rk State have instituted Yo rk side of the harbor. It has been virtually a barge service that floats freight to New unused since 1990. The Port Authority is Jersey from Red Hook. Efforts to revitalize completing major repairs and improvements the car float operations at the 65th Street for use of Howland Hook as a full service railyard in Brooklyn (operations are currently containerport. It is marketing the facility fo r located at 51st Street) are expected to im­ both container and break-bulk shipping. prove freight movement and the marketability The 110-acre SBMT was occupied until 1986, of maritime and warehouse space. In addi­ and is partially occupied today by the cocoa­ tion, the city is exploring the purchase and port. It is the nation's second largest import rehabilitation of the Staten Island Railroad center for cocoa. The city is seeking to expand Corporation right-of-way to provide rail cocoa operations and to attract other com­ service from New Jersey to Howland Hook modities such as fruit and meat to the SBMT. Marine Te rminal and a new intermodal The 16-acre 23rd Street Terminal also is used facility at the adjoining Arlington Yard. as a break-bulk terminal fo r receiving and

88 MAP 5.1

, .'

.,...... Queens ,

, ,

Red Hook "- Marine �... , ...... ��" Te rminal 23rd SI. Terminal

.' ,

Howland Hook Marine Te rminal

Staten Island

Maritime and Water-Deoendent• Industrial Uses

• maritime terminal or pier • water-dependent industrial use

• maritime support

Source: NYCDCP, Water-Dependent Use Study, (1991).

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront Maritime Support and Water-Dependent ters to satellite centers or users. Approximate­ Industrial Uses ly 260 maritime support firms employing Maritime support uses such as and 4,200 workers are located in, and serve the floating construction equipment tend to port. More than 700 large vessels and 100 cluster in manufacturing zoned areas that are pieces of floating construction equipment, close to major shipping channels and port with a value in excess of $2.5 billion, are facilities. Their siting needs include deep based in the port. water and protection from waves and cur­ rents. Existing concentrations are the Kill Van Water-dependent industrial uses, such as bulk Kull, the Brooklyn waterfront from Erie Basin oil storage facilities, utilize the water for re­ to Owls Head and from the Red Hook Ma­ ceipt of materials or shipment of goods. In rine Terminal through Pier 6, the Brooklyn recent decades there has been a significant Navy Yard, both sides of Newtown Creek, decline in traditional maritime and industrial and the lands under water off the Throgs water-dependent activity in the city. A 1965 Neck peninsula (for mooring of vessels). Tug U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey of port boat operations require dispersed locations uses recorded 673 water-dependent uses in for tie-up. New Yo rk City. A 1988 update documented 369 such uses - a decline of 45 percent. Maritime support services, many of which are Despite this decline, there may be opportuni­ located on the New York side of the harbor, ties fo r modest growth in certain uses such as are crucial to the health of the port. They maritime support as the region's economy provide services to cargo ships, and they expands. transport goods from large distribution cen-

The Amstar Sugar Refining Company along the East River in Wi lliamsburg

90 Full-service marina on City Island, Bronx

According to the Maritime Support Services recreational vessels. Marina support activities Location Study, growth in oceanborne trade include boat repair and maintenance, boat is expected to average about fiveper cent per storage, fuel,was te pumpout, and sail making year. The report estimates a modestly growing and repair. Marinas and marina support activi­ need for new tugs, deck and tank barges, and ties tend to cluster in areas with moderately floatingco nstruction equipment. The project­ deep water protected from currents, strong ed additional land requirement fo r maritime winds and wave action, and where conflict support services in the city is relatively small, with maritime and maritime support vessel involving one nautical mile of berthing space activity is minimal. and 40 acres of upland. The study concludes that these needs can be accommodated in Because full-service marina support facilities existing areas of concentration. Much of the (e.g., fuel, pumpout, repair, boat sales, and new berthing space will come with develop­ winter storage) frequently generate noise and ment of the Bargeport at Erie Basin in Red , they are allowed only in manufacturing Hook. Industrial areas like Sunset Park, the zones and in certain commercial zones. Lim­ Kill Van Kull, Newtown Creek and the ited-service marinas could be compatible with Brooklyn NavyYa rd also offe r suitable hydro­ uses in residential zones but are not now graphic conditions and upland to accommo­ permitted. Areas of marina and marina sup­ date existing and future needs. port activity are: Jamaica Bay, Sheepshead Bay, City Island (including the Long Island Sound Marina and Marina Support Uses area offthe East Bronx), and the south shore Marina uses include full-service marinas, of Staten Island from Great Kills Park to accessory docks, and single docks fo r private Raritan Bay.

91 MAP 5.2

, Queens ;.-.. ,

, , , , , , ,

, . ,

Brooklyn ....-. � ..,� ,.,. ,

Marina Uses

• existing full service marina

• existing yacht club or marina (not full service)

[] proposed marina or yacht club

Source: DCP, NY / NJ Harbor Estuary Water Use Management Study, 1991 .

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront Circle Line excursion boat passing under the Brooklyn Bridge

Although the number of commercial marinas sight-seeing). They are permitted in manufac­ declined 30 percent (from 102 to 71) between turing and certain commercial zones. Clusters 1970 and 1991, the number of boat slips of commercial excursion uses are in lower and increased by 30 percent to about 13,000, midtown Manhattan, Sheepshead Bay and City indicating an industry trend toward larger Island; others are dispersed throughout the marinas. Marina support services declined waterfront. Because commercial excursions are with the decline in marinas, but increased an important tourist draw and a recreational numbers of slips and boat registrations sug­ amenity for the city's residents, many of these gest demand for additional boating facilities uses could· be integrated into a wider range of in the city. Should there be a significant commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. increase in new accessory slip marinas, more (Map 5.3.) marina support facilities might be required. These operations, like maritime support Although harbor cruise and sightseeing excur­ facilities, require C3 districts or industrially sion activity declined sharply starting about 50 zoned land and maintenance years ago, it increased in the past decade. sustain operations. (Map 5.2.) Cruises to the Statue of Liberty, which have been in continuous operation since the iate Commercial Excursion Uses 1800s, have been joined by other operations Commercial excursion uses include waterborne such as Circle Line, Wo rld Yacht, the South leisure and sporting activities (e.g., fishing, Street Cruise Lines, the Spirit of New Yo rk, the overnight cruises and dinner cruises) which Pioneer, the Petrel and numerous smaller depend on proximity to coastal waters, and operations. In 1991, 32 operations with 65 commercial-recreational boating activity (e.g., vessels were providing excursion boating. commercial vacation cruises, excursions, and Many of these operations are located in or

- 93 MAP 5.3

, : of ' , ...... : . �..,.... . ::. t '., ,.

"';...... "'''' ...... , , �.,., ' , > , , , , , . , .

Commercial Cruise and Excursion Uses

• commercial cruise ships • existing excursion, sightseeing boats, etc. \ or � concentration of commercial [] proposed excursion, sightseeing boats, etc. sport fishing boats

Source: OCP, NY / NJ Harbor Estuary Water Use Management Study, 1991.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront near to, and are compatible with, commercial Transportation Uses developments or parks. The number of excur­ Transportation uses include the public ferry sion boats for day hire or charter is expected service between Manhattan and Staten Island, to increase modestly in the future, as are private fe rry lines, heliports, airports, and rail sightseeing, excursion, and cultural/education and car float facilities. vessels. Growth in these activities would re­ Fe rries quire additional docking locations. Potential Ferries tend to have dispersed points of origin opportunity sites are shown on Map 5.3. although most ferry operations terminate in Manhattan. All ferry services except one cur­ Oceangoing cruise ship activities once rently dock at publicly owned piers. Ferries helped define New Yo rk City's image; only require easy access to their markets; parking is 14 cruise ships, generating about 200 trips usually important fo r stops outside of Manhat­ annually, now call at the Port Authority tan. Ferries can be compatible with commer­ Passenger Ship Terminal. Cruise ship activi­ cial and residential developments and are often ty is unlikely to expand. viewed as traffic impact mitigation or as mar­ keting tools fo r new development. (Map 5.4.) Most commercial sport fishing operations are located in City Island in the Bronx, and in The publicly operated is the Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn. They require oldest and largest of the fe rry services. It has a upland area primarily for parking and are daily ridership of approximately 65,000. Private usually located near major commercial streets. ferries were non-existent in 1985, but by 1991, There are 30 commercial fishing vessels in 7 private ferry routes carried more than 16,000 New Yo rk. riders daily.

Perry shuttle to LaGuardia Airport leaving Pier 11 in Lower Manhattan

95 MAP 5.4

, ,· · · , " ,��

,· · · · · , , ·,

Water-Dependent Transportation

• existing ferry stop • heliport o proposed ferry stop airport

Source: DCP, NY / NJ Harbor Estuary Water Use Management Study, 1 991 .

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront Private ferry routes are expected to increase Airports in the future, particularly those providing commuter service to Manhattan destinations. For reasons of safety and available space, both Recent studies by DCP, DOT and the former LaGuardia and Kennedy (JFK) airports are Department of Ports and Trade identified located along the waterfront. New York's locations that offe r good shore and dock airports are crucial in keeping New Yo rk conditions, available upland for parking, competitive in the global economy. In 1990, transit access and access to residential popula­ JFK handled 29 percent of the nation's inter­ tions. These locations include Ferry Point national air cargo. Expansion of JFK and Park in the Bronx, Flushing Bay Marina in Queens, Canarsie Pier and the Brooklyn LaGuardia, including runway extensions and Army Terminal in Brooklyn, and Great Kills distribution facilities, is being considered by Harbor in Staten Island. A new ferry service the Port Authority. The city, state and Port between St. George, Staten Island and mid­ Authority are examining ways to improve town Manhattan is being developed by DOT. water, rail and highway access to the airports. Parking facilities at non-Manhattan ferry stops and coordination with mass transit can enhance the success of new ferry operations. Heliports Lack of adequate capital fo r improvements such as dredging and dock rehabilitation can Heliports also are located along the waterfront undermine the viability of fe rry service before to have a safe landing area. Most heliport ridership has a chance to develop. facilities are in Manhattan fo r quick access to the central business district from the airports The use of ferries for "fast freight" goods and points outside the city. Heliports, howev­ movement within the region may be econom­ er, are noisy and difficult neighbors in or near ically viable fo r some routes, fo r example, residential or commercial areas. Most heliports between the airports and the CBD. Studies by are likely to stay at their present locations DCP and DOT identified five pairs of possi­ ble sites: Laguardia Airport and Pier 42; Port although there is strong community pressure Newark and JFK; , New Jersey to have some of them relocated. and the New Yo rk airports; Greenville Yard and the SBMT; and Port Newark and Pier 42. (Map 5.4.)

/

Wa ll Street Heliport, Ma nhattan

97 MAP 5.5

Harlem River Rail Yard

Highway I Rail / intermodal Network

rail freight line (active) limited access truck routes

. .,.• ••....•.• rail freight line (inactive or proposed) airport

• proposed intermodal facility

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront Rail Facilities Ocean disposal of sludge will end in mid-1992, Rail facilities played a crucial role along the but intra- and inter-port movements of sludge are expected to occur more frequently, increas­ waterfront when materials and goods were ing the number of government vessels used fo r transported to and from port facilities by rail. sludge movement. DEP has proposed five sites Rail freight car loadings in the city and Long for sludge processing fa cilities in Maspeth, Island declined by 75 percent between 1973 Sunset Park, Port Newark, Wa rds Island and and 1989, compared to a 21 percent decline in Port Morris (Map 5.6). These sites offer poten­ the northeast. Althoughrail lines traverse some tial for intermodal connections using barge waterfront properties, the only active rail line and/or rail movement. The potential fo r inter­ is the N.Y. Cross Harbor Railroad and the modal connections should be a consideration South Brooklyn Railroad in Sunset Park, in selecting future sites fo r other municipal Brooklyn. Cross Harbor also operates a car facilities which transport high-bulk, low-value float which barges rail cars from New Jersey to goods. The city is evaluating a number of sites Brooklyn. The volume of activity is limited. in industrially zoned areas fo r other long-term solid waste handling and processing needs. The Development of a full freight access program amount of manufacturing-zoned land needed for rail has been proposed by the city and is dependent in part upon the size of sites and state. This program would include purchase facilities. and restoration of the along the North Shore to Howland Hook; Non-Water�Dependent Industrial Uses activation of the 65th Street car float operation Areas of industrial concentration on or near in Sunset Park; and completion of the Oak the waterfront tend to be relatively accessible Point Link in the Bronx to improve access to Manhattan, the airports or port facilities. within the northern rail corridor. The latter These include Long Island City, the South project, in conjunction with the planned Bronx, portions of the Brooklyn waterfront, Harlem River Yard project fo r intermodal the Newtown Creek area, and the airports. traffic, has the potential to divert some truck Industrial areas often contain a mix of indus­ traffic to the rail mode. (Map 5.5.) trial, non-industrial and water-dependent uses.

Municipal and Utility Uses Most economic projections anticipate contin� ued decline in industrial sector employment. These dispersed uses include Police and Fire Based on the conclusions of DCP's draft Department, Army Corps of Engineers, and Citywide Industry Study, the city has the Coast Guard harbor operation units; municipal opportunity to offset some of these losses by facilities that handle sludge, transfer solid capturing a share of the projected regional waste and treat wastewater; and utilities such growth in industrial sector firms that serve the as generating stations. Because most of these area's export-oriented service industries and its municipal and utility facilities must be sited in growing and increasingly affluent population. M3 districts, concentrations of these uses are These firms would likely include flexible mar­ developing. Some of these uses are water­ ket oriented manufacturing, distribution, and dependent; others are not but require large mixed use business parks. Future employment �T\ 1n....t11C'trl"'l1 C't.'Irthr sites buffered from residential uses. Vacant J..1.1 thL.l.l\,..o \o..r�J.'-,f-u)c.:l .J.J.UU�LL.1.'-4..1. "',",�\..'-'.I. rlpnpn-...... r ..._v ..rlc. in...... n�rt1::' ...... piers and waterfront public land have been on addressing factors which negatively distin­ used for temporary siting of tow pounds, bus guish the city from surrounding suburbs, garages and parking. These uses need not be including taxes, the scarcity of sites, crime, and on the waterfront but require large parcels poor road access. Other industrial sectors with access to their service areas. Municipal needed to support the city's population, such water-dependent fa cilities and utility uses are as construction and the collection, processing shown on Map 5.6. and disposal of solid waste, may also grow.

99 MAP 5.6

, ,

, ,

"

"

" ;;- .. , � �� .

,

, , ,

,

... � � .. ,.. " � �� ; ,

Util ities and Municipal Water-Dependent Uses

• water pollution control plant electric or gas facility • marine transfer station o public safety facility (police, fire, Coast Guard) e proposed sludge processing facility

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront Even with projected declines, industrial uses substantial overestimates of future industrial on or near the waterfront will continue to employment. These forecasts did not anticipate play a role in the city's economy, particularly the decline in the city's maritime industry due in those areas with good access to the region­ to containerization and the shiftof port activi­ al highway and rail network and the central ty to the New Jersey side of the harbor. New and regional business districts, or in proximi­ Yo rk City's industrial decline has paralleled ty to the city's airports. Remaining businesses that of other large American cities and signifi­ and new ones (most likely tied to the regional cant new industrial growth is unlikely. market) will continue to need well-located manufacturing-zoned land. A waterfront site, These trends have contributed to the under­ however, is unlikely to be a locational necessity. utilization of land in manufacturing zones located on the waterfront and upland. The WORKING WATERFRONT ISSUES draft Industry Study found that, except fo r the Manhattan CBD and a few areas of the Bronx, USE ZONING AND LAND Brooklyn and Queens, land and buildings are Except for accessory marinas, which are pet­ not being utilized at their potential to support mitted in residential and commercial districts, industry. More than 20 percent of land zoned most working waterfront uses require manu­ for industry is vacant and considerably more is facturing zoning. One of the fundamental ob­ underutilized. The sharp decline of industrial jectives of the waterfront plan is to ensure the activity has led to falling demand fo r industrial retention of sufficient manufacturing-zoned land and space. Many of the city's industrial land to accommodate futureneeds. In general, areas could accommodate greater industrial areas best suited fo r retention of manufactur­ activity if the investment interest existed. ing zoning would have relatively high levels of Targeted improvements in the freight trans­ industrial activity, relatively good access fo r portation network and progress in reducing moving freight, and/or hydrological conditions the incidence of commercial crime can help suitable for port-related and maritime activi­ bring investment to industrial areas to offset ties. In other areas, retention of manufacturing the decline in manufacturing. zoning should be based on projections of working waterfront needs and on the overall One use certain to expand - municipal and best use of the land. solid waste handling fa cilities - is more land intensive than manufacturing, and generally In the city as a whole, there is sufficient manu­ facturing-zoned land to meet future demand, requires manufacturing zoning and an ade­ even if a significant amount of rezoning were quate buffer when near residential and com­ to occur. Since the adoption of the current mercial uses; Because these facilities handle Zoning Resolution in 1961, there has been bulky, low value materials, they are particularly · only a modest reduction (in the range of five well-suited fo r waterborne transportation of percent) in land zoned fo r industry, while total goods. Adequately buffered waterfront indus­ industrial employment has declined by more trially zoned land is scarce. The few such areas than 42 percent and manufacturing by more that remain should be maintained to accom­ than 55 percent. Manufacturing production modate these fa cilities. empioyment has declined even more precipi­ tously; the Census of Manufacturing shows a Some working waterfront uses such as mari­ 61 percent decline in production workers time support and commercial excursion boat­ between 1963 and 1987. ing have shown growth or potential fo r growth. Uses such as fe rries, marinas and The mapping of manufacturing districts in excursion boats could easily be incorporated in 1961 anticipated increased requirements fo r residential and commercial zones if zoning manufacturing-zoned land, based in part on were modified to permit these uses.

101 TRANSPORTATION truck routes. Larger, more complex capacity­ New Yo rk's role as an economic center and increasing improvements, such as the construc­ the vitality of the working waterfront are tion of new highway access ramps and bridges that serve waterfront and other industrial contingent in part on the city's network for areas, need to be considered as long-term goods movement. Because of the reliance on investments in the city's economy in general, truck freighttr affic,in the city and nationwide, and the working waterfront in particular. the area's highway system remains its most critical transportation mode for goods move­ Waterborne and rail freight must play an ment. Movement of goods between many increased role in the transport of goods in the waterfront industrial areas (including the city. Access to the waterfront or to a rail line, airports) and the Manhattan CBD (and around however, is no longer an essential locational the periphery of the CBD) is constrained by requirement fo r most industry. Much of the poor highway access. Poor access, congestion traditional transportation infrastructure for rail and the physical condition of the region's and waterborne freight no longer exists or is in highway network add to the cost of moving a state of disrepair. Improving these transpor­ goods in the region. tation modes has some potential to reduce the cost of goods, decrease highway congestion No single action can alleviate the area's high­ and improve air quality. For example, they can way problems. A series of short-term improve­ provide alternative routes fo r bulky or noxious ments such as road and bridge reconstruction, commodities such as solid waste, ash and de­ better signage and channelization of traffic, watered . Transportation modes and new designated truck routes would allow for these waste materials and certain other businesses to reduce their operating costs goods could include water or rail depending marginally. Movement of truck freight could on the locations of specific destinations and be facilitated by reducing automobile trafficon economic fe asibility.

Harlem River Ya rds, Bronx

102 Sunset Park Pier No. 7, Brooklyn

The development of intermodal facilities that posed rail-truck intermodal facility at the involve water, rail, highway, and airport links Harlem River Yard. The Full Freight Access has been recommended by a number of groups Program includes: construction of a modern and public agencies. The improvement and intermodal rail terminal in the city to accom­ development of intermodal links depends on a modate the use of truck trailers mounted on coordinated program of transportation system railroad cars (TOFC); improved rail clearance improvements. Use of New Yo rk City's rail between Albany and the city to accommodate lines for goods movement is impeded by clear­ TOFC equipment; a dedicated track for freight ance restrictions and by competition from service through the South Bronx; and better heavy commuter traffic.Another major barrier rail access to the Brooklyn waterfront. is the lack of a fixed rail freight route across the lower portion of the Hudson River. As a WATERFRONT INFRASTRUCTURE AND result, virtually all rail trafficdestined fo r New FINANCING Yo rk City is routed via Conrail's Selkirk Yard The waterfrontinf rastructure has suffered from near Albany, which can add as much as 300 years of neglect and deferred maintenance miles and an extra day to the trip. because of disuse and insufficient capital

...... r1ino 'Th 1.C' 1nfro'] C'trnrt11."1"D lnrl11riPC' J..f",.,U.l.lU.1.J..l " .1- ..lJ..J..:1 .l.l.l.1...LU\.J LJ.U"-'LUJ. \,.. .l..lJ.'"-'.l.u...... ""\.J "'UTo:l"Y ULtpr_ ..... J. Completion of New Yo rk State's Full Freight 5 front structures such as piers, bulkheads, Access Program for rail would improve New wharfs and platforms, and the nearby street Yo rk City's competitive position fo r freight network. Poor condition of local streets, poor distribution and industrial development. For loading fa cilities, and lack of adequate ware­ example, it could enable some freight traffic housing fa cilities can limit storage and move­ now shipped through New Jersey rail terminals ment of trucks and goods. or sent by truck to be captured by the pro-

103 The wear and tear on waterfront structures is A number of city and state financial assis­ substantial. For example, piers are damaged by tance programs3 are available to industrial vessel operations, the natural fo rces of saltwa­ and other working waterfront users fo r ac­ ter and aquatic animals such as marine borers. quiring and improving sites, and maintaining In addition, derelict waterfront structures and and repairing infrastructure. Some working debris can interfere with port operations. The waterfront uses are unable to meet the pro­ Harbor Drift Program, administered by the grams' eligibility requirements because their Army Corps of Engineers, improves port short-term leases lack collateral value. In operations and reuse potential by removing addition, many of the city and state financial derelict piers, vessels and debris, and by stabi­ programs will not finance boats and other lizing the shoreline. The federal government floating stock. Some financing criteria are contributes two-thirds of the removal cost; the based on the number of jobs retained or state and city share the balance. Although the created. While most of these businesses do major purpose of the program has been to not generate substantial numbers of jobs, they remove sources of drift responsible fo r vessel contribute to the health of the port. damage, the project has resulted also in im­ proved near-shore water circulation and a Waterfront infrastructure construction and generally neater looking shoreline. repair are constrained also by the cost, time and difficulty in obtaining required permits The Harbor Drift Program (Map 5.7) has from regulatory agencies. Construction and completed shoreline clean-up of the repair of piers and bulkheads and dredging Manhattan side of the East River, Brooklyn of channels are essential for water-depend­ Upper Bay including the Erie Basin, and the ent uses. Stapleton area of Staten Island. The next project is scheduled to commence this year PUBLIC ACCESS along the south Brooklyn waterfront.On ce this Accommodating public access within water­ is complete, six areas will remain to be cleaned front industrial areas is often difficult or up: the west side of Manhattan, the Harlem unwise because of safety considerations and River, the East River along the Brooklyn/ potential conflicts with operations. The loca­ Queens waterfronts, and the Arthur Kill, tion and movement of materials, equipment, Shooter's Island and the Kill Van Kull in trucks and rail cars make it difficult to main­ Staten Island. The program has been delayed, tain public safety without jeopardizing opera­ however, because of problems with the release tions. Furthermore, the relative isolation of of funds and concerns over disposal methods. industrial areas poses security problems fo r both businesses and the public. Financing for water-dependent businesses is often hampered by the concerns of lending Nevertheless, modest public access improve­ institutions fo r collateral and long-term pos­ ments near certain working waterfront uses session of property. Many of the maritime can benefit workers and residents in nearby support industries lease their facilities by the areas. Publicly oriented waterfront uses such as month. The Port Au thority's recent agree­ excursions, ferries and marinas can be de­ ment to sell the former Fishport at the Erie signed more easily to inclu� public access. Basin in Red Hook to a consortium of barge Street ends and publicly owned piers can be and owners represents a positive step improved to provide public access opportuni­ towards gaining permanent locations which ties in industrial areas. Some public facilities meet the financial community's criteria for can include public areas if carefully integrated tangible fixed assets. Shared use of these sites during site planning. These limited opportuni­ with upland users will also enhance the in­ ties must be assessed carefully, case-by-case, as vestment potential by diversifyingthe poten­ to fe asibility and desirability. tial revenue stream.

104 MAP 5.7

Harbor Drift Project

shoreline clean-up completed

------shoreline clean-up underway future shoreline clean-up

Source: u.s. Army Corps of Engineers.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Departmentof City Planning / Working Waterfront REGULATION

The promotion of industrial water-dependent Ye t the same environmental standards and uses and environmental quality are not neces­ review procedures apply to these areas and to sarily incompatible. However, the environmen­ significant natural areas. tal review regulations fo r dredging, shoreline stabilization, and bulkhead improvements are At present, WRP policies are applied with complex, lengthy and sometimes inconsistent. equal weight in all parts of the waterfront, Approvals are often required from many oftenleading to policy contradictions. Like the different public agencies with overlapping permitting process described above, WRP jurisdictions. Failure to obtain timely approvals policies provide neither construction guidelines can impair the long-term viability of working nor geographic specificity and thus do not waterfront uses and lead to disinvestment in distinguish among the values and needs of industrial areas. A strategy is needed to facili­ different areas. This can deter precisely those tate the process for making waterfront invest­ water-dependent uses that the WRP was de­ ments while maintaining environmental quality signed to promote. and protecting unique natural areas.

In some instances, important industrial areas such as JFK, the Passenger Ship Te rminal and THE PLAN FOR THE WORKING the Kill Van Kull are adjacent or near to WATERFRONT critical wetlands and aquatic habitats. The state has proposed designation of several Significant Different strategies are required to preserve Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, including and enhance the variety of working waterfront the Hudson River, Jamaica Bay and portions uses. Approaches appropriate for concentrated of Staten Island, which are proximate to work­ working waterfront uses differ from those fo r ing waterfront areas. In the absence of clear addressing the unique requirements of dis­ guidelines fo r dredging and other waterfront persed uses. The plan for the Wo rking Water­ improvements such as pier and bulkhead front identifies significant maritime and indus­ construction or repair, conflicts with environ­ trial areas that are suitable for, and contain mental regulations are difficult to resolve, and concentrations of, water-dependent and indus­ needed permits are difficult or impossible to trial activity; some of these areas also have obtain. Dredging is also hampered by lack of intermodal infrastructure. Recommendations agreement on safe dredging practices and are proposed to foster working waterfront uses disposal sites. Proposed federal legislation in these areas. Because of their local and could make it more difficult to find suitable regional importance, the plan also addresses locations for sediment disposal. airport needs and opportunities. Finally, a set of citywide recommendations is proposed to Even in waterfront industrial areas removed enhance dispersed working waterfront uses, from important enviroTlmental resources, it and to encourage activity in waterfront indus­ remains difficultto obtain approvals fo r dredg­ trial areas. ing and bulkhead and pier construction and repair. For example, the Newtown Creek industrial area contains a concentration of water-dependent and other heavy industrial uses requiring continual dredging of the creek.

106 DESIGNATION OF SIGNIFICANT service uses. Its deep water, relatively calm MARITIME AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS currents, proximity to major shipping channels and Port Newark/Elizabeth, and considerable Six SignificantMaritime and Industrial Areas are designated in this plan to protect and investments in piers, bulkheads and wharves, fa cilitate concentrated working waterfront make it suitable for siting maritime, maritime uses, and to ensure sufficient industrially support and water-dependent uses. It is the zoned land to accommodate futuregrowth of best area in the port to meet the future needs these uses, including municipal and water­ of the maritime support services industry. The dependent activities. The major criteria used area also contains the Howland Hook Marine to identify significant areas include: concen­ Terminal, Arlington rail yards and the vacant trations of M2 and M3 zoned land; suitable Port Ivory plant. The Staten Island Rail Cor­ hydrographic conditions fo r maritime related poration rail line and right-of-way along the uses; presence of intermodal, marine terminal and/or pier infrastructure; concentrations of North Shore provides the potential fo r devel­ water-dependent and industrial activity; opment of an intermodal fa cility at Howland relatively good transportation access and Hook. The industrial area contains concentra­ proximity to markets; and availability of tions of M3-zoned land, and a mix of non­ publicly owned land. The following six areas industrial and industrial uses in addition to meet most or all of these criteria. (Map 5.8.) the maritime-related industries. The western portion of the area coincides with the Staten The Kill Van Kull in Staten Island from Island Special Natural Area identified in the Howland Hook to Snug Harbor is character­ plan for the Natural Waterfront. iz�d by a concentration of maritime support

Maritime supp ort services along the Kill Va n Kull, Staten Is land

107 MAP 5.8

, , ,

Significant Maritime / Industrial Areas

111111111111111111 Significant Maritime / Industrial Area waterfront manufacturing zoning district boldna me

• waterfront manufacturing zoning district airport If If If 1111 � with special environmental constraints

NOTE: Waterfront manufacturing zoning districts proposed for rezoning or parkland are not shown.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Working Waterfront View of Erie Basin from breakwater, Brooklyn

The Brooklyn Waterfront from Erie Basin to poor condition and require substantial invest­ Owls Head (Erie Basin and Sunset Park) is ment. Access to the Gowanus Expressway is characterized by water-dependent facilities, poor, although the area is proximate to lower concentrations of industrial activity, well­ Manhattan. buffered M3 districts, and vacant and publicly owned land. Major facilities and uses in this The Brooklyn Waterfront from Pier 6 area include the South Brooklyn Marine through the Red Hook Containerport is Te rminal, the 23rd Street Coffee Terminal, devoted almost entirely to maritime cargo Erie Basin Bargeport, Bush Terminal, the operations and contains the city's only active 65th Street rail yards and car float operation, containerport. The Red Hook Marine Termi­ the Brooklyn Army Te rminal Industrial Park, nal extends from Pier 8 through Pier 12. The , and Sunset Park In-Place Port Authority runs a barge operation from Industriai Park. Sites here have been pro­ the marine terminal to New Jersey. Piers 6 posed by the city for recycling, sludge pro­ and 7 are used fo r berthing vessels and mari­ cessing, a marine transfer station, and barge time support uses. tie-up facilities. Rail lines extend through the area. The larger industrial area contains more than 18,000 employees, with concentrations in manufacturing and to a lesser extent in wholesale trade. Piers and bulkheads are in

109 The Brooklyn Navy Ya rd Source: Skyviews Incorporated

The Brooklyn Navy Yard, operated by the mostly M3 and is moderately well-buffered Navy Yard Development Corporation, is from residential districts. The Red Hook characterized primarily by small manufactur­ WPCP is located west of the Navy Yard. ing businesses. It contains substantial invest­ ment in waterfront infrastructure used by a harbor unit of the Fire Department, three ship repair businesses and several vessel berthing business!s. The Navy Yard is zoned no Newtown Creek abuts portions of Greenpoint, South Bronx (Port Morris and Hunts Point) Williamsburg, Long Island City and · Maspeth contains well-buffered M3-zoned land, por­ industrial areas. Zoned predominantly M3, tions of which are vacant and city-owned. The these areas contain more than 30,000 industrial larger industrial area contains approximately jobs, with concentrations in manufacturing. 28,000 jobs of which about 80 percent are The waterfront area is characterized by heavy industrial. More than half the industrial em­ industry and municipal facilities, many of ployment in Port Morris is in manufacturing; which are water-dependent. There are 14 oil about half the industrial jobs in Hunts Point facilities located on both sides of the creek. are in wholesale trade related to the Hunts The Newtown Creek WPCP, a marine transfer Point Food Distribution Center. The South station, and the Greenpoint incinerator are Bronx waterfront area also contains a number located on the Brooklyn side. An asphalt plant of municipal uses and the Oak Point and and a sludge processing facility have been Harlem River rail yards. A rail-truck inter­ proposed for the Queens side. The area has modal facility (for unloading of TOFC onto relatively good access to the Manhattan CBD trucks) is proposed fo r the Harlem River and Long Island City. It contains unused rail Yards, and a sludge processing facility has been spurs connecting to the Bushwick Branch of proposed fo r a site in Port Morris. The area is the . The shoreline is near the Major Deegan and Bruckner express­ entirely bulkheaded, although portions are ways. Rail facilities provide access to Long deteriorating. Dredging is required immediate­ Island and other parts of the city; completion ly to maintain a navigable channel. of the would permit trailer-

Newtown Creek Hunts Point Cooperative Market, Bronx

111 Red Hook Marine Te rminal, Brooklyn on-fiat-car service to the north and the rail Retaining the zoning would establish land use network west of the Hudson River via Selkirk policy in areas that are particularly well near Albany. The waterfront has several exist­ suited fo r the range of uses permitted by ing piers and bulkheads near the rail lines industrial zoning. The Significant Areas are creating the potential for water and rail inter­ well suited for water-dependent and mari­ modal development. time-related uses. These areas provide an important resource for promoting industrial STRATEGY FOR SIGNIFICANT MARITIME development and fo r the future siting of AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS municipal uses. Retaining the manufacturing A number of actions are recommended to zoning will help ensure the future health of strengthen the Significant Areas. Recommen­ these industrial areas by permitting a range dations are intended to guide land use deci­ of economic activities which can co-exist sions, city disposition policy and public without difficulty as they have done to date. investment strategies, and to promote better • Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for dis­ interagency coordination to fa cilitate inter­ position of publicly owned property modal development. within the Significant Areas should give preference to maritime, maritime sup­ • Manufacturing zoning should be main­ tained in all Significant Areas. port, and water-dependent components where compatible with the primary use. Maintaining the manufacturing zoning in the six Significant Areas (and in much of the Where property owned by the city, state or a industrial waterfront elsewhere) is the prima­ public authority is offered for lease or sale in ry mechanism fo r ensuring sufficientland fo r these areas, RFPs should be structured so that the future needs of the working waterfront. practical proposals which include water-

Il2 dependent uses, where compatible with the • A task fo rce should be established to proposed primary use, be given preference in develop and implement a regional rail the selection process. In this way, water­ freight intermodal strategy. dependent uses would be encouraged in those areas most suited to their operation. The city and state governments are committed to increasing intermodal potential in New

• Development on property leased or Yo rk City where connections can be developed sold by public agencies should be de­ between at least two modes of transportation

signed in a way that would leave open (e.g., rail, barge and truck). The construction future berthing of maritime support of the Oak Point rail link in the Bronx has the vessels in and along the water. financial support of the city and state. The Port Authority and the Economic Develop­ To the extent feasible, RFPs fo r the disposi­ ment Corporation (EDC) have expressed their tion of publicly owned property in the Signif­ intent to acquire and activate the Staten Island icant Areas should require that bulkheads, Railway Line which provides access between piers and wharfs be retained and access to Howland Hook and the Southern Rail Corri­ the water's edge not be permanently obstruct­ dor west of Staten Island. EDC is negotiating ed. This requirement would help ensure the I with the Cross Harbor Railroad on the lease of retention of valuable waterfront infrastructure the 65th Street Rail Yards in Sunset Park fo r needed to accommodate future maritime the development of an expanded car float support needs. operation between Sunset Park, Brooklyn and New Jersey. Although there are no active plans • Municipal facilities proposed for loca­ to do so, the Bushwick Branch of the Long tions in the Significant Areas should be Island Railroad in eastern Newtown Creek encouraged to consider inclusion of could also be activated to provide a fourth water-dependent elements and use of intermodal facility if a need is identified. rail for movement of materials. The proposed Task Force should include Potential sites suitable fo r municipal uses members of the Bi-State Regional Forum4 and such as sludge processing and waste handling other city, state and private transportation and facilities are located in several of the Signifi­ planning agencies. The task force can develop cant Areas. These sites are generally well­ a coordinated capital and operating strategy to buffered, M3-zoned waterfront land. Munici­ maximize the potential fo r intermodal trans­ pal facilities proposed in these areas should port in the four SignificantAreas which have include, to the maximum extent feasible, rail infrastructure. Although intermodal facili­ water-dependent elements such as movement ties are projected to serve only a small portion of material by barge or rail float. Four of the of the goods movement needs of the city, they proposed Significant Areas - the South may play a role in helping reduce the environ­ Bronx, Kill Van Kull, Newtown Creek, and mental impacts of truck traffic and in revitaliz­ Sunset Park - contain existing rail facilities ing the waterfront. which may be used fo r goods movement. • Access i pro ements for the Significant Water and rail transportation can help reduce . m v Areas should be advanced. the traffic impacts of some municipal uses. Criteria requiring the consideration of water The vitality of industry and the maritime and rail for the movement of material should facilities in the Significant Areas is dependent be developed. Such criteria would consider in large part on truck access to the city and the economics of rail and barge movement, as region's highway network fo r the movement of well as the potential air quality, traffic and goods. Studies have identified a range of neighborhood benefits from a reduction in capital projects to fa cilitate truck movement new truck traffic. citywide. Specificprojects to be considered fo r

. Il3 the Significant Areas include: increasing the JFK AND LAGUARDIA AIRPORT AREAS capacity of the Goethals Bridge to improve Because of their significance to the local and truck access from New Jersey to Howland regional economy, JFK and LaGuardia merit Hook and the Brooklyn waterfront; providing special attention. Approximately 37,000 people access ramps at 39th Street in Sunset Park to are employed at JFK and in the surrounding the Gowanus Expressway; construction of a industrial area. Truck access is the most critical Newtown Creek crossing to fa cilitate access problem fo r the air cargo fa cility at JFK, which from no rth Brooklyn to the Long Island is the largest in the nation. The LaGuardia Expressway; and completion of the Bruckner Airport area includes the airport and Interchange to facilitate access to Hunts Point. LaGuardia fe rry dock. The Bowery Bay WPCP The summary of the reach study recommenda­ is located to the west. Area employment is tions (Appendix A) identifiesother area specif­ approximately 16,000. Although LaGuardia is ic improvements. primarily a passenger airport, its volume of air cargo would place it among the top 20 airports • WRP Policy 2 should be revised to apply nationally. specifically to the Significant Areas • Improvements should be identified to Although water-dependent uses are not feasible accommodate the needs of the airports or appropriate in all waterfront locations, and air cargo facilities and to ensure their WRPPol icy 2 encourages them throughout the safe operation. city. This can create conflicts with waterfront Public actions should ensure that the safety development and with unique natural areas. and operational needs of the airports are met Clarifying this policy to apply specifically to while protecting environmental resources in the Significant Industrial Areas and to certain Jamaica and Flushing bays. To improve pas­ water-dependent uses such as ferries would senger and freight movement, EDC, DOT and make it more meaningful and would fa cilitate the Port Authority should pursue the poten­ WRP consistency reviews . tial fo r waterborne movement of passengers

. Jet landing at LaGuardia Airport, Queens

114 Dredging operation along Staten Island waterfro nt

and freight between JFK and Manhattan, and evaluation of working waterfront uses fo r freight only, between the airport and New and the overall best use of the land. Jersey. There may be some potential fo r fast freight ferry service between LaGuardia and Certain industrially zoned sites appropriate fo r Manhattan and New Jersey. Most important, reuse are identified in the Plan fo r the Rede­ the city and state transportation agencies veloping Waterfront. These represent a small should examine strategies to improve truck portion of industrially zoned waterfront land access to JFK, including the widening of the citywide. Potential reuse of other sites would Van Wyck Expressway and improvements to depend on an evaluation of land use and the alternate truck routes to the airport. Industri­ long-term needs of the working waterfront. al zoning on land abutting JFK should be re­ tained to accommodate growth in the air • Develop a port improvement and invest­ cargo industry. ment program to propose a long-range strategy for capital improvements and CITYWIDE STRATEGY FOR THE development priorities fo r port-related WORKING WATERFRONT infrastructure. In addition to the strategy fo r the Significant Waterfront infrastructure repair has been Areas and the airports, the plan fo r the Vlo rk­ constrained by overlapping jurisdictions, a lack ing Waterfront includes recommendations fo r of coordination among agencies and insuffi­ other waterfront industrial areas, dispersed cient funding. Establishment of a task force working waterfront uses, capital investment consisting of city, state and fe deral agencies and financing, and regulatory review. with port and waterfront jurisdictions is rec­ ommended to develop a coordinated capital • Retain manufacturing zoning in other improvement strategy fo r port facilities. This waterfront industrial areas based on an would include targeting and coordinating city,

115 state and federal funds fo r maritime-related and to finance improvements. In conjunction infrastructure repair and capital improvements with this examination, the city should be (e.g., bulkhead repair, pier rehabilitation, encouraged to extend long-term leases to channel dredging) in conjunction with port these businesses to increase their ability to and other industrial developments. meet loan requirements.

• Identify highway transportation im­ • Permit fe rries and excursion boats in provements to improve truck freight more locations and encourage their movement citywide. development.

The plan identifies specific access improve­ The Zoning Resolution should be amended to ments for the Significant Areas. Citywide permit greater flexibility in siting these uses in highway system and access improvements are residential and commercial zones. These uses essential to the long-term health of the city's are compatible with many residential and economy and its industrial areas, both on the commercial uses but are restricted to manufac­ waterfront and inland. A number of studies by turing districts and certain commercial zones. DOT, DCP and State DOT have recommended They are dispersed throughout the waterfront, improvements beyond those currently planned and could be incorporated more widely in as­ or funded. Implementation of these improve­ of-right development projects if permitted by ments and local industrial area improvements zoning. The success of fe rry service could be such as street repaving would facilitate indus­ enhanced by better coordination with subway trial and working waterfront development. and bus service. The plan identifies several sites where new passenger fe rry service could • Complete the Harbor Drift Program to be viable. The Department of Business Services enhance maritime operations. and DOT should seek operators fo r ferry service at these locations. The plan identifies The Port Authority, EDC and the Army Corps potential locations for the introduction of fast of Engineers should work toward completing freight service. EDC and the Port Authority the city's Harbor Drift Program by the year should pursue their implementation by seeking 2000. In view of their economic and ecological private operators. value, the Kill Van Kull and Hudson River reaches should receive high priority for the • Facilitate the development of marina next round of funding. Issues regarding dis­ and marina-support services. posal of drift materials must also be resolved. Amending the Zoning Resolution can facilitate • Seek revisions to city, state and fe deral the development of marina and marina sup­ financial assistance and highway aid pro­ port facilities by better definingthese facilities grams to increase the eligibility of mari­ and permitting them in more districts. Regula­ time-related businesses. tions governing accessory marina slips can be made less restrictive, and thereby encourage A number of city and state financial assis­ their development in dispersed locations. tance programs are available to industrial and , other working waterfront users for acquiring • Amend the WRP to facilitate working and improving sites, and maintaining and waterfront development. repairing infrastructure. Some working water­ front uses are unable to meet the programs' Waterfront development is constrained by the eligibility requirements. Eligibility require­ difficulty in obtaining permits and approvals ments, particularly those related to collateral for dredging and the repair and construction requirements, should be examined and of bulkheads, piers, wharfs and other water­ amended where appropriate to expand their front infrastructure. The long term success of applicability to maritime-related businesses water-dependent and other working waterfront

116 uses can be enhanced by a more predictable, • Encourage public access in public projects less time consuming and less costly process fo r where safety can be assured and access infrastructure development. Public agencies can be designed to avoid interference with with waterfront and regulatory jurisdiction and industrial uses. representatives of working waterfront indus­ tries should develop guidelines for develop­ The revised WRP would not require public ment and construction to facilitate approvals access for private industrial developments. for these essential activities. These guidelines Public agencies, however, would be encouraged would be incorporated into revisions to the to provide access, if appropriate and feasible, Waterfront Revitalization Policies and given in conjunction with publicly sponsored devel­ geographic specificity. Guidelines would be opment. The plan fo r the Public Waterfront established fo r the Significant Areas where recommends the development of piers and environmental resources are less prevalent, street ends fo r public access in certain indus­ while different standards would be established trial areas. for industrial areas in proximity to unique natural areas. A predictable regulatory environ­ ment is critical to the long term success of water-dependent uses in New Yo rk Harbor. It would facilitate new uses and the expansion of existing uses by reducing uncertainty and the time and cost required to obtain needed approvals.

ENDNOTES

1. The industrial sector consists of Manufacturing; Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities; Wholesale Trade; and Construction.

2. Break-bulk refers to freight delivery ofindividual cargo pieces requiring unloading from the ship and repacking for delivery to warehouses or consumers. Containers, which are filledwith cargo pieces, are transferred directly from ship to truck or railcar.

3. State financial assistance programs include NYS Job Development Authority Direct Loan and Loan Guarantee programs, and Urban Development Corporation assistance programs. City programs include the Revolving Loan Fund and Industrial Development Agency.

4. The Bi-State Regional Forum is a cooperative effort of the region's "Big Six" transportation agencies. The membership includes the Port Authority, the NYS and NJ Departments of Transportation, City DOT, the MTA and NJ Transit Corporation.

117

I �I THE REDEVELOPING WA TERFRONT The general decline of industry, especially The plan for the Redeveloping Waterfront maritime uses, provides the opportunity to identifies waterfront development projects expand areas zoned for residential and com­ which have been approved and require no mercial uses and foster redevelopment oppor­ further discretionary actions; examines zoning tunities that would revitalize the waterfront. and planning issues related to redevelopment; Redevelopment can benefit all New Yo rkers by proposes criteria fo r redevelopment; and providing housing, fostering economic growth, recommends areas suitable fo r new housing and reestablishing the public's connection to and commercial development. the waterfront by integrating open space and public access into redevelopment projects. THE REDEVELOPING The redeveloping waterfront comprises those WAT ERFRONT TODAY areas that provide opportunities fo r non­ ZONING industrial waterfront development, including Mapped parkland and manufacturing districts residential, office,retail and community facility occupy about 75 percent of the waterfront. uses. The main principle guiding planning fo r Much of the remaining waterfront land is the redeveloping waterfrontis to accommodate zoned fo r lower-density residential develop­ and encourage change by taking advantage of ment. Lower-density residential districts (Rl appropriately located vacant and underutilized through RS)tend to be mapped on the perim­ land not identified in this plan as needed fo r eter of the city, far from mass transit. These other purposes. Such redevelopment is com­ areas include portions of the waterfront in the patible with, and will create important oppor­ East Bronx, Staten Island, Queens and the tunities for public access and open space. With southern shore of Brooklyn. Except for ap­ appropriate site planning, redevelopment can proved projects and scattered and under­ also be compatible with natural fe atures. The utilized sites, there are few opportunities in following goals have been identified fo r the these lower-density districts where redevelop­ redeveloping waterfront: ment could proceed as-of-right; lower-density

• Promote economic development and en­ areas are largely developed or are occupied by hance the city's tax base by providing protected wetlands or arterial roadways along opportunities fo r new uses, including the shoreline. Some of these areas are mapped housing fo r a range of income groups. with C3 districts, which permit water-related commercial uses such as marinas along with • Enliven the waterfront by promoting the lower-density residential development. people-attracting uses, open space, and (Map 6.0) public access to the waterfront. Medium-density districts (R6 and R7) on the • Integrate new development with adjacent waterfront are mapped in limited locations upland communities. outside the central business district (CBD). These areas include Coney Island and Brighton • Consider land use, availability of services Beach in Brooklyn, Roosevelt Island in Man­ and infrastructure capacity in determin­ hattan, Co-op City in the Bronx, and parts of ing scale of redevelopment. the Rockaways in Queens. Areas permitting higher density residential development (R8, R9, • Promote social and economic diversity RIO densities) are located in Manhattan or in on the waterfront. areas directly accessible to the Manhattan CBD.

119 MAP 6.0

> , ,

.. � .., ...... ' .: .. :�-:- :.. . ",

,

�, , . (, ,,, ... ' , > , , , , , , ,

,..; ... .. �,

,./-:0""""'

Existing Waterfront Residential and Co mmercia l Zoning Districts and Approved Redevelopment Projects

existing residential or commercial zoning district fronting on water, esplanade, or public beach

• approved redevelopment project

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Redeveloping Waterfront These areas include the Upper East Side, the ing units with local retail development, new site of the proposed Riverside South project waterfront parkland and community facilities. and Battery Park City in Manhattan, and a The Fordham Landing project in the Bronx portion of Long Island City in Queens. includes approximately 600 housing units, retail space and a waterfront esplanade. Commercial districts are not widely mapped on the waterfront. Coney Island contains a C7 Higher-density developments are planned fo r district which permits open commercial the East River waterfront in Hunters Point, amusement parks and excludes residential Queens, and Battery Park City in Manhattan. development. General and central commercial The Hunters Point project includes more than districts, C4 and C6 (residential development 6,400 housing units, office and retail space and allowed), are mapped in limited locations in a waterfront esplanade. The residential project lower Manhattan and in Co-op City. Local approved fo r the nearby East River Tennis service and retail districts, Cl and C2 (if Club site would include 960 housing units, overlay districts, governed by underlying local retail space, and a waterfront esplanade residence district bulk regulations), are which has the potential to connect to the mapped in scattered locations such as esplanade planned fo r · Hunters Point. The Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn, and College completion of Battery Park City north of the Point and Arverne in Queens. World Financial Center will include housing, EXISTING REDEVEWPMENT PROJECTS a high school, office space, a hotel, local retail uses and public waterfront open space. The In recent years, several major projects have city has approved renovation of Pier A in been approved fo r both residential and com­ lower Manhattan fo r a restaurant, visitors' mercial waterfront development. Most of these projects incorporate new public waterfront center and public access. access and urban design controls as an out­ come of the discretionary approval process. They are summarized below and shown on Map 6.0.

Five lower-density residential projects are under construction or have been approved fo r locations in Staten Island, Brooklyn and the Bronx. The Captain's Quarters and Prince's Point projects, both located on the south shore in Staten Island, incorporate waterfront public access, as do the Shorehaven and Castle Hill Estates projects in the Soundview section of the Bronx. The first phases of the Captain's Quarters and Shorehaven developments are complete. Rose Cove, located on the Lower Bay adjacent to Dreier Offerman Park in Brooklyn, combines low-rise residential devel­ opment with a marina and public esplanade. The first phase of this project is complete.

Medium-density residential projects have been approved for a site on the Harlem River in the Bronx and on city-owned land in Arverne, Queens. The Arverne plan calls fo r 7,500 hous- Rose Cove development in Brooklyn

121 Two commercial developments have been ap­ or areas in proximity to the city's two major proved fo r waterfront locations in southern airports or its major port facilities. Most

Brooklyn. Development of a new Steeplechase industrial uses, however, do not require a Amusement Park in Coney Island was ap­ waterfront location. Some industries that proved in 1989. More recently, redevelopment require, or could benefit from, a waterfront of the former Lundy's Restaurant in Sheepshead location, such as marina and ferry operations, Bay was approved fo r restaurant and com­ recreational excursions, and waste recycling mercial uses. The Outerbridge area in Staten and transfer have shown modest growth re­ Island is the site of Harbor View, a planned cently and may offer some potential to grow in banquet hall, restaurant, small hotel and the future. As discussed in the Working Wa­ public esplanade. terfront chapter, the demand generated by these activities is not expected to be nearly THE IMPORTANCE OF enough to occupy waterfront land currently zoned for manufacturing. REDEVELOPMENT The plan fo r the Working Waterfront desig­ ECONOMY nates six industrial/maritime areas where One of the fo remost requirements of this com­ retention of manufacturing zoning is recom­ prehensive plan is to fo ster economic growth. mended. These areas are particularly well­ The decline of industrial and maritime activity suited to meet the future needs of the mari­ has left portions of the waterfront vacant and time support industry and provide locations underutilized, and future opportunities fo r for other industrial and municipal uses. Much growth of these uses are limited. Waterfront of the manufacturing-zoned land outside these redevelopment in selected locations can make six areas also would to be retained. Although better use of this land by promoting activities conditions in these zoning districts vary., a that support the city's growing economic sec­ substantial amount of working waterfront tors. It can play a crucial role in the city's activity remains and will continue fo r the economic growth by providing sites fo r the indefinite future. expansion of the central and regional business · districts and fo r local economic development Many vacant and underused manufacturing­ through the provision of new retail, office, zoned sites outside the significant industri­ hotel and entertainment uses. The future role al/maritime areas and the airports offe r im­ of the waterfront in the city's economy will be portant economic development opportunities. broader than its historic role in maritime and Integration of commercial and retail uses with industrial activity. public open space can enliven the waterfront and make it attractive to residents, workers The maritime industry was once the linchpin and tourists alike, as it has been done in of the city's economy. The decline of this other cities and in developments like Battery industry, combined with the overall decline in Park City and the South Street Seaport. industrial employment, has resulted in sub­ Moreover, it can promote growth in the city's stantial amounts of vacant or underused man­ key industries (such as information-based ufacturing-zoned land throughout the city and industries, tourism and culture), which func­ on the waterfront. Industrial uses on the tion as the city's economic base, by bringing waterfront will continue to play a role in the income into the city from elsewhere. The city's economy, particularly in those areas with waterfront can boost growth also in industries good access to the regional highway network that provide goods and services to local and the central and regional business districts, businesses and consumers.

122 Va cant industrial land in Wi lliamsburg, Brooklyn

The Wo rld Financial Center in lower HOUSING Manhattan has extended the central business Despite a substantial increase in the construc­ district to the Hudson River. Office space is integrated with public access, retail and en­ tion' of new unsubsidized and subsidized tertainment activities, a marina and ferry housing during the economic upturn of the service. On the East River, the South Street 1980s, supply did not keep pace with Seaport integrates historic preservation with demand. As a result, vacancy rates remained uses that promote economic development and low, and prices fo r market rate housing waterfront revitalization. The Manhattan increased. In 1982, the median home price in waterfront plays a particularly important role the New Yo rk metropolitan area was the in promoting tourism through activities such same as the national average; by 1985 it was as the Seaport, the Circle Line and Intrepid double the national average. Although the Museum on the Hudson River in midtown, current economic recession has resulted in a and ferry service to the Statue of Liberty and fall in prices, the city must be poised fo r the Ellis Island. next economic upturn by ensuring opportuni­ ties for housing deveiopment. Although tourism presently plays a less im­ portant role outside Manhattan, many water­ Housing production during the 1980s front uses in the other boroughs contribute remained well below the rates of the 1960s to. the city's economy. These include recre­ and early 1970s when financing was more ation and marinas on City Island, deep sea favorable and substantial federal housing fishing boats and retail in Sheepshead Bay, assistance was available. From 1961 to 1970, and restaurant and entertainment uses such an average of 34,800 units a year were com­ as the River Cafe and Bargemusic on the East pleted, compared to an average of only 13,200 River in Brooklyn. units a year during the peak 1980s period

123 from 1986 through 1989. During this latter that makes the city more livable and attrac­ period, new housing was built at a range of tive. Fostering waterfront activities that at­ densities and in a variety of areas throughout tract people to it can add significantly to the city to accommodate the preferences of the quality of life in the city. These activi­ buyers and renters. ties range from restaurants and retail devel­ opments incorporating water views and Although there is substantial zoned capacity sitting areas, to excursion boats, restaurants for residential development outside water­ on barges, and historic and cultural uses. front areas, waterfront sites are important because of the attractive views they offer and As the public benefits from open space and their ability to accommodate large-scale activities directly on the waterfront, upland residential developments. In a densely built areas also benefit. For example, the develop­ environment like New Yo rk City, large devel­ ment of the proposed esplanade on Manhattan's opment sites are limited. Portions of the West Side will improve the quality of life fo r waterfront can provide housing sites to help nearby residents. Similarly, Riverside Park meet future demand. makes the adjacent neighborhoods a more attractive place to live. In low-scale waterfront QUALITY OF LIFE communities, point access, visual corridors and The waters that surround the city comprise suitably sited esplanades allow residents to its largest contiguous open space, a resource benefitfr om their proximity to the waterfront.

Pier 17 at the South Street Seaport, Manhattan

124 WAT ERFRONT DEVELOPMENT areas. Because existing zoning regulations do ISSUES not require these elements, redevelopment under existing regulations can pose a barrier ZONING rather than a gateway to the waterfront. The 1961 Zoning Resolution did not anticipate significant non-industrial waterfront develop­ Configuration, Bulk and Density ment and therefore did not differentiate be­ Waterfront zoning lots are generally irregularly tween waterfront and upland development. shaped. Because today's zoning regulations Much of the waterfront in 1961 was occupied were devised fo r regularly shaped lots, some by industrial uses or mapped as parkland. waterfront sites are unbuildable. Development Since then, public reviews of many waterfront on other sites, particularly when portions are projects have highlighted the inadequacies of under water, could be out of scale with build­ the Resolution in regulating waterfront devel­ ings in similarly zoned upland neighborhoods. opment. These public reviews have led the city to incorporate elements that the Resolution Moreover, current zoning does not distinguish does not require, such as public access and piers and platforms from upland areas and open space, design controls and visualco rridors. does not recognize the unique planning con­ cerns associated with development on these Rezonings or other discretionary actions fo r structures. waterfrontrede velopment continue to be sub­ jected to site-by-site negotiation to ensure the The proposed generic waterfront zoning regu­ provision of these common elements. The lations presented in Chapter 7 respond to absence of clear regulations and guidelines fo r these issues and would achieve a number of waterfront development has created uncertain­ goals for the redeveloping waterfront. ty and a lack of predictability, discouraged investment, and limited the city's ability to plan for the waterfront. Specific zoning issues REGULATORY REVIEW are identified below and discussed further in The complexity of the permitting and approval Chapter 7. process can impede public and private invest­ ment throughout the city. This problem is Waterfront Use Groups exacerbated on the waterfront, in part because of the concerns posed by waterfront develop­ The goal of enlivening the waterfront through ment and overlapping governmental jurisdic­ redevelopment is sometimes constrained by tions. In addition, it is often difficult and regulations that limit water-related uses such sometimes impossible fo r waterfront redevel­ as ferries, accessory marinas, floating restau­ opment projects to be consistent with all WRP rants and seasonal commercial uses along policies. Policy 1 explicitly promotes new esplanades. economic development in underutilized areas of the waterfront, but such development often Public Access and Open Space conflicts with other WRP policy goals. The waterfront plan can facilitate redevelopment by The integration of public open space and resolving these conflicts and by providing access into residential and commercial water­ decision makers and the public with land use front redevelopment is crucial to reestablishing policies and zoning controls more responsive the public's connection to the waterfront and to public goals. connecting new development with upland

125 Rendering of the planned East River Te nnis Club development in Long Island City, Queens Source: Cetra/Ruddy Inc., Architects

AFFORDABLE HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY One of the goals of the redeveloping water­ Infrastructure capacity and conditions may front is to foster economic and social integra­ affect the location, uses and density 6f new tion. Reusing portions of the waterfront fo r development and dictate improvements and residential use pro mises to create new com­ investments needed to expand capacity. munities where none currently exist. The De­ partment of City Planning is exploring the Highway Access inclusion of affordable housing in new com­ Waterfront industrial areas developed when munities and in large-scale developments freight transportation was primarily by water throughout the city. Proposals from this and rail, and workers arrived on foot or by study would apply to both waterfront and ferry. Therefore, certain industrial sites may be upland properties .. The Waterfront Reach poorly suited to freight movement by truck. studies also recommend waterfront areas fo r Highway capacity and accessibility may limit new housing development. Some of these redevelopment opportunities or the types and areas could be developed with affordable intensity of new uses on a site, particularly for housing, particularly where there are oppor­ those areas that are not readily accessible to tunities to use publicly owned land to foster mass transit. mixed-income communities.

126 Mass Transit Access REDEVEWPMENT CRITERIA Waterfront areas well served by mass transit, Areas identified as unique natural areas or as such as in Manhattan and Long Island City, best suited fo r parkland or industry generally can generally accommodate a wider range of are not considered appropriate fo r redevelop­ uses and higher densities of development than ment. As discussed in the Working Waterfront areas that are more auto-dependent. Poor chapter, areas best suited fo r maintaining subway access limits development densities. manufacturing zoning are primarily industrial Surface transit is flexible, and routes can be and have relatively high levels of industrial adjusted to reflect new population, employ­ activity, good access fo r moving freight,and/or ment, and commuting patterns. Provision of hydrological conditions suitable fo r port-relat­ ferry service also can offset some constraints. ed and maritime activities. In some instances, Sewage Treatment areas suited for industrial uses may be equally suited for non-industrial uses. The waterfront Wastewater from new development must be plan seeks to identify individual sites in these treated by one of the city's 14 water pollution control plants. Two of these facilities exceed areas fo r reuse based, in part, on their poten­ their State Pollution Discharge Elimination tial to accommodate new residential communi­ System permit capacities and one fa cility is ties, extend existing communities to the water­ operating at or near its permitted capacity. The front, or generate jobs and tax revenues. city is evaluating methods to better measure and reduce flows, to better use excess plant The identification of redevelopment sites must capacity, and to expandcapacity where needed. be balanced with the need to site municipal Adequate capacity is an essential ingredient in facilities and other uses requiring manufactur­ ing-zoned land. M3-zoned sites considered the city's ability to grow and prosper. As discussed in the Natural Waterfront chapter, suitable for redevelopment may not be suitable there needs to be a joint inter-agency working for many municipal facilities, however, because group to ensure that adequate capacity is of proximity to residential uses and the need provided for all as-of-right and discretionary for an adequate buffe r between the facilities development. This requires better coordination and residential or commercial uses. Sites of land use and infrastructure planning, and appropriate fo r both kinds of uses must be the implementation of appropriate measures to evaluated fo r potential benefits. provide adequate capacity citywide. The land use criteria considered in determin­ Sewers and Streets ing areas appropriate fo r reuse include: Development of "older" waterfront areas or waterfront areas that are not fully developed • the absence of unique or significant may require upgrading, replacement or con­ natural features or, if present the poten­ struction of sewer lines and connections, tial fo r compatible development; separate storm sewers and local streets. Lack of ii the presence of substantial vacant land or adequate local infrastructureneed not preclude land occupied by less intensive uses; redevelopment, although it may require sub­ stantial infrastructure investments. For exam­ • proximity to residential or commercial ple, the Arverne project requires investments uses; in new sewage lines and streets. Similarly, developments in certain waterfront areas in • the potential fo r strengthening upland Staten Island require new storm sewers and residential or commercial areas and fo r private sewage treatment plants. opening up the waterfront to the public;

127 • the availability of neighborhood services, The plan fo r the redeveloping waterfront is either on- or off-site, such as open space, summarized on the following pages. It consists community facilities and retail services; of approved projects fo r which no further and discretionary actions are needed and proposed redevelopment opportunities for areas that • the number of jobs potentially displaced would require rezoning and/or other discre­ balanced against the new opportunities tionary actions, such as demapping of streets created by redevelopment. or disposition of city-owned property, fo r redevelopment to take place. In addition to the significant maritime/in­ dustrial areas identifiedin the Wo rking Water­ As shown on Tables 6.0 through 6.4, proposed front chapter, retention of manufacturing redevelopment opportunities include density zoning is appropriate fo r other industrial areas guidelines for most sites. The selection and that do . not meet the criteria for land use mapping of specific zoning districts would be change. Some sites located outside the signifi­ based on more detailed land use studies, cant areas, however, may have active industrial including the analysis of infrastructure capaci­ uses in close proximity to upland residential ty. The highest-density residential zoning neighborhoods. Although the current uses of districts, R9 and RIO (and their commercial such sites may be suitable, it would be appro­ equivalents), would permit excessive bulk priate to reassess the zoning periodically as along the waterfront if widely mapped. Most current uses and conditions change. ' waterfront areas do not have adequate infra­ structure to accommodate the density of THE PLAN FOR THE development permitted by these districts. As a REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT general rule, these highest-density districts would be considered fo r mapping in only a The goals of waterfront redevelopment can be few locations directly accessible to the Manhat­ achieved in large part by two mechanisms: tan CBD where mass transit access is excellent, amending the Zoning Resolution to better the scale of development would be compatible regulate waterfront development (Chapter 7); with the upland character, and public policy and rezoning specific areas appropriate fo r seeks to create a new, or reinforce an existing redevelopment using the amended regulations. activity center. Revising WRPpo licies (Chapter 8) to provide locational specificity also will help to achieve BRONX the redeveloping waterfront goals. The Harlem and Hudson rivers border the Based on the recommendations for the natural, Bronx on the west. Few redevelopment oppor­ working and public waterfronts and the analy­ tunities exist; these waterfront areas are char­ sis of issues and criteria, this plan identifies acterized primarily by parkland, rail facilities areas suitable fo r redevelopment with commer­ and industrial uses. The plan proposes two industrially-zoned sites along the lower Harlem cial and residential uses. The choice of areas River and one site along the upper Harlem represents a balance among the sometimes River for medium-density residential develop­ competing objectives of the waterfront plan. ment, in addition to the previously approved Redevelopment areas provide opportunities fo r Fordham Landing housing development and expanding commercial and housing develop­ the previously proposed Harlem River Espla­ ment, creating jobs and expanding the tax nade. Nearer to the conijuence with the Hud­ base, revitalizing the waterfront, and improv­ son River, a city-owned, six-acre site zoned R6 ing the quality of life in the city through is recommended ' for residential development. waterfront access and open space.

128 BROOKLYN

The Brooklyn waterfront from Newtown Creek south to Owls Head Park is zoned fo r manufacturing. Retention of the manufactur­ ing zoning is recommended fo r most of this reach. Several privately owned sites in Greenpoint and Williamsburg meet the crite­ ria for reuse; medium-density residential and local retail development is recommended. Both the Brooklyn Piers and Fulton Ferry can be redeveloped. The State Parks Department has recommended reuse of the Empire Stores Warehouses. Proposals being prepared for the Port Authority-owned Piers 1-5 should con­ sider the inclusion of housing, mixed uses, recreation, open space and marina develop­ ment. Residential and commercial redevelop­

ment is recommended fo r a portion of the Red Hook peninsula containing concentra­ tions of vacant and underutilized public and privately owned land.

Highbridge Ya rds site on the lower Harlem River, The waterfront from Owls Head Park south Bronx and west along the south shore of Brooklyn to Manhattan Beach is characterized by low­ er-density residential communities, park­ The East Bronx is characterized primarily by land, beaches and waterfront uses with major parks and natural areas, lower-density upland residential and commercial develop­ residential development, and industrial zon­ ment. Sites on the north shore of Coney ing in Creek area. Demap­ Island Creek and in Sheepshead Bay and ping the unbuilt Shore Drive and remapping Coney Island are recommended for redevel­ the bulkhead closer to shore in the Throgs opment. Coney Island contains a consider­ Neck area would enable some lower-density able amount of vacant land, with opportu­ development while limiting development of nitIes fo r rebuilding the Steeplechase lands under water. Along ., Amusement Park and developing housing. rezoning an industrially zoned site neai Sheepshead Bay offers opportunities fo r Zerega Avenue is recommended. Already commercial development to complement its approved redevelopment projects in the East "fishing village" character. Bronx include lower-density residential devel­ opment at Shorehaven and Castle Hill Estates. (Map 6.1 and Table 6.0)

129 Planned Coffey Street recreation pier adjacent to proposed redevelopment area in Red Hook, Brooklyn

Most areas bordering Jamaica Bay are expected water's edge. Because much of the available to remain as parkland and protected natural waterfront land is in public ownership, there areas because of their significant natural value. are opportunities to close gaps in access and to A few upland sites can accommodate lower­ encourage redevelopment, taking advantage of density residential and retail development. the waterfront's proximity to the CBD and These areas do not contain significant natural high-density residential areas. DCP is partici­ features and can be buffered from natural pating in several planning efforts affecting areas by careful site planning and public open Manhattan's waterfront, including the West space. Site planning guidelines would be estab­ Side Waterfront Panel, the Plan for lower lished prior to disposition of these city-owned Manhattan, and planning fo r Riverside South. sites. Rezoning a portion of the Mill Basin Several redevelopment nodes and areas on the manufacturing area to RS, C2 and C3 is rec­ West Side have been designated to provide fo r ommended. This area is underutilized and a balanced mix of revitalization opportunities. adjacent to residential and commercial devel­ The East Side and lower Manhattan offer opment. (Map 6.2. and Table 6.1.) locations fo r a mix of water-related and pub­ licly oriented uses such as the reconstruction of the Whitehall fe rry terminal with retail and MANHATIAN restaurants, and a ten-year interim plan fo r the Consistent with the Manhattan Waterfront East Side Docks. The Plan for Lower Manhat­ Plan recommended by the Manhattan Borough tan will make more specificrecommendations President, one of the primary goals of this for the long term use of this and other water­ comprehensive plan fo r Manhattan is to front sites. achieve continuous public access at or near the

130 Sherman Creek area, Ma nhattan

The Upper Manhattan waterfrontis character­ The Upper East River from Astoria to the ized primarily by parks. At West 125th Street, Flushing River is characterized primarily by the Urban Development Corporation is con­ industrial uses and LaGuardia Airport. The ducting feasibility studies for the proposed underutilized M3-zoned area between the Harlem on the Hudson mixed-use project, Flushing River and downtown Flushing pre� with the waterfront edge designated fo r open sents opportunities to extend the downtown to space . and recreation. On the Harlem River, the waterfront and provide open space. the portion of the industrially zoned area north of Sherman Creek and south of 207th The north shore of Queens extends from Street is recommended for residential or com­ Flushing Bay to the city border. This area is mercial reuse in conjunction with expanded characterized by lower-density residential recreation activities at Sherman Creek. (Map development, parkland, important natural 6.3 and Table 6.2) areas, and some industrial uses, primarily in College Point. Selected sites along this water­ QUEENS front meet the criteria for reuse and could be redeveloped. Approved projects on the East River waterfront in western Queens include the mixed-use In addition to the approved residential Arverne Hunters Point project and the nearby East project in the Rockaways, redevelopment and River Tennis Club project. The waterfront plan revitalization is recommended in the Edgem�re proposes residential reuse and parkland fo r section through the construction of affordable sites north of these projects, and waterfront housing (primarily on city-owned land), sup­ access which includes an esplanade along port services, infrastructure improvements and portions of the waterfront north to Pot Cove. parks. (Map 6.4 and Table 6.3)

131 Arverne project site, Queens

132 STATEN ISLAND The Staten Island waterfront consists of signifi­ Redevelopment is recommended for several cant maritime and industrial areas along the areas on Staten Island's North Shore. Integrat­ Kill Van Kull, and environmentally sensitive ed development of transportation, residential, and manufacturing zones along the west shore. commercial and public spaces is recommended The south shore is characterized by beaches, for the St. George Ferry Te rminal and the parkland and low-density residential develop­ adjacent Chessie Rail Yard Site. Some industri­ ment. Although most of the West Shore is ally zoned sites north and south of the termi­ recommended for continued manufacturing nal also are appropriate fo r reuse. (Map 6.5. zoning or is designated wetlands, the water­ and Table 6.4.) front in the vicinity of the Outerbridge Cross­ ing south of the approved Harbor View project should be studied to determine if it is suitable for lower-density residential and water-related uses. New development along the South Shore would require investment in infrastructure or alternative storm water management systems.

St. George Perry Te rminal and Chessie Rail Ya rd site, Staten Island

133 TA BLE 6.0

BRONX

Existing Redevelopment Projects

PROJECT ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Fordham 3.7 R7-2 Vacant Private Approximately 600 housing units Landing planned with retail uses, open space, and waterfront esplanade.

Shorehaven/ 66 R3-2 Partially Private 172 units (of planned 1183) Castle Hill buitt completed at Shorehaven; 511 Estates untts planned for Castle Hill; public access included in both projects.

Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities

SITE ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL

225th Street 2 M1-1 Auto-repair Private Rezone to permit medium- density residential.

University Heights 10 M1-1 Vacant, Public and Rezone to permit medium- Bridge Area M3-1 industrial, private density residential. commercial

Highbridge 17 M1-1 Railroad Private Rezone part of site to permit yard medium-density residential.

Spuyten Duyvil 6 R6 Vacant Public Develop for residential use; Village incorporate public open space, trails and waterfront access.

Sites south of 5 M1-1 Open storage/ Private Rezone to permit lower-density Zerega Industrial Vacant residential. Park

Throgs Neck N/A R2, R3, Vacant Private Demap Shore Drive and Area R4, C3 areas remap bulkhead line to permit lower-density development. MAP 6.1

' ...... , , , ,

......

225th St.

University Hts. Bridge Site

c3 a; � Sites south 13 of Zerega tl Industrial Park � El Highbridge Castle Hill Estates �\

Queens

The Plan for the Redeveloping Waterfront / The Bronx

• approved redevelopment project

IJ proposed redevelopment opportunity

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Redeveloping Waterfront TA BLE 6.1 BROOKLYN Existing Redevelopment Projects

PROJECT ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Rose Cove 24 C3 Partially Private 60 units in two 4-story buildings and built 87-slip marina completed. Plans for 70 additional units and a clubhouse.

Lundy's, 0.9 RS, C2-21 Vacant Private Plans for restaurant and/or Sheepshead Bay building commercial uses in 3-story building.

Steeplechase, 23 C7 Vacant Public and Plan for development of Steeplechase Coney Island private Amusement Park.

Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities

SITE ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL

Greenpoint Lumber 31 M3-1 Lumber Private Rezone for residential reuse if the Exchange storage Lumber Exchange ceases operation.

Greenpoint Te rminal 14 M3-1 Mostly Private Rezone for mediu m-density residential Market Site vacant and light manufacturing.

Eastern District 20 M3-1 Mostly Private Rezone for medium-density residential Te rminal Site vacant and light manufacturing.

Red Hook N/A M1-1 , Vacant Public Rezone for residential and commercial between Van Brunt M2-1 , and and uses; if feasible, reuse Van Brunt ware- and Walcott Sts. RS industrial houses and associated properties.

Fulton Landing 1S M2-1 State Park and Public Support proposalfor cultural, vacant buildings recreational and commercial uses.

Brooklyn Piers 1-S 1S M2-1 /Special Warehouses Public and Develop for mixed uses: open space, (Brooklyn Harbor) Scenic View Dist. private housing, retail and mari nas.

White Sands 10 R4 and Vacant Private Zone unzoned land to R4; map C2 over- unzoned lay for public marina; provide public access link to Dreier Offerman Park.

Emmons Ave. between 2.S RS, C2-21 Vacant and Private Redevelop for mixed-use including Dooley and E. 21 Sts. parking restaurants, retail and parking.

Area bet. W.32 and N/A RS Mostly Public and Develop strategy for housing W. 37 Sts. vacant private redevelopment.

Brighton by 1S C3 Beach Club Private Rezone for medium-density residential , the Sea open space and public access.

Flatbush Avenue 12 C3 Vacant Public Develop for lower-density residential ; (Four Sparrows Marsh) transfer adjaceilt 6S-acre Four Sparrows Marsh property to DPR.

Mill Basin 48 M3-2, M2-1 Mostly Private Rezone to RS, C3, C2-1 , and M1 -2; M1 -1 vacant map waterfront access.

Paerdegat Basin 60 RS, C3 Mostly Private Develop site plan to permit low-density vacant housing along street fronts, preservation of natural and buffer areas along basin, and continuous public access linked to existing parks; transfer wetlands to DPR. MAP 6.2 Greenpoint Lumber Exchange

Queens

New Jersey

,

.')0\, , , , , , -,

The Plan for the Redeveloping Waterfront / Brooklyn

• approved redevelopment project

EJ proposed redevelopment opportunity

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Redeveloping Waterfront TA BLE 6.2 MANHATTA N Existing Redevelopment Projects

PROJEct ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Pier A 1.14 C6-4 Fire Department Public Renovation for restaurant, visitors' Marine Station center and public access.

Battery Park 40 BPC Partially Public Housing, office space, hotel, local City North built retail uses, open space and high school.

Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities

SITE ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL

Former 4.5 M2-2 Vacant Public and Reuse as TV or film studios as proposed Washburn Wire R7-2 private by EDC; explore reuse of pier for public Plant access.

E. 60th Street 2 M3-2 Heliport, DOS Public Adapt former Marine Transfer Station for open-air pavilion, a restaurant, and/or other public uses.

East Side N/A C5-3CR, Vacant Public Include public-oriented uses, ferry Docks C4-6 services and a continuous esplanade, in accord with ten-year interim plan for piers 9, 11, 13, 14.

Marginal Street 1.03' C2-8 Vacant Public Develop barge restaurant.

Ferry Terminal N/A M1-4 Transportation Public Recon str,uct with retail, restaurants. Improve pedestrian access.

Pier 40 16 M2-3 Parking and Public As proposedby West Side Waterfront warehouses Panel, develop public open space and new housing and lor commercial uses, with a maximum FAR of 3.0

Chelsea Piers N/A M2-3 Television Public As proposedby West Side Waterfront studios, Panel, adapt or redevelop piers for public parking, open space and housing with ground floor retail, or office space with design controls and a maximum FAR of 1.5

Pier 76 N/A M2-3 Parking Public Proposed Hudson River Center Project would include hotel I meeting facilities.

Piers at 42nd N/A M2-3 Community Public As proposedby West Side Waterfront Street facilities, Panel, redevelop to allow more cruise recreational and charter boats,and permit restaurants, and cultural entertai nment and visitors' facilities.

Passenger Ship N/A M2-3 Shipping Public Explore potential for redevelopment in Te rminal conjunction with enhanced passenger ship termi nal operations.

Riverside South 76 R8, R1 0, Mix of vacant Private Develop with residential, commercial , C3, C4-7 land, buildings parkland, with densiti es and design and parking requirements determined during planning process.

Harlem on the 18 M1 -1 , Vacant land Public and Develop the waterfront for open space Hudson M2-3, and industrial Private and recreation. UDC is examining mixed- uses use alternatives for the upland.

Sherman Creek N/A M1 -1 Vacant and Public and Rezone area south of 207th St. for resi- Area M3-1 industrial private dential, commercial and recreation.

10:57 acres upland and 0.46 acres underwater. MAP 6.3

Area

The Bronx

Harlem on the Hudson

New Jersey

Riverside South

Passenger Ship Terminal

Piers at 42nd 51.

E. 60th SI .

Battery Park City North Queens

Brooklyn

River Docks

The Plan for the Redevelooina Waterfront Manhattan , >oJ /

• approved redevelopment project

[J proposed redevelopment opportun ity

RECLAIMING THE CITY'S EDGE / NYC Department of City Planning / Redeveloping Waterfront TA BLE 6.3

QUEENS

Existing Redevelopment Projects

PROJECT ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Arverne 300 R6, C1 Vacant Public 7soo housing units with retail, public open space, and community facilities.

Hunters Point 74 N/A Va cant and Public and Planned development at densities industrial private equivalent to R9 and C6 includes 6,400 housing units, office space, retail space, and 18-acre park with waterfront esplanade.

. RAK East River 6 R9, R7A, Te nnis club Private Approximately 960 housing units with local Te nnis Club C2-S retail space and waterfront esplanade.

Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities

SITE ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL

Cresthaven 16 R3-2, R2 Vacant Private Retain R3-2 and R2 west of Powell's Cove Boulevard to allow low-density housing; rezone waterfront area to C3 to permit marina and esplanade.

Skyline 2.S M1 -1 Vacant Private Rezone to C3 for commercial and public uses.

Downtown 44 M3-1 Vacant, Private Guided by DCP'S Downtown Flushing Flushing industrial, Comprehensive Plan, redevelop for Waterfront retail residential and commercial uses and public open space in the long-term; rezone to M1-1 as an interim measure.

Pot Cove 20 M1 -1 Manufacturing Private As a long-term goal, rezone for medium- waterfront and vacant density residential and create an esplanade to link existing parks and access points.

33rd Road and 1S RS Industrial Private Retain RS. Future development wo uld 3Sth Avenue be required to incorporate a waterfront Sites esplanade.

Northern 28 M1 -3, Vacant, Public and Rezone for medium-density residential with Hunters Point M3-1 industrial, private waterfront access and open space in Waterfront commercial accordance with DCP's Long Island City Framework for Development.

Edgemere URA 14S' R4, RS, Residential Public and Guided by DCP's Edgemere Neighborhood R6, C1 -2, and vacant private Land Disposition Plan, develop with C2-4, C8-1 affordable housing, public open space, and supportingse rvices.

'59 acres vacant TheBronx

, , , ,

,

...... :,}

, \, Nassau

, , ; , , , , , , , ... v ... .) Brooklyn -,t

The Plan for the Redeveloping Waterfront / Queens

• existing redevelopment project

proposed redevelopment opportunity IJ

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Redeveloping Waterfront TA BLE 6.4

STAT EN ISLAND

Existi ng Redevelopment Projects

PROJECT ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Prince's Point 35 R3-2, C31 Vacant Private 396 housing units, a public esplanade, and a private sewage treatment plant.

HarborVie w 13.5 M1-1 1 Vacant Private Banquet hall, restaurant, 50-room hotel, and a public esplanade.

Captain's 35 R3-21 Residential, Private 272 housing units with common areas, Quarters vacant recreational facilities, and a private sewage treatment plant. The first phase is completed.

Proposed Redevelopment Opportunities

SITE ACRES ZONING USE OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL

Chessie Site 29 M1-1 Parking Private Rezone for medium-density residential and commercial development with public access and recreation.

St. George N/A M1-1 Transportation Public Develop a plan for a new civic, Ferry Te rminal transportation, and visitor center.

Wrigley Site 3 M3-1 Vacant Private Rezone to R4 for residential development with public access and accessory marina.

Alice Austen 9 M3-1 , R6 Marine repair Private Redevelop for residential use with Place boat yard medical office space, public access and marina.

North N/A M1-1 , Vacant and Private Study waterfront area in the vicinity Tottenville M3-11 industrial of the Outerbridge CrOSSing south uses of the planned Harbor View project for low-density residential and waterfront commercial uses.

1 Special South Richmond Development District MAP 6.5

New Jersey

The Plan for the Redeveloping Waterfront / Staten Island

• existing redevelopment project

C proposed redevelopment opportunity

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Redeveloping Waterfront

[ZJWA TERFRONT ZONING PROPOSAL

When the 1961 amendments to the Zoning contain additional regulations specificto the Resolution went into effect,shipping and other ,districts. Regulations may be as-of-right or industrial uses occupied vast stretches of the discretionary. New Yo rk City waterfront. Much of the rest was designated as parkland or was developed The 1961 Zoning Resolution could not address with low-density housing. the issues such as public access to the water­ front, visual corridors to the water, floating Consequently, the drafters of the amendments structures, design controls fo r waterfront designated a full one-third of the waterfront construction, the desirability of fostering for manufacturing uses. They experimented water-related uses, and the desirability of with new zoning techniques in many residen­ mixing water-related uses with other kinds of tial and commercial areas, but they saw little development. After studying zoning and its need fo r change on a waterfront whose uses relation to the waterfront, DCP concluded that appeared fixed. The vast shifts in waterfront nothing short of a series of innovative changes in the zoning text could provide the tools to use and the public interest in waterfront could plan for new waterfront development. not be predicted. To day, the waterfront has outgrown the Zoning Resolution, which has become an obstacle to the evolution of water­ PROPOSED WATERFRONT front uses and public policy. ZONING REGULATIONS

As port-related activities declined, some water­ The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan proposes front districts became vacant and derelict. zoning text changes to regulate waterfront development. The proposed text would permit Public and private developers sought, and a range of development options that would often obtained, rezoning and other approvals protect and enhance the unique qualities of for residential or commercial development on the waterfront. It would promote maritime specific sites. The Resolution did not provide uses by expanding the locations in which they standards against which these applications are permitted and exempting them from could be judged or mechanisms for achieving stringent regulations. The proposed zoning evolving public purposes. Special permits, re­ amendments would apply primarily to higher­ strictive declarations, the creation of special density residential, commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, and the creation of public developments on waterfrontage blocks. authorities such as the Battery Park City Au­ thority were used in the absence of adequate Many specific recommendations described in zoning tools. Chapters 3 through 6 can be implemented through generic changes which would be trig­ The main elements of the New Yo rk City gered primarily when development occurs. Zoning Resolution are use groups that describe These changes would: the activities oermitted in a given zoning dis­ trict; regulati;ns controlling the bulk (height • provide opportunities for increased pub­ and setback, open space, yards) and parking lic access to the waterfront, including im­ regulations applicable to each zoning district; proved linkages to the water's edge from and maps showing zoning district locations. upland communities, links between exist­ ing public spaces on the waterfront and In addition to generic zoning districts, the design guidelines fo r the public spaces at ordinance describes 34 special districts which the water's edge; are overlaid on the generic districts and

145 • preserve existing views and provide addi­ rules in one chapter would make the rules tional visual access to the waterfront; easier to understand and would simplify their administration. Revisions and elaborations are • expand recreation opportunities on the needed in basic definitions, definitions of new waterfront for new residents and existing uses, categorization of uses, public access communities; requirements, parking requirements, and adapting established bulk controls to the • expand opportunities fo r siting ferries and other waterborne transportation; unique characteristics of the waterfront.

• allow a greater mix of uses in waterfront WAT ERFRONT AREA developments and encourage uses that To establish waterfront zoning regulations, it are public in nature and activate the is necessary to define the area within which waterfront; they would be applicable. The waterfront area would include all the full zoning blocks which • exempt water-dependent uses from new regulations; are intersected by a line measured 800 feet upland of the shoreline. • define floating structures and develop regulations for their location and use; • The seaward boundary would be the and pierhead line or, where no pierhead line exists, the mean high water line! (the • develop new bulk controls fo r develop­ shoreline). ments along the waterfront that would be compatible with adjoining neighbor­ • The upland boundary would be the up­ hoods or create a new context fo r water­ land perimeter of all blocks intersected front communities; and continue to by a line 800 fe et from the mean high allow fo r buildings using cost-effe ctive water line. construction techniques. The upland boundary would be set using the Because most of the city's waterfront is park­ 800-foot distance because it is the length of land, zoned for industrial use, or developed most New Yo rk City blocks and would estab­ with low-density housing, many of the pro­ lish a maximum distance fo r preserving visual posed zoning text changes would become corridors to the waterfront. Zoning regulations applicable only when areas were rezoned or are built around the concept of the block, public land was disposed of for residential or which is an area bounded by streets, public commercial development. parks, railroad tracks or the pierhead line. The In proposing waterfront zoning reform, care entire block would be included if any portion has been taken to establish specific standards of it fe ll within the 800-foot line to ensure that for most development. Wherever possible, as­ regulations were applied consistently up to the of-right standards are preferred because they next interveningpu blic way. (Figure 7.1) make development more predictable, stream­ line the regulatory process, and minimize the Narrow tributaries would not be viewed as costs of development and administration of having waterfronts fo r zoning purposes; only the regulations. Discretionary reviews are waterways that are at least 100 fe et in width at prescribed when warranted. mean high water would be included. Where inlets or streams narrow to less than 100 feet, To implement the recommendations of the waterfront regulations would be inapplicable Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, a new chap­ from that point upstream even if the water­ ter on waterfront zoning would be added to body widened again. the Zoning Resolution. Keeping the waterfront

146 FIGURE 7.1 Waterfront Area

Legend Area Within the Waterfront Boundary

The proposed bulk controls and generic public To regulate the use of underwater lots, the access requirements would apply only to the Resolution would be amended to define water­ waterfrontage block, which is the block be­ front zoning lots as having two portions, tween the water's edge and the first upland divided by the bulkhead line. (Figure 7.2) public street. Other regulations, such as waterfront access plans, would apply through­ • Upland Lot ("A" in Figure 7.2): The out the waterfront area. portion of a waterfront zoning lot locat­ ZONINGLoTS ed landward of the bulkh�ad line (or shoreline if there is no bulkhead line) Waterfront Zoning Lots would be defined as the upland lot. Any Most of the city is divided into blocks of land already extending beyond the bulk­ relatively uniform dimensions. Blocks are head line would be included in the up­ subdivided into zoning lots. The Zoning Res­ olution's height, setback and floor area regula­ land lot. tions work with these relatively standardized units of blocks and zoning lots. • Seaward Lot ("B" in Figure 7.2): The portion of a waterfront zoning lot locat­ This system does not work well along the ed seaward of the bulkhead line (or waterfront because zoning lots there often shoreline if no bulkhead line exists) II'] J... 1nh ·' .."', ..."'nn. .... +;nn n+ nnA.o..... ,u;nr...... l"r1o .I.\.I...... ""Q. 111']"',..1 .1..1..16.1.1 y.l.vyV.lL.lV.l.l. V.I. .laJ.l.u ".1.1.,-,\,...1. wouid be defined as the seaward iot. water, which generates floor area just as the land above water does. Because the underwa­ The bulkhead line has historically been the ter floorarea can be applied to construction seaward limit fo r landfill and the· limit to on the upland portion of the site (subject to which waterfront property owners can develop certain bulk limitations), new buildings on the waterfront might be disproportionately upland uses. Use of underwater property larger than those in similarly zoned upland beyond the bulkhead line has traditionally neighborhoods. been limited to riparian uses.

147 Absence of Mapped Streets change the way development rights are gener­ ated by excluding underwater land beyond the Large zoning lots that are not intersected by bulkhead line from floorarea calculations. The streets sometimes extend along the waterfront bulkhead line would be the boundary between for great distances, in some cases for thou­ the upland and seaward portions of the lot, as sands of feet. Considerable floor area can be shown in Figure 7.2. In those few places where aggregated on these large lots, which may land exists beyond the bulkhead line, it would result in the construction of excessively large be included in the upland lot and would buildings that are out of context with similarly continue to generate floor area. (Figure 7.3.) zoned upland neighborhoods. By reducing the area from which the FAR could be calculated, the proposal would pro­ • The waterfront zoning proposal would tect the waterfront fromoverly dense and out­ provide for public access and visual corri­ of-scale development on the upland lot. dors at intervals along the waterfront. Large properties would be broken up into • Full development rights would be gener­ portions, each of which would be subject ated by the upland portion of the zoning to height and setback controls along all lot (A). No transfer of bulk would be frontages. Aggregation of floor area would permitted to the seaward lot. be limited, and the scale of potential de­

velopment would be controlled. • On the seaward lot (B), development rights would be generated only by piers Subdivision of Zoning Lots and platforms. Transfer of development rights would be permitted only from The proposed requirements fo r public access existing overwater structures to the up­ would not apply on small sites. Under current land lot. The transferred development zoning, zoning lots could be subdivided into rights could not increase the permitted lots small enough to effectively evade. the FAR of the upland lot by more than 20 proposed public access requirements. The percent. waterfront zoning proposal would protect against this possibility with the following provision: DEFINITION OF WATER-DEPENDENT AND WATERFRONT-ENHANCING USES • To subdivide zoning lots within the waterfront area, the chairman of the City One of the goals of the Comprehensive Water­ Planning Commission would have to front Plan is to promote the use of the water­ certify that the lots resulting from the front fo r activities that need to be at the subdivision would meet the public access water's edge or that enliven it. The current requirements of the undivided lots. Zoning Resolution however, restricts water­ related uses to a narrow range of zoning districts. The proposed waterfront regulations CALCULATING FLOOR AREA ON would permit and encourage water-related WATERFRONT AGE LOTS activities in more zoning districts. The propos­ al would divide all uses into three categories Under current zoning regulations, the entire based on their relationship to the water, would area of waterfront lot, including underwater a make inclusive lists of water-dependent uses land and overwater structures (piers and and waterfront-enhancing uses, and would platforms) up to the pierhead line, is used in develop regulations fo r each separate category. calculating the floorarea. The proposal would

148 FIGURE 7.2 Waterfront Zoning Lot

Legend i��iii;im Upland Lot (A)

I!:l::i:il...!::i:i:!:{::il Seaward Lot (B)

11_ 11_ ,,_ - � Zoning Lot Boundary _,, _,, _, 1

FIGURE 7.3 Calculating Floor Area on a Waterfront Zoning Lot

Legend

No Floor Area Generated

Zoning Lot Boundary

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning • Water-dependent uses would be those Table 7.1 that require direct access or proximity to WAT ER DEPENDENT USES marine or tidal waters in order to func- Uses That Are Functionally Dependent tion. Such uses include marinas, boat on the Water repair, shipping or seaplane bases, and recreational facilities such as beaches or l. Waterfront shipping fishing piers. A number of industrial and 2. Boat or ship building and repair (under semi-industrial facilities in Use Groups 200 feet) 16, 17 and 18 use the water for transport 3. Boat or ship building and repair (over of materials and products and would be 200 feet) included in this category as would air- ports and heliports, which need to be 4. Boat or ship rentals, open or enclosed adjacent to the water fo r reasons of safe- s. Docks for small pleasure boats, commer- ty. (Table 7.1) cial 6. Boat or ship fuelsales restricted, open or • Waterfront -enhancing uses would be enclosed primarily recreational, cultural, retail or 7. Boat or ship fuelsales -unrestricted, entertainment uses whose location on the open or enclosed waterfront would add to public use and enjoyment of the water's edge. Water- 8. Marine Transfer Stations front-enhancing uses include recreation 9. Boatels centers, museums, fairs and amusement 10. Commercial beaches parks, swimming pools, skating rinks, II. Boat or ship mooring (new) restaurants and hotels. (Table 7.2) 12. Ferry stops (new)

• Non-water-related uses would include all 13. Water taxi stops (new) uses that do not require a waterfront 14. All other uses in Use Groups 17 & 18 location and whose location at the wat- that ship or receive materials by water er's edge would not automatically add to 15. The fo llowing Use Group 16 uses that public use or enjoyment of the water- ship or receive materials by water front. Examples of these uses are parking fields, manufacturing or warehouse facili- - Warehouses ties unrelated to port activity, residences - Wholesale with no limitation and offices. - Public transit yards - Trucking terminals 16. Sewage Disposal Plants 17. Seaplane bases 18. Heliports 19. Airports

150 Table 7.2 WATERFRONT-ENHANCING USES Uses That Are Commercial in Nature and Draw People to the Waterfront

1. Eating or drinking without restrictions 29. Tourist cabins 2. Eating or drinking establishments 30. Animal exhibits - entertainment restriction 31. Clubs-non commercial except outdoor 3. Eating or drinking establishments pools without entertainment/dancing restric- 32. Clubs with outdoor pools more than 500 tion but limited to hotels feet from lot line 4. Bicycle rentals 33. Clubs with outdoor pools less than 500 5. Refreshment stands - drive-in feet from lot line 6. Refreshment stands 34. Community centers 7. Dance halls 35. All other uses in Use Groups 6A & C 8. Museums 36. Camps, overnight or outdoor day 9. Art galleries 37. Athletic goods stores 10. Commercial galleries 38. Fishing tackle or equipment rental 11. Arenas, auditorium -stadiums 39. Boat showrooms or sales with no repair 12. Arenas, auditorium or stadiums 40. Boat showrooms or sales of boats less - limited than 100 feet in length - unlimited 41. Boat storage, repair, or painting includ- 13. Theaters - limited and unlimited ing the incidental sale of boats, boat parts or accessories with restrictions on 14. Skating rinks - indoor boat size and setbacks 15. Recreation centers 42. Sail-making establishments 16. Ice skating rinks - outdoor 43. Ice vending - coin operated 17. Outdoor roller rinks 44. Ice vending - (large scale) 18. Swimming pools - commercial 19. Stables fo r horses 20. Tennis - outdoor and indoor 21. Miniature golf

')') ...... Carnivals = temporary 23. Fairs - temporary 24. Children's amusement parks (small) 25. Children's amusement park (large) 26. Outdoor theaters - unlimited 27. Hotels - transient 28. Motels

lSI WATERFRONT USE REGULATIONS fied to encourage mixed residential and water-related uses, in part by making portions of the waterfront have been re­ As bonus provisions applicable in C3 dis­ zoned for residential or commercial redevelop-' tricts. C3 districts are waterfront com­ ment, current zoning regulations have been an mercial districts that permit commercial obstacle to the inclusion of water-dependent marinas and also permit residential use and waterfront-enhancing uses, especially in subject to the requirements of R3-2 dis­ the types of mixed-use developments contem­ tricts. In R3-2 districts, a development is plated by the Comprehensive Plan. eligible fo r floor area and density bon­ uses in exchange fo r superior site plans Zoning regulations include most waterfront and amenities. These bonuses are not activities under the category of waterfront available, however, in C3 districts. To shipping in Use Group 17 and limit their obtain them, developers currently must location to manufacturing districts. Uses such seek rezoning to a residential district, as docking, repair and storage fo r smaller thereby eliminating desirable commercial boats are categorized as recreational boating in uses that could enliven the waterfront. Use Group 14 and are limited to C2, C3, C7, C8 and M districts. The proposal would extend water-related activities to a wider range • The listing of docks fo r pleasure boats of zoning districts. would be expanded to include moorings. Pleasure boat docking would remain in The Zoning Resolution has not been amended Use Group 14 and would continue to be to keep up with changes in activity along the permitted in C2, C3, C7, C8 and M waterfront. For example, when the Resolution districts. was adopted, most docking facilities were full­ service commercial marinas. Many of the • . Marinas currently are permitted as acces­ newer and smaller fa cilities, which involve less sory uses in residential developments if repair, storage, or vessel service, could be they are used exclusively by the residents. compatible with a range of residential and The regulations would be modified to commercial uses where they are not now make accessory boat slips available to permitted. In recent years, there has also non-residents as well. The proposal been a trend toward smaller docking facili­ would: ties fo r ferries and other fo rms of water­ borne transportation. allow up to 40 percent of accessory slips to be rented to non-residents; The waterfront zoning proposal includes changes and additions to the Zoning Reso­ require one parking space per non­ lution that reflect the prospects of the resident slip (except in Manhattan waterfront. CDs 1 through 8 where parking is not required) in a separate parking

• Waterfront shipping, currently listed in area adjacent to the slips; and Use Group 17, would be broken down into several categories based on intensity allow accessory boat slips to be locat­ and type of use so it can be located in a ed offthe zoning lot if both lots are wider range of zoning districts. under the same ownership and are or would be contiguous but fo r a street.

• The regulations fo r large-scale residential developments (LSRDs) would be modi-

152 • Docking facilities fo r ocean-going passen­ docking fa cilities with an aggregate ger vessels, currently permitted only in capacity of not more than 2,500 M districts, would be allowed in central persons per zoning lot would be business district (C6) zones by special allowed as-of-right in high-density permit and would continue to be allowed commercial districts (C4-4A - C4-7; in M districts as-of-right. Docks that can C5; C6; C7; C8-4). accommodate ocean-going vessels cur­

rently are located in M districts only. If, • Docking facilities fo r fe rries would be however, some M districts were rezoned permitted in a wider range of zoning to C6, oceangoing passenger vessels districts to promote this fo rm of public would become non-conforming uses; transit. Ferry docks would be permitted new ones would not be permitted. as-of-right in all commercial and manu­ These ships could be compatible with fa cturing zones without size limitation. other uses permitted in C6 districts, Special permits would be required in which permit mid- to high- density residential districts. development. A special permit would be granted only after review of the trans­ • Parking requirements fo r docks, for portation impacts. sightseeing and excursion vessels and fo r

• Docking facilities fo r sightseeing and fe rries would be based largely on prox­ excursion vessels would be newly per­ imity to mass transit and type and dens­ mitted in a variety of commercial dis­ ity of use. Parking requirements would tricts. The permissible capacity of the be relatively lenient in high-density dis­ docking facilities would be proportion­ tricts, where mass transit is more likely ate to comparable uses now permitted to be used than the automobile. Parking in these districts. In low-density C2 would be required in all zones except districts, docks would be equated with Manhattan CDs 1 through 8. Whether 200-seat restaurants. In medium-density or not parking would be required, an commercial districts, docks would be off-street area fo r dropping off and equated with large restaurants. In high­ picking up passengers would have to be density zones, docks would be equated provided. Pa rking requirements for with arenas and auditoriums holding up docking fa cilities would generally be to 2,500 persons. Under the new regula­ based on present requirements fo r plac­ tions, es of assembly, taking into account the fact that passengers from several vessels docking fa cilities with an aggregate might be using one parking facility at capacity of not more than 200 per­ the same time. sons per zoning lot would be al­ lowed as-of-right in local retail! A special permit would be required to waive service and waterfront districts ee2 or modify the parking requirement. In eval­ and C3); uating a special permit application, the City docking fa cilities with an aggregate Planning Commission would look at the capacity of not more than 500 per­ availability of mass transit, other transporta­ sons per zoning lot would be al­ tion services such as vans, and available lowed as-of-right in regional shop­ capacity in other parking fa cilities. ping, heavy commercial and amuse­ ment districts (C4-l - C4-4; C7; C8-

1 - C8-3); and

153 Table 7.3 • A floating structure would be defined as PARKING FOR DOCKS FOR any vessel, barge or water-supported SIGHTSEEING AND EXCURSION structure that is intended to remain moored or attached to a pier, wharf, VESSELS AND FERRIES dock, bulkhead or floatation system fo r at least 120 consecutive days. Temporary Parking Requirement as % of Zone Maximum Dock Passenger Load or seasonal floating structures docked or moored for less than 120 consecutive Highest parking 25% (approx. 1 per 4 pass.) days would not be defined as floating requirement structures and would be treated as navi­ (C2-1, C3, C4-I) gational vessels. High parking 19% (approx. 1 per 5 pass.) requirement • Floating structures fo r non-water-depen­ (C2-2, C4-2, CB- l) dent uses would not be permitted to cover more than 50 percent of the land Medium parking 13% (approx. 1 per B pass.) requirement (C2-3, under water on any given zoning lot. C4-3, C7, CB-2) Piers and platforms on the lot would be included in the computation. Water­ Low parking 13% (approx. 1 per 12 pass.) dependent uses on floating structures requirement would not be subject to coverage regu­ (C2-4, C4-4, CB-3) lations. The height of floating structures Lowest parking None required would be limited by zoning district regu­ requirement lations. (Table 7.4) Floating structures (C2-S through C2-B; existing prior to the adoption of these C4-4A through C4-7; regulations which exceed the coverage CS; CB-4) C6; and height regulations would be consid­

* Dock passenger load would be the total passenger ered non-complying and as such would capacity of all the vessels served by the dock. be allowed to remain and relocate. FLOATING (IN-WATER) STRUCTURES • Waterfront-enhancing uses would be allowed on floating structures by special Floating structures raise unique planning permit, except fo r restaurants and cultural problems, not least the problem of definition. fa cilities covering less than 5,000 square Zoning requires that most uses be located in fe et of water, which would be allowed as­ bUildings. Buildings are defined as structures of-right. The special permit finding would that are permanently affIxed to the ground. require that the design of the develop­ Floating structures do not meet the definition ment significantly enhance public access unless they are supported by cradle fo unda­ to and use of the waterfront. tions built in the water. Cradle foundations increase shading, impede water flow and add • Non-water-related uses would not be to the cost of floating structures. allowed on floating structures, except fo r power plants and government fa cilities The proposal would define floating structures that would be allowed by special permit and the uses permitted to locate on them. subject to a CPC finding that there was Water-dependent uses would be permitted as­ no reasonable way to site the use without of-right, as would some small waterfront-en­ a floating structure. hancing restaurants and cultural facilities. All other uses would be permitted only by special permit.

154 • All developments on floating structures Signs: No advertising signs would be would have to meet the following permitted. Business signs would be standards: permitted pursuant to applicable district regulations. Public access: Where public access was required, it could be provided either on Visual access: Floating structures would the floating structure or elsewhere on not be permitted to block a required the zoning lot. visual corridor except by special permit. Height: Water-dependent uses in M­ Parking: The requirements fo r accessory zones would be exempt from height off-street parking and loading berths restrictions. Other uses permitted as-of­ would be determined by applicable right on a floating structure would be zoning district regulations. limited to a height of 23 fe et from the waterline. The proposed height limits Permits: To facilitate CPC review, all fo r special permit development are applications fo r state and fe deral per­ shown in Table 7.4. The height could mits and other approvals should be filed be increased to the maximum only if concurrently with the application to the a ship or boat were being converted Department of City Planning. to a floating structure.

Table 7.4 HEIGHT CONTROLS FOR DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT ON FLOATING STRUCTURES

TYPICAL ZONES* Height Max. Residential Commercial Manufacturing Standard Ht.

RI thru R5 CI, C2 in RI-RS MI-I 23' 40' C3, C4-1 M2-1 C7, C8-1 M3

R6 CI, C2 in R6 40' 60' C4-2

R7, R8 CI, C2 in R7, R8 MI-3 50' 70' C4-4, C6-1 M2-2 C8-4

R9, RIO CI, C2 in R9, RIO M I-6 60' iSO' C5, C6-6

:;- Districts listed are representative of a group of districts with similar bulk characteristics. The final list will be comprehensive in its listing of all districts in each category.

155 OVERWAT ER STRUCTURES (PIERS AND • A pier would be defined as any over­ PLATFORMS) water structure or portion of one with greater length than width. A platform Piers and platforms are overwater structures. would be defined as any overwater Piers and platforms are treated differently from structure with greater width than length. one another under the proposed regulations (Figure 7.4) because of the difference in their configura­ tions. New Yo rk's historical "finger piers" • Platforms would be viewed as a recon­ project from the shoreline, often by as much figuration of the shoreline and part of as 1,000 feet. Platforms, on the other hand, are the land fo r purposes of building size wider than they are long and can be viewed as and placement. (Figure 7.4) Piers would extensions of the land. have their own bulk restrictions.

Traditionally, piers served water-dependent • Existing piers and platforms (including uses such as shipping. With the decline of pilefields) would be those visible in the port-related activity, many piers were left to aerial photographs in the 1988 Army deteriorate. Some have been redeveloped fo r Corps of Engineers Port Survey. new uses such as fe rry stops, recreation, com­ mercial developments and housing. Others are • New piers and platforms would be those available fo r reuse. not visible in the Army Corps aerial photographs. Piers can provide excellent opportunities fo r waterfront-enhancing uses, public access and other redevelopment, but unregulated devel­ Regulations for Existing Piers and opment on piers can interrupt the views and Platforms openness from shore. Consequently, the pro­ • Existing platforms would be subject to posal sets fo rth restrictive controls on the size the same use, public access, visual corri­ and placement of buildings fo r piers, though dor and bulk regulations as the upland not for platforms. Water-dependent uses lot. Existing piers could be developed would be exempt from the proposed bulk fo r any uses permitted by the applicable controls and public access requirements fo r zoning, except fo r exclusively residential piers in order to foster such uses. developments. Residential uses would be permitted on piers only if they con­ The proposed controls on piers typically would tained waterfront-enhancing uses on the limit the achievable FAR to less than the ground floor, which would promote maximum generated by the pier. Waivers to public access. modify the bulk controls and public access requirements would be available by special • The fo llowing height and setback con­ permit from the City Planning Commission if trols would be applicable fo r as-of-right other public purposes were served. If granted, development on existing piers in all these waivers would permit the full use of the zones and fo r all uses except manufac­ floorarea generated by the pier. turing and water-dependent uses. Mod­ Under the proposed regulations: ification of the controls would be allowed by CPC special permit only. • Piers and platforms would be defined as (Table 7.5) overwater structures that are fixed and supported by piles.

156 FIGURE 7.4 Piers/Platforms: Configuration

Legend

Land

Pier (or Pier Portion)

Platform

Length: 600 ft. Width: 100 ft. Ratio: 6:1 > 1:1 (length to width) Pier (Example)

Length: 500 ft. Width: 1000 ft. Ratio: 0.5:1 < 1:1 (length to width) Platform (Example)

. .. " ' ' ' . ,' . ' . : ' . , . . : : : . .. . . ' : ' ' . ' ' ' " . . :: :: . . ,' . . ' . ..' : : :: . :

Platform Length :300 ft. Width: 1000 ft. Ratio: 0.3:1 < 1:1 (length to width)

Pier Platform with Pier Portion (Example) Length: 300 ft. Width: 80 ft.

Ratio: 3.75:1 > 1:1 (length to width)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Table 7.5 HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS FOR PIERS

Max. Ht. Maximum TYPICAL ZONES* Before Req. Height of Res. Comm. Mfg. Setback Setback** Structure

Rl thru R6 C2, C3, Ml-l 30' 15' 40' C4- 1, C7 M2-1 C8-1 M3

R7, R8 C4-4 MI-3 50' 15' 70' C6-1 M2-2 C8-4

R9, RI0 C5 MI-6 60' IS' 150' C6-4

* Districts listed are representative of a group of zones with similar bulk characteristics. Final list will be comprehensive in its listing of all districts in each height category.

** Setback could be reduced to 10 feet in all zones on frontage facing an open area greater than 40 feet in width.

The maximum permitted length or width of upon certification by the Chairman of the City any building on a pier would be 200 feet in all Planning Commission that the proposed space zones. The minimum distance between build­ would be sufficiently large and designed to ings would be 100 feet. Any building not promote public use and enjoyment of the exceeding 30 fe et in height, however, would be waterfront. unrestricted in length or width as long as public access standards still could be met. New Piers and Platforms Current zoning does not limit the size of new • Public access would be required on all piers or platforms. Consequently, there is no piers developed fo r non-manufacturing prohibition against covering an entire seaward and non-water-dependent uses. The up­ lot with a new overwater structure. Moreover, land 40 feet and the seaward 25 percent current zoning permits piers and platforms to of the length of the pier must be provid­ be used fo r any purpose allowed by the appli­ ed as public access area. A public path at cable zoning regulations. The proposed regula­ least 15 fe et wide would be required tions would · be much more restrictive in the along the sides of the pier, or it could be size and use of new overwater structures. combined on one side. (Figures 7.5, 7.6,

7.7, and 7.8) These areas would count • New piers and platforms would be per­ toward the public access requirement fo r mitted fo r the development of water-de­ the entire zoning lot. Some allowance for pendent uses or fo r open recreation. A upland building extensions and kiosks modest percentage of the area of a pier would be made in the public access areas. or platform built fo r water-dependent uses could be assigned to waterfront­ In those cases where buildings exist on piers, enhancing uses. Any subsequent conver­ alternate public access areas could be located sion to non-water-dependent or non- inside the buildings or elsewhere on the pier

158 FIGURE 7.5 Legend Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development Public Open Space High Coverage (Optional in All Districts): Maximum Height: 30' No Required Setback Floor Area on 120' x 800' Pier: 118,080 sq . ft .

FIGURE 7.6 Legend Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development Public Open Space

R1-R6 Zones and Commercial Equivalents: Private Open Space Maximum Height : 40' Required Setback at 30' Floor Area on 120' x 800' Pier: 90,240 sq. ft.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zo ning Existing pier redevelopment at South Street Seaport, Manhattan

Potential pier redevelopment site, Piers 1-5, Brooklyn

160 FIGURE 7.7 Legend Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development Public Open Space �mmercial Equivalents: ���7���;h��7 � Private Open Space Required Setback at 50' 1:::::::::::1:1:1�::::::�:1:1:11 Floor Area on 120' x 800' Pier: 156,600 sq. ft.

FIGURE 7.8 Legend Proposed Envelope and Public Access Requirements for Pier Development Public Open Space R9-R10 Zones and Commercial Equivalents: _ Maximu m Height: 150' Private Open Space Required Setback at 60' Floor Area on 120' x 800' Pier: 288,000 sq. ft.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / WaterfrontZo ning recreational uses would be subject to all require public access connections through the regulations fo r existing piers and plat­ development, at prescribed intervals, from the forms. Any modifications of bulk or waterfront to the first upland public street. public access requirements would be by CPC special permit only. Design controls would be established fo r the development of required public spaces. The The overwater coverage of new piers and Department of City Planning would record platforms fo r open recreation use would be each new public access area to (1) certify that limited to an area not to exceed 50 percent design requirements were met before issuance of the underwater portion of the zoning lot, of a temporary or permanent certificate of inclusive of all piers and platforms on the lot. occupancy, and (2) provide the public with a New piers and platforms fo r water-dependent source of information on public access areas. uses would not be subject to a coverage limitation. No transfer of bulk from new In general, potential conflicts with industrial piers or platforms to the upland lot would be uses preclude requiring public access on permitted. industrial waterfront lots. Some specific opportunities to achieve public access do exist WAT ERFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS in manufacturing districts, and a number of these opportunities are identified in the The waterfront is a valuable resource that the people of New Yo rk have grown to appreciate Reach Studies. Small residential and commer­ and enjoy. A major objective of the Compre­ cial developments typically do not generate hensive Waterfront Plan is to promote and sufficient demand to require public access retain public access to and along the waterfront. unless such developments are part of a planned open space network. They would be required, The proposal would establish generic require­ however, to provide a waterfront yard, or no­ ments for public access when development build zone, along the waterfrontage. occurs on zoning lots fronting the water in mid- to high-density residential and commer­ Consequently, these public access recommen­ cial developments (including large commercial dations apply only to large residential and commercial developments and not to industri­ developments in manufacturing districts), and fo r large low-density residential developments. al developments or small residential and com­ (Table 7.6) It would provide also fo r the mercial developments unless otherwise noted. adoption of local plans, called Waterfront The generic requirements fo r public access on Access Plans, to meet the public access needs waterfrontage lots would mandate that 15 to of specific communities. 20 percent of the area of the lot be made The proposal would require that 15 to 20 available for public access. The 15 to 20 per­ percent of the open space on the zoning lot be cent would be derived from the size of the available fo r public access. The percentage upland lot and the area of any piers or plat­ represents a balance among the public's desire fo rms extending into the water from that lot. to enjoy the waterfront, the costs of providing The 15 to 20 percent would constitute the and maintaining public access, the likely added Total Public Open Space. It would have two or costs to waterfront developers, the need fo r three components: (1) waterfront public access private open space, and the area required to areas, (2) upland public access connections, build on waterfront lots in a way that meets and, if necessary to achieve the required area, proposed urban design standards. (3) an aggregate of open space that adjoins the To maintain the link between upland commu­ waterfront public access area. nities and the waterfront, the proposal would

162 Table 7.6 WATERFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

Waterfront Yard/ Upland Zoning Waterfront Public Public Access Total Public District Access Area Connection 0Een SEace

Rl - R5, Cl - C4- 1, Waterfront yard None required None required C8- 1 Zones and required Equivalent Commercial No WPAA required Development in M Zones

Large Scale Sites* in Minimum 25 fo ot wide Required 15% of the lot area Rl - R5, Cl - C4- 1, linear WPAA required C8- 1 Zones and and Equivalent Minimum 15 fo ot wide Commercial no-build buffer Development required in M Zones

R6 - RIO, C4-2 - C7, Minimum 25 fo ot wide Required 15% of the lot area C8-2 - C8-4 Zones WPAA required in R6 - R7 zones and and Equivalent and commercial equivalents Commercial Minimum 15 fo ot wide or Development no-build buffer 20% of lot area in M Zones required in R8 - RIO zones and commercial equivalents

M1 - M3 (Use Groups None required None required None required 16, 17, 18 only)

* A development site made up of one or more zoning lots which has at least 600 feet of waterfrontage and 1.5 acres of lot area.

163 Most of the total public open space would destrian path at least 10 fe et in width, have to be physically available to the public. flanked on either side by a 10 fo ot wide Some of it would be landscaped areas that landscaped no-build area that would be need be accessible only visually and would visible to the public and would serve as a serve as buffers between public access areas buffer between the public pathway and and private development. the private development.

The components of the proposed generic • Aggregate Public Open Space would be public access requirements are described in required for all developments where the greater detail below and in Figure 7.9: combined WPAA and UPAC did not meet the generic requirement fo r 15 to • Waterfront Public Access Areas (WPAAs) 20 percent public open space. The aggre­ would be continuous linear public access gate public open space would have to be improvements running along the shore­ located adjacent to the WPAA so it could line. WPAAs would be required in new developments above a minimum size in be developed, fo r example as a plaza, a all residential zones R6 and above, in waterfront park or scenic overlook. The their commercial equivalents, and in public access requirement could not be large multi-family developments in R3-2, achieved by the inclusion of small open R4 and R5 districts. The WPAA would areas scattered on the lot that provide no include a public passageway at least 25 real opportunity for public use. feet wide and a landscaped strip at least 15 feet wide that would be visible from All these requirements would be automatic fo r the public passageway and would serve as the districts specified.Wate rfrontAccess Plans, a buffer between the public access area on the other hand, would become require­ and the private development. ments only as a result of action by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. WPAAs would be required also in new developments in low-density commercial • Waterfront Access Plans (WAPs) could districts on large zoning lots with sub­ be adopted by the CPC and the City stantial waterfrontage; in large commer­ Council to refine the generic public ac­ cial developments in manufacturing cess requirements fo r a particular locale. districts; or where the City Planning The WAP might specify the location of Commission has mapped a Waterfront upland public access connections or Access Plan. visual corridors appropriate to a local setting, or the placement of the aggregate Certain waterfront-enhancing uses such public space on a given lot. The CPC as cafes or kiosks would be allowed in could not increase or decrease the re­ WPAAs located in commercial zones, in quired amount of public access beyond order to make the space more attractive that of the generic standard. (Fig. 7.10) to and safe for the public. In multi-family lower-density districts • Upland Public Access Connections (R3-2 - R5 or commercial equivalent), (UPACs) would provide direct access where public access is not automatically from a WPAA to the first upland public required, adoption of a WAP could cre­ street or public area such as a park. ate a public access requirement. UPACs would be required at intervals of no greater than 600 fe et along the shore­ For new developments in low-density residential line, or specific locations required at as and commercial districts, the only generic by a Waterfront Access Plan. If not a requirement would be a waterfront yard. mapped street, a UPAC would be a pe-

164 FIGURE 7.9 Waterfront Public Access (Higher Density Development)

Legend

Waterfront Public Access Area (WPAA)

Upland Connection (Also Serves as Visual Corridor)

Aggregate Open Space

V-�S��;] Tidal Wetland

Detail of WPAA:

FIGURE 7.10 Waterfront Access Plan with Visual Corridors

Legend

WPAA (Generic Requirement)

Designated WPM (Nature Trail)

Upland Connection (Generic Requirement)

Designated Upland Connection

Visual Corridor (Generic Requirement)

I ••• �II Designated V isuai I. . Corridor Designated Aggregate Open Space

Tidal Wetland

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning • Waterfront Yards would be continuous • Visual Corridors no-build zones along the shoreline of A visual corridor would be defined as waterfront lots in lower-density residen­ an open area, public street, upland tial and commercial districts (Rl - RS, Cl and C2 overlays in Rl - R5 and public access connection or other open C4- l). They would serve as buffer zones area which provides a continuous view between upland development and the to the water and is unobstructed from shoreline. Physical public access would its base to the sky except for permitted not be required unless a Waterfront Ac­ obstructions, such as kiosks, sculptures, cess Plan were adopted or the zoning lot trees, landscaping and boats. Where were very large, with significant water­ there were significant grade changes frontage. The waterfront yard would between the shore and the upland, some maintain openness along the water and development might be permitted below reserve an open corridor fo r public ac­ the upland grade. cess should the city choose to acquire it for recreational purposes. (Figure 7.11) A visual corridor might be a public access way and might fulfill the requirements both VISUAL CORRIDORS fo r public access and fo r public views. Street vistas are an important design consid­ When required as the continuation of a eration in New Yo rk because they provide mapped street, a visual corridor would have to visual relief, light and air, and extended views. Visual corridors to the waterfront are a partic­ be as wide as or wider than the mapped street. ularly important public amenity because of the Visual corridors not located within the right­ water's aesthetic value. The proposal would of-way or continuation of a mapped street protect views of the waterfront by defining a would have to have a minimum width of 50 system of visual corridors in which no new feet (the minimum distance set fo rth in the buildings would be permitted. Public streets Zoning Resolution fo r a new public street). would be the basic framework of the visual corridor system. Generic Visual Corridor Requirements

• Any mapped street, whether open or As with waterfront public access, visual corri­ unimproved, would have to be main­ dors would in some instances be mandated tained as a visual corridor on properties generically, and would in other instances be between the shoreline and the first up­ mandated as a result of a specific action taken by the City Planning Commission and the City land street. If a mapped street inter­ Council. sected the mean high water line at an oblique angle of less than 45 degrees, The generic requirements would be based on no visual corridor would be required the public expectation that mapped streets because it could pose an unreasonable would remain as visual corridors fromthe first obstacle to development. upland street to the waterfront, and that visual corridors are desirable at frequent, specified • The continuation of any existing upland distances along the waterfront. (Figure 7.12) street that terminates at the first upland street parallel to the water would have Beyond the generic requirements, the protec­ to be maintained as a visual corridor tion of specificvi ews and panoramas could be on properties in the waterfront block if mandated by mapping appropriate visual the continuation intersected the mean corridors. These corridors might extend be­ high water line at an angle of 45 degrees yond the first upland street but not beyond the or more. waterfront area.

166 FIGURE 7.1 1 R6 Waterfront Yard (Lower Density Development)

Waterfront Yard ( No OOrnJ Public Access Requ ired ) _._._._._._._._._.-._._._._._.-._.-.- Zoning District Boundary RS I ..I ...... '" I n �-1:.:f;� Tidal Wetland D D El

FIGURE 7.12 Visual Corridors

Legend

Mapped Street within ••• Waterfront Block �I (Mandatory Location for I Visual Corridor)

Mapped Street Ending

Feet U ..y; mllm at First Upland Street (Alternative Locations for Visual Corridors Mandatory at Maximum Intervals of 400 feet)"

No Upland Street (Visual Corridor Mandatory at Maximum Intervals of 600 Feet)"

Tidai Wetiand

* Specific Visual Corridors may be designated through mapping (Fig. 7.10)

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning • A visual corridor would not be required, HEIGHT AND SETBACK, OPEN SPACE however, if, at the time the zoning lot AND YARD REQUIREMENTS was developed, there was an existing Height and setback regulations, and yard and mapped street or other designated visual open space requirements allow fo r light and corridor within 400 feet, measured along air on the street, and open space on the lot, by the first upland mapped street. controlling the placement, scale and configura­

• Where there were no mapped streets, tion of development. Waterfront developments visual corridors would have to be provid­ raise specific urban design issues relating to ed at intervals not exceeding 600 feet. visual character, human scale and the com­ patibility of new development with existing No visual corridor would be required if it neighborhoods. would encumber more than 50 percent of a zoning lot. Existing non-complying buildings In lower-density neighborhoods (Rl - R5), the would be permitted to remain but could not compatibility of new buildings with the water­ be enlarged in a manner that would increase front is adequately ensured by existing zoning the obstruction. regulations. Height is generally limited to 40 feet. In mid- to high-density districts, however, Developments on piers and floating structures the regulations do not adequately address (except for water-dependent uses) would not waterfront development. be permitted within a visual corridor except by CPC special permit. There are two sets of bulk regulations in mid­ to high-density districts. "Height fa ctor" regu­ • Specific Visual Corridor Requirements lations, introduced in 1961, are based on mathematical fo rmulas that relate the permissi­ Two types of visual corridors could be ble height of a building to the amount of open mapped by special action of the CPC: space provided on the zoning lot. These fo r­ designated visual corridors and pan­ mulas encourage tall buildings with low lot oramic views. Designated visual corri­ coverage. dors would be continuations of specific streets or other open areas fo r the pres­ In contrast, contextual bulk regulations enact­ ervation of important views. The widths ed in the 1980s result in buildings of lower would be designated when the visual height and higher coverage, which resemble corridor was adopted. the building types constructed before the introduction of height factor zoning. Panoramic views would be designated to preserve outstanding or unique views The low lot coverage required by height factor over the water from public parks, bulk regulations often presents limitations in streets, waterfront access areas or site planning and building massing, and pre­ mapped public places. Panoramic views cludes the mixture of low building forms with could be designated when new develop­ tower elements. The height regulations im­ ments might otherwise obstruct an posed by contextual bulk regulations can outstanding view. Panoramic view regu­ present site planning and building massing re­ lations would mandate building height strictions that are not universally desirable on and other design controls. waterfront sites.

All visual corridors would be recorded in Locations where contextual bulk regulations the Department of City Planning registry might be desirable include areas where there is established to ensure an adequate public a strong upland context to be supported by record of public access sites. new development. Contextual bulk envelopes originally were developed to reinforce existing

168 neighborhood contexts on regular city blocks, could include buildings of extraordinary promote streetwalls and limit building heights. height - 40 stories or more - easily taller These regulations would be appropriate fo r than buildings previously built under R6 some waterfront areas. If used exclusively, height fa ctor zoning and potentially taller than however, they would not be flexible enough to most buildings in RIO districts. produce an interesting, varied and visually open waterfront. Proposed Bulk Controls fo r Waterfrontage Blocks in R6 - RIO Districts and Commercial Height factor height, setback and floor area Equivalents regulations work best when applied to proper­ ties on blocks within a regular street grid. The The proposed bulk controls fo r new residential zoning lots on these blocks usually have pre­ and commercial developments along the water­ dictable and limited sizes and shapes. When front are intended to meet urban design con­ these height, setback and coverage controls are siderations that would: applied with the appropriate FARs, the result­ • accommodate the public access require­ ing buildings are relatively predictable in size ments; and scale.

• encourage low- to medium-rise buildings Along the waterfront (particularly outside of adjacent to waterfront public access Manhattan), developable property is often areas, upland public access connections located on large, irregularly shaped parcels in and local streets, in order to provide fo r areas without a consistently mapped street activity and security in public spaces; system. Applying height fa ctor regulations to such sites would not necessarily result in • avoid "walling off" the waterfront with predictable building heights, shapes or sizes. excessively wide buildings along the Excessively tall buildings, and buildings that shore; "wall off" the waterfront, could be built on such sites. Moreover, height factor zoning • avoid overwhelming the waterfront with would fail to achieve other urban design excessively high buildings; and objectives of safety, security and human scale along public access areas along the waterfront. • foster predictability in building bulk.

Figures 7.13 and 7.14 show possible develop­ Under the proposal, mid- to -high-density ment schemes on typical, large waterfrontage contextual districts could continue to be blocks in an R6 district using the existing mapped along the waterfront. Where non­ height and setback regulations, contextual and contextual mid- to high-density districts are height factor. In both illustrations, the pro­ mapped the proposal would eliminate height posed generic public access requirements have factor zoning on waterfrontage blocks and been met. Figure 7.13 shows potential develop­ replace it with a new set of controls. ments using the bulk controls fo r an R6A These new bulk regulations would be intro­ contextual district, as amended in accordance duced in R6 through RIO districts and their with the Department's recently published commercial equivalents to provide site plan- report Quality Housing Zoning. These pro­ ' ' ' . nmg• LI uexluhL I lty L '1 e preventmg excessively tall posed amendments would permit more liberal Wul buildings. The proposed zoning regulations site planning on large and irregularly shaped would be a hybrid of height fa ctor and contex­ lots and are necessary to make the program tual regulations and would apply wherever successful along the waterfront. contextual zoning was not mapped. Figure 7.15 Figure 7.14 shows developments on the same shows developments on typical large R6 water­ sites using the height fa ctor bulk controls fo r front lots using the proposed height and an R6 district. Height fa ctor development setback regulations.

169 FIGURE 7.13 Urban Design Case Study: Pot Cove, Astoria, Queens Waterfrontage Blocks Developed Under Existing R6A Regulations (To Remai n Available Under Zoning Proposal)

Legend

. - - - - I Zoning Lot Boundary of I .. ___I Potential Developments

Public Access Areas

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning FIGURE 7.14 Urban Design Case Study: Pot Cove, Astoria, Queens Waterfrontage Blocks Developed Under Existing R6 Height Factor Regulations (No Longer Applicable Under Zoning Proposal)

Legend

. - - -- I Zoning Lot Boundary of I .. ___; Potential Developments

Public Access Areas

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Building coverages would be set by a simple maximum coverage limit, as in contextual zoning. Maximum coverages would be set fo r each district paralleling the contextual districts. These coverages would permit a wide range of site plans that could accommo�;13te a variety of site conditions and would address public access and private open spa e. requirements. c: FARs in residential districts would be based on the highest aChievable FAR under current height factor zoning for each district. Existing FARs wollId continue to apply in commercial and manufacturing districts.

For residential development, density would be measured by lot area per dwelling unit, as in contextual zoning, rather than by a lot area per zoning room count, as in height factor zoning. The proposed maximum lot coverages, FARs and maximum densities for each district are shown in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 LOT COVERAGE, FAR AND DENSITY Maximum District* FAR Lot Coverage by Percent Lot area/DU

R6 2.43 60 interior/80 corner 278

R7 3.44 65 interior/80 corner 198

R8 6.02 70 interior/80 corner 123

R9 7.52 70 interior/80 corner 98

RIO 10.00** 70 interior/ lOO corner 79

* residential districts and their commercial equivalents

** increase to 12 with Inclusionary Housing

172 FIGURE 7.15 Urban Design Case Study: Pot Cove, Astoria, Queens Wate rfrontage Blocks Developed Under Proposed R6 Height and Setback Regulations (To Replace Existing Height Factor Regulations Under Zoning Proposal)

Legend t - - -- I Zoning Lot Boundaryof �---' Potential Developments I Public Access Areas I

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Height and Setback Regulations of predictability and discernable distinctions among districts. An R6 district, fo r example, To prevent exceptionally tall buildings, the should produce a building of a predictable proposal would establish height limits in each maximum height, with no possibility of sub­ district. Achievable heights under height factor stantially greater height even if the lot is very regulations were examined as a guide in pro­ large, as are many waterfront lots. Similarly, posing new height limits. an R7 district should produce a building taller than an R6 building but not as tall as In R6 districts, at a maximum FAR of 2.43, an R8 building, and an R9 district should height factor regulations permit buildings as produce a building taller than an R8 building high as 15 stories. These buildings are atypi­ cal of R6 districts as they require great but not as tall as an RIO building. amounts of open space and cover as little as Several other fa ctors that could restrict site 16 percent of the zoning lot. Buildings in R6 planning were considered in proposing height districts typically range from three to 12 limits. These included providing public ac­ stories. Under height factor regulations a cess, parking and the need to maintain af­ shorter building can have a larger floor plate fordability. Sufficient height had to be al­ which usually makes fo r a more economical lowed to accommodate the required water­ building. For example, buildings of nine stories achieve almost 97 percent of the al­ front public open space, which would ac­ lowable FAR, at 26 percent lot coverage. count fo r 15 to 20 percent of the lot area, and to account fo r potential subsurface prob­ In R7 districts, at an FAR of 3.44, height factor lems that might limit below-grade parking. In regulations permit 14 stories. The allowable addition, affordability would have to be FAR diminishes as the building rises above maintained in R6 and R7 districts, in which that height. In R7 districts, buildings typically expensive steel or concrete construction range from thre� to 14 stories. normally is not used, by permitting buildings without cost-adding setbacks. In R8 districts, at the highest achievable FAR of 6.02, building heights range from 17 to 20 The new height and setback regulations would stories. Greater amounts of open space are be flexible enough to permit the lower build­ required for each additional story. ing fo rms of contextual zoning but also would allow buildings with tower elements. The In R9 districts, buildings reach their maximum Quality Housing height and setback regula­ FAR of 7.52 at heights ranging from 14 to 17 tions as proposed in the Department's recently stories, although many R9 developments forfeit published report Quality Housing Zoning, and allowable FAR to build higher. There are very the proposed height fa ctor replacement regula­ few R9 districts in Manhattan and only one in tions fo r waterfrontage blocks (Table 7.8) are another borough. illustrated on a 20,000 square foot zoning lot In RIO districts, building height is not a with 100 feet of water frontage. Figure 7.16 function of floor area and open space ratios. illustrates this hypothetical zoning lot, and Most RIO developments are built under Figures 7.17 through 7.21 illustrate the devel­ tower regulations which permit 40 percent lot opment o_ptions fo r each district. coverage. Buildings of 30 to 40 stories are not uncommon.

In addition to retaining a relationship to heights currently achievable upland, the pro­ posed bulk regulations would offe r a degree

174 Two controls would be introduced to ensure Because much of the floor area would be predictability and permit design flexibility. The located below the base height, streets and first would be a straightforward height limit in public access ways would be lined with rela­ each district, ranging from 110 fe et (11 or 12 tively low building elements, which would stories) in an R6 district to 280 fe et (28 to 30 reinforce traditional streetwall character and stories) in an RIO district. provide "eyes on the street." Above the base and beyond a setback distance, towers would The second control would require that at least be permitted up to the height limit. The pro­ one-half the floor area in each building be posed height limits and packing requirements located below a specified base height. This are shown below. mechanism is called "packing the bulk."

Table 7.8 MAXIMUM'HEIGHT AND PACKING REQUIREMENTS

Maximum Packing Packing Building Height Height Score Approx # District* (in feet) (in feet) (in percent) of Stories

R6 110 40 50 11

R7 135 50 50 14

R8 180 60 50 19

R9 225 70 50 24

RIO 280 110 50 30

* AndCom mercial Equivalent Districts

175 Wate rfro ntage Block

••••••••••••••••••••••

CD Interior Lot Portion � Ci5 .2 � ------, :::J a..

Corner Lot Portion

30' Setback Required At or Below Base Height Level

No-Build BufferZone

Pedestrian Public Access Easement

...... - ...... , ...... ::::: :::::�:::::::::::::.�::: ::::::::::::: ::::::,::::::::::::::::::. ::::::::::::: ::: :::':::::::::::: .::: :: ::::::::::::::::: ::':::::::::::::.�: ::::: :::::::::::: ..:: : ...... : : : ::: : :::::::: " " ...... :...... _ ......

FIGURE 7.1 6 Waterfront Zoning Lot (Typical Condition for Bulk Studies, Figures 7.1 7- 7.21)

Legend Study parameters: -The area of the Zoning Lot is 20,000 sq.ft. with 100 ft. of water frontage. Waterfront Public -A 40 ft.de ep Waterfront Public Access Area (WPAA) is provided along the shore. AccessArea -The Zoning Lot is bounded on one side by a narrow public street. -The upland boundary of the WPAA is treated as a streetline. -Floor plates range from a maximum depth of 70 feet to a minimum depth of � ...... : : Zoning Lot Boundary 55 feet. 1 ••••••11 -The minimum size of a floorplate is 4,000 sq.ft., except for penthouses, which may be less.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Quality Housing Bulk Configuration Proposed Low Height Configuration

Proposed Maximum Height Configuration Proposed Maximum Height Configuration with Setback at 40' with Setback at Grade

FIGURE 7.17 Bulk Diagrams: R6 Districts and Commercial Equivalents

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Quality Housing Bulk Configuration Proposed Low Height Configuration

Proposed Maximum Height Configuration Proposed Maximu m Height Configuration with Setback at 50' with Setback at Grade

FIGURE 7.1 8 Bulk Diagrams: R7 Districts and Commercial Equivalents

Comprehensive Waterfront P l an / NYC Department of C ity Planning / Waterfront Zoning .. ,�' Quality Housing Bulk Configuration Proposed Low Height Configuration

Proposed Maximum Height Configuration

FIGURE 7.19 B ulk Diagrams: R8 Districts and Commercial Equivalents

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Quality Housing Bulk Configuration Proposed Low Height Configuration

Proposed Maximum Height Configuration

FIGURE 7.20 Bulk Diagrams: R9 Districts and Commercial Equivalents

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning Quality Housing Bulk Configuration Proposed Maximum Height Configuration

FIGURE 7.21 Bulk Diagrams: R10 Districts and Commercial Equ ivalents

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Waterfront Zoning The proposed bulk regulations would require important on the waterfront where many sites setbacks at certain heights in order to place are remote and pedestrian traffic may be tower elements away from streets, visual corri­ minimal. The planting requirements and dors, upland public access connections and parking location rules would contribute to waterfront public access areas. Setbacks of at more attractive landscaping and streetscapes. least 15 fe et would be required from any street, visual corridor or public access connec­ The proposed amendments to these elements tion, and at least 30 feet from any waterfront of the Quality Housing Program are described public access area. In order to permit relatively in detail in the Department's report Quality low six and seven story buildings without Housing Zoning, and are necessary to allow costly setbacks in R6 and R7 districts, setbacks the successful use of the program along the could be provided at any level below 60 fe et, waterfront. including grade. PAR KING WImIN mE R8, R9 and RIO districts would have two WATERFRONT AREA setback requirements. Setbacks would be required at 85 feet and could be provided at Accessory Parking any lower level, including grade. A second Parking is often a necessary component of setback would be required fo r any portion of waterfront developments. Screening and land­ a building higher than 150 feet that faces a scaping can enhance its attractiveness. Current waterfront public access area. This second parking regulations are fa irly strict in requiring setback would have to be at least 15 fe et in on-site parking in residential zones. To provide depth and would be measured fromthe street­ greater site planning flexibility, off-site access­ wall of the building. This requirement would ory parking rules would be liberalized. add articulation to tall buildings facing the waterfront and would encourage developersto • On-Site Accessory Parking place tall buildings with their narrower face No accessory parking spaces, aisles or along the water's edge. driveways would be permitted within To further the latter goal, the width of a waterfront public access areas, upland building facing the shoreline would be limited public access connections or aggregate to 100 feet above the maximum base height open space on waterfrontage block sites. for its zone: that is (1) a building in an R6 or Open parking would be permitted in R7 district exceeding 60 feet in height, or (2) visual corridors, which are often coinci­ a building in an R8, R9 or RIO district ex­ dent with streets or the continuation of ceeding 85 feet in height. streets. Quality Housing Program parking standards would be applicable on all Compliance with the Quality Housing pro­ waterfrontage blocks. grammatic elements (Zoning Resolution Article 2, Chapter 8) would be mandatory for all Trees planting standards would be estab­ residential developments on waterfrontage lished for all open parking areas on blocks. Requirements such as maximum num­ waterfrontage blocks. Parking areas ber of dwelling units permitted per corridor would have to be screened from public indirectly would limit the length of a building access areas either by low, dense shrub­ and encourage relatively slender towers, and bery or by opaque walls up to 3'- 6" would maximize light, air and views. The in height. safety and security. features, such as the re­ quirement that entrance doors be located in clear view of the street, would be particularly

182 • Off-Site Accessory Parking in Residence Screening: A four-foot wide landscaped Districts buffer would be required along all lot lines. Off-site accessory parking fo r residential developments is not currently permitted Trees: Trees would be required in open in residence districts except as part of a parking areas. parking facility shared with another devel­ opment. To provide greater site planning • Off-Site Accessory Parking in Non-Resi­ flexibility, the proposal would permit off­ dence Districts site parking in the same or an adjoining Off-site accessory parking would be per­ multi-family residence district (districts mitted in non-residence districts as pres­ other than RI, R2, R2X, R3A, R3X, R3-I, ently permitted, with the fo llowing mod­ R4A, R4-1 and R4B) if the off-site parking ifications: I) parking fa cilities could be facility met the following requirements. located a maximum of 1,000 fe et from Contiguity or Distance: In R3 through R5 the principal lot, and 2) such parking zones, the accessory lot would have to be could be provided in dedicated public contiguous to the principal lot (except fo r garages or public parking lots. a street separation). In R6 through RIO Public Parking Facilities zones, all off-site spaces would have to be within 1,000 feet of the principal lot. Public parking fa cilities might be desirable along parts of the waterfront that are distant Size and Arrangement: In R3 through R5 from mass transit. They would be problematic, zones, the size of each accessory lot however, if large, if located on waterfrontage would be limited to 10,000 square fe et or blocks, or if serving upland non-water-depen­ 100 feet of street frontage. The facilities dent or waterfront-enhancing uses. Their would have to be self-parking. In R6 locations would be strictly limited. through RIO zones, the current maxi­ mum permitted for on-site parking (200 • On all sites within the waterfrontage or 300 spaces) would apply to future off­ blocks, parking fa cilities would continue site parking. to be permitted as-of-right only in Man­ ufacturing and C8 districts. In all other Parking Structures: In R3 through R5 districts where parking fa cilities currently zones, no accessory off-site parking stru­ are allowed as-of-right, they would be ctures would be permitted, but they permitted on waterfrontage lots only by would be permitted in R6 through RIO CPC special permit, up to the capacity zones. The height in any rear yard would limitation of the applicable district. The be limited to 14 fe et. permit findings would be based on the need to serve a waterfront development Yards: No parking spaces could be locat­ or the inability to site the facility on a ed in the front yard if the yard were re­ non-waterfrontage lot.

quired by� the zoning� district.

ENDNOTES

1. The definition of "mean high water" used by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration would be adopted for zoning purposes.

183

00 NEXT STEPS

The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan proposes release of the plan to community boards, a far-reaching vision fo r the waterfront. The public officials and· agencies, and neighbor­ plan lays out a series of recommendations to hood and civic groups. The ensuing dialogue guide land use change, planning and coor­ will result in plan modifications to further dination, and capital investment fa r into the reflect the diverse views and concerns of the future. However, no plan, no matter how public. In response to this public discussion, comprehensive, can remain static. The plan proposed zoning text amendments will be filed must be revisited periodically to keep pace for public review, individual reach plans will with changing needs and conditions. be published, and revision of the Waterfront Revitalization Program under the 197-a pro­ Major elements of the plan can be implement­ cess will be initiated. ed through regulatory changes, some of which, such as zoning text reform, will advance rela­ To be successful, the plan must be viewed tively quickly. Where broad integrated plan­ as a process rather than a destination. In ning efforts are proposed, the Department of fact, many of its recommendations, such as City Planning will work with agencies and the WRP revision, acquisition of land for parks public on issues that can best be resolved and natural resource protection, and other through interagency and intergovernmental capital investment, will demand continuing planning and program coordination. Still other public involvement to set priorities and strategies requiring capital investment and refine public policies. maintenance funding will be implemented incrementally within the confines of public ZONING REFORM budgetary constraints; By providing a frame­ work for waterfront improvements, the plan ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS can guide future public investment and re­ source allocation as fundingbe comes available. The success of the Comprehensive Waterfront Plan: will rest in large part on adoption of the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION proposed zoning text reform, as modified after public review and discussion. The Department Development of the plan has been guided by will give highest priority to implementing these city, state and fe deral agencies and officials, proposals, because of their wide-ranging effect waterfront experts and civic organizations on shaping waterfront development, creating concerned about the future of the city's water­ public access and encouraging working water­ front. A comprehensive and coordinated front uses. planning process has involved numerous public meetings and valuable advice from a Based on pubik response to the comprehen­ citywide waterfront advisory committee and sive plan, the Department anticipates preparing from community boards and local groups fo r zoning text amendments for consideration individual Reach Studies. later in the year by the public, community and borough boards, the City Planning Commis­ The public-private collaboration will continue sion and the City Council. The Department this fall when the Department of City Planning will be responsible for preparing the necessary convenes a series of public meetings fo llowing environmental assessment.

185 ZONING MAP CHANGES well-suited to certain natural waterfronts. If, for example, it is determined that additional In addition to zoning text changes that would protection is needed for the Staten Island apply to the entire waterfront, the plan recom­ Special Natural Area beyond that already mends zoning map changes in specific areas provided by existing regulations, DCP would where waterfront redevelopment is desirable. evaluate the suitability of additional land use Zoning map changes may also include a Wa­ controls and their affect on administrative terfront Access Plan (WAP) to establish site­ resources. DCP will also determine if a "trans­ specific public access plans in selected areas. fer of development rights" approach would be Recommended zoning map changes, as modi­ appropriate fo r further study and if it could be fiedbased on public discussion, may be initiat­ accommodated within the Zoning Resolution. ed by public and private land owners, commu­ One of the plan's goals is to encourage social nity groups, community boards, elected offi­ and economic diversity on the waterfront. The cials, public agencies or by the Department Inclusionary Housing Program adopted by the itself. Upon adoption of zoning text reform, city in 1987 provides an as-of-right floor area the Department may initiate recommended bonus to developments in exchange fo r afford­ land use changes, but budget constraints would able housing units. The program is applicable make it impossible to initiate all such changes. only in RIO districts, all of which are located In some cases, detailed land use studies may be in Manhattan. The Department is exploring necessary to confirm the appropriateness of ways to expand the program to other areas of zoning and land use changes. These studies the city, including the waterfront. The goal of will be integrated into the Department's work soclO-. economic diversity may also be advanced program over time. The Comprehensive Wa­ on city-owned redevelopment sites and in terfront Plan will provide the planning frame­ �rban renewal areas by incorporating guide­ work and citywide context fo r review of the hn s or the provision of affordable housing proposals submitted by others. The land use � UllltS �m property disposition agreements. and environmental review process fo r the sites will determine precise densities, uses and infrastructure needs. CITYMAP CHANGES

To fa cilitate area-wide rezonings from manu­ Recommendations for city map changes in­ acturing to residential use, the city is explor­ clude demapping underwater or unbuilt mg� the use of generic environmental impact streets, mapping or remapping pierhead and statements. It is also exploring options fo r bulkhead lines, and mapping public parks or facilitating the disclosure and mitigation of walkways. These changes may be initiated by potential environmental impacts that may be the Department, other city agencies with caused by the presence of hazardous materials jurisdiction over the affected areas, or private on sites fo rmerly used for manufacturing. applicants. Like the zoning map changes, the Department will not be able to initiate all ZONING AND LAND USE STUDIES propos�d map changes because of budget constramts. Many of these recommendations The plan recommends several citywide zoning can be implemented in conjunction with studIes and local land use studies to further its projects proposed by public and private appli­ objectives. ca ts However, the Department will give ? : pnonty to bulkhead and pierhead line changes T e �oning �esolution contains special zoning needed to accommodate the zoning text re­ dlstncts? deSIgned to protect unique natural form, and to mapping public parkland in features such as mature trees, aquatic habitats conjunction with land acquisition proposals and hillsides. The Department continues to initiated by the Department of Parks and explore the appropriateness of this technique Recreation. for resolving land use conflicts in environmen­ tally sensitive areas. This approach might be

186 WAT ERFRONT REVITALIZATION The revised policy guidelines would provide PROGRAM REFORM the necessary information to allow for formal revision to the city's Waterfront Revitalization Revising and enhancing the city's Waterfront Program under Section 197 -a of the City Revitalization Program (WRP) will significantly Charter. They would clearly define the city's advance achievement of the plan's goals and waterfront characteristics and priorities and policy recommendations. WRP has not been add geographic specificity to the application of revised since its adoption ten years ago. Dur­ WRP policies. As recommended in the plan, ing this time the city and its waterfront have the revisions would advance habitat and changed, and experience with application of natural resource protection, public access, WRP policy reviews has highlighted its water-dependent uses, and redevelopment in strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths lie, in appropriate locations by providing Iocational part, in its articulation of broad goals fo r the parameters to policies which generally are waterfront, and in its role in coordinating applicable across-the-board. The revisions waterfront development. Its weaknesses lie in would incorporate specificguidel ines to allow the lack of geographic specificity in its 56 such actions as dredging, waterfront infra­ policies, despite the vast body of knowledge structure repair and redevelopment to proceed which has been collected on the city's waters more expeditiously and in an environmentally and shoreline. To the extent that the WRP sound manner. Development of these guide­ better reflects the city's waterfront planning lines will require a coordinated effort by DCP objectives, it will begin to acquire a more and other city and state regulatory agencies. realistic and focused interpretation. Until WRP is fo rmally revised under 197-a, the Revision of the Waterfront Revitalization Department will be guided by the findings and Program requires several steps. The first and recommendations of the Comprehensive Water­ most important is the preparation of a set of front Plan in its WRP consistency reviews. regional policy guidelines fo r New Yo rk City which would more precisely delineate the areas PUBLIC INVESTMENT of special significance identified in the compre­ hensive plan and define the parameters fo r The city is faced with enormous demands reviewing proposals in these areas. on its capital resources, from the need to rebuild its infrastructure to the need to The policy guidelines would provide the fo un­ address environmental and social problems. dation fo r development of one of the regional The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan con­ waterfront plans called fo r throughout the tains recommendations which require capi­ state by the Governor's Task Force. tal and operating expenditures well beyond the city's current ability to fu nd. However, New Yo rk City is a region itself, with five the plan is intended as a long-term strategy counties and almost 20 percent of the 3,200 fo r guiding fu ture waterfront investment total miles of New Yo rk State's coastline. The and resource allocation over a span of many city is strategically located at the intersection years. Even in the short-term, the plan can of three other significant regional entities: the provide a basis for better coordinating Hudson River Estuary, the Long Island Sound waterfront capital investments, setting and the Atlantic Ocean Bight. Multi-jurisdic­ priorities and identifyingaltern ative fu nding tional issues involving adjoining Hudson Rivei sources and mechanisms. or Long Island regions would be addressed as part of this effort. The fo ur basic components of the plan require somewhat different investment strategies, most Just as New Yo rk City was the first municipal­ of which must be implemented by agencies ity in the state to adopt a local WRP, it can other than DCP from a variety of funding again provide the model fo r the state's regional sources. planning efforts.

187 THE NATURAL WATERFRONT tenance, and DOT's program fo r rehabilitating and building pedestrian bridges over roads and The natural waterfront has benefitted from tremendous public investment in water quality rail lines. DCP will encourage these agencies to improvements over the past 30 years. In addi­ consider and incorporate recommended im­ tion to continuation of existing and planned provements in their capital program when programs fo r wastewater treatment and CSO allocating future resources. As funding be­ abatement, the plan recommends additional comes available, acquisition and development investment to reduce non-point source pollu­ programs should be targeted to linkages be­ tion, especially in the areas identifiedas having tween existing public open spaces, and to areas significant natural resources. An investment that are currently underserved by waterfront strategy relating to non-point pollution, in­ open space and have limited potential fo r cluding stormwater runoff guidelines and waterfront redevelopment. preservation of wetland buffe r areas, should be developed jointly by concerned agencies in­ DCP will also help identify alternative funding cluding DEP, DRP, DCP, City and State De­ sources. For example, the recently approved partments of Transportation, the NYS Depart­ Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation ment of Environmental Conservation and the EfficiencyAct of 1991 (ISTEA) provides a pool NYS Department of State. of federal funds fo r improvements related to bicycle and pedestrian waterfront trail develop­ One of the primary mechanisms fo r protect­ ment and pedestrian bridges over highways and ing environmental resources is the acquisi­ rail corridors. To obtain these funds, the De­ tion of private property. The plan supports partment of City Planning, City and State DEP's program to acquire wetlands fo r Departments of Transportation, and City and stormwater management and pollution State Departments of Parks and Recreation control in Staten Island and DPR's acquisi­ should continue to work together in developing tion of critical areas for habitat preservation a coordinated waterfront open space strategy. as fundingbecomes available. Creation of public access on privately-owned THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT property requires a monitoring and enforce­ New waterfront public access will be achieved, ment effort to ensure that the components are in large part, through private and public built as planned and, once constructed, are redevelopment of the waterfront. Approved . properly maintained and kept open to the redevelopment projects will incorporate public public. DCP will work with other agencies to access, and zoning text reform will require examine alternative management models and public access in future redevelopment. to set guidelines fo r the maintenance of these properties. Certain major redevelopments, such The plan fo r the public waterfront identifies a as Manhattan West Side Waterfront, Hunter's range of capital improvements, including new Point in Queens, or Brooklyn Harbor, are access to and along the waterfront, develop­ likely to be managed by specific entities estab­ ment of a network of bicycle and waterfront lished fo r that purpose. Alternatives fo r other trails, acquisition of new parkland and im­ waterfront developments might include, fo r provements to undeveloped parks and other access points. Many of the plan's recommen­ example, the grouping of a number of sites dations parallel those identifiedby DPR for its under the jurisdiction of a conservancy or existing parks, or have been endorsed by open special administrator using pooled contribu­ space organizations. tions fo r maintenance and security. The study of management alternatives would examine the The city's budget constraints have reduced feasibility of such a conservancy, including its DPR's capital program and operating budget structure and funding sources, as well as the fo r park acquisition, improvements and main- issue of liability.

188 THE WORKING WATERFRONT Perhaps more than any other capital asset, the protection, including beach nourishment, non­ infrastructure that sustains working waterfront point source pollution, harbor drift and site uses has been neglected and allowed to decay. planning guidelines fo r city-owned properties Investments in bulkhead repair, pier stabiliza­ in Special Natural Areas. The plan fo r the Pub­ tion and highway and rail intermodal connec­ lic Waterfront requires a cooperative effo rt to tions are needed. As called fo r in the plan fo r further public access including maintenance, the working waterfront, DCP will seek to management, planning and public education. establish a task force of public agencies with The Working Waterfront recommends a waterfrontjurisdic tion to develop a coordinat­ coordinated strategy fo r improving the port ed capital improvement strategy fo r port infrastructure while establishing harbor-wide facilities. The task fo rce would examine meth­ maintenance standards that provide a balance ods of more effectively leveraging private between habitat protection and essential money by extending the terms of municipal dredging and operational improvements. leases on waterfrontpr operty and encouraging lessees to undertake capital improvements. DCP is committed to the establishment of interagency working groups and the coordina­ THE REDEVEWPING WATERFRONT tion of efforts needed to implement these Many potentially developable sites are under­ recommendations. Where interagency task served by vital infrastructure including road­ fo rces are in place, the Department will work ways, sewer, water and public transportation. with them to coordinate particular areas of joint These infrastructure needs will be determined concern. The Department will issue periodic more specifically in the context of the rezoning status reports as implementation of the Com­ process. Public capital investments in infra­ prehensive Waterfront Plan progresses.

structure will be coordinated with redevelop­ ********** ment projects, where appropriate. Taken together, the strategic actions outlined COORDINATION in this chapter represent a new beginning fo r the city's waterfront. The potential now exists Coordination is one of the keys to successful for concerted public action in response to the implementation of the Comprehensive Water­ citywide enthusiasm fo r an active and accessi­ front Plan. Public agencies, industries, private ble shoreline. There are renewed commitments land owners, residents, civic organizations and for coastal management programs on both the community and neighborhood groups all have fe deral and state level. The challenge of this an interest and a role in planning and manag­ plan is to set a realistic course of action fo r the ing the waterfront. Many recommendations waterfrontthat strengthens the city's economy, cut across jurisdictional boundaries and will promotes public enjoyment and tourism, require thoughtful discussion and, perhaps, provides new housing and preserves our natu­ I new structures for intergovernmental coopera­ ral resources. tion. These recommendations include develop­ ment of guidelines as part of WRP reform, formulation of a non-point source pollution control program and capital investment strate­ gies.

The plan fo r the Natural Waterfront calls fo r new and existing interagency groups to work on a variety of programs fo r natural resource

189 APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF WATERFRONT REACH STU DIES

A major component of this Comprehensive Wa terfront Plan is a set of local land use studies prepared for each segment of city 's waterfront. Th ese studies both inform and are informed by the policies articulated in the plan. They examine waterfront conditions and land use, providing the necessary building blocks for developing the plans fo r the Natural, Public, Wo rking and Redeveloping Wa terfronts. At the same time, the goals and pOlicies articulated in the Wa terfront Plan helped shape the local waterfront studies and their specific recommendations.

Th e city's waterfront was divided into 22 study reaches (Map A.D), reach being a nautical term fo r a continuous expanse of water. The reaches were designated based on land use, natural features, and physical and political boundaries. In most cases, the depth of the reach study area was limited to blocks fronting on or near the waterfro nt. Howe ver, in most areas where significant land use changes were considered, the studies examined broad upland areas to assess the implications of change on the waterfront. Each reach study includes an examination of existing conditions, an identification of planning and waterfront issues, and recommendations for achieving the goals articulatedin the Wa terfront Plan. Detailed reports on each of the reach studies will be released over the coming months.

This appendix summarizes those reach studies. Each Reach Summary includes a "Gazetteer" providing basic geographic, land use and zoning information, and the study's majo r recommendations. The recommendations are grouped according to the fo ur major elements of the waterfront plan - Natural, Public, Wo rking and Redeveloping - and keyed to a map of the reach. If major findings or recommendations are not made fo r a particular element, it has not been included in the summary.

WATERFRONT PLANNING REACHES

1 Manhattan East Side 1 2 West Queens

2 Lower Manhattan 13 Newtown Creek

3 Manhattan Lower West Side 14 Brooklyn Upper Bay

4 Manhattan Upper West Side 1 5 Brooklyn Lower Bay

5 Northern Manhattan 16 Coney Island/Sheepshead Bay

6 Bronx/Harlem and Hudson Rivers 17 Jamaica Bay/Rockaway

7 South Bronx 18 Staten Island NorthShor e

8 Bronx River 19 Staten Island South Shore

9 East Bronx 20 Arthur Kill South

10 Queens North Shore 21 Arthur Kill North

11 Queens Upper East River 22 Kill Van Kull MAP A.O

10

Queens

Brooklyn

Reach Study Recommendations / Key Map

reach boundaries

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 1: MANHATTAN EAST RIVER

Location: Manhattan 's East River waterfront from the Brooklyn Bridge to 125th Street, including Roosevelt Island, and Randal/s and Wa rd's islands

Upland Neighborhoods: , Midto wn East, Upper East Side, East Harlem, Roosevelt Island

Shoreline: bulkhead, riprap, and pier/platform

Zoning/Land Use: M-zoned parking and municipal fa cilities outboard of FOR Drive, high-density (R7-R10) residential and institutional inland. Roosevelt Island is medium-density (R7-2) residential and institutional, and Randal/s Island contains parkland and Wa rd's Island contains parkland and municipal facilities.

Wa terfront Parkland: Randal/s Island Park, , East River Esplanade, East River Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT Manhattan's East River shorefront does not contain The majority of M-zoned land is leased for parking any significant natural areas, but the water itself is or non-water-dependent municipal uses. Ferry an important fish mig ration route. service for recreation and commuting to serve the adjacent high-density residential communities PUBLIC WATERFRONT should be explored. Nearly the entire waterfront is in public ownership, 4 Explore opportunities to expand or reestablish creating opportunities to complete a continuous waterfront esplanade along most of the reach. ferry service. Potential sites include 34th, 60th, 63rd, and 90th streets. Gaps in the esplanade are from the Brooklyn 5 Bridge to East River Park, 18th to 23rd streets, Where feasible, lease city-owned property for 34th to 36th streets, 38th to 41 st streets, and 60th water-dependent and water-enhancing uses. to 62nd streets.

RFP's for development of city-owned parcels 1 REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT should require an esplanade component. As leases expire, incorporate esplanade require­ Three vacant sites provide opportunities for rede­ ments into leases. Where alternative uses can velopment for public uses. be identified, phase out leases to non-water­ dependent uses that are incompatible with 6 Develop a site between Catherine Street and public access. Market Street for a barg e restaurant.

2 Construct new or rehabilitated esplanade and 7 Redevelop the Washburn Wire Building, east of access points in conju nction with redevelop­ the FOR Drive at 117th Street, for TV or film ment of waterfront municipal facilities such as studios. Explore reuse of pier for public access. the FOR Drive or the seawall. 8 Reuse the 60th Street Marine Transfer Station 3 Consolidate maintenance of the entire espla­ building. The two-story structure could accom­ nade under the jurisdiction of a single manage­ modate an open-air pavilion on the upper level, ment entity. and a restaurant or other publicly oriented use on the lower level. MAP A.1

7 Washburn Wire Bldg.

Carl

Queens

Brooklyn

East Side / Reach 1 Recommendations

L::J significant coastal habitat upland connection

existing continuous or general access • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access I .... [] proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park III -II other site specific recommendation � new or improved point access or overpass 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 2: LOWE R MANHATTAN

Location: southerntip of Manhattan, from the Brooklyn Bridge on the East River to Chambers Street on the Hudson, including Go vernors, Ellis, and Liberty Islands

Upland Neighborhoods: South Street Seaport, Fin ancial District, Battery Park City

Shoreline: entirely bulkheaded, with numerous piers

Zoning/Land Use: mid- to high-density commercial and residential in Battery Park City; central business district(C5-C6); South Street Seaport Special District

Wa terfront Parkland: Battery Park, Battery Park City Esplanade

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT The waterfront does not contain any significant Ferries from other boroughs, New Jersey, and natural areas. The Hudson River is an important Governors, Ellis and Liberty islands are a fish habitat. significant water-dependent use.

1 Support desig nation of the Lower Hudson 8 Reconstruct the fire-damaged Staten Island River Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Ferry Te rminal with retail, restaurants, and Habitat. improved pedestrian access.

9 Pursue additional ferry routes from the Battery Maritime Building, Staten Island Ferry Te rminal, PUBLIC WATERFRONT South Street Seaport and the East River Docks. Ellis and LibertyIslands, Battery Park, Battery Park City, and the South Street Seaport are regional recreational and tourist attractions. Opportunities REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT for improved access to and links between these - attractions will be pursued. DCP is preparing a comprehensive plan for Lower Manhattan which will present a land use and 2 Create public access rights-of-way to complete development strategy for waterfront sites. The reach a continuous esplanade by filling these gaps: also includes the northern portion of Battery Park from Pier 13 to north of the Seaport, between City, which will provide residential, commercial, and Battery Park City and Battery Park, and at the institutional development. Battery Maritime Building, S.I. Ferry Te rminal, and Coast Guard sites. 10 Pier A will be redeveloped for a restaurant and visitors' center that should provide a link 3 Improve esplanade between Battery Maritime between Battery Park and Battery Park City. Building and Pier 13, so it is consistent with the design of the upgraded portions of the East 11 The Plan for Lower Manhattan will establish the River Esplanade. framework for long term redevelopment within the reach. 4 Create additional access to the waterfront along West and South streets in accordance with DCP's forthcoming Plan for Lower Manhattan.

5 Provide interim public uses for piers 9 - 14 as recommended in the East River Docks Study.

6 Upgrade existing access points with signage and crosswalk treatment, and rationalize traffic patterns.

7 Relocate or reconfigure parking under FDR Drive to improve public access. Manhattan

2, 4, 6 continuous esplanade

Brooklyn

1 MILE

Lower Manhattan / Reach 2 Recommendations

I>hi'il significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area

existing continuous or general access - • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access ..... [] proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park LI� -- other site specific recommendation -9- new or improved pointaccess or overpass 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 3: MANHATTAN LOWER WEST SIDE

Location: Hudson River from Chambers Street to 59th Street

Upland Neighborhoods: Tribeca, SoHo, , Chelsea, Clinton

Shoreline: bulkhead and piers

Zoning/Land Use: M1 to M3 industrial zoning on the waterfront, except fo r some C6 and C 1-7 areas in the West Village. Upland residential and commercial districts are medium-density, R6 to RB. The Lower Manhattan Mixed- Use District permits limited residential conversion and construction in manufacturing and commercial zones.

Wa terfront Parkland: none

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPING WATER!=RONT

The Hudson River is an important fish habitat. The 4 New development opportunities have been shorefront itself is not a natural resource. identified by the West Side Waterfront Panel at Pier 40, the Chelsea Piers, Pier 76 opposite the 1 Support desig nation of the Lower Hudson Convention Center(Hudson River Center), and River Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife the piers at the foot of 42nd Street. Habitat. 5 Explore redevelopment opportunities in conjunction with enhanced passenger ship PUBLIC WATERFRONT operations at the Passenger Ship Te rminal

2 The West Side Waterfront Panel (WSWP) has proposed development of a 270-acre Hudson River Waterfront Park extending the full length of the reach. OCP is a member of the panel and is participating in the planning for the park, which would include a continuous waterfront esplanade, protected open water areas, and public piers.

WORKING WATERFRONT

The working waterfront consists of a number of municipal uses such as waste transfer and Con Edison facilities, excursion vessels, ferry piers and the Passenger Ship Te rminal, which accommodates ocean liners. The Route 9A reconstruction by State DOT will improve vehicular access on the West Side.

3 Explore feasibility of Staten Island-Midtown ferry service. MAP A.3

4 Staten Island - Midtown ferry

Passenger Ship Te rminal 5

42nd St. Piers 4 New Jersey Hudson River Center 4

Chelsea Piers 4

1 Lower Hudson

Lower West Side / Reach 3 Recommendations

hb:htl significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area

exist ing continuous or general access I1!IIIIII§!IlII • approved redevelopmentproject

proposed continuous or generalaccess IIIII C proposed redevelopment area L::::::l:t:t: upland extent of park other sHe specific recommendation recommendation key number in text =I> new or improved point access or node 20

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 4: MANHATTAN UPPER WEST SIDE

Location: Hudson River from 59th Street to 125th Street

Upland Neighborhoods: Upper We st Side, Morningside Heights

Shoreline: riprap and bulkhead

Zoning/Land Use: North of 72 nd Street, Riverside Park and the on the waterfro nt, and high-density (R8 - R10) residential upland. South of 72 nd Street the 76-acre Penn Ya rds site is vacant, with a C3 zone along the waterfront and R8, R10, and C4-7 upland.

Wa terfront Parkland: Riverside Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT

The shoreline does not contain any significant The only active maritime use in the reach is the 79th natural resources. The waters of the Hudson River Street Marina. are a significant fish habitat. 4 Support DPR plans for improvements to the 1 Support designation of the Lower Hudson 79th Street Marina, including public access and River Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife transient docks. Habitat.

REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT PUBLIC WATERFRONT The proposed Riverside South development on the The development of the Penn Yards site (proposed Penn Ya rds site would reactivate a vacant site for Riverside South) presents an opportunity for a recreational, residential, and commercial use, public waterfront park and a link between Riverside Planning principles for the site, developed with active Park to the North and the proposed Hudson River public participation, include: Waterfront Park to the south. Improvements to Riverside Park would enhance its value as 5 Creation of a new, 23-acre public waterfront waterfront public space. park which would connect with Riverside Park and the Hudson River Park; 2 Develop a linear connection from Riverside Park to the proposed Hudson River Waterfront Park 6 A future inboard replacement of the Miller through the 23-acre public park component of Highway, so that the new public park could be the proposed Riverside South development. located directly on the water's edge.

3 Support DPR's master plan for Riverside Park 7 Development to be harmonious with the scale which includes improving the walkways along and character of adjacent areas of the Upper the shore, removing pedestrian-vehicular con­ West Side. flicts and providing public access at the 79th Street Marina. MAP A.4

3 Esplanade Gap (86 - 90 Sts.)

1 Lower Hudson

2, 5,6, 7

Upper West Side / Reach 4 Recommendations

t:UHti signi!ic.anl coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area

existing continuous or general access �"'� II approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access ..... o proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park other site specific recommendation

new or improved point access or overpass 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 5: NORTHERN MANHATTAN

Location: Harlem and Hudson riverfronts north of 125th Street

Upland Neighborhoods: Manhattan ville, Hamilton Heights, Wa shington Heights, Inwood, Harlem, East Harlem

Shoreline: mostly riprap and bulkhead, some natural shoreline at northern end

Zoning/Land Use: most of the shoreline is parkland, separated from the upland by highways and railroad lines. Industrial areas are located between 125th and 145th streets on the Hudson River, the Sherman Creek area north of Academy Street on the Harlem River, and around the eastern terminus of 125th Street. A small C3 area is mapped at Sherman Creek, and 's Baker Field is zoned R7-2. Upland communities are high-density residential, R8 and R7-2.

Wa terfront Parkland: Riverside Park, , Fort Wa shington Park, , , Harlem River park strip between 125th Street and 145th Street

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 7 Develop landing sites for waterborne access The reach contains a variety of valuable natural along the Hudson at 125th Street and Dyckman resources, including wetlands, the last native forest Street. in Manhattan, and significant fish and wildlife 8 Rehabilitate existing access point across the habitats. Henry Hudson Parkway at 151 st Street Supportde signation of the Lower Hudson River 1 Develop the Dyckman Street Marina planned as Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat, which 9 a concession in Fort Washington/Inwood Hill includes and the Inwood Parks. Hill Park water's edge. Develop street-end access, compatible with Support development of the Urban Ecology 10 2 ind ustrial uses, in the Sherman Creek area of Center on Crescent Island in Inwood Hill Park. the Harlem River waterfront. 3 City and State DOT and Triborough Bridge and Explore the potential for a rowing center at Tunnel Authority should improve drainage from 11 Sherman Creek, a use that is compatible with Henry Hudson Parkway to protect forested wetlands and shallow water depths, but would slopes from erosion. require limited dredging. Upg rade Sherman Creek wetlands through 4 Extend the East River Esplanade north of 125th interim cleanup. Require that a portion of the 12 Street to 145th Street and develop the proposed natural edge be restored and maintained as a Harlem Beach Park. component of future development.

REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT PUBLIC WATERFRONT The West 125th Street and Sherman Creek areas Most of the reach's waterfront is parkland, but grade offer opportunities for a variety of new waterfront changes, highways and rail lines limit access. The uses. Hudson River waterfront offers the potential for continuous linear access. Links to upland 13 The development of the proposed Harlem on communities can also be enhanced. the Hudson project at 125th Street should include a public pier and waterfront public Develop a continuous pedestrian/bicycle path 5 access that provides a linear connection joining along the Hudson River by closing gaps the southern and northern sections of Riverside between: 125th and 145th streets; 155th and Park. 158th streets; and 181 st and 187th streets. Rezone the area north of Sherman Creek and 6 Develop a fishing/recreation pier at the foot of 14 south of 207th Street to accommodate rec­ West 125th Street. reational, residential and/or commercial uses. 2, 3 MAP A.5 Inwood 7,9 Hill Park Dyckman 3 St. Marin HenryHu dson Parkway

5 Gap: 181-187 Sts. Ne w Jersey

Sherman Creek 4,10, 11, 1 4

5 Gap: 155-1 58 Sts.

1 Lower Hudson

The Harlem on the Bronx Hudson / W. 1 25th St. 6, 7, 13

Sts.

125 -145 Sts.

1 MILE

Northern Manhattan / Reach 5 Recommendations

1«<; I significant coastal habitat upland connection

existing continuous or general access • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access ..... [] proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park I- -- other s�e specific recommendation -=(> new or improved point access or overpass 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 6: BRONX HARLEM & HUDSON RIVERS

Location: Hudson and Harlem Rivers from Yo nkers city line to

Upland Neighborhoods: Riverdale, Spuyten Duyvi/, Kingsbridge, Marble Hill, University Heights, Morris Heights, Highbridge

Shoreline: riprap and bulkhead

Zoning/Land Use: parkland and lo w-density residential and institutional in Riverdale(R 1 and R4, with Special Natural Area District NA-2); medium-density (R5-R6) residential in Spuyten Duyvi/ and Marble Hill; light manufacturing, parking, rai/yards on the Harlem River shoreline.

Rai/ lines and/or highways line most of the reach 's waterfront.

Wa terfront Parkland: Riverdale Park, Spuyten Duyvi/ Shorefront Park, Roberto Clemente State Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT The waters of the Hudson River are an important The working waterfront component of this reach, fish habitat. located on the Harlem River, includes support facilities for Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, service, 1 Support designation of the Lower Hudson River storage, commercial, and railroad uses, as well as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, some vacant parcels. which includes the mouth of the Harlem River. 9 Explore the feasibility of a park-and-ride ferry PUBLIC WATERFRONT operation at the parking site. Access to the water is blocked by rail tracks REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT throughout the reach, as well as by a highway along the Harlem River. New links to waterfront parcels Vacant and underutilized sites along the reach would provide increased opportunities for recrea­ present opportunities for residential/public access tional use. redevelopment.

2 Develop a Harlem River waterfront esplanade 10 Develop site planning guidelines, including from Highbridge to Broadway Bridge. appropriate densities, for residential and open space development of the six-acre city-owned 3 Create a trail from the proposed Harlem River Spuyten Duyvil Village site, currently zoned RG. esplanade in Marble Hill to Spuyten Duyvil, including point access to the water's edge. 11 Develop the waterfront parcel used for Yankee Stadium parking for multi-level mixed use, 4 Provide additional access from upland including parking and recreational use. communities and to proposed esplanade. 12 Develop residential use on platform over the S Provide route for the Hudson River Greenway Highbridge Rail Yards and Metro North line. and Bronx Boroughwide Bicycle Route System. 13 Rezone city-owned and adjacent parcels north 6 Acquire the Penn Central Triangle at the mouth of University Heights Bridge from M3-1 and M1- of the Harlem River, and incorporate it into the 1 to R7. adjoining Spuyten Duyvil Shorefront Park. Pedestrian access could be provided by 14 Rezone parcels between Broadway and the extending the Spuyten Duyvil Metro-North Columbia Presbyterian industrial site on 225th Station's overpass. Street from M1-1 to RG.

7 Acquire privately-owned parcels south of 193rd Street for development as a waterfront park.

S Expand and develop the mapped park south of River Park To wers. MAP A.6

1 Lower Hudson 5 Bronx bike route & Hudson River Greenway

/ Spuyten Duyvil Village 10 Mamler-\-r 2�fu SL " S PU� U 7 � i � :(l{ i . · .){f:::. . � :Bridge: site 13 Roberto '" : . ){{? Fordham : . "'" Clemente -Ail' 4 Landing The park south of Bronx River Park To wers 8

:::::::::::::::::: q.- 4

:::�;::::::;) !:---. Yankee Stadium parking lot 9, 11

1 MILE

Bronx Harlem Hudson / Reach 6 Recommendations

!litHiA significant coastal habitat upland connection or bikeway

existing continuous or general access III approved redevelopment project

proposed coniinuous or general access ..... [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park -II other sHe specific recommendation

new or improved point access or overpass 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 7: SOUTH BRONX

Location: Harlem River, , East River, and Bronx River fro m the Bronx Te rminal Market to the Bruckner Boulevard Bridge

Upland Communities: Mott Haven, Port Morris, Hunts Point

Shore Conditions: bulkhead and riprap

Zoning/Land Use: M3, M2, and .M1 zoned manufacturing areas, including warehousing and distribution uses and private and municipal waste handling facilities. Hunts Point has a small upland R6 residential area. North Brother Island is currently uninhabited.

Wa terfront Parkland: no fo rmal parks

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT

As an industrial area, this reach offers limited Offering access to regional highways and freight opportunities for improving natural waterfront railways, the South Bronx waterfront is devoted to conditions. North Brother Island and South Brother working uses, some of which are water-dependent. Island are migratory bird habitats. Both private and publicly owned vacant sites are available for developm ent. Access improvements will 1 Support designation of Northand South Brother be needed. The Oak Point Rail Link providing access islands as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife to a proposed Trailer on Flat Car facility at the Habitats, provided that future municipal reuse of Harlem River Yard is expected to be completed by North Brother Island is not precluded. 1995. A sludge processing facility has been proposed for this reach.

6 Designate the South Bronx as a Significant PUBLIC WATERFRONT Maritime and Industrial Area. There are opportunities for limited public access, compatible with the industrial waterfront. 7 Improve vehicular access to the Hunts Point Market area by constructing the Sheridan/ 2 Develop street end public access compatible Bruckner Expressway interchange. with surrounding industrial uses at Lincoln Avenue, Tiffany Street, and Lafayette Avenue. S Provide rail access between the Harlem River The pier at Tiffany Street should be restored for Yard, Oak Point Yard, the Hunts Point Market recreational use. and other waterfront sites. Pursue use of barge and rail transport for 3 If the Hunts Point Marine Transfer Station is 9 vacated by the Dept of Sanitation, it should be municipal uses such as waste handling and reused as a park serving Hunts Point's labor sludge disposalto improve air quality and traffic force and upland com munity in conjunction with circulation. the existing Hunts Point Avenue street end access point.

4 Provide pedestrian access to Randal ls Island as part of the Harlem River Yard redevelopment plan.

5 Preserve and landscape publicly owned natural edges along Bronx Kill and on the Hunts Point Market site to improve vistas from parks on the opposite shore. The Bronx

7 Sheridan Bruckner Interchange

5

Lafayette 8 rail links Ave.

posea 6 �

South Bronx / Reach 7 Recommendations

c::J... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access � II approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 [] proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park �1�Mfl:� --- other stte specific recommendation � new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 8: BRONX RIVER

Location: Bronx River fro m Westchester County border to Bruckner Boulevard

Upland Neighborhoods: Wo odlawn, Wa kefield, Bronxdale, Williamsbridge, We st Farms, Bronx River, East, Hunts Point, Soundview

Shoreline: natural in the northern portion, bulkhead south of We stchester Avenue

Zoning/Land Use: M1-1 industrial areas north of 236th Street and south of 172nd Street. mapped parkland above 180th Street. The area between 172nd and 180th Streets is zoned R7-1, but is mostly parkland and highways.

Wa terfront Parkland: Bronx Park, including Zo ological and Botanical Gardens, Luna Park, Bronx River Parkway

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 7 Develop point access and rehabilitate pier south of Westchester Avenue in conjunction with con­ Extensive efforts to clean and restore the Bronx struction of the Edgewater Road access to the River date from the turn of the century, and since Sheridan-Bruckner Expressway interchange. 1974, have been led by the Bronx River Restoration group and DPR.

1 Support continuing efforts to restore natural WORKING WATERFRONT conditions along the river north and south of Bronx Park. Industrial areas are located south of 180th Street. They include a variety of manufacturing, service, and distribution uses.

PUBLIC WATERFRONT

Bronx Park and the Bronx River Parkway offer ample REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT access to the river's edge. Access below Bronx Park is constrained by industrial uses, but some The state-owned Coliseum building, currently used expansion of public access is possible. as a TA bus depot, may be vacated and made available for another use. 2 Restore the North Bronx Bikeway through Bronx 8 Park and designate a bikeway along the Bronx Support the reuse of the Coliseum if the site is River Parkway north of Bronx Park. no longer needed by the MTA. Reuse could include a borough-wide sports facility. 3 Develop pedestrian and bike trails on both sides of the river between East Tremont Avenue and East 172nd Street.

4 Support transfer of state-owned parcels for park use south of East Tremont Avenue and East 177th Street.

5 Locate CSO holding tank adjacent to Coliseum building, and treat surface for park use if no longer needed by MTA.

6 Develop access to waterfront paths and park at 172nd Street, East Tremont Avenue, 177th Street, and with a ramp from 174th Street Bridge. Bronx River Parkway 2

North Bronx Bikeway 2

New Yorl< Zoological Society (Bronx Zoo)

3 pedestrian & bike trails 6

;:"---- NYS parcels 4 Coliseum site & adjacent 7 Edgewater Rd. 5, 8

1 MILE

Bronx River / Reach 8 Recommendations

C3... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area.

existing continuous or general access II approved redevelopment project

proposed co ntinuous or general access I .... IJ proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park - --- ot her site specific recommendation --t> new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 9: EAST BRONX

Location: Bruckner Boulevard Bridge to We stcheSter County border along Bronx River, East River, Pugsley Creek, We stchester Creek, Long Island Sound, Hammond Co ve, Palmer Inlet, Eastchester Bay, Hutchinson River and Pelham Bay Lagoon. Th e reach includes City and Hart islands.

Upland Communities: Soundview, Harding Park, Clason Point, Castle Point, Throgs Neck, Silver Beach, Locust Point, Edgewater Park, Eastchester Bay, Country Club, Spencer Estates, Co-op City and City Island

Shoreline: natural shoreline, riprap, and bulkhead

Land UselZoning: low to mid-density (R3 - R6) residential, parkland, M1, M2, and M3 industrial along Bronx River and We stchester Creek, scattered C3 water related commercial and recreational areas.

Wa terfront Parkland: numerous parks including Pelham Bay, Soundview, Ferry Point, Pugsley Creek Parks

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDAT IONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 9 Develop street end point access at Lafayette To create and enhance natural resources, and Avenue within the Brush Avenue industrial area, protect the reach's water quality: to the TBTA park at , at Layton, Lafayette, Outlook, and Watts avenues, and some street ends at Hammond Cove. 1 Support designation of Pelham Bay Park Wetlands as a Significant Coastal Fish and Upg rade the boat launch at Clason Point Park, Wildlife Habitat. 10 and develop a new one at Ferry Point Park if warranted by demand. 2 Designate Long Island Sound/East River as a Special Natural Waterfront Area. 11 Explore potential sites for fishing and boat 3 Restore wetlands in city-owned Soundview landing piers at City Island, Ferry Point Park, Lagoons and incorporate into Soundview Park. and Soundview Park.

4 Demap streets which traverse Hammond Cove WORKING WATERFRONT wetlands. 12 Locate a CSO holding tank on a publicly owned 5 Finalize and begin implementation of a contain­ site in the Co-op City area, and treat the site's ment program for Pelham Bay Landfill. surface for park use if no longer needed by DOT. PUBLIC WATERFRONT 13 The feasibility of private ferry service to The East Bronx has one of the most extensive public Manhattan from a potential site at Ferry Point waterfronts in the city. Opportunities exist to develop Park is being explored by the City. and enhance these spaces with walkways, esplanades, point access, and boat launches. REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 6 Develop waterfront esplanades in Soundview 14 Examine suitability of residential rezoning for an Park, Ferry Point Park, Pugsley Creek Park, the M-1 area located south of Zerega Industrial Co-op City waterfront, and the Castle Hill Park. residential development. 15 Demap Shore Drive in Throgs Neck and relo­ 7 Map a Waterfront Access Plan from Castle Hill cate the bulkhead line to ensure appropriately to the YMCA site. scaled upland development.

8 Landscape waterfront edges of the publicly owned Zerega Industrial Park to improve vistas from parks on the opposite shore. MAP

6, 1 2 Co-op City

Th e 5 Bronx Pelham Bay Landfill

� l5 .... .ll3 6 � Pugsley's 8, 1 4 :§ Creek Zerega Park Industrial � Park

Queens

East Bronx / Reach 9 Recommendations

r:::J... significant coastal habitat - signnicant maritime I industrial area � existing continuous or general access III approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access ..I .. [J proposed redevelopment area I IHl-iJIltM upland extent of park ::::-::}.::tf:r::::� --- other site specnic recommendation

-I> new or improved point access or overpass 20 recommendation key numberin text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 10: QUEENS NORTH SHORE

Location: Flushing Bay to Nassau County border along Flu shing Bay, East River, and Little Neck Bay

Upland Neighborhoods: College Point, Malba, Wh itestone, Beechhurst, Bay Te rrace, Bayside, Douglas Manor, and Douglaston

Shoreline: mostly rip rap and natural edge; bulkhead in College Point and scattered elsewhere

Zoning/Land Use: primarily low-density residential (R 1-R5) ; Fo rt To tten Special Natural Area District; M1 and M2 industrial in College Point and M1 in the north central portion of Whitestone

Wa terfront Parkland: Hermon A. McNeil, Fra ncis Lewis, Alley Pond, Udalls Cove and Little Bay Parks

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDAT IONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT Ecologically significant wetland habitats along the The College Point waterfront is part of a larger eastern portion of the reach provide settings of concentration of industrial uses, including private and scenic and recreational value. municipal water dependent uses. Access is con­ strained by traffic congestion. 1 Support designation of Little Neck Bay, Alley Pond Park, and Udalls Cove and Ravine as 9 Supportimplemen tation of DOT plan to improve Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. traffic circulation in College Point through capital and systems management improvements. 2 Designate Long Island Sound/East River as a Special Natural Waterfront Area. 10 Pursue feasibility of transporting Ta llman Island sludge by barge. 3 Acquire private land in Udalls Cove/Ravine and map as parkland, and undertake studies to 11 The Army Corps of Engineers should continue control erosion and establish a trail system. dredging Flushing Bay to facilitate marina and industrial activities. 4 Preserve wetlands in Powell's Cove by acquiring private land for city environmental park. 12 Explore alternatives for controlling impacts of Whitestone stone crushing facility on upland community, and whether city can obtain services PUBLIC WATERFRONT from a less impacted location. Extensive waterfront parkland with good access offers a variety of waterfront views and recreational REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT activities throughout most of the reach. There are several opportunities to expand public access. There are several redevelopment opportunities that would be compatible with the natural environment 5 Provide street-end access compatible with in­ and would provide additional open space. dustrial uses at several points along the College Point industrial waterfront. 13 Rezone a 2.5 acre vacant M1 site between 25th and 23rd avenues in College Point to C3 to 6 Examine the feasibility of park use at the historic permit a variety of uses including water de­ battery of Fort To tten. Access can be improved pendent and water-enhanced uses such as a by expanding the existing bicycle path between marina and restaurant, or residential. the fort's entrance and Northern Boulevard. 14 . Rezone the waterfront portion of the 16-acre 7 Map a Waterfront Access Plan to link the Cresthaven site to C3 to allow water dependent Riverview development with McNeil Park. and water-enhanced uses in conjunction with lower-density residential development. 8 Map Waterfront Access Plans to provide public esplanades in conjunction with the redevel­ opment of vacant sites in College Point, Whitestone, and Beechhurst in Point Little Bay. MAP A.1 0

The Bronx

Nassau County

Crest­ haven Powell's 8, 1 4 Cove 4

Cross Island Parkway /': CrocheronPark

Alley Pond Park

Queens

1 MILE

Queens North Shore / Reach 10 Recommendations

CJ... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access  III approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 0 proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park I. --II other site specific recommendation -C> new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 11 : QUEENS UPPER EAST RIVER

Location: North Shore of Queens fro m the Astoria Con Edison Plant to the Flushing River, including

Upland Neighborhoods: Astoria, East Elmhurst, Corona, Flushing

Shoreline: natural wetlands in Flushing Bay, bulkhead and riprap elsewhere

Land UselZonlng: M-zoned industrial areas, including several municipal uses: the Astoria Con Ed Plant, Bowery Bay Wa ter Pollution Control Plant, and LaGuardia Airpo rt. Rikers Island is zoned C8-2. Upland residential areas are mid-density R3 to R5.

Wa terfront Parkland: Flushing Bay Promenade and Marina, which is part of Flushing Meadows­ Corona Park.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDAT IONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT The natural values of Flushing River and Bay have Industrial areas accommodate major municipal been deg raded by sewage outfall. facilities and significant water-dependent uses.

1 Supportco nstruction of a csa holding tank to 8 Support Department of Correction's consider­ improve water quality in Flushing Bay. ation of the feasibility of waterborne trans­ portation to Rikers Island to reduce traffic 2 Support DEP's evaluation of potential for through Astoria. wetlands restoration along Flushing River. 9 Explore feasibility of a 'park and ride' ferry 3 Support PANY/NJ's demolition of breakwater service from Flushing Bay Marina, using its and other effortsto improve water circulation in parking lots and the nearby Flushing Bay. PANY/NJ will create or restore parking lot. wetlands in conjunction with construction of a runway safety area. 10 Explore feasibility of a 'Fast Freight' ferry ser­ vice from LaGuardia to Manhattan. 4 Develop environmental controls and mitigation strategies to improve water quality while per­ mitting necessary improvements at LaGuardia. REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT A 44-acre M3-1 area on the east side of the Flushing PUBLIC WATERFRONT River is vacant and underutilized, and presents an opportunity for future development and expansion of The 1.4-mile-long Flushing Bay Promenade and Downtown Flushing. These recommendations are Marina are in poor condition. partof DCP's Downtown Flushing Plan.

S Support rehabilitation of the esplanade and 11 In the long term, redevelopment of this area marina, provision of a public boat launch, and should be for moderate-density residential and public access from Harper Street at the eastern commercial uses, with public access provided end. through the mapping of a Waterfront Access Plan. As an interim measure, rezone from M3 to 6 Provide sidewalks, signage, and lighting to M1 to prevent the location of new heavy improve pedestrian access routes to the industrial uses which would be incompatible with esplanade. the proposed new mixed-use area east of College Point Boulevard and proposed reuse of 7 The six acre PANY/NJ site at 19th Street and the waterfront property. Bowery Bay, now partially used for ballfields, should be further developed for recreation and public access. The Bronx

Th e Bronx

LaGuardia / Flushing Bay Port 3, 4 Authority Ballfields 7

Flushing Bay , Esplanade & Marina 5, 6, 9 Queens

Flushing Meadows - Corona Park

1 MILE

Queens Upper East R. I Reach 11 Recommendations

significant coastal habitat CJ... - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access �� II approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 D proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park .11 --II other site specific recommendation -t> new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 12: WEST QUEENS

Location: East River, from Newtown Creek to Astoria Con Edison Plant

Upland Neighborhoods: Hunters Point, Long Island City, Ravenswood, Astoria

Shoreline: mostly bulkhead and riprap. Many bulkheads are in deterio rating condition.

Land UselZoning: north of the Queensborough Bridge the waterfro nt contains parkland, M1 to M3 industrial areas, the R6 zoned Astoria Houses and Queensbridg e Houses, and an R5 district occupied by nonconforming industrial uses. The upland is primarily medium-density residential (R4- R7X). South of the bridge, waterfront areas are zoned M3, M1, and R9 and R7A, and are either vacant or occupied by light industry and two private tennis clubs. Th e mixed-use upland area is zoned with a special district that permits residential development governed by R5 infill provisions, and industrial and commercial uses subject to M1-4 regulations. Other upland areas are zoned M3 and M1.

Wa terfront Parkland: Astoria, Ralph diMarco, Rainey, and Queensbridge parks, and the , a privately operated facility on city property which is not mapped parkland

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDAT IONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT Due to the industrial nature of the reach, there are Significant redevelopment proposals have been no significant natural areas. The East River is an im­ approved for the Hunters Point waterfront. The portantfish mig ration route. Hunters Point Waterfront Development will include 6,385 residential units, 2 million square feet of office PUBLIC WATERFRONt space, a 350-room hotel, 265,000 square feet of retail and community facility space, in addition to 18 North of the Queensborough Bridge, a number of acres of public open space including a waterfront parks and open spaces offer spectacular city views, esplanade. The East River Te nnis Club site has but are separated by industrial uses. The southern been rezoned to allow 960 residential units and part of the reach has limited public access. Planned 11,000 square feet of retail space. Redevelopment redevelopment projects would provide significant opportunities have also been identified in Pot Cove waterfront open space. and Ravenswood.

1 Continue public open space use of the Socrates 5 The Northern Hunters Point waterfront should Park site. be redeveloped for residential use in accor­ dance with DCP's Long Island City Framework Enact a Waterfront Access Plan for residential 2 for Development, which expands on the recom­ development sites in the reach to provide a mendations of DCP's Northern Hunters Point continuous waterfront esplanade to link existing Study. access points. Where industrial uses bar shore­ front access, identify upland linkages. 6 Rezone an isolated, underutilized industrial area in Pot Cove, surrounded by residential and Explore potential for street end public access or 3 industrial uses, to allow moderate-density resi­ viewing areas adjacent to industrial uses, where dential redevelopment View corridors should be appropriate. provided on 26th and 27th avenues and on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th streets. A Waterfront Access Plan WORKING WATERFRONT on this site would be part of a link from Astoria Park to Socrates Sculpture Park. Con Edison's Ravenswood facility and a city marine repair facility are water dependent uses. The upland 7 Residential redevelopment of the nonconforming Long Island City industrial area is one of the most industrial sites at 33rd Road and 35th Avenue active manufacturing districts in the city. Strategies would be appropriate. A Waterfront Access Plan to protect Long Island City's industrial base will be should be mapped to link the area's waterfront identified in DCP's Long Island City Framework for access points. Development.

4 Explore feasibility of ferry service at the Hunters Point Waterfront Project as the area develops. MAP A.1 2

Socrates Sculpture Park 1

33rd Rd. 2, 7 35th Ave. .... 2, 7 :: :�f:.j : Queensbridge . Park Queens

Brooklyn

West Queens / Reach 12 Recommendations

c=J significant coastal habHat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access � III approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 [J proposed redevelopment area

� upland extent of park m�\})ir��? --- other site specific recommendation

� new or improved point access 20 recommendation key numberin text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 13: NEWTOWN CREEK

Location: Newtown Creek, between Brooklyn and Queens

Upland Communities: Greenpoint and East Williamsburg in Brooklyn, Hunters Point, Dutch Kills, Maspeth in Queens

Land UselZoning: M3 heavy industry, including the Newtown Creek Wa ter Pollution Control Plant, petroleum storage, and a marine transfer station

Shoreline: bulkhead, deteriorated in parts

Shorefront Parks: none

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 4 Reestablish the bulkhead in places where it has deteriorated, and pursue solutions to the Because of a history of industrial use and lax problem of disposing of contaminated dredge environmental standards, the creek and upland are spoils so the Creek can be dredged for heavily polluted. navigational needs. 1 DEP's Greenpoint-Williamsburg Environmental Pursue opportunities for intermodal transporta­ Benefit Program should work with local indus­ 5 tion by reactivating sidings off the Bushwick tries to clean up the area. Branch of the Long Island Rail Road.

PUBLIC WATERFRONT

Because of the heavy industrial nature of the area, public access is generally inappropriate.

WORKING WATERFRONT

Newtown Creek is an important industrial area, with major municipal facilities. Infrastructure improve­ ments would enhance the area's ability to accom­ modate industry.

2 Designate Newtown Creek as a Significant Maritime and Industrial Area.

3 State and City DOT should explore the feasibil­ ity of a bridge from Meeker Avenue to Laurel Hill Boulevard as an alternative route during reconstruction of the Kosciuszko Bridge and to improve truck access to the Long Island Expressway and remove trucks from local streets. MAP A.13

Queens

4 Creek bulkhead and dredging

Newtown Creek Significant Maritime / Industrial Area 2

Meeker Ave. - Laurel Hill Blvd . connection 3

LlRR Bushwick Branch 5

Brooklyn

1 MILE

Newtown Creek / Reach 13 Recommendations

E]... significant coastal habitat - signHicant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access � rail

proposed continuous or general access .. ... [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park other site specHic recommendation :!:!:!:!:!:!:i:!:!:!:!:!:! ---II -t> new or improved point access or overpass 2 recommendation key numberin texl

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 14: BROOKLYN UPPER BAY

Location: Newtown Creek to Owls Head, along the East River, , and Upp er New Yo rk Bay.

Up land Neighborhoods: Greenpoint, Willia msburg, Navy Ya rd, Fu lto n Ferry, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Red Hook, Gowanus, Sunset Park

Shoreline: bulkhead, with riprap at Grand Street Park and Fulton Fe rry/Empire Stores State Park

Land UselZoning: M3 and M2 industrial areas on waterfront, buffered by M1 light industrial area fro m upland residential and mixed use areas that typically permit moderate-density (R4, R5, or R6) development. Historic districts in Greenpoint, Fu lton Fe rry, Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill.

Wa terfront Parks: Newtown Barge Te rminal Playground, Grand Street Park, Fulton Fe rry/Empire Stores State Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 12 Recommendstate construction of access ramps to The reach contains no natural shores or significant the Gowanus Expressway in the vicinity of 39th wildlife habitats. Street. 1 Support DEP plans to install a pump to improve 13 Implement proposed rail improvements in Sunset the Gowanus Canal's flushing action. Park to maximize intermodal connection to carfloat operation. PUBLIC WATERFRONT Develop signage and street improvements for 2 Develop WNYC transmitter site for public open 14 space, linked to the Greenpoint community with alternative truck routes through industrial areas. signage and sidewalk improvements. 15 Explore feasibility of ferry service from the , 39th Street, Coffey Street, and Provide visual access to the water from Newtown 3 Fulton Landing. Barge Terminal Playground, by removing stored lumber from waterfront strip leased to Lumber REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT Exchange. 16 Although the Greenpoint Lumber Exchange is 4 Rehabilitate the Noble Street Pier for public access an active, water-dependent industrial use, after it is vacated by DOS. residential redevelopment would be appropriate should it cease operation. 5 Support rehabilitation of Grand Street Park. 17 Rezone the Greenpoint Terminal Market from M3 6 SupportState Parks plan for cultural, recreational, to medium-density residential with M1 buffer zones and commercial uses at Empire Stores Park, and to the north and south. Required waterfront open EDC plans for complementary commercial uses on space should be linked to a new park on the nearby city-owned parcels. WNYC transmitter site. 7 Where compatible with industrial uses, provide 18 Rezone the Eastern District Terminal site in continuous public access in Red Hook from Van Williamsburg from M3 to medium-density residen­ Brunt to Wolcott Streets to link new development, tial between N. 8th and N. 6th Streets, with M1 street ends, Pier 41 , and new Coffey Street Recre­ buffer zones to the north and south. ational Pier. 19 Redevelopment of Piers 1-5 (Brooklyn Harbor) 8 Provide public access on piers 4-7 in Sunset Park should consider housing and commercial uses in conjunction with plan for their future use. complying with the mapped view plane from Brooklyn Heights, recreational uses and substantial 9 Provide public access in conjunction with the open space linked to the state park and upland proposed sludge facility at 51 st Street. residential and commercial areas. WORKING WATERFRONT 20 In Red Hook: Brooklyn's industrial waterfront has experienced Rezone Van Brunt Street between Commerce economic decline for several decades, despite major and Beard streets from R5/C1-3 and M1 and industrial concentrations at the Red Hook Container­ M2 to R5 or R6 with a commercial overlay to port, South Brooklyn Marine Te rminal, and Navy promote residential and retail development Yard. While certain sites are recommended for and extend the landlocked neighborhood to redevelopment, manufacturing zoning would be the waterfront. retained on most of the waterfront where improved - Rezone the area between Wolcott and Van Brunt conditions could better support industrial uses. streets and the waterfrontfro m manufacturing 10 Designate Navy Yard, Red Hook, and Sunset Park to medium-density residential. as Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas. - Pursue opportunities to develop new housing in the area bounded by Conover, Van Dyke, As an interi m use, develop the Noble Street Pier 11 Coffey, Richards, and Sullivan streets. for a DOS barge staging operation. - Study the feasibility of commercial reuse of the Van Brunt Street warehouses. MAP A.1 4

Manhattan

Noble st. Pier 4, 11

Eastern District Te rminal Site 18

Navy Yard Red Hook Significant Significant Maritime / Maritime / Industrial Industrial Area 9 Area 10

Gowanus Canal Brooklyn Pump 1

Gowanus Exp. Sunset Park 12 Significant Maritime / Industrial Area , 10

--- Sunset Park Rail Improvements 13 1 MILE

Brooklyn Upper Bay / Reach 14 Recommendations

C3... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 1 1 1 11 [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park -II other sHe specific recommendation

-(> new or improved point access or overpass 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 15: BROOKLYN LOWER BAY

Location: Owls Head to Sea Gate, including both shores of Coney Island Creek

Upland Neighborhoods: Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Bath Beach, Gra vesend, Coney Island

Shoreline: bulkhead in north;sout hern section contains riprap, natural shoreline, and some bulkhead

Zoning/Land Use: water's edge park with upland low- to mid-density residential (R2-R7) north of Bay Parkway; Sanitation garage, large shopping center(M3) , recreational uses(C3), undeveloped parkland, low- density residential(R4) in southern part of reach

Wa terfront Parkland: Owls Head, Shore Road, Dyker Beach, Bensonhurst, and Dreier-Offerman parks

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT develop pedestrian and bicycle linkages connecting the park to the Shore Road Bicycle Path and private The area in and around Coney Island Creek is developments to the north and south. environmentally degraded, hampering its value as a natural habitat and public recreation resource. WORKING WATERFRONT 1 Undertake dredging to improve natural flushing The industrial areas south of Bay Parkway contain action, increase enforcement against illegal retail, water dependent, and municipal facilities. Ferry dumping, and clean up of contaminated mater­ service to midtown operates at 69th Street. ials in Coney Island Creek.

S Implement im'provements to the 69th Street Pier, PUBLIC WATERFRONT as recommended by EDC, including sheltered seating, improved lighting and signage, and The northern section of the reach is among the city's better coordination of ferry service with bus most accessible public waterfronts, while the unde­ service. The pier is under the jurisdiction of the veloped Dreier-Offerman Park offers an opportunity Department of Business Services. to increase public access in the southern section. Improve traffic circulation in the waterfront area Link Owls Head Park to the 69th Street 7 2 south of Bay Parkway through a program of Pier/Shore Road Esplanade by improving the signal rationalization, lane markings, new roads existing strip of land along the parkway entrance or turning lanes, and parking enforcement. at 69th Street with signage, paving and landscaping. S The Nellie Bligh Amusement Park, which par­ tially occupies leased parkland , poses circulation Denyse Wharf, beneath the Verrazano Bridge, 3 problems for the adjacent sanitation facility. should be relinquished by the Department of Explore the feasibility of relocating the amuse­ Defense and developed as an educational/ ment park to Dreier-Offerman Park, where it recreational node along the esplanade. could operate as a concession. 4 Extend the Shore Road Bicycle Path from its current terminus at Bay Parkway along the Belt REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT Parkway service road to Stillwell Avenue, In addition to commercial opportunities in the man­ eventually con necting with the eastern portionof ufacturing districts, there is an opportunity to re­ the bike path along Jamaica Bay. develop vacant R4-zoned land on the north shore of Coney Island Creek. S Include the following elements in the planning for the largely undeveloped Dreier-Offerman Support development in the White Sands area. Park: pedestrian/bicycle access near the water's 9 edge; signage; parking and improved mass The privately owned parcel has been proposed for residential use with retail, an accessory transit access; water-oriented recreation such as fishing and hand boat launches, in addition to marina, and access to Dreier-Offerman Park. the existing ball fields; and 69th St. Pier 2, 6

Brooklyn

Dyker Beach Park

" _____ White Sands 9 ...... , ,�

Coney Island Creek 1

Brooklyn Lower Bay / Reach 15 Recommendations

c::::J :Significant coastal habnat upland bicycle route

existing continuous or general access • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access .... I [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park l�l�j�!l��!WI --- other site specnic recommendation new or improved point access 6 recommendation key numberin text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 16: CONEY ISLAND/SHEEPSHEAD BAY

Location: South shore of Brooklyn, from Sea Gate to Plumb Beach, including Sheepshead Bay, Shell Bank Creek, and Plumb Beach Channel

Upland Neighborhoods: Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, Sheepshead Bay

Shorefront: bulkhead in Sheepshead Bay, seawall and beach in Manhattan Beach; beaches and natural shores elsewhere.

Land UselZonlng: mapped park along beach fro nt, except for a stretch between Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach Park; C7 amusement district on beachfront blocks in Coney Island, and local commercial strips on Mermaid Avenue, Brighton Beach Avenue, and Emmons Avenue (within the Sheepshead Bay Special District) ; the inland areas are primarily medium-density residential, zoned R3 to R7.

Shorefront Parkland: Coney Island Beach, Manhattan Beach Park, Plumb Beach section of Gateway National Recreation Area

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS NATURAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT The oceanfront is a barrier beach that is a major would be a major investment in regional recreational resource. Environmental issues Coney Island's traditional amusement industry and include beach erosion and water qual ity. would provide a needed anchor at the western end of the recreational area. Sheepshead Bay contains 1 ACOE beach nourishment programs at Plumb opportunities for commercial and other development Beach, Coney Island, and Sea Gate are needed on three major sites as well as smaller sites. and should be continued. 10 Development of Steeplechase Park and/or a PUBLIC WATERFRONT proposed sports facility would provide a basis Improved links and visual access can enhance the for a development/urban design strategy major public waterfront features which characterize including: the area. Redevelopment of the beachfront block of Stillwell Avenue as a pedestrian mall; 2 Develop the esplanade along the seawall between Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach Reconstruction of SurfAve nue as a landscaped Park. boulevard ; Additional public parking on the north side of 3 Establish a marked way along Oriental Blvd Surf Avenue; between Manhattan Beach Park and the Kingsborough Community College gatehouse Rehabilitation of waterfront streets and that leads to the College's public esplanade. boardwalk entrances and enhancement of pedestrian circulation; 4 Link the Kingsborough esplanade to the Shore Rehabilitation of the Stillwell Avenue subway Boulevard esplanade by opening a section next station. to the northern Kingsborough gate. 11 Develop a strategy to provide mid-density 5 Amend the Special Sheepshead Bay District text housing in vacant areas between Beach 32nd to allow pairing of side yards to increase views and Beach 37th Streets in Coney Island. to the water. 12 Redevelopment of the Brighton Beach Baths 6 Integrate the proposed Knapp Street ferry site site should be for medium-density residential with existing parkland to provide visual and with recreation facilities and public access. physical access to the water. 13 Resolve outstanding design issues in the DOT 7 Improve street-end visual access to Shell Bank proposals for reconstruction of Emmons Creek. Avenue. 8 Develop a parking area in the Venice Marina 14 Redevelopment of the Dooley Street/East 22nd area to serve users of the Plumb Beach trail. Street site in Sheepshead Bay should be for mixed uses, including restaurant, retail, and WORKING WATERFRONT parking. The fishing fleet at Sheepshead Bay is a significant 15 maritime use and recreational attraction. The Explore means of establishing voluntary design reconstruction of the Sheepshead Bay fishing piers controls in Sheepshead Bay, possibly through a is an important element in the area's revitalization. Merchants Association. 16 In its study of development opportunities in 9 Support the proposed park and ride ferry landing at Knapp Street. Sheepshead Bay, EDC must address the need for off-street parking. MAP A.1 6

Brooklyn

14 Dooley St. E. 22nd St. 13 Emmons Ave. 12 Brighton Beach Baths '" []

Coney Island Area / Reach 16 Recommendations

c:=J... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access � • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 [] proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park --- other sHe specific recommendation

-t> new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 17: JAMAICA BAY/ROCKAWAY

Location: southern shore of Brooklyn from Marine Park to Spring Creek, Queens from Spring Creek to the Nassau County border, the Rockaway Peninsula, and the islands and waters of the bay. Up land Neighborhoods: Fla tlands, Mill Basin, Bergen Beach, Canarsie, Ozone Park, Howard Beach, Broad Channel, Far Rockaway, Edgemere, ANerne, Rockaway Beach, Rockaway Park, Belle Harbor, Neponsit, Roxbury, Breezy Point Shoreline: mostly natural; many of the inlets are bulkheaded. Zoning/Land Use: most of the shoreline and islands are parkland. Upland residential areas are low- to medium-density R2 to R6. Smallindus trial areas are zoned on some inlets and scattered on the north shore of the Rockaways. JFK Airport is zoned M1. Wa terfront Parkland: The Jamaica Bay unit of Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA) and a number of city parks, including Marine Park and Rockaway Beach. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS NATURAL WATERFRONT 17 Coast Guard and/or New York Harbor Police should Despite extensive human intrusion, including filling, dumping, consider appropriate boating speed limits to protect wildlife and sewage discharge, Jamaica Bay remains a remarkable and shoreline vegetation. natural resource and wildlife habitat with an estimated 4,000 18 Explore the feasibility of limited public access in natural acres of tidal wetlands. The Bay is listed in the International edges. Shorebird Reserve System. WORKING WATERFRONT 1 Support designation of Jamaica Bay and Breezy Point as JFK Airport is a vital component of the New Yo rk regional Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. economy. 2 Designate Jamaica Bay as a Special Natural Waterfront 19 Accommodate expansion needs of JFK Airport, consistent Area. with protection of the Bay's natural resources. An interagency task force (DCP, DEP, EDC, National Parks 3 20 Explore means to improve truck access to JFK, inclulding Service) should work with the Port Authority to minimize widening the Van Wyck Expressway. and reverse water-quality impacts of JFK operations, con­ sistent with the airport's operational requirements. 21 Explore feasibility of a Manhattan-JFK ferry, which could include additional commuter stops in Brooklyn and 4 Maintain natural areas along Four Sparrow Marsh, Fresh Rockaway (at Vernam/Barbadoes Peninsula if Arverne is Creek, Spring Creek, Sommerville Basin, Vernam and developed). Barbadoes Basins. 22 Explore feasibilty of 'fast freight' ferry service to Manhattan 5 Map the area of Spring Creek containing the Old Mill Creek and/or New Jersey. and associated tidal wetlands, including isolated privately­ owned parcels, as park. Demap unbuilt streets within the 23 Maintain the mapped but unbuilt SeaviewAvenue Extension proposed park boundary. over Spring Creek for future circulation improvements in the Spring Creek Urban Renewal Area. 6 Develop site planning guidelines for any city owned property proposed for �evelopment to ensure appropriate density, 24 In accommodating some of the city's infrastructure needs configuration, buffer and runoff planning. at Spring Creek, design industrial development to minimize impacts on surrounding residential uses and natural re­ 7 DEP and DOS should develop and initiate containment sources. plans for landfills. 25 Limit industrial development of the city-owned Vernam/ 8 Limit dredging to the maintenance of established navigation Barbadoes Peninsula to previously disturbed areas, to channels. preserve wetlands and coastal dune vegetation. DOS should increase enforcement of bans on illegal 9 REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT dumping. Clean and fence wetland areas that are subject to illegal dumping. This reach offers several opportunities for new residential development compatible with natural areas. 10 Continue funding of federal programs to ensure an uninter­ rupted cycle of beach nourishment and erosion control in 26 Develop the 12-acre upland site fronting on Flatbush the Rockaways. Avenue for housing with public access to the adjacent marshland. Transfer the 65 acres of Four Sparrow Marsh 11 Transfer the wetlands at "Public Place" in Hook Creek to to DPR for management as a natural area. DPR. 27 Rezone a manufacturing area of Mill Basin for low-density 12 Transfer all city-owned parcels adjacent to Fresh Creek to residential and waterfront commercial uses. Provide public DPR to protect tidal wetlands with sufficient upland buffer. access via a new street system. 13 Transfer city-owned wetlands in Mott Point to DPR, and 28 Identify appropriate mixed residential and open space uses acquire a private parcel between the city park and for the developable portion of Paerdegat Basin, with design Bayswater State Park for city or state park use. Demap guidelines that protect natural areas. Continuous public paper streets through these wetlands. access on both sides of the basin should be provided, 14 Transfer certain city-owned lots containing wetlands on linked to existing city parks. Transfer wetlands adjacent to Sommerville Basin to DPR. Acquire a privately owned parcel McGuire Park to DPR. at Conch Drive and B. 51st Street and transfer to DPR. 29 Develop the Edgemere Urban Renewal Area in accordance with DCP's Edgemere Neighborhood Land Disposition PUBLIC WATERFRONT Plan. Jamaica Bay is a major recreational boating resource. Rockaway Beach offers miles of public beachfront . 30 Develop the Arverne Urban Renewal Area in accordance with the 1990 Urban Renewal Plan. 15 Map new public parks as recommended in DCP's Edgemere Neighborhood Land Disposition Plan. 16 In cooperation with DRP and National Parks Service , identify possible sites for boat launches in GNRA. MAP A.1 7

Queens

Brooklyn 11 Hook Creek "

28

Nassau

Jamaica Bay / Reach 17 Recommendations c::J... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access �UU [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park !�JJWJ�l�1 ---- other sHe specific recommendation � new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 18: STATEN ISLAND NORTH SHORE

Location: North Shore of Staten Island from Bard Avenue to Fort Wa dsworth along the Kill Va n Kull and Upper Ne w Yo rk Bay Upland Neighborhoods: New Brighton, St. George, To mpkinsville, Stapleton, Clifton, Rosebank, Fort Wa dsworth, Shore Acres Shoreline: mostly bulkhead north of Alice Austen Park, interspersed natural and bulkhead from Alice Austen Park to Fort Wa dsworth Land Use/Zoning: Th e waterfront is zoned for manufacturing uses (M 1-M3) fr om Snug Harbor to Alice Austen Park, except for a small C3 area at Bay Street Landing . The waterfront in southern section is parkland, R1 and R4 low-density residential, a coast guard fa cility, and the unimproved Battery We ed section of Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA). Shore Acres and Von Briesen Park are partially within the Special Natural Area (NA -3) District. Up land is mostly R3 to R6 residential, except for the C4-2 zoned civic center area of Sf. George. Much of the upland is within the Sp ecial Hillsides District. . Shorefront Parkland: Sailor's Snug Harbor Cultural Center, Alice Austen Park, Von Briesen Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 13 Encourage National Parks Service to develop and Numerous oil spills have plagued the Kill Van Kull, provide access to Battery Weed section of Gateway. harming water quality, while deteriorating piers have 14 Realign fencing at Nautilus Avenue pumping station to contributed to harbor drift. Shoreline erosion is an issue provide pedestrian access to shoreline. along the bluffs in parks and at street ends from Alice Austen Park to Battery Weed, and at Snug Harbor. WORKING WATERFRONT 1 Establish indigenous vegetation on city-owned bluffsto The working waterfront includes the ferry terminal and control erosion. the Homeport, as well as large vacant, inactive sites.

2 Remove derelict piers and wharf structures using Army 15 Acquire North Shore Rail Line and pursue its reactiva- Corps Harbor Drift Program, and reestablish bulkhead tion for passenger and freight service. where it has deteriorated. 16 Pursue marine-related commercial uses for Pier 7 after PUBLIC WATERFRONT the ferry maintenance facility moves to the Coast Guard Base. The reach offers spectacular views of the Upper Bay and Narrows. Opportunities exist to improve physical and 17 Explore feasibility of ferry service to Midtown Manhattan. visual access. The viewing platform at the ferry terminal is badly deteriorated. REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT The vacant Chessie property offers opportunities for 3 Implement recommendations of the North Shore Esplanade Plan for improved access and enhanced redevelopment that would expand the St. George civic activities. center and business district. Future improvements to the ferry terminal would enhance the island's gateway. 4 Pursue interim trail use along the North Shore Rail Line right-of-way. Explore a permanent trail as a component 18 Redevelop the Chessie site for moderate-density, mixed of a reactivated North Shore Rail Line. residential and commercial uses, with a network of public open spaces and preservation of view corridors. 5 Link Snug Harbor and Alice Austen Park with the city­ wide Harbor Park system. 19 Future reconstruction projects at the ferry terminal should improve the terminal's pedestrian accessibility 6 Install descriptive signage and other educational and links to St. George, and provide visual connection features at Snug Harbor waterfront to increase public to the harbor from the terminal interior. awareness of tidal wetlands resources. 20 Implement recommendations of the Coast Guard Base 7 Develop the mapped parkland at Snug Harbor Water­ Task Force: front and provide access to the shoreline. - Optimize public access to open areas of the site and the waterfront 8 Incorporate an open space component in the redevel­ opment of the Chessie site, including view corridors - Develop uses to strengthen the economic base of St. from upland streets, and connection from St. Peter's George Park to the Ferry Terminal. - Redevelopment should respect the site's topography and historic structures 9 SupportDP R efforts to improve waterfront open space at Alice Austen Park and restore the McFarland-Bredt - Attract water-dependent uses compatible with working House as a community center. waterfront. 10 Implement DPR's Von Briesen Park Design Plan to 21 Explore redevelopment opportunities for the U.S. improve views from the rehabilitated park. Gypsum Plant site. 11 Explore uses for city-owned parcels adjacent to the 22 Rezone the Wrigley Building and Alice Austen Place Homeport site that would support the esplanade. sites to permit lower density development with retail and accessory marina use. 12 Implement Federal Highway Administration's Homeport Access Improvement Plan. MAP A.18

New Jersey

Gypsum plant 21

1,5, 6, & 7

Brooklyn

14 Nautilus Ave.

10 Von Briesen Park

1 3 Battery Weed (GNRA) Staten Is/and

1 MILE

SJ. North Shore / Reach 18 Recommendations

CJ... significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access � III approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access ....I [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park ----- other site specific recommendation

recommendation key number in text -t> new or improved point access 20

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 19: STATEN ISLAND SOUTH SHORE

Location: Lower New Yo rk Bay and Raritan Bay fro m Ve rrazano-Narrows Bridge to Conference House Park

Upland Neighborhoods: Midland Beach, South Beach, , Oakwood Beach, Great Kills Harbor, Eltingville Beach, Southeast Annadale, Prince 's Bay, To ttenville

Shoreline:. natural

Land UselZoning: Wa terfrontbeaches and parkland including large tracts of vacant land and wetlands, some waterfro nt residential development in southern part of reach; upland low density residential (R1- R3). C-3 districts in Great Kills and Wo lfe 's Pond Parks permit marine-related commercial uses. Th e reach is entirely within the Special South Richmond Development District.

Wa terfront Parkland: South Beach, Midland Beach, Miller Field, Great Kills Park, Wo lfe 's Pond Park, Lemon Creek Park, To ttenville Beach, Conference House Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 10 Develop a public access program for Confer­ Protection of sensitive ecosystems, dunes, beaches ence House Park, including roadway signage and wetlands must be balanced against the need for Improve pedestrian connections from upland greater public access. Lemon Creek has been 11 designated a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife communities by zoning changes to encourage Habitat. commercial uses along principal streets leading to public beaches at Midland Beach. Consider 1 Explore feasibility of a system of Transfer of additional traffic signals to increase safety. Development Rights (TDR) to protect privately Improve street end access by developing streets owned sensitive areas. 12 to their full mapped width. Improvements should 2 Develop local program to increase public include landscaping, parking areas and awareness of Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas promenades. and the regulations and dangers involved. 13 Create a new public beach area parallel to 3 Develop a dune and bluff planting program for proposed Father Capodanno Blvd. extension city owned shores. and Cedar Grove Avenue.

4 Install bollards at street ends to prevent illegal 14 DPR should develop a master plan for area dumping in public shorefront areas. beaches including concessions, increased recreation opportunities, beach observation 5 Transfer city-owned land south of Duval Street points, and a study of feasibility of a bike and Northof Page Avenue to DPR, and acquire pathway system. private land at Butler Manor/Long Pond, for preservation as natural waterfront habitat. WORKING WATERFRONT DEP should study the Oakwood Beach area 6 Explore feasibility of ferry service from Great and review storm sewer capital 15 Kills to Manhattan. program to aid in flooding mitigation; an analysis of existing septic conditions and a complete examination of the water table should also be REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT completed. Much of the south shore lacks basic infrastructure such as storm and sanitary sewers, and a fully built 7 Transfer Designated Open Space parcels at roadway system. These limitations are constraints on Hylan Blvd between Preston and Retford streets future development. and at Nelson Avenue and Te nnyson Drive to DPR jurisdiction. 16 Implement DCP recommendations for the extension of Father Capodanno Boulevard. PUBLIC WATERFRONT 17 Study the appropriate use of city-owned While the South Shore has ample public waterfront, property adjacent to Lemon Creek as part of the access, linkages and privatization of street ends are Neighborhood Land Disposition study. issues.

8 Increase accessibility to and awareness of Lemon Creek's natural ecosystem through a trail system and wildlife identification program. 9 Study shorefront Designated Open Space network to identify a reconfiguration scheme to allow public access at key points. Reevaluate Designated Open Space boundaries at Mt. Loretto, Tottenville, and Butler Manor/Long Pond. MAP A.19

Staten Island

11

11

13, 16 Fr. Capodanno New Blvd. Extension Jersey Cedar Grove Ave.

6, 11 '1". Gl'7s> Oakwood Beach '� qI, � 1;-* '?9 11'1) ""i'k

6, 7 Lemon 5, 9 Creek Long Pond ! � � Butler Manor qIo� ""i'k �

Sol. South Shore / Reach 19 Recommendations

[:::::::::::1 significant coastal habitat - significant marnime ! industrial area

existing continuous or general access � .. approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 [J proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park nil ----- other site specific recommendation recommendation key numberin text -==t> new or improved point access 20

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 20: ARTHUR KILL SOUTH

Location: Arthur Kill fro m southern end of Fresh Kills Landfill to northern boundary of Conference House Park

Upland Neighborhoods: Rossville, Charleston, To ttenville

Shoreline: mostly natural, including significant freshwater and tidal wetlands

Land Useaoning: M3 industrial areas intermixed with wetlands in northern sections. Uses include petroleum storage, correctional fa cilities, sand and gravel yard, and storage/distribution. Kreischerville is a residential community in M1-1 and M2- 1 zones. To ttenville is a lo w density residential community zoned R3-2 and R3- 1, with C3 and M1 waterfront areas used by marinas and the SIRT. The reach is entirely within the Special South Richmond Development District.

Shorefront Parkland: none

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT

Valuable freshwater and tidal wetlands support Harborview, a planned banquet hall, restaurant, and important bird colonies. Their proximity to industrial small hotel, with public access, has been approved uses requires sensitive management for the Outerbridge Crossing area. The residential community of Kreischerville is currently zoned for 1 Explore with State DEC a clean-up and manufacturing, and should be protected from management program for mapped freshwater intrusive industrial uses. wetlands and adjacent areas at Mill Weir Creek. 6 Develop a zoning policy for Rossville and the Kreischerville area of Charleston, currently zoned M1 and M2, to resolve conflicts between PUBLIC WATERFRONT residential and manufacturing uses. There is no mapped parkland on the waterfront in this reach. There are several opportunities to provide 7 Study waterfront area south of the planned new access. Harborview development for low-density residential and waterfront commercial uses. 2 Improve the Bentley Avenue street end pier to enhance public access.

3 Support State Parks acquisition of parcels on Ellis Street for a public boat launch as recommended in their 1988 feasibility study.

WORKING WATERFRONT

The reach's working waterfront includes water­ dependent, industrial and municipal uses.

4 Widen and eliminate sharp curves to improve safety and circulation and facilitate truck traffic.

5 Consider potential of the Bentley Avenue Pier as a ferry landing site. MAP A.20

Staten Island 4 Arthur New Kill Jersey Road

7 Harborview South

1 Mill Weir Creek

2, 5 Bentley Ave. Pier

Arthur Kill South / Reach 20 Recommendations

CZl significant coastal habitat - major upland truck route

existing continuous or general access • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11111 , potential redevelopment area

upland extent 01 park !!:�:j:!:�:!:�:!:I: -- other site specific recommendation -t> new or improved point access or overpass 4 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 21 : ARTHUR KILL NORTH

Location: Arthur Kill fro m the New Jersey Rail spur to the southern boundary of Fresh Kills Landfill, including Prall's Island and Isle of Meadows. Th e reach includes Old Place Creek, Fresh Kills, Neck Creek, Sawmill Creek, and Main Creek, and extensive tidal and freshwater wetlands

Upland Neighborhoods: Bloomfield, Tra vis, Fresh Kills

Shoreline: natural, with some bulkhead and piers

Land UselZonlng: M3- 1 waterfront with manufacturing uses, including oil storage and the 3, 000 acre Fresh Kills Landfill, interspersed among wetlands. Inland M2 and M1 industrial areas include the Staten Island Industrial Park. The small residential enclave of Tra vis is zoned R3-2.

Shorefront Parkland: Pra ll's Island, which has restricted public access, and William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge on Main Creek, part of the

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT 7 Explore possibility of a passive viewing area along Saw Mill Creek in Chelsea Marsh. Management and preservation of natural resources, including tidal and freshwater wetlands and valuable habitat, is a major issue in the reach. WORKING WATERFRONT 1 Supportdesi gnation of Fresh Kills, Prall's Island, and Chelsea Marsh as Significant Coastal Fish Manufacturing districts accommodate industrial and and Wildlife Habitats, and transfer Sawmill municipal uses. Land in Staten Island Industrial Park Creek Marsh from EDC to DPR. is available for new industrial uses. 8 2 Designate the northwestern section of Staten EDC disposition policies in the Staten Island Island as the Staten Island Special Natural Industrial Park should be sensitive to the Waterfront Area. environmental significance of the area.

3 Seek state and federal funding to establish a 9 Support expanding the capacity of the Goethal's management and research program for the Bridge to improve local and regional truck Upper Arthur Kill to manage and study valuable access. Design should minimize disturbance of natural resources in an urban industrial wetlands. environment. 10 Acquire the unused Travis Rail Line and pursue its reactivization for commuter and freight use, possibly including doubling the existing single PUBLIC WATERFRONT track. Due to the industrial and natural character of the waterfront, there is limited public access. Opportunities exist to provide new access points. As portions of the Fresh Kills Landfill are closed, they are being treated for park development.

4 Consider public access to Main Creek, as well as environmental trails, for the Mohlenhoff Nursery Property which has been acquired by DPR.

5 Examine the feasibility of a public trail com­ ponent of a reactivated Travis Rail Line.

6 Preserve Victory Blvd. street end as public open space, and identify local constituencies, such as schools, to care for and maintain the space. .... � ...... - - . . . . . - � - . . MAP A.21 ...... - -- ...... -_ • # 9 # # # # CZI • . S; • -...I , • Staten Island Industrial Park 8

Chelsea Marsh (Sawmill Creek) 1, 7

3 Upper Arthur Kill . 4 Mohlenoff Nursery # lP/ �� # �/ �;# # Victory Blvd. 6

1 MILE

Arthur Kill North / Reach 21 Recommendations

c:J significant coastal habnat upland trail and rail

existing continuous or general access � • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access • • • • • [] proposed redevelopment area

upland extent of park _ -II other site specHic recommendation -=(> new or improved point access 20 recommendation key numberin text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies REACH 22: Kill VA N KUll

Location: Kill Va n Kull, from Old Place Creek to Bard Avenue, including Shooter's Island

Up land Neighborhoods: Arlington, Old Place, Graniteville, Mariners ' Harbor, Port Richmond, Livingston Manor, We st New Brighton

Shoreline: mostly bulkhead, with natural shoreline in the Port Ivory/Ho wland Hook area

Land UselZoning: M1, M2, and M3 zoned industrial waterfro nt includes maritime uses and significant vacant sites. R3 to R5 zoned residentia l communities south of Richmond Te rrace.

Shorefront Parkland: Faber Park

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

NATURAL WATERFRONT WORKING WATERFRONT The western end of the reach contains significant The Kill Van Kull is on the main route to Port tidal and freshwater wetlands. These areas are the Elizabeth/PortNe wark and is an important center of core of the "Harbor Herons" wetlands and wildlife water-dependent maritime support activities. The complex. continued viability of existing industrial uses, and the reactivization of vacant facilities depends, in part,on 1 Support designation of Goethal's Bridge Pond improving the area's accessibility. The vacant and Shooter's Island as Significant Coastal Fish Howland Hook Containerport is the city's largest and Wildlife Habitats. maritime facility.

2 Transfer city owned parcels in Mariner's Marsh 8 Designate the Kill Van Kull as a Significant to DPR jurisdiction. Maritime and Industrial Area.

3 Designate the northwestern section of Staten 9 Acquire the North Shore Rail Line and pursue Island as the Staten Island Special Natural its reactivization for passenger and freight WaterfrontAr ea. movement.

4 Continue efforts to acquire private land in areas 10 Reestablish the bulkhead where shoreline deter­ recommended in the Harbor Herons report and ioration has occurred. place under DPR or private land trust jurisdiction. 11 Improve Richmond Te rrace, repair sidewalk and curbs, and open the mapped but unbuilt portion between Bement Avenue and Pelton Avenue to eliminate sharp curve. PUBLIC WATERFRONT 12 Because of the reach's industrial character, public The proposed sludge processing access to the waterfront is limited. facility in the western portionof the reach should explore the feasibility of waterborne or rail 5 Explore possibility of an interim trail use of the transportation. North Shore Rail Line, pending its reactivization. Plans for reactivization should investigate feasi­ bility of shared railltrail use. REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 6 Create street-end public access at the end of 13 New waterfront development should be limited Port , and link it to the Port to uses allowed by the area's industrial zoning. Richmond commercial center using design treatment.

7 Create street-end public access at Ferry Street, Bard Avenue, Harbor Road, and Nichols Avenue. MAP A.22

New New Jersey Jersey

Newark -

� � facility _ �slu dge 12 � _ _ � � ______...... _ \ : .. --- "'f� t \ Dna � � \h�. R�\\\\ Te rrace 11 thal's Mariner's Goe -:s;. A -0 � �" O � Marsh 2 B"rI d ge � "b � .,.. o.J:. Pond 1 � % � � 0- il' '% � " � � 0 � � -"'� '? c5"I

1 MILE

Kill Van Kull / Reach 22 Recommendations

c::J" " " significant coastal habitat - significant maritime I industrial area existing continuous or general access � • approved redevelopment project

proposed continuous or general access 11 .. 1 lJ proposed redevelopment area

upland rail I trail other site recommendation --- specific

-c> new or improved point access 20 recommendation key number in text

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan / NYC Department of City Planning / Reach Studies APPENDIX B WA TERFR ONT REVI TALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES

POLICY 1 POLICY 7 Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will and underutilized waterfront areas fo r com­ be protected and preserved so as to maintain mercial, industrial, cultural, recreational and their viability as habitats. other compatible uses. POLICY 8 YORK CITY POLICY A NEW Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coast­ Improve urban shorelines by maintaining, re­ al area from the introduction of hazardous moving or recycling waterfront structures waste and other pollutants which bioaccumu­ (piers, docks, wharves, etc.) in accordance with late in the foodchain or which cause significant waterfront development policies and plans. sublethal or lethal effect on those resources. Identify alternative uses fo r underutilized waterfront structures. POLICY 9 POLICY 2 Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses resources in coastal areas by increasing access and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks and developing new resources. NEW YORK CITY POLICY B Improve channels as necessary to maintain and POLICY 10 stimulate economic development. Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish and crustacean resources in the coastal areas POLICY 3 by encouraging the construction or improve­ Promote the development and use of the ment of existing on-shore commercial fishing state's majorlPorts as centers of commerce and facilities, increasing marketing of the state's industry, emphasizing the siting, within port seafood products, maintaining adequate stocks areas, of land use and development which is and expanding agricultural fa cilities. necessary to, or in support of, the waterborne transportation of cargo and people. The state's POLICY 11 major ports are the ports of Albany, Buffalo, Buildings and other structures will be sited on New Yo rk, Ogdensburg, and Oswego. the coastal area so as to minimize damage to POLICY 4 property and the endangering of human lives Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor by flooding and erosion. areas by encouraging the development and NEW YORK CITY POLICY C enhancement of those activities which have provided such areas with a unique identity. Provide shorefront protection against coastal erosion hazards where there is public benefit POLICY 5 and public use along non-public shores. Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and fa cilities essen­ NEW YORK CITY POLICY D tial to such development are adequate. Provide technical assistance fo r the identifica­ tion and evaluation of erosion problems, as POLICY 6 well as the development of erosion control Expedite existing permit procedures in order plans along privately-owned eroding shores. to facilitate the siting of development activities at suitable locations. NEW YORK CITY POLICY E or reconstruction of erosion control structures, Implement public and private structural flood only where the public benefits clearly outweigh and erosion control projects only when: their long term monetary and other costs including their potential fo r increasing erosion • Public economic and environmental bene­ and their adverse effects on natural protective fits exceed public economic and environ­ fe atures. mental costs. POLICY 17 • non-structural solutions are proven to be Non-structural measures to minimize damage ineffective or cost prohibitive; to natural resources and property from flooding • projects are compatible with other coastal and erosion shall be used whenever possible. management goals and objectives, including aesthetics, access and recreation; POLICY 18 To safeguard the vital interest of the State of • adverse environmental impacts are mini­ New Yo rk and of its citizens in the waters and mized; other valuable resources of the State's coastal • natural protective features are not im­ area, all practicable steps shall be taken to paired; and, ensure that such interests are accorded full consideration in the deliberations, decisions • adjacent (downdrift)sho relines are not ad­ versely affected. and actions of state and fe deral bodies with authority over those waters and resources. POLICY 12 Activities or development in the coastal area POLICY 19 will be undertaken so as to minimize their Protect, maintain and increase the level and adverse effects upon natural fe atures which types of access to public water-related recre­ protect against flooding and erosion. ation resources. POLICY 13 POLICY 20 The construction or reconstruction of erosion Access to the publicly owned fo reshore or protection structures shall be undertaken only if water's edge, and to the publicly owned lands they have a reasonable probability of controlling immediately adjacent to these areas shall be erosion for at least thirty years as demonstrated provided, and it shall be provided in a manner in design and construction standards and/or compatible with the adjoining uses. To ensure assured maintenance or replacement programs. that such lands remain available fo r public use, POLICY 14 they will be retained in public ownership. The activities and development including the POLICY 21 construction or reconstruction of erosion pro­ Water dependent and water enhanced recre­ tection structures, shall be undertaken so that ation will be encouraged and facilitated, and there will be no measurable increase in erosion nor flooding at the site of such activities nor will be given priority over non-water-related development at other locations. . uses along the coast. POLICY 15 NEW YORK CITY POLICY F Mining, excavation, or dredging in coastai Priority shall be given to the development of waters shall not significantly interfere with the mapped parklands and appropriate open space natural coastal processes which supply beach where the opportunity exists to meet the materials to land adjacent to such waters and recreational needs of: shall be undertaken in a manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such lands. • immobile user groups; and POLICY 16 • communities without adequate waterfront Public funds shall be expended for activities park space and/or fa cilities. and development, including the construction NEW YORK CITY POLICY G increase shoreline erosion or flooding or inter­ Maintain and protect New Yo rk City beaches fere with the production of hydroelectric to the fullest extent possible. power. POLICY 22 POLICY 29 Development when located adjacent to the Encourage the development of energy resourc­ shore will provide fo r water-related recreation­ es on the outer (OCS) and in al activities whenever such recreational use is other water bodies and ensure the environ­ appropriate in light of reasonably anticipated mental safety of such activities. demand fo r such activities, and the primary purpose of the development. POLICY 30 Municipal, industrial and commercial POLICY 23 discharge of pollutants, including but not Protect, enhance and restore structures, dis­ limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, tricts, areas or sites that are of significance in into coastal waters will conform to state water the history, architecture, archeology or culture quality standards. of the state, its communities, or the nation. POLICY 31 NEW YORK CITY POLICY H State coastal area policies and management Insure ongoing maintenance of all waterfront objectives of approved local waterfront revital­ parks and beaches to promote full use of ization programs will be considered while secure, clean areas with fully operable facilities. reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; POLICY 24 however, those waters already over-burdened Prevent impairment of scenic resources of with contaminants will be recognized as being statewide significance. a development constraint. POLICY 25 POLICY 32 Protect, restore and enhance the natural and Encourage the use of alternative or innovative man-made resources which are not identified sanitary waste systems in smaller communities f as being o statewide significance but which where the cost of conventional facilities are contribute to the overall scenic quality of unreasonably high, given the size of the exist­ coastal area. ing tax base of these communities. POLICY 26 POLICY 33 Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the Best management practices will be used to state's coastal area. ensure the control of stormwater runoff and POLICY 27 combined sewer overflows draining into coast­ al waters. Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will POLICY 34 be based on public energy needs, compatibility Discharge of waste material into coastal waters h of suc facilities with the environment and the from vessels under the state's jurisdiction will facility's need fo r a shorefront location. be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water NEW YORK CITY POLICY I supply areas. Siting of liquified and substitute facilities, including those associated with the POLICY 35 tankering of such gas, shall take into consider­ Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal ation state and national energy needs, public waters will be undertaken in a manner that safety concerns and the necessity fo r a shore­ meets existing state dredging permit require­ front location. ments and protects significant fishand wildlife POLICY 28 habitats, aesthetic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands and Ice management practices shall not damage wetlands. significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, POLICY 36 POLICY 40 Activities related to the shipment and storage Effluent discharged from major steam electric of petroleum and other hazardous materials generating and industrial fa cilities into coastal will be conducted in a manner that will pre­ waters will not be unduly injurious to fishand vent or at least minimize spills into coastal wildlife and will conform to state water quality waters: all practicable effortswill be undertak­ standards. en to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution fo r damages will be required POLICY 41 when these spills occur. Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause national or state air quality POLICY 37 standards to be violated. Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess POLICY 42 nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coast­ Coastal management policies will be consid­ al waters. ered if the state reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration POLICY 38 regulations of the fe deral clean air act. The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and POLICY 43 protected particularly where such waters con­ Land use or development in the coastal area stitute the primary or sole source of water must not cause the generation of significant supply. amounts of the acid rain precursors: nitrates and sulfates. POLICY 39 The transport, storage, treatment and disposal POLICY 44 of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater within coastal areas will be conducted in such wetlands and preserve the benefits derived a manner so as to protect groundwater and from these areas. surface waters supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources. NEW YORK CITY POLICY J Adopt end-use plans fo r landfill areas which specify the fo llowing:

• final capacity

• final contours

• leachate, erosion and gas control systems

• re-vegetation strategies

• interim review schedules NEW YORK CITY POLICY K Curtail illegal dumping throughout the coastal zone and restore areas scarred by this practice. NEW YORK CITY POLICY L Encourage energy development from waste and waste landfills. SELECTED BIBLIO GRAPHY

Ab eles, Phillips, Preiss & Shapiro, Inc. Waterfront Zoning: Issues and Options. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning and Department of Ports and Trade, 1990.

American Trails. Trails fo r All Americans: The Report of the National Trails Agenda Project. Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1990.

Barlow, Elizabeth. The Forests and Wetlands of New Yo rk City. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971.

Goods Within the Port," Seaport, Brouwer, Norman. "The Port of New Yo rk, A History: 1860-1985, Moving ' Vol. XX, Number 4, Spring 1987. Brower, David J. and Daniel S. Carol. Coastal Zone Management as Land Planning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

Bunker, John G. Harbor and Haven: An Illustrated History of the Port of New Yo rk. California: Windsor Publications, 1979.

Buttenwieser, Ann L. Manhattan Water-Bound. New Yo rk: New Yo rk University Press, 1987.

City Council Legislative Panel on Waterfront Development, Councilmember Stephen DiBrienza, Chair. The Future of New York City's Waterfront: Proud Legacy or Lost Opportunity? New York: Council of the City of New York, June 1989.

City of Boston. Harborpark: Interim Design Standards fo r the Inner Harbor. Boston: Boston Redevelopment Authority, November 1984.

City of Boston. Harborpark Plan. City of Boston Municipal Harbor Plan. Boston: Boston Redevelopment Au­ thority, October 1990.

City of Miami. Miami River Master Plan. Miami: Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning, January 1992.

City of . Plan for Philadelphia Riverfronts. Philadelphia: City Planning Commission, 1985.

Coastal States Organization. America's Coasts: Progress and Promise. Wa shington: Coastal States Organization, 1985.

Conservation Foundation. Protecting America's Wetlands: The Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington: Conservation Foundation, 1988.

Dresdner, Robin and Associates, Inc.; Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New Yo rk at Stony Brook; Olko Engineering, Inc.; Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc.; Gruzen Samton Steinglass Architects, Planners. Arverne Urban Renewal Area, Queens, New Yo rk, Flooding and Erosion Report. New York: Department of City Planning, August 1989.

Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources. Now and For the Future: Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources. New Yo rk: State of New Yo rk Office of Lieutenant Governor, November 1991.

Harris, Frederick R., Inc. Study of the Brooklyn and East River Marine Terminals. New Yo rk: Port Authority of New Yo rk and New Jersey, July 1987.

Hudson River Va lley Greenway Council. A Hudson River Greenway. New Yo rk: Hudson River Va lley Greenway Council, February 1991.

Josselyn, M.N., M. Martindale and J. M. Duffield. Public Access and Wetlands: Impacts of Recreational Use. Technical Report #9. Tiburon, CA: San Francisco State University, Romberg Tiburon Centers, Center for Environmental Studies, 1989.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac, 8th ed., New Yo rk: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1974. Planning Board. Design of a Long Island South Shore Erosion Monitoring Program. Long Island Regional . Hauppauge: Long Island Regional Planning Board, December 1991.

_��'. Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazard Management. Program. Hauppauge: Long Island Regional Planning Board, December 1991.

Marine Law Institute. Managing the Shoreline for Water Dependent Uses: A Handbook of Legal Tools. : Marine Law Institute, December 1988.

____,. Guidebook to the Economics of Waterfront Planning and Water Dependent Uses. Maine: Marine Law Institute, December 1988.

. Coastal Zone Management Office. Boston Harbor Access Guide. Boston: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, 1984.

McHarg, Ian 1. Design With Nature. New Yo rk: Doubleday and Company, 1971. Messinger, Ruth W. Comprehensive Manhattan Waterfront Plan (draft). New York: Office of the President of the Boroush of Manhattan, February 1992.

Mockler, Anna. Freshwater Wetlands of New Yo rk City. New Yo rk: City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation, April 1991.

Morris, Jan. The Great Port: A Passage through New York. New Yo rk: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1969.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. of the United States. : National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, October 1990.

__.....,...... :. Hudson/Raritan Estuary: Issues, Resources, Status, and Management. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, June 1988.

Neighborhood, The Journal for City Preservation. New Yo rk: City Born.' of the Sea. New Yo rk: New Yo rk Urban Coalition, Inc., Summer 1985.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Coastal Tidal Wetlands Mitigation Site Inventory and Wetlands Bank in New Jersey, Vol. 1-2. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1988.

___ ....:. Hudson Waterfront Walkway. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1984.

___ ....:. Hudson WaterfrontWalkway Design Standards. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1989.

___ ....:. Rules on Coastal Zone Management. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, August 1990.

New Yo rk City Department of City Planning. Annual Report on Social Indicators 1991. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning, October 1991.

Bulk Oil Facilities in New Yo rk City. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning, August 1981.

Citywide Industry Study: Geographic Atlas (draft). 1992.

Citywide Industry Study: Industrial Trends Technical Report (draft). 1992.

Citywide Industry Study: Transportation Technical Report (draft). 1992.

Coastal Zone Boundary. New York: Department of City Planning, June 1986.

Edgemere Neighborhood Land Disposition Plan. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning, March 1992.

Guidelines and Criteria for Water-Dependent Uses and Floating'Structures (draft).Se ptember 1991. __---C . New Housing in New Yo rk City 1989. New York: Department of City Planning, July 1990.

____. New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program. New York: Department of City Planning, September 1982.

____. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Wa ter Use Management Study. New York: Department of City Planning, February 1991.

___. Recreation and Open Space in New Yo rk City: Community Districts with Lowest Parkland/Popula­ tion Ratios. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning, January 1992.

____.. South Richmond's Open Space Network: An Agenda for Action: Storm Water and Open Space Management. New York: Department of City Planning, October 1989.

____.. Waterborne Freight Transportation Study. New York: Department of City Planning, May 1990.

____.. Wa terfronts Alive: Tips for New York from Revitalized Shorelines Across North America. New York: Department of City Planning, August 1986.

New Yo rk City Department of City Planning, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Parks and Recreation, New Yo rk State Department of Environmental Conservation. Proceedings of Conference: Living With Wetlands. New York: Department of City Planning, October 1988.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. New Yo rk City Sludge Management Plan. New York: Department of Environmental Protection, 1991.

_ ....;. New York Harbor Water ---::-- Quality Survey 1988-1990. New Yo rk: Department of Environmental Protection, August 1991.

New York City Department of Sanitation. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. New Yo rk: Department of Sanitation, 1991.

New Yo rk City Department of Transportation. An Assessment of the Potential For Ferry Services in New Yo rk Harbor (Technical Memorandum 4). New York: Department of Transportation, November 1991. New York City Open Space Task Force. Open Space and the Future of New Yo rk. (Consultants Abeles Schwartz Associates, Quenell Rothschild Associates, Michael Zisser, Ph.D.) New Yo rk: Department of City Planning and Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, September 1987.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. An Evaluation of New Yo rk State's Tidal Wetlands Program: Final Report. New York: New York Department of Environmental Conservation, February 10, 1987.

New York Department of State. Hudson River Significant Tidal Habitats. Poughkeepsie: Wyvern House, 1982.

___. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Designations for New York City (draft). 1990. Photocopied.

New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Let's All Help the Harbor. New Yo rk: New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. undated.

___. The Tidal Exchange. New Yo rk: Hudson River Foundation. (various volumes).

The Parks Council. Creating Public Access to the Brooklyn Waterfront. New Yo rk: The Parks Council, February 1990.

Partners for Livable Places, Andy Leon Harney, ed. Reviving the Urban Waterfront. New Yo rk: Institute of Environmental Action (no date).

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Americans Outdoors: The Legacy, The Challenge. Washington, D.c.: Island Press, 1987.

Rogers, Golden & Halpern. Developing a Marina in New Jersey: A Handbook. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, September 1982. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Public Access Design Guidelines. San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 1985.

Public Access Supplement to the San Francisco Bay Plan. San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, April 1979.

San Francisco Bay Plan. San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, January 1969, July 1979, as amended.

Scott, James W. An Evaluation of Public Access to Washington's Shoreline Since Passage of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands Division, September 1983.

Sidney M. Johnson and Associates. Waterfront Parks Management Plan. New Yo rk: Department of Parks & Recreation, December, 1989.

Southerland, Mark T., ed. Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters: A Regional Conference March 12-14, 1990. New York: Dynamac Corporation, November 1990.

Sullivan, J. K. and E. Flatow. Strawman Report: An Analysis of Federal and State Habitat Protection Programs in the and Adjacent Areas. New Yo rk: Coalition for the Bight, November 1990. (Photocopied).

TAMS Engineers, Architects, and PlaIiners and Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc. Study and Redevelopment Plan for the Port of New Yo rk and New Jersey. Prepared for the City of New Yo rk Department of Ports and Terminals and the cities of Bayonne, Elizabeth, Hoboken, and Jersey City, and the United States Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1986.

Tourbier, J. and R Westmacott. Wa ter Resources Protection Measures in Land Development - A Handbook. Newark DE: University of Delaware, April 1974.

Trust for Public Land. A Conservation Easement Handbook for the Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy. Morristown, NJ: Trust fo r Public Land, December 1991.

Trust For Public Land and Society. Buffer the Bay: A Survey of Jamaica Bay's Unprotected Open Shoreline and Uplands. New Yo rk: Tr ust for Public Land, March 1987.

__ --,. The Harbor Herons Report: A Strategy for Preserving a Unique Urban Wildlife Habitat and We tland Resource in Northwestern Staten Island. New York: Trust for Public Land, February 1990.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of New York and New Jersey and Ports on Long Island, New Yo rk: Port Series No. 5, Revised 1988. Wa shington: United States Government Printing Office, 1988.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment: Jacob Riis · Park/Fort Tilden, Gateway National Recreation Area/New Yo rk-New Jersey. Denver: United States Government Printing Office, Denver Service Center, March 1988.

____ ,. Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1969.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Statement fo r Management and Environmental Assessment: Gateway National Recreation Area/New Yo rk-New Jersey. Denver: United States Government Printing Office, Denver Service Center, 1976.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Washington: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Northeast Coastal Area Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of Southern and Portions of Long Island, New Yo rk. : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 1991.

Urban Land Institute. Urban Waterfront Development. Washington: Urban Land Institute, 1983. Van Houten, Gibbs, and Hill. Maritime Support Services Location Study. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning and Department of Ports and Trade, January 1992.

Walmsley & Company, Inc., Kiley Walker, Geiger Associates, P.e. East River Esplanade Schematic Design. New York: Manhattan Office, Department of City Planning, November 1985.

Walmsley & Company, Inc., with Geiger Engineers, Project for Public Spaces, Inc., and Webster and Sheffield. The North Shore Esplanade, Staten Island, New Yo rk. New Yo rk: Department of City Planning, 1988.

The Waterfront Center. Caution: Working Waterfront. Washington, D.e.: Waterfront Press, undated.

Urban Waterfronts: Accent on Access. Washington, D.e.: Waterfront Press, 1989.

Fishing Piers: What Cities Can Do. Washington, D.e.: Waterfront Press, 1986.

Waterfront World, November/December 1988; MaylJune 1989; November/December 1990.

West Side Waterfront Panel. A Vision fo r the West Side Waterfront Park. New Yo rk: 1990.

Zotti, Ed. River Urban Design Guidelines: Downtown Corridor. Chicago: City of Chicago Department of Planning, 1990. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Comprehensive Waterfront Plan could not have been produced without the support and advice of scores of government officials and public-spirited citizens. The Department was indeed fortunate to be able to rely on the knowledge and experience of a citywide advisory committee representing diverse interests with a stake in the future. of the waterfront. At meetings throughout the year, committee discussions sparked ideas that helped shape the plan, and individual members provided or verified information needed to fo rmulate its strategies. This is not to say that every member endorses all the plan's recommendations. The Department of City Planning is solely responsible for these planning and zoning proposals, and fo r any omissions or misstatements in this report.

Comprehensive Waterfront Plan Advisory Committee participants include:

American Institute of Architects Gateway National Recreation Area Frances Halsband, President, New Yo rk Chapter Kevin Buckley, Superintendent Don Riepe American Planning Association Sigurd Grava, President, New Yo rk Metropolitan Manhattan Borough President Chapter Honorable Ruth W. Messinger Marla Simpson, Director of Land Use Planning Bronx Borough President Richard Bass, Pepi Ertag Honorable Fernando Ferrer

Bernd Zimmermann, Director of Planning Municipal Art Society Kevin Nunn, Rick Pantaleoni Kent Barwick, President

Brooklyn Borough President Natural Resources Defense Council Honorable Howard Golden John Adams, Executive Director Jon Benguiat, Director of Planning Renee Skelton

Citizens Housing and Planning Council Neighborhood Open Space Coalition Joseph B. Rose, Executive Director Tom Fox, Executive Director

The City Club of New Yo rk New Yo rk Building Congress, Inc. Peter Samton, President Louis J. Coletti, President

City Council of New Yo rk New Yo rk City Department of Business Services Honorable Jerry 1. Crispino Wallace Ford II, Commissioner Honorable Stephen DiBrienza Richard Ashton Honorable Jerome O'Donovan

Gail Benjamin, Eric Friedman, Andrew Lynn New Yo rk City Department of Environmental Protection Coalition fo r the Bight Albert F. Appleton, Commissioner Eugenia M. Flatow, Coordinator Betsy Adamson, Robert Alpern, Carolyn Summers

Economic Development Corporation New Yo rk City Department of General Services Carl Weisbrod, President Kenneth J. Knuckles, Commissioner Ann Buttenwieser, David Henley, Jametta Johnson Margo Moehring New Yo rk City Department of Housing Queens Borough President Preservation & Development Honorable Felice Michetti, Commissioner Peter Magnani, Deputy Borough President Mary Bolton Douglas Hardy

New Yo rk City Department of Parks and Real Estate Board of New Yo rk, Inc. Recreation Steven Spinola, President , Commissioner Eric Deutsch, Michael Slattery Jane Cleaver, Mark Matsil, Jane Parshall, Barbara Walz, Stephen Whitehouse Regional Plan Association Richard Anderson, Former President New Yo rk City Department of Transportation Lucius J. Riccio, Commissioner Staten Island Borough President Alan Olmsted Honorable Guy V. Molinari Paul Bonfilio, Director of Land Use Planning New Yo rk City Partnership Ronald K. Shelp, President U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colonel R. Danielson, AUS, N.Y. District, Corps New Yo rk Maritime Association of Engineers Nicholas Cretan, Executive Director Joseph Seebode

New Yo rk State AFL-CIO Edward Panarello, Assistant to the President The Department is also grateful to the many members of community boards, local public offi­ New Yo rk State Department of State cials and neighborhood organizations for their Honorable Gail Shaffer, Secretary of State interest and helpful suggestions during the develop­ George Stafford, Director, Division of Coastal ment of the plan and individual reach studies. We Resources and Waterfront Revitalization expect that dialogue to continue as the plan is Programs reviewed and the reach studies are readied for publication. Sally Ball

Sylvia Deutsch and Con Howe, former Director New Yo rk State Department of Environmental and Executive Director of the Department, and Conservation Barry Seymour, former Acting Director of the Thomas C. Jorling, Commissioner Waterfront and Open Space Division, were instru­ Carol Ash, Regional Director mental in laying the groundwork for the plan. We are pleased that their early efforts have borne fruit. New Yo rk State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation The plan was made possible by the financial sup­ Orin Lehman, Commissioner port of the Unitt;d Nations Development Corpora­ Elizabeth Goldstein, Regional Director tion and the New Yo rk State Department of State. Hector Aponte, John Bagley We deeply appreciate their generosity and encour­ agement.

The Parks Council A final word of thanks to countless others, too Linda Davidoff, Executive Director numerous to name, who helped produce the city's Marcia Reiss first comprehensive waterfront plan.

Port Authority of New Yo rk and New Jersey Stanley Brezenoff, Executive Director Dan Maynard, Rita Schwartz DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

Richard L. Schaffer, Director Zoning and Urban Design Rosina K. Ab ramson, Executive Director Marilyn Mammano, Director Tony Levy, Deputy Director William Bernstein, Deputy Executive Director Anthony Patrissi, Chief Engineer Carol Clark, Deputy Executive Director, Lauren Otis, Chief Urban Designer Intergovernmental Relations Jeffery Sugarman Andrea Katz, Special Assistant to the Chairman Thomas Wargo Interns: William Valletta, Counsel Amy Bodek, CIeri Machlouzarides, Brent Ryan Barbara Rosen Housing, Economic and Infrastructure Planning

Office of Strategic Planning Eric Kober, Director Sandy Hornick, Deputy Executive Director Richard Barth, Deputy Director Transportation James Heineman Floyd Lapp, Director Philip Schneider Environmental Assesment and Review Division

Planning Coordination and Support Annette Barbaccia, Director Barbara Weisberg, Assistant Executive Director Elizabeth Bogen Bronx Office John Phillips, Director

Wa terfront and Open Space Balaram Rao, Associate Director Wilbur 1. Wo ods, Director Raymond Curran Douglas Wehrle, Deputy Director Karen Votava, Director, Open Space Planning Brooklyn Office Patricia Barrera Douglas Brooks, Director Xiomara Chang Karen Burkhardt, Former Director Catherine Faughnan Thomas Angotti Adam Gelfand Joseph Hayman Eva Hanhardt Jeremy Walsh Kirsti Jutila James McConnell Manhattan Office Sheila Metcalf Robert Flahive, Director Kieran Pape Jacquelyn Harris-Strobert, Deputy Director Interns: Peter Pfeffer Gabriel Arevalo, Steve Hayes, Andrew Ingram, Helene Kopal, Sharen Kowalowsky, Karen Macho, Jane Mark, Irene Shum Queens Office The fo llowing Department of City Planning staff, Dennis Ferris, Director past and present, also contributed to the prepara­ tion of the Comprehensive Waterfront Plan and to Victor LePlattenier, Deputy Director the production of this report. Syed Ahmed Penny Lee Robert Amsterdam, Vivian Awner, Barbara Bartlett, Fred Lee Neil Baumler, Deborah Carney, Frank Cartalano, Betty Mackintosh Shampa Chanda, Michael Chin, Nestor Danyluk, Barry Dinerstein, Robert Dobruskin, Dana Driskell, Elizabeth Errico, Holly Haff, Rosalie Hoffman, Staten Island Office Shirin Karanfiloglu, Ismail Khan, Manuel Lagares, Pablo Vengoechea, Director Josh Lecar, Carol Levine, Robert Mazzucco, Darlene McCloud, Michael Miller, Joshua Moreinis, Barbara Mitchell Korbey, Deputy Director Murray, Regina Myer, Bruce Niss, Marilyn Pfeifer, Ronald Meyer Anne Pizzicara, Sergio Rivera, Alejandandro Patricia Weichmann Rodriguez, Bruce Rosen, Rosalind Silver, Susan Silverman, Nicolae Stossel, Carlos Tej ada, Jean Timberlake, Scott Warner, Bernadette Wawa­ REpORT PRODUCTION Gittings, Michael Weil, Scott Wise, George Wong, Photography Douglas Woodward Patricia Barrera, Richard Barth, Raymond Curran, Catherine Faughnan, Kirsti Jutila, Sheila Metcalf, Eustace Pilgrim, Barry Seymour, Wilbur Woods Cover Photo: Patricia Barrera Chapter 3 Photo: Carolyn S�mmers

Maps James McConnell

Figures Jeffery Sugarman, Brent Ryan

Graphics Stan Shabronsky, Director Carol Lubowski, Text Design and Layout Eustace Pilgrim, Cover Design Walter Boll Michael Greene

Wo rd Processing " . ,' .. Maria Barbosa, ,:I,ucy Baxter, Theresa Buckner, Wendy Niles ' ;'

Reproduction &tonio Mendez, Deputy Director, Operations Steve Roldan