1 February 26, 2014 New Brighton Comfort Station Final Scope of Work Targeted Environmental Impact Statement A. INTRODUCTION This document is the Final Scope of Work outlining the issues to be analyzed in a targeted Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the installation of a modular comfort station near the eastern end of the Brighton Beach Boardwalk, approximately between Coney Island Avenue and Seacoast Terrace, in the neighborhood of Brighton Beach in Brooklyn (see Figure 1). The new comfort station would replace a previously existing comfort station that was damaged beyond repair by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 and subsequently demolished. The replacement comfort station would be located predominantly within the footprint of the previously existing comfort station. The preparation of an EIS for the New Brighton Comfort Station was directed by a New York State Supreme Court Justice sitting in Kings County in an order filed on August 27, 2013. 1 A Draft Scope of Work for the project was issued on October 18, 2013. Oral and written comments were received during the public meeting held by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) on November 18, 2013, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-Manhattan Beach at 3300 Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn. Written comments were accepted from the issuance of the Draft Scope of Work through the public comment period, which ended at 5 PM on December 2, 2013. 2 This Final Scope of Work reflects changes made in response to relevant public comments on the Draft Scope. Deletions are not shown in this document. However, where relevant and appropriate, new text and editorial changes to the Draft Scope have been incorporated into the Final Scope and are indicated by double-underlining. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT SITE The proposed project would install a replacement comfort station approximately 300 feet east of Coney Island Avenue and immediately to the south of the Brighton Beach Boardwalk (see Figure 2). The project site is located on Block 8725, which comprises the boardwalk—from Coney Island Avenue to the west and the boardwalk’s terminus to the east—and the waterfront 1 Oceana Homeowners Association v. City of New York, Ind. No. 6232-2013 (Sup. Ct. Kings County). Specifically, the order directed that work on the New Brighton Comfort Station project be “stayed pending final decision by the Court on the Article 78 petition or publication of an environmental impact statement for New Brighton, whichever comes first.” 2 Comments received after this date were considered as well.
51
Embed
New Brighton Comfort Station Final Scope of Work …...1 February 26, 2014 New Brighton Comfort Station Final Scope of Work Targeted Environmental Impact Statement A. INTRODUCTION
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1 February 26, 2014
New Brighton Comfort Station Final Scope of Work
Targeted Environmental Impact Statement
A. INTRODUCTION This document is the Final Scope of Work outlining the issues to be analyzed in a targeted Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the installation of a modular comfort station near the eastern end of the Brighton Beach Boardwalk, approximately between Coney Island Avenue and Seacoast Terrace, in the neighborhood of Brighton Beach in Brooklyn (see Figure 1). The new comfort station would replace a previously existing comfort station that was damaged beyond repair by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 and subsequently demolished. The replacement comfort station would be located predominantly within the footprint of the previously existing comfort station.
The preparation of an EIS for the New Brighton Comfort Station was directed by a New York State Supreme Court Justice sitting in Kings County in an order filed on August 27, 2013.1
A Draft Scope of Work for the project was issued on October 18, 2013. Oral and written comments were received during the public meeting held by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) on November 18, 2013, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-Manhattan Beach at 3300 Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn. Written comments were accepted from the issuance of the Draft Scope of Work through the public comment period, which ended at 5 PM on December 2, 2013.2
This Final Scope of Work reflects changes made in response to relevant public comments on the Draft Scope. Deletions are not shown in this document. However, where relevant and appropriate, new text and editorial changes to the Draft Scope have been incorporated into the Final Scope and are indicated by double-underlining.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT SITE
The proposed project would install a replacement comfort station approximately 300 feet east of Coney Island Avenue and immediately to the south of the Brighton Beach Boardwalk (see Figure 2). The project site is located on Block 8725, which comprises the boardwalk—from Coney Island Avenue to the west and the boardwalk’s terminus to the east—and the waterfront
1 Oceana Homeowners Association v. City of New York, Ind. No. 6232-2013 (Sup. Ct. Kings County).
Specifically, the order directed that work on the New Brighton Comfort Station project be “stayed pending final decision by the Court on the Article 78 petition or publication of an environmental impact statement for New Brighton, whichever comes first.”
2 Comments received after this date were considered as well.
A T L A N T I C O C E A N
BRIGHTON BEACH AVE
CO
RB
IN P
L.
BR
IGH
TON
14 ST
BR
IGH
TO
N 6 S
T
CO
NE
Y I
SLA
ND
AV
E
BR
IGH
TO
N 5 S
T
BR
IGH
TO
N1
5
ST
BRIGHTWATER CT
SE
AC
OA
ST
TE
RR
AC
E
BR
IGH
TO
N 7
ST
BOARDWALK EAST
BRIGHTWATER AVE
BR
IGH
TON
14
ST
OCEANA
D R W E S T
OC
EA
NA
TE
RR
AC
E
1.30
.14
N
Project LocationFigure 1NEW BRIGHTON COMFORT STATION
SCALE
0 500 FEET
LIFEGUARDSTATION
Proposed Comfort Station (Including Ramps and Stairs)
Previously Existing Comfort Station Footprint
BOARDWALK EAST
CO
NE
Y I
SLA
ND
AV
E
OC
EA
NA
DR
EA
ST
OC
EA
NA
DR
WE
ST
1.30
.14
N
Project Site Aerial PhotographFigure 2NEW BRIGHTON COMFORT STATION
SCALE
0 200 FEET
LIFEGUARDSTATION
Proposed Comfort Station (Including Ramps and Stairs)
Previously Existing Comfort Station Footprint
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 2
portion of the beach from the boardwalk to the ocean. Block 8725, including the project site, is mapped parkland.
The proposed project would be constructed predominantly within the footprint of a comfort station that was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 and subsequently demolished; portions of the stairs leading to the modular units would extend outside the footprint. The next nearest comfort station on this portion of the boardwalk is at Brighton 2nd Street, approximately 1/3-miles to the west of the project site. There is no comfort station to the east of the project site (see Figure 3).
The replacement comfort station is partially completed on the project site. Work began in April 2013 with the placement of 16 concrete pilings (wood pilings were also installed in the project area to support ramps and stairs from the boardwalk to the beach). Work on the project was halted when below-grade obstructions prevented further pile driving activities. In August 2013, DPR provided NYSDEC with drawings concerning a proposed method for installing the remaining twelve pilings that need to be placed at the proposed project site before the modular structures can be installed. The proposal is pending before NYSDEC. 3
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT COMFORT STATION DESIGN
The replacement comfort station would consist of two modular units—one serving as the women’s restroom and the other as the men’s—each approximately 15 wide, 12 feet high, and 60 feet long and totaling 1,710 square feet between the two units. The modular structures have been prefabricated off-site and were delivered to an area near the project site. The structures would be lifted onto the pilings via crane. The modular structures would be oriented in a perpendicular manner to the beach to expose less surface area to wind and wave action in future storms (see Figures 4 and 5). The modular structures are designed to provide an 8-foot under-clearance in order to allow boardwalk patrons to walk underneath and to provide views from the boardwalk to the ocean through the structural supports.
The structures have been designed in accordance with the 2008 New York City Building Code4 and to the standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers appropriate to structures located in flood zones5. The pile foundation and modular structures are designed to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement when subjected to wind and flood loads.
The materials for the modular structure have been designed to withstand conditions on the beachfront. The piles and foundations are made of concrete; concrete piles would also support the access walkways and ramps to the modular structures. Steel is used for the main frame, with the siding made of concrete fiber board and the interiors of tile and stainless steel. All
3 NYCDPR received permits for its proposed work efforts at Coney Island and Manhattan Beach from the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as per Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) for new structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, Tidal Wetlands Permits as per Article 25 of the ECL, permission for excavation and fill or navigable waters as per Article 15 of the ECL for the repair of Steeplechase Pier, and Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification. The permits were renewed, though the proposed change in method for installing the 12 remaining piles at the site is pending before NYSDEC.
4 2008 New York City Building Code, Chapter 16, “Structural Design,” Section BC-1612, “Flood Loads,” and Appendix G “Flood Resistant Construction.”
5 American Society of Civil Engineers, Standard 24-05 “Flood Resistant Design and Construction.”
LIFEGUARD STATION
RAMP TO BEACH
BOARDWALK
STAIRS TOBEACH
12.31.13
N
Site PlanFigure 4NEW BRIGHTON COMFORT STATION
Proposed Comfort Station Including Stairs and Ramps
Previously Existing Comfort Station Footprint
12.31.13
Illustrative Project RenderingFigure 5NEW BRIGHTON COMFORT STATION
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
SHEEPSHEADBAY
GRAVESENDBAY
CONEYISLANDCREEK
Gravesend
SeaGate
ConeyIsland
BrightonBeach
ManhattanBeach
SheepsheadBay
1.30.14
N
NEW BRIGHTON COMFORT STATION
SCALE
0 1000 2500 FEET
Coney Island and Brighton Beach Comfort StationsFigure 3
1/3-MILE
NEW BRIGHTON
• Constructed in 1941• Demolished after Sandy
BRIGHTON 2ND STREET
• Constructed in 2002• Reopened after Sandy
W. 2ND STREET
• Constructed in 1968• Reopened after Sandy
W. 8TH STREET
• Damaged beyond repair• New modular comfort station opened in 2013
STILLWELL AVENUE
• Constructed in 2002• Reopened after SandyW. 16TH STREET
W. 22ND STREET TRAILERS (2)
W. 27TH STREET TRAILERW. 33RD STREET TRAILER
• Constructed in 2002• Reopened after Sandy
56A
BC
4
32 1
Final Scope of Work
3 February 26, 2014
components of the comfort station that are not part of the main structure (i.e., metal siding panels, skylights, photovoltaic panels, etc.) have been designed to exceed the performance requirements of the 2008 New York City Building Code for high wind loads.
The replacement comfort station would be compliant with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Stairs and ADA accessible ramps would connect the structures to the boardwalk.
The stairs and ramps providing access to each modular structure have been designed to be built in pieces, with a frame that is welded to the base plate of each support column. The stairs and ramps would be supported by concrete piles that are separate from the concrete piles supporting the modular comfort station structures. Should the stairs and ramps be subject to wave forces, they have been designed to separate from the larger structure in a way that would allow the larger structure to remain stable during an extreme storm event. The stairs and ramps, which are made of metal and are welded and bolted to the underlying support columns, are not expected to float during a storm event.
PROPOSED OPERATIONS
The proposed replacement comfort station is planned to be open for public use between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The comfort station will be staffed by NYCDPR maintenance staff and patrolled by NYCDPR Enforcement Patrol officers.
C. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND APPROVALS PROJECT BACKGROUND
Superstorm Sandy, which struck New York City in late October 2012, damaged portions of the city’s infrastructure, including many of NYCDPR’s beaches and facilities. In the seven months after the storm, over $270 million was spent on restoring all 14 miles of New York City beaches, including Brighton Beach, in order to re-open them for the 2013 summer season. The restoration program repaired portions of damaged boardwalks, provided new access, and incorporated new resiliency measures. The proposed comfort station was one of 17 comfort and lifeguard stations to be installed in 15 locations throughout New York City; two modular comfort stations and two modular lifeguard stations, including the proposed New Brighton comfort station, were planned for the Coney Island-Brighton Beach boardwalk. Throughout the City, all but two of the 17 comfort and lifeguard stations have been installed and were in use during the 2013 beach season.
PROPOSED ACTIONS AND APPROVALS FOR THE CURRENT PROJECT
NYCDPR received permits for its work efforts at Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and nearby Manhattan Beach, including this proposed replacement comfort station, from NYSDEC as per Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) for new structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and Tidal Wetlands Permits as per Article 25 of the ECL.6
6 NYCDPR also received approval from the New York City Public Design Commission and the New
York City Department of Small Business Services (“DSBS”) Waterfront Permits Unit. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) issued its Record of Environmental Determination on the post-Sandy recovery work in Coney Island, including the replacement New Brighton comfort station, and the proposed replacement comfort station’s consistency with the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program was evaluated and approved by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS).
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 4
Although the installation of the replacement comfort station was classified by the lead agency as a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), an EIS for the New Brighton comfort station is being prepared to comply with the above-mentioned court order; the EIS will follow the guidance of the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual and will be conducted in accordance with the more rigorous procedural requirements for an action designated as a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA/CEQR. There are no additional actions or approvals contemplated for this project.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The restoration of the City’s recreational facilities—including beaches, boardwalks, and amenities—is a key part of post-Sandy recovery efforts.7
The installation of the proposed replacement comfort station would restore permanent seasonal access to toilet and hand washing facilities to this portion of the Coney Island-Brighton Beach Boardwalk consistent with the New York State Public Health Law governing bathing beaches (10 NYCRR Part 6, Subpart 6-2), which requires that adequate toilet and hand washing facilities are provided at these public beaches.8
Furthermore, the proposed comfort station is specifically designed to be resilient against future storm surges and resulting damage by raising the structure well above the 100-year base flood elevation as indicated on the Preliminary Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)9 and above the 500-year flood elevation as indicated on the FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps10. This proposed elevation of the comfort station would be consistent with (and exceed the recommendations of) the City’s June 2013 report on the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR), which aims to increase the resiliency of New York City, with a long-term focus on preparing for and protecting against the impacts of climate change. The report presents recommendations both for rebuilding the communities impacted by Superstorm Sandy and increasing the resilience of infrastructure and buildings citywide; the report notes the importance of providing replacement comfort station facilities that are more resilient than those that preceded them.
NYCDPR is seeking reimbursement of the costs for the proposed project through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding for post-disaster rebuilding efforts. FEMA reimbursement is for “in-kind” repairs except where an applicant (in this case, NYCDPR), is required to adhere to new codes and standards as a result of the repair. While the comfort station could be constructed at the grade of the beach and still meet current NYC Building Code
7 Restoration of the City’s beaches is the first Parks Initiative outlined in the City’s Special Initiative for
Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR), the comprehensive plan for rebuilding after Superstorm Sandy and for increasing the City’s resilience.
8 The EIS will include a New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) public health assessment of the New Brighton comfort station that examines the potential effect of not having a comfort station at the New Brighton location.
9 FEMA released Preliminary FIRMS for New York City on December 5, 2013. 10 FEMA released Advisory Base Flood Elevation Maps on January 28, 2013.
Final Scope of Work
5 February 26, 2014
standards,11 such construction would place the new structure at the same risk of flooding as the one that was damaged beyond repair by Superstorm Sandy.
D. CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The targeted EIS will be prepared in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617, New York City Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and the Rules of Procedure for the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York. The EIS will follow the guidance of the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual and will be conducted in accordance with the more rigorous procedural requirements for an action designated as a Type I action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
Each chapter of the targeted DEIS will assess whether the proposed project could result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
The differences between the future without the proposed project (the No Action condition) and the future with the proposed project (the With Action condition) will be assessed for whether such differences are adverse and/or significant; any significant adverse environmental impacts will be disclosed.
As detailed in the Draft Scope of Work, the No Action condition is assumed to be the rebuilt structure as it existed prior to being damaged beyond repair by Superstorm Sandy (No Action Condition 1). In response to comments received during the public comment period on the Draft Scope of Work, a second No Action condition will also be considered in the DEIS. In this second No Action condition (No Action Condition 2), it is assumed that a replacement comfort station is constructed near the project site at a location between Coney Island Avenue and Brighton 15th Street outside of both the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) and tidal wetland area. In both No Action conditions, a comfort station would be provided for the public beach at New Brighton since a comfort station is required to ensure compliance with the New York State Public Health Law requirements (see “Project Purpose and Need,” above, in Section C).
No Action Condition 2 assumes the installation of temporary restrooms on the boardwalk at approximately Coney Island Avenue. Under this second No Action condition, it is also assumed that the project site is cleared of the installed piles and re-graded as sandy beach without any structures. The DEIS will describe the factors guiding the location and design of No Action Condition 2.
The targeted DEIS will also identify and analyze appropriate mitigation for any identified significant adverse environmental impacts.
11 The Draft Scope of Work stated that a replacement comfort station at grade would not be compliant
with the NYC Building Code. However, upon examination of the FEMA Preliminary FIRMs, which were issued after publication of the Draft Scope of Work, it was determined that the elevation of the structure would be in compliance with the 100-year floodplain in the NYC Building Code; this is because the 100-year flood elevation in the Preliminary FIRMs is lower than it was in the ABFEs..
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 6
The analysis year is 2014 since the New Brighton comfort station is proposed to be installed for use in the 2014 beach season.12 In the With Action condition, NYCDPR would construct the comfort station as described above in Section B, “Project Description.”
SCOPING
The CEQR scoping process is intended to focus the EIS on those issues that are most pertinent to the proposed action. The process at the same time allows other agencies and the public a voice in framing the scope of the EIS.
The Draft Scope of Work screened out those technical areas that would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts (see Section E, “Environmental Impact Screening Assessment”) and set forth the analyses and methodologies proposed for the EIS (see Section F, “Scope of Work for the Targeted EIS”).
During the scoping period, those interested in reviewing the targeted EIS Draft Scope of Work and providing their comments to the lead agency were able to do so in writing or at a public scoping hearing that was held on Monday, November 18, 2013 from 6 PM to 8:00 PM at the Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-Manhattan Beach located at 3300 Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn, NY 11235. The meeting was extended to 8:30 PM to allow for all speakers to make comments.
Comments received during the public hearing and written comments received through the close of the comment period (which was held open a minimum of 10 days after the hearing) were considered and incorporated as appropriate into this Final Scope of Work.13 A summary of the comments received and responses to those comments, is provided in Appendix A. The Final Scope of Work was updated to identify an alternative No Action condition (see above), to describe the methodology to conduct an open space analysis, and to further outline the project alternatives (see below). The Final Scope of Work will be used as a framework for preparing the targeted Draft EIS (DEIS) for the proposed project.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCREENING ASSESSMENT The screening assessment, provided in this section, demonstrates that the proposed replacement comfort station would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts in the following areas when compared to either No Action condition: socioeconomic conditions; community facilities and services; historic and cultural resources; water and sewer infrastructure; solid waste and sanitation services; energy; transportation; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; noise; and public health. Therefore, these analysis areas will not be discussed further in the targeted EIS.
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The socioeconomic character of an area includes its population, housing, and economic activity. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a socioeconomic assessment should be conducted if a project may reasonably be expected to create substantial socioeconomic changes within the
12 Because it is anticipated that the proposed comfort station will not be installed by the start of the 2014
beach season, temporary bathrooms will be installed on the boardwalk near Coney Island Avenue to comply with the New York State Public Health Law requirements.
13 Comments received after the close of the comment period (December 2, 2013) were also considered.
Final Scope of Work
7 February 26, 2014
area affected by the project that would not occur in the absence of the project. Projects that would trigger a CEQR socioeconomic analysis include the following:
• Direct displacement of a residential population so that the socioeconomic profile of the neighborhood would be substantially altered.
• Direct displacement of more than 100 employees or the direct displacement of a business or institution that is unusually important.
• Introduction of substantial new development that is markedly different from existing uses, development, and activities within the neighborhood.
• Projects that are expected to affect conditions within a specific industry, such as a citywide regulatory change that could adversely impact the economic and operational conditions of certain type of businesses.
The proposed project would result in a replacement comfort station facility within a public park under the jurisdiction of the NYCDPR. The proposed project would not displace any residents or businesses, nor would it result in any residential or commercial development that could indirectly displace residents or businesses. In addition, the proposed project does not have the potential to affect conditions in a specific industry. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on socioeconomic conditions, and further analysis is not warranted.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Under CEQR Technical Manual methodology, projects that would not add new residents to an area generally do not need to consider community facility impacts, unless a given project would have a direct effect on a community facility (e.g., demolition or relocation).
The proposed replacement comfort station would not result in the development of any residential units and therefore would not add demands on public education facilities, public child care facilities, or public libraries; nor significant added demands on health care facilities or police and fire services. The proposed project would not result in direct displacement of any existing community facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any development that would exceed CEQR Technical Manual thresholds for potential significant adverse impacts to community facilities and no further analysis is required.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a historic and cultural resources assessment is required if a proposed project has the potential to affect either archaeological or architectural resources. Archaeological resources are the physical remains, usually subsurface, of the prehistoric (Native American) or historic periods. Architectural resources include designated New York City Landmarks; properties calendared for consideration as such; properties listed on or eligible for listing on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places (S/NR); and National Historic Landmarks.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As the replacement comfort station would be constructed predominantly within the footprint of the previously-existing comfort station, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would be developed in an area of any archaeological sensitivity. The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) confirmed that the proposed project would not result in any
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 8
significant adverse impacts related to archaeological resources in a letter dated October 30, 2013 (see Appendix B).
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
There are no known or potential architectural resources within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed replacement comfort station would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to architectural resources, and no further analysis is warranted. LPC confirmed this conclusion in its letter dated October 30, 2013.
WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
The CEQR Technical Manual outlines thresholds for analysis of a project’s water demand and its generation of wastewater and stormwater. A preliminary analysis of the proposed replacement comfort station’s effects on the water supply system is not warranted because the proposed project’s anticipated water demand would not be substantially different than the previously-existing comfort station or of a comfort station located nearby. Likewise, an assessment of the project’s effects on wastewater or stormwater infrastructure is not warranted because the proposed project would not result in new demand on sewer infrastructure, as compared to the reconstruction of the previously-existing comfort station or of a comfort station located nearby. Furthermore, the proposed comfort station would include NYCDPR water saving devices to minimize water demand and demand for sewer infrastructure.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse water and sewer infrastructure impacts, and no further analysis is warranted.
SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES
A solid waste assessment determines whether a project has the potential to cause a substantial increase in solid waste production that may overburden available waste management capacity or otherwise be inconsistent with the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) or with state policy related to the City’s integrated solid waste management system. The City’s solid waste system includes waste minimization at the point of generation, collection, treatment, recycling, composting, transfer, processing, energy recovery, and disposal.
The proposed replacement comfort station would not be expected to generate substantial new demand for solid waste and sanitation services, as compared to the reconstruction of the previously-existing comfort station or to a comfort station located nearby. Therefore, no further analysis is required and the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to solid waste and sanitation services.
ENERGY
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a detailed assessment of energy impacts would be limited to actions that could significantly affect the transmission or generation of energy.
The proposed project would have a negligible effect on energy consumption, and some of the electricity required to operate the replacement comfort station would be provided by the photovoltaic panels installed on the roof. The proposed project would not significantly affect the transmission or generation of energy. Therefore, no further analysis is required and the proposed replacement comfort station would not result in a significant adverse impact related to energy.
Final Scope of Work
9 February 26, 2014
TRANSPORTATION
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a transportation analysis should be conducted for projects when they have the potential to result in an increase in traffic, transit use, pedestrian activity, or parking demand. If a project is expected to result in fewer than 50 peak hour vehicle trips and fewer than 200 peak hour transit or pedestrian trips, quantified analyses are not warranted. The installation of the proposed replacement comfort station would restore permanent seasonal access to toilet and hand washing facilities to this portion of the Coney Island-Brighton Beach Boardwalk consistent with the New York State Public Health Law. The provision of a necessary beach amenity would not change the arrival and departure patterns or means of transportation of beach users. Therefore, no significant adverse transportation impacts with respect to changes in traffic patterns, transit usage, pedestrian patterns, or parking demand are expected from the proposed replacement comfort station, and no further analysis is warranted.
AIR QUALITY
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an air quality analysis should be conducted for projects that may result in significant mobile source air quality impacts when they increase or cause a redistribution of traffic, create any other mobile sources of pollutants (such as diesel trains, helicopters, etc.), or add new uses near mobile sources (roadways, garages, parking lots, etc.). An air quality analysis should also be conducted for projects that may result in stationary source air quality impacts, such as projects that would create new stationary sources of pollutants that may affect surrounding uses (such as from emission stacks for industrial plants, hospitals, other large institutional uses, or even a building’s boilers); introduce certain new uses near existing (or planned future) emissions stacks that may affect the use; or introduce structures near such stacks so that the structures may change the dispersion of emissions from the stacks so that surrounding uses are affected.
The proposed replacement comfort station would not introduce any new mobile sources nor would it change existing vehicular patterns; therefore the project would not result in any mobile source air quality impacts. The proposed replacement comfort station would also not create a new stationary source of pollutants. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts are expected from the proposed project, and no further analysis is warranted.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) analysis is typically conducted for larger projects that have a greater potential to be inconsistent with the City’s GHG reduction goal to a degree considered significant. Examples of projects that warrant assessment include power generation projects, projects that result in development of more than 350,000 square feet, or projects that would fundamentally change the City’s solid waste management system.
The proposed replacement comfort station project would replace a previously-existing comfort station, and would not be the type of project that would have the potential to be inconsistent with the City’s GHG reduction goal as outlined in Executive Order 109 of 2007.
NOISE
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a noise analysis could be warranted for projects that generate mobile or stationary sources of noise or that would be located in areas with high ambient noise levels that could affect the proposed project’s uses.
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 10
The proposed replacement comfort station would replace a previously-existing comfort station, would not result in any mobile or stationary sources of noise, and would not introduce any new receptors that would be sensitive to ambient noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse noise impacts, and no further analysis is warranted.
PUBLIC HEALTH
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an analysis of public health is not warranted for projects where no unmitigated adverse impact is found in other CEQR analysis areas, such as air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, or noise. Since it is anticipated that there would be no significant adverse impacts in these areas (see the screening analyses above), a public health analysis is not warranted. If, in the course of preparing the EIS analyses, a potential adverse impact is disclosed for one of the areas that contribute to public health, a public health assessment will be performed.
As mentioned previously, adequate toilet and hand washing facilities at public bathing beaches are required by New York State Public Health Law. The EIS will include a New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) public health assessment of the New Brighton comfort station that examines the potential effect of not having a comfort station at the New Brighton location.
F. SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE TARGETED EIS As set forth by the SEQRA regulations and the CEQR Technical Manual, the installation of a replacement comfort station at New Brighton does not warrant further study or analysis in any technical area. However, there are a number of claims raised by the public and the Petitioners in Oceana Homeowners Ass’n v. City of New York et al., the underlying Article 78 Petition for the above-referenced court order. Accordingly, NYCDPR has determined that the court-directed EIS will analyze the following technical areas: open space; shadows; urban design and visual resources; natural resources; hazardous materials; neighborhood character; and construction. Therefore, assessments of likely effects in those areas of concern will be prepared and disclosed in a targeted EIS. While there are no zoning or land use approvals for the proposed project, a land use, zoning, and public policy analysis will also be prepared to provide neighborhood context and to serve as a baseline for other sections.
Overall, the EIS will contain:
• A description of the proposed project and its environmental setting;
• A statement of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, including its short- and long-term effects and typical associated environmental effects;
• An identification of any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented;
• A discussion of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project;
• An identification of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented; and
• A description of mitigation proposed to minimize any identified significant adverse environmental impacts.
Final Scope of Work
11 February 26, 2014
The specific areas to be included in the targeted EIS, as well as their respective tasks, are described below.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project description will introduce the reader to the proposed project, give a brief history of the beach use and describe the previous comfort station. Superstorm Sandy and its effects on the beach and beach infrastructure (i.e., the comfort station) will be described and NYCDPR’s efforts to rebuild and restore the City’s beaches following Sandy. A statement of the purpose and need for the project will be included. The project description will include a summary of the design guidelines and regulatory requirements that dictate the form, dimensions, and location of the proposed comfort station.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
While there are no zoning or land use approvals for the proposed project, the EIS will include a land use, zoning, and public policy chapter to provide neighborhood context and to serve as a baseline for other sections.
For this task, land uses will be described for an area within approximately 400 feet of the New Brighton comfort station site. Public policies, including the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (which specifically outlines the restoration of the City’s beaches as the first initiative for increasing resiliency in parks), will also be discussed.
The proposed replacement comfort station’s consistency with the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) was evaluated and approved by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) on March 7, 2013. The EIS will provide a summary of the coastal consistency form and NYSDOS’s approval and will update the evaluation of the proposed New Brighton replacement comfort station’s consistency with the WRP policies.
OPEN SPACE
The CEQR Technical Manual recommends conducting a open space assessment if a proposed action would have a direct effect on an open space; would entail the use of parkland for a non-parkland purpose; would involve the termination of use for outdoor recreation of City-owned parkland that has received federal funds for acquisition or improvement; would involve the conveyance of municipal parkland; or would add 50-350 residents or 125-750 employees to an area, depending on whether the relevant area is considered under- or well-served by open space. The project area is considered neither under- nor well-served by open space, and thus the relevant threshold for analysis would be an increase of 200 residents or 500 employees. The proposed project would not add any new residents or employees to the area. Therefore, the analysis of open space will focus on the potential for the project to directly affect open space. Questions that will be examined in the EIS include whether the project would cause the physical loss of public open space; change the use of an open space so that it no longer serves the same user population; limit public access to an open space; or cause increased noise or air pollutant emissions, odors, or shadows that would affect its usefulness, whether on a permanent or temporary basis.
SHADOWS
The CEQR Technical Manual requires a detailed assessment of project-generated shadows when a proposed action would result in new structures (or additions to existing structures) greater than 50 feet in height, or of any height if located adjacent to a sunlight-sensitive resource. Such
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 12
resources include publicly accessible open spaces, important sunlight-sensitive natural features, or historic resources with sun-sensitive features.
While the proposed replacement comfort station would be less than 50 feet in height, and while it is not expected that the project would result in shadow impacts since it would occupy a smaller footprint than the previously existing comfort station, the EIS will include a shadows assessment to disclose the difference in shadow between the proposed project and No Action Condition 1 (the previously existing comfort station). The EIS will also examine the difference in shadows between the proposed project and No Action Condition 2, in which the project site is regraded at beach level. The assessment would involve developing a base map of the project site and surrounding area, using a computer model to determine the extent and duration of shadows in both No Action conditions and the extent of new shadows, comparing the difference in shadow between the No Action and With Action conditions, and assessing the significance of any shadow impacts.
URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Typically, as described in the CEQR Technical Manual, an assessment of urban design is needed when a project would result in a physical alteration, observable to the pedestrian, beyond that allowed by existing zoning. While there are no zoning actions needed for the replacement comfort station given the location of the project, issues relating to urban design and visual resources will nevertheless be evaluated.
The EIS analysis will consider the differences in views for the public from the boardwalk and compare the effect of the project against both No Action conditions. The analysis will include a description of the existing project area, the future No Action Conditions 1 and 2, and future With Action conditions and would present photographs, photo simulations (from the pedestrian’s perspective), and project drawings.
NATURAL RESOURCES
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, if a project involves the disturbance of a natural resource but that disturbance has been deemed insignificant by a government agency with jurisdiction over that resource and conditions have not changed significantly since the permit was issued, a natural resources assessment is not warranted. As stated above, NYCDPR received permits for its work efforts at Coney Island and Manhattan Beach, including this proposed replacement comfort station, from NYSDEC as per Article 34 of the ECL for new structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and Tidal Wetlands Permits as per Article 25 of the ECL. Therefore, an assessment is not warranted. However, the EIS will include a discussion of natural resources within the vicinity of the New Brighton replacement comfort station, which include the beach, landscaped areas on the landward side of the boardwalk, and exterior structural habitat provided by the boardwalk.
The natural resources assessment will describe the existing natural resources within the vicinity of the proposed replacement comfort station (e.g., floodplains, beach as a natural protective feature, tidal wetland adjacent area, terrestrial habitat and wildlife) on the basis of existing information and a reconnaissance visit. The assessment will also evaluate the potential for the proposed modular design, supported on piles and caissons, to result in significant adverse impacts to natural resources, particularly with respect to the natural protective features of the beach due to beach erosion, and to existing erosion control structures that may be located in the vicinity of the project site. Measures incorporated into the design of the replacement comfort station to minimize losses due to damage from flood and erosion will be described.
Final Scope of Work
13 February 26, 2014
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The EIS will address the potential presence of hazardous materials on the project site since the piles for the replacement comfort station will be extended deeper than the piles of the previously existing comfort station. The EIS will summarize the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that will be prepared for the project site, and will include any necessary recommendations for additional testing or other activities that would be required either prior to or during construction and/or operation of the project, including a discussion of any necessary remedial or related measures.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
According to the CEQR Technical Manual, neighborhood character is an amalgam of various elements that give neighborhoods their distinct “personality.” These elements may include a neighborhood’s land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise. Not all of these elements affect neighborhood character in all cases; a neighborhood usually draws its distinctive character from a few defining elements.
An analysis of neighborhood character is warranted if a proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts in any technical area (land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise) or if a project would result in a combination of moderate effects to several elements that could cumulatively impact neighborhood character. Because the court-directed EIS will include analyses of several of these analysis areas, a preliminary assessment of neighborhood character will be included in the EIS. The preliminary assessment will identify the defining features of the neighborhood and assess whether the project has the potential to impact these defining features, either through the potential for significant adverse impacts or a combination of moderate effects. If the preliminary assessment concludes that the proposed project has the potential to affect defining features of a neighborhood, a detailed assessment of neighborhood character will be undertaken.
CONSTRUCTION
The construction section of the EIS will describe the construction schedule and the anticipated construction activities that remain for the replacement comfort station. The EIS will qualitatively assess how construction activities could affect traffic conditions, noise levels, and air quality conditions at nearby locations during the limited construction period. In addition, temporary construction-related impacts to natural resources, such as the potential for increased noise levels and human activity during construction of the replacement comfort station to adversely affect wildlife, will be assessed.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives section will assess alternatives to the proposed project in the context of the New York State Public Health Law governing bathing beaches.
Two No Action Alternatives will be considered. The first will assume reconstruction of the previously existing comfort station on the project site. The second will assume construction of a comfort station outside of the CEHA and tidal wetland area; in this alternative, the comfort station would consist of a temporary trailer located on the boardwalk at Coney Island Avenue.
New Brighton Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 14
In addition to the two No Action Alternatives, two Elevation Alternatives will be considered. These elevation alternatives will consider the installation of the replacement comfort station at the project site but at two different elevations.
The EIS will also consider two Location Alternatives, which will consider the installation of the replacement comfort station at two different locations between Coney Island Avenue and Brighton 15th Street. For both Location Alternatives, two elevation variations will be considered.
MITIGATION
If significant project impacts are identified in the analyses discussed above, measures will be identified and assessed to mitigate those impacts. Where impacts cannot be mitigated, they will be described as unavoidable adverse impacts.
SUMMARY CHAPTERS
In accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the EIS will include the following three summary chapters, where appropriate:
• Unavoidable Adverse Impacts—which summarizes any significant adverse impacts that are unavoidable if the proposed actions are implemented regardless of the mitigation employed (or if mitigation is impossible);
• Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Actions—which generally refers to “secondary” impacts of a proposed actions that trigger further development; and
• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources—which summarizes the proposed actions and their impacts in terms of the loss of environmental resources (loss of vegetation, use of fossil fuels and materials for construction, etc.), both in the immediate future and in the long-term.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The executive summary will use relevant material from the body of the EIS to describe the proposed actions, their significant and adverse environmental impacts, measures to mitigate those impacts, and alternatives to the proposed actions.
Appendix A
1 February 26, 2014
Appendix A: Response to Comments on the Draft Scope of Work
A. INTRODUCTION
This document summarizes and responds to comments on the New Brighton Comfort Station
Draft Scope of Work for a Targeted Environmental Impact Statement, issued on October 18,
2013. Oral and written comments on the Draft Scope of Work were received during a public
scoping meeting held by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) on
November 18, 2013, from 6 PM to 8:30 PM at the Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-
Manhattan Beach at 3300 Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn. Written comments were accepted
from the issuance of the Draft Scope of Work through the public comment period, which ended
at 5 PM on December 2, 2013.1
Section B lists the elected officials, organizations, and individuals who provided comments on
the Draft Scope of Work. All oral comments were delivered during the public scoping meeting
on November 18, 2013. Section C contains a summary of these relevant comments and a
response to each. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made but do not
necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter and
generally parallel the structure of the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical
Manual. Where more than one commenter expressed similar views, those comments have been
grouped and addressed together.
A number of commenters submitted general comments in support or opposition to the proposed
replacement comfort station project but did not have specific comments related to the Draft
Scope of Work. This included comments related to the construction of the proposed replacement
comfort station to date. Since the aforementioned comment period and public meeting were
related to the Draft Scope of Work, these comments were given consideration but are not
itemized below.
B. LIST OF COMMENTERS
ELECTED OFFICIALS
1. New York State Assembly Member Steven Cymbrowitz, 45th Assembly District, oral
comments.
2. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, 8th District, New York. Oral comments delivered by Stina
Skewes-Cox, District Director.
3. New York State Senator Diane Savino, 23rd Senate District. Oral comments delivered by
Alex Later.
1 Comments received after the close of the comment period on December 2, 2013 were also considered.
New Brighton Replacement Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 2
4. Council Member Elect Chaim Deutsch, 48th New York City Council District, oral
comments.
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
5. Brighton Neighborhood Association. Oral and written comments delivered by Pat Singer,
Founder and Executive Director, on November 18, 2013.
6. Chabad Lubavitch of West Brighton Beach. Oral comments delivered by Rabbi Moshe
Winner.
7. Chabad Lubavitch of Manhattan Beach. Written comments submitted by Rabbi Avrohom
Winner dated November 27, 2013.
8. Coney-Brighton Boardwalk Alliance. Oral comments delivered by Rob Burstein.
9. Natural Resources Protective Association. Written comments submitted by Ida Sanoff, on
December 1, 2013.
INTERESTED PUBLIC
10. Petition #1. Undated.
11. Alter, Yelena. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
12. Badiner, George. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
13. Bekker, Felix. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
14. Bekker, Genia. Written comments dated November 28, 2013.
15. Berenstein, Kira and Leon. Written comments received on January 11, 2014.
16. Blikshteyn, Anna. Written comments dated December 2, 2013.
17. Borisov, Arnold. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
18. Bromberg, Julia. Oral comments; written comments dated November 27, 2013.
19. Brusovanik, Mike. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
20. Bubin, Benjamin. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
21. Budnyatsky, Yuri. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
22. Burstein, Rob. Oral Comments
23. Cooper, Liz. Oral comments.
24. Dubrovsky, Janet. Undated.
25. Dushina, Alla. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
26. Dvorkin, Mike. Written comments dated November 17, 2013.
27. Fisher, Aleksandr. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
28. Fishman, Aleksandr. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
29. Fishman, Victoria. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
30. Fiterson, Norman. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
Appendix A: Response to Comments on Draft Scope of Work
3 February 26, 2014
31. Galbmillon Family. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
32. Galbmillion, Lana. Oral comments;
33. Galbmillion, Mark. Written comments dated November 26, 2013 and November 28, 2013.
34. Galinsky, Serafima. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
35. Geisler, Mordechai and Rita. Written comments dated December 2, 2013.
36. Geyber, Dmitry. Oral comments; written comments dated November 26, 2013.
37. Gofman, Elizabeth. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
38. Golan, Yuval. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
39. Goykhin, Galina. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
40. Kantor, Boris. Written comments dated November 17, 2013; oral comments.
41. Karatchounov, Alexandre. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
42. Karetsky, Ilya. Written comments dated November 20, 2013 and November 26, 2013.
43. Katsnelson, Joseph. Written comments received on December 19, 2013.
44. Khavulya, Anna. Written comments December 2, 2013.
45. Khavulya, Mirra. Oral comments.
46. Kitovsky, Leonid. Oral comments; written comments dated November 28, 2013.
47. Kolyachko, Mayya. Written comments dated December 2, 2013. General opposition
comment; no specific attribution is included in the comments listed below.
48. Kravis, Irina. Written comments dated December 2, 2013.
49. Kuperman, Max. Written comments dated November 30, 2013 and second set of undated
comments.
50. Makagon, Alla. Written comments dated December 2, 2013.
51. Makagon, Jane. Undated.
52. Makagon, Larisa. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
53. Makagon, Osip. Undated.
54. Makchnin, Yelena. Oral comments.
55. Maksin, Natalie. Written comments dated November 28, 2013.
56. Medvedovsky, M. Written comments dated December 1, 2013.
57. Milter, Lenny. Written comments dated November 20, 2013.
58. Miskin, Karl. Written comments dated November 27 and November 30, 2013.
59. Miskina, Tamara. Written comments dated November 27 and November 30, 2013.
60. Natkovich, Anna. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
61. Natkovitch, Boris. Oral comments; written comments dated November 28, 2013.
New Brighton Replacement Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 4
62. Natkovitch, Inna. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
63. Natkovitch, Samuel. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
64. Natkovich, Yuriy. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
65. Oceana Homeowners Association, comments submitted by David Yudelson on December 2,
2013.
66. Oceana Voice. Written comments dated December 1, 2013; undated Petition #1; Petition #2,
dated September 2013.
67. Olson, Irene M. Oral comments.
68. Oudolsky, Peter. Written comments dated November 20 and November 29, 2013.
69. Oz, Shlomo. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
70. Pallen, Fay. Written comments received December 5, 2013.
71. People of Oceana. Written comments dated November 17 and December 2, 2013.
72. Persits, Yelena. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
73. Pichugov, Sergey. Written comments dated December 1 and December 2, 2013.
74. Plut, Raisa and Arkady. Written comments received 12/2/2013.
75. Podvisoky, Fima. Written comments dated November 28, 2013.
76. Podvisoky, Maria. Written comments dated November 28, 2013.
77. Polissky, Galina. Written comments dated November 26, 2013.
78. Rabinovich, Benjamin. Written comments dated November 28, 2013.
79. Rabinovich, Ella. Written comments dated November 28, 2013.
80. Rosen, Allan. Oral comments.
81. Sanoff, Ida. Oral comments.
82. Sattlar, Jerry. Oral comments.
83. Scott, Joe. Oral and written comments dated November 18, 2013.
84. Segal, Tatyana. Oral comments. Written comments dated November 21, 2013.
85. Senders, Michael. Written comments dated December 1, 2013.
86. Shaov, Stan. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
87. Shaova, Lana. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
88. Shapiro, Alla. Written comments dated December 2, 2013.
89. Shapiro, Victoria. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
90. Sherbakova, Anna. Witten comments dated December 2, 2013.
91. Shevchenko, Liubov. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
92. Shilkrot, Marina. Undated
Appendix A: Response to Comments on Draft Scope of Work
5 February 26, 2014
93. Shilman, Dimitri. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
94. Sikar, Felix. Oral comments.
95. Soroka, Dina. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
96. Spivak, Irina, Written comments dated December 1, 2013.
97. Stalb, Elaine. Written comments dated November 23, 2013.
98. Suler, Vadim. Written comments dated November 17, 2013.
99. Surcov, Igor. Written comments dated November 30, 2013.
100. Tokarsky, Mordechai. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
101. Trotta, Eileen L. Oral comments.
102. Usher, David. Written comments received December 5, 2013.
103. Usher, Mikhail. Written comments dated December 1, 2013.
104. Ustilovsky, Alex. Oral comments.
105. Vafakos, William. Oral comments; written comments dated November 26, 2013.
106. Vidal, Monique. Written comments dated November 25, 2013.
107. Vidal, Sara. Written comments received November 23 and November 26, 2013.
108. Vidal, Victor. Written comments dated November 25, 2013.
109. Voldman, Alex. Written comments November 29, 2013.
110. Vulakh, Alex. Oral comments.
111. Vulfsone, Emma. Written comments dated November 27, 2013.
112. Zeleny, Grigory. Oral comments; written comments dated December 2, 2013.
113. Zelyony, Adeline. Written comments dated November 29, 2013.
C. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
Comment 1: Contrary to the claims in the Draft Scope, “the preparation of [a] targeted EIS
for the New Brighton Comfort Station” was not “directed by [the] New York
State Supreme Court…” The Court’s Order makes no mention of a “targeted
EIS,” and does not direct the NYCDPR to do anything. The Court gave
NYCDPR a choice to either wait for the Court’s final decision or prepare an EIS
(a decision the Homeowners Association supports), in strict compliance with the
requirements set forth in the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA), its implementing regulations, and the New York City
Response: As noted above, No Action Condition 2 assumes the installation of temporary
restrooms on the boardwalk at Coney Island Avenue.
New Brighton Replacement Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 26
Comment 42: Despite the obvious need for a public bathroom in the eastern part of Brighton
Beach, we strongly disagree with the idea of using portable bathrooms for this
purpose. (Dvorkin, Kantor, People of Oceana)
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 43: To satisfy SEQRA and CEQR, NYCDPR must fully analyze “Design”
alternatives intended to mitigate the proposed project’s adverse impacts,
including but not limited to a design without breakaway ramps and stairs.
(Oudolsky, Oceana Homeowners Association)
NYCDPR should consider alternative designs of the restrooms that would
mitigate their potential impacts on visibility, and whether there are other
improvements to Brighton Beach that would also qualify for FEMA
reimbursement while avoiding the proposed project’s adverse impacts.
(Oudolsky)
Another option is to work with FEMA to find a better design for a comfort
station—one that falls within their guidelines for storm protection. Maybe
FEMA can come up with a design that can withstand storm conditions and be
lower to the ground. (Cymbrowitz)
We think the only plausible option at the current location is to build no higher
than the current boardwalk level. (Karetsky, Rosen.)
We support the idea of restoring a low-profile, one-level public lavatory in the
footprint of the bathroom destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. (Dvorkin, Kantor,
People of Oceana)
Yes, we need public bathrooms, but why at the level of a 4-story building? Why
not just 5 feet higher, so that the water goes under it in case of flood?
(Budnyatsky)
Response: In addition to the two aforementioned No Action Alternative conditions, the EIS
will include an evaluation of the following alternatives to the proposed
replacement comfort station:
Two Elevation Alternatives, which will consider the installation of the
replacement comfort station at the project site but at two different elevations.
Two Location Alternatives, which will consider the installation of the
replacement comfort station at two different locations between Coney Island
Avenue and Brighton 15th Street. For both Location Alternatives, two
elevation variations will be considered.
The Final Scope of Work will reflect the addition of these alternatives.
Comment 44: We propose a way of protecting Oceana complex from future flooding by
building a 200-foot long sea wall along the boardwalk and parallel to the
Oceana’s Great Lawn. We believe that the sea wall and the one-level public
Appendix A: Response to Comments on Draft Scope of Work
27 February 26, 2014
bathroom can be designed as one architectural structure, serving as a water
barrier for the Oceana community and as a sanitary facility for the public.
(Dvorkin, Kantor, People of Oceana, Milter)
Putting the public bathrooms here may limit our options for flood prevention
projects in the future. We would like to identify with the City a flood prevention
solution and to work with them to get those installed and to delay the bathroom
until that can be done. (Scott)
Response: The proposed project involves the provision of public restrooms for a public
beach. The proposed project will not affect the boardwalk structure and would
not necessarily preclude future flood prevention measures. The No Action
conditions, against which the proposed project will be compared, will account
for planned and funded projects to occur by the 2014 build year.
Comment 45: We are strongly against any alternative location that will involve obstruction of
the historic Coney Island Avenue entrance to the boardwalk and the beach with
either temporary or permanent bathroom facilities. We strongly oppose the
proposal to move these bathroom facilities further west if that results in placing
these raised bathrooms at the end of Coney Island Avenue or in front of
Shorefront YMHA. (Dvorkin, Kantor, People of Oceana)
I strongly oppose the relocation of the new comfort station from its original
footprint in front of the Oceana complex toward the Shorefront Y community
center and Brighton 6th Street. (Suler)
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 46: To satisfy SEQRA and CEQR, NYCDPR must fully analyze “Location”
alternatives which analyze alternate locations on the beach, on public property
at the termini of City streets, and other possible locations that are further
removed from residential dwellings; (Oudolsky, Oceana Homeowners
Association)
There is a valid alternative location for a comfort station that would be a sound
compromise between the needs of the Oceana residents and needs of beachgoers
visiting Brighton Beach in summer. Since one of the new comfort stations along
the Brighton Beach boardwalk is utilized as a lifeguard station, the old lifeguard
station at the intersection of Coney Island Avenue and the boardwalk can be
converted into a public restroom. Move the bathroom site to Coney Island
Avenue and while litigation continues, install a row of temporary bathrooms.
(Singer, Segal)
Response: As noted above, the EIS will include an evaluation of two location-related
alternatives which will consider the installation of the replacement comfort
station at two different locations between Coney Island Avenue and Brighton
15th Street. For both Location Alternatives, two elevation variations will be
New Brighton Replacement Comfort Station
February 26, 2014 28
considered. The Final Scope of Work will reflect the addition of these
alternatives.
Comment 47: I demand that your department roll back everything that has been done toward
the so called “New Brighton Comfort Station” across from Oceana. (Fisher,
Persits)
The previous bathroom was not destroyed by hurricane and can be rebuilt.
(Galbmillion)
We had before a small restroom on the beach and this restroom was enough for
people on the beach. This bathroom still exists and what is necessary is only to
put a little money to restore this restroom. (Miskina)
Response: The comfort station that was previously located on the project site was located
within a 5,000 square foot area and was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy
in October 2012; it was subsequently demolished in March 2013.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Comment 48: There has been no discussion of the cumulative impacts of the above project
when combined with the concrete slab Boardwalk section proposed for the same
area. We have evidence of increased storm surge damage near an existing
concrete section near Ocean Parkway. Damage from the breakway ramps in a
storm surge may be exacerbated by increased wave energy from concrete slab
Boardwalk sections. This needs to be addressed in the EIS. (Natural Resources
Protective Association)
Response: The EIS impact analyses will account for relevant background projects expected
to occur independent of the proposed project; the Boardwalk project will be
considered where appropriate. Damage assessments conducted by NYCDPR
after Superstorm Sandy do not indicate evidence of increased storm surge
damage near the existing concrete boardwalk sections. As noted in the Draft and
Final Scopes of Work, and as will be described in the EIS, the modular units and
their piling system, and that of the stairs and ramps, have been designed in
accordance with all standards applicable to structures placed within the
floodplain, including the NYC Building Code and American Society of Civil
Engineers standards for Flood Resistant Design and Construction. The EIS will
also describe the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Best
Available Flood Hazard Data for the project site in evaluating whether the
proposed replacement comfort station has the potential to alter flood levels,
flood risk, or the flow of flood waters in the surrounding area.
Comment 49: The Draft Scope unlawfully treats the New Brighton Comfort Station as if it
were the only bathroom on the beach, ignoring the other restrooms that were
Appendix A: Response to Comments on Draft Scope of Work
29 February 26, 2014
constructed over the last year and those that survived Tropical Storm Sandy and
remain open in their prior location under the boardwalk. These facilities are all
part of the baseline for the environmental analysis, and the City must consider
the cumulative impacts of the new restrooms combined with all of its recent
construction, as well as the need for a restroom in this particular location given
the facilities that have already been erected elsewhere. (Oudolsky, Oz, Oceana
Homeowners Association)
Response: The preparation of an EIS for the proposed replacement comfort station was
mandated by an order of the New York State Supreme Court. The order directs
that an EIS be prepared for the proposed replacement comfort station at New
Brighton. The other comfort stations noted by the commenters have already
been constructed as replacements for damaged comfort stations at those
locations. As described in the Final Scope of Work, within Coney Island Beach
and Boardwalk (which extends approximately 2.5 miles from W. 37th Street to
the west to Corbin Place), two replacement modular comfort stations and two
replacement modular lifeguard stations were planned. The nearest replacement
lifeguard station is approximately 1/3-mile to the west of the project site, and
the nearest replacement comfort station is at West 8th Street, approximately 1
mile to the west of the project site. Both of these have been constructed, and
their construction and operation do not have a potential consequence with
respect to the assessment of impacts due to the proposed project. As noted
previously, the EIS will explain the purpose and need of the proposed project
and the reasons for constructing the proposed replacement comfort station at the
proposed location.
D. NON EIS COMMENTS
Comment 50: Several comments addressed the design of the other three modular comfort
stations installed throughout the Coney Island-Brighton Beach Boardwalk.
(Sanoff)
Response: Comments on the other modular comfort stations installed in Brooklyn are
outside the scope of this targeted EIS.
Comment 51: Several comments addressed the replacement of the wooden boardwalk surface
with concrete (Burstein, Sanoff, Makchin)
Response: The replacement of the boardwalk surface is not part of this project and, thus,
outside of the scope of this targeted EIS.
Appendix B
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Project number: NYC PARKS DEPARTMENT / 14DPR005K Project: NEW BRIGHTON COMFORT STATION Address: 3317 CONEY ISLAND AVENUE, BBL: 3087250001 Date Received: 10/21/2013 [X] No architectural significance [X] No archaeological significance [ ] Designated New York City Landmark or Within Designated Historic District [ ] Listed on National Register of Historic Places [ ] Appears to be eligible for National Register Listing and/or New York City Landmark Designation [ ] May be archaeologically significant; requesting additional materials