Chapter 6: Shadows A. INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the potential for the proposed project to cast new shadows on sunlight- sensitive resources, including publicly accessible parks, plazas and playgrounds, sunlight- dependent features of historic resources, and natural resources. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS The assessment found that new shadows would fall on several sunlight-sensitive resources at certain times of day in certain seasons, but in no case would the new shadows significantly impact the use or usability of the resource or any vegetation within the resource. B. DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY This analysis has been prepared in accordance with New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) procedures and follows the guidelines of the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. DEFINITIONS Incremental shadow is the additional, or new, shadow that a structure resulting from a proposed project would cast on a sunlight-sensitive resource. Sunlight-sensitive resources are those that depend on sunlight or for which direct sunlight is necessary to maintain the resource’s usability or architectural integrity. Such resources generally include: Public open space such as parks, beaches, playgrounds, plazas, schoolyards (if open to the public during non-school hours), greenways, and landscaped medians with seating. Planted areas within unused portions of roadbeds that are part of the Greenstreets program are also considered sunlight-sensitive resources. Features of architectural resources that depend on sunlight for their enjoyment by the public. Only the sunlight-sensitive features need be considered, as opposed to the entire resource. Such sunlight-sensitive features might include: design elements that depend on the contrast between light and dark (e.g., recessed balconies, arcades, deep window reveals); elaborate, highly carved ornamentation; stained glass windows; historic landscapes and scenic landmarks; and features for which the effect of direct sunlight is described as playing a significant role in the structure’s importance as a historic landmark. Natural resources where the introduction of shadows could alter the resource’s condition or microclimate. Such resources could include surface water bodies, wetlands, or designated resources such as coastal fish and wildlife habitats. 6-1 ECF East 96th Street Non-sunlight-sensitive resources include, for the purposes of CEQR: City streets and sidewalks (except Greenstreets); Private open space (e.g., front and back yards, stoops, vacant lots, and any private, non- publicly accessible open space); and Project-generated open space cannot experience a significant adverse shadow impact from the project, according to CEQR, because without the project the open space would not exist. However, if the condition of project-generated open space is included in the qualitative analysis presented in the Open Space chapter of the EIS, a discussion of how shadows would affect the new space may be warranted. A significant adverse shadow impact occurs when the incremental shadow added by a proposed project falls on a sunlight-sensitive resource and substantially reduces or completely eliminates direct sunlight, thereby significantly altering the public’s use of the resource or threatening the viability of vegetation or other resources. Each case must be considered on its own merits based on the extent and duration of new shadow and an analysis of the resource’s sensitivity to reduced sunlight. METHODOLOGY Following the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, a preliminary screening assessment must first be conducted to ascertain whether a project’s shadow could reach any sunlight- sensitive resources at any time of year. The preliminary screening assessment consists of three tiers of analysis. The first tier determines a simple radius around the proposed building representing the longest shadow that could be cast. If there are sunlight-sensitive resources within this radius, the analysis proceeds to the second tier, which reduces the area that could be affected by project shadow by accounting for the fact that shadows can never be cast between a certain range of angles south of the project site due to the path of the sun through the sky at the latitude of New York City. If the second tier of analysis does not eliminate the possibility of new shadows on sunlight- sensitive resources, a third tier of screening analysis further refines the area that could be reached by project shadow by looking at specific representative days in each season and determining the maximum extent of shadow over the course of each representative day. If the third tier of analysis does not eliminate the possibility of new shadows on sunlight- sensitive resources, a detailed shadow analysis is required to determine the extent and duration of the incremental shadow resulting from the project. The detailed analysis provides the data needed to assess the shadow impacts. The effects of the new shadows on the sunlight-sensitive resources are described, and their degree of significance is considered. The results of the analysis and assessment are documented with graphics, a table of incremental shadow durations, and narrative text. C. PRELIMINARY SCREENING ASSESSMENT A base map was developed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)1 showing the location of the proposed project and the surrounding street layout (see Figure 6-1). In coordination with 1 Software: Esri ArcGIS 10.3; Data: New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) and other City agencies, and as well as AKRF site visits. 6-2 El Cataño E 112 ST E 114 ST E Tiffany I V Garden R Clinton Houses Jefferson Houses D Community G W N Recreation Areas Recreation Areas SI Lehman Village Garden OS CR Recreation Areas E 108 ST ST PLEASANT AVE 102 6/8/2017 335 East EAST DRIVE E 109 ST 111th Street Museum Recreation Area of the City St. E 107 ST C of New York EN Cecilia's TRA L PA Church RK E Poor E 111 ST 1 Central 0 Mae Grant 2 Richard's E 110 ST East River Park ST Playground Neighbors Of Esplanade AP Playground PR White Vega Baja NYCHA - Clinton E 106 ST Humacao Playground E Houses Rec Area Community IV R Garden D 103rd St Community FDR E 102 ST Garden E 105 ST 97 ST T RANS VER E 103 ST SE E 104 ST East River Playground Blake Hobbs PS 146 Playground Playground E 99 ST NYCHA - E 101 ST Maggie's Wilson Houses Garden Rec Area Sunshine Playground Washington St. Nicholas Houses Russian Orthx Recreation Area Cathedral NYCHA - East 5 AVE Metro North Plaza River Houses Recreation Area Cherry Rec Area Park E E 95 ST Tree Park V Avenue I E 98 ST Playground R MADISON AVE Malls D Harlem 103 T P S O A Hunter College RBI E 103 ST FOOTBRIDGE O E L Campus Sch N E 100 ST E D schoolyard Monterey R A Public G Samual N Garden E Seabury K N Felix 40 E. 94th U Playground E 96 ST E S Warburg St. Plaza IV E 97 ST DR Mansion P. S . R E 99 ST D 198 Plgd F 3.057' 182 E. 95th Randall's St. Plaza 2 AVE 1 AVE Longest shadow study area Island Park INGTON AVE for east tower only radius = 4.3 x LEXmax. building3 AVE height Normandie Court Andrew E Brick Plaza RI Carnegie VER LA Mansion Presbyterian NE Church E 94 ST +108° from true north E 88 ST -108° from true north Stanley Isaacs Plgd 50 E. 89th St. Plaza 345 E. 93Rd St. Plaza 340 E. 93Rd St. Plaza E 93 ST Ruppert Park Greenstreet E 85 ST E 92 ST PARK AVE E 91 ST DeKovats Church of Plgd the Holy Tr ini ty E 89 ST E 86 ST E 90 ST 26 AVE 2 ST YORK AVE E 87 ST Carl E END AVE E 84 ST Schurz 3 ST E 81 ST Park 27 AVE 1 ST 4 ST E 79 ST E 82 ST E 83 ST E 78 ST E 80 ST 01,000FEET Project Site Proposed Buildings Tier 2: Area south of site that could never be shaded by proposed building Publicly-Accessible Open Space Open space to be redeveloped as part of project Historic Resources with Sun-Sensitive Features Facing Towards Project Historic Resources with Sun-Sensitive Features Facing Away from Project This figure has been revised for the FEIS Tier 1 and Tier 2 Assessments ECF EAST 96TH STREET Figure 6-1 Chapter 6: Shadows the land use, open space, and historic and cultural resources assessments presented in other chapters of this EIS, potential sunlight-sensitive resources were identified and shown on the map.2 TIER 1 SCREENING ASSESSMENT For the Tier 1 assessment, the longest shadow that the proposed buildings could cast is calculated, and, using this length as the radius, a perimeter is drawn around the project site. Anything outside this perimeter representing the longest possible shadow could never be affected by project generated shadow, while anything inside the perimeter needs additional assessment. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the longest shadow that a structure can cast at the latitude of New York City occurs on December 21, the winter solstice, at the start of the analysis day at 8:51 AM, and is equal to 4.3 times the height of the structure. Therefore, at a maximum height of 760 approximately 710.75 feet above curb level, including rooftop mechanical structures, the proposed tower on the western end of the project block could cast a shadow up to 3,2683,057 feet in length (760 710.75 x 4.3). Using this length as the radius, a perimeter was drawn around the project site (see Figure 6-1). The 185-foot-tall building on the eastern end of the project block could cast a shadow up to approximately 796 feet, and its Tier 1 study area falls entirely within the study area of the taller western tower.