Unpacking the LIC Draft Scope of Work

A Community Board perspective on proposed rezoning actions and advocating for neighborhood needs

As part of the OneLIC planning process, the NYC Department of City Planning is leading a neighborhood study in Long Island City to rezone the neighborhood and waterfront. Last month, the City released an 85-page Draft Scope of Work for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft Scope of Work outlines the potential impacts of the Proposed Actions that will be analyzed in detail in the EIS. In this post, I’ll summarize what’s included and offer some personal thoughts on next steps for Queens Community Board 2.

Proposed Actions

The Proposed Actions involve zoning map and text amendments, changes to the City Map, and disposition of City-owned properties to facilitate new residential, commercial, community facility, and industrial development in an approximately 54-block area of LIC.

The Proposed Actions for the Long Island City Neighborhood Plan include:

• Zoning Map Amendments: The rezoning area covers approximately 54 blocks focused on the East River waterfront, manufacturing areas west of the LIC core, and corridors like 44th Drive, Vernon Boulevard, Queens Plaza South, and 21st Street. Existing zoning districts being rezoned include R6B, R6A, R7A, R9, M1-3, M1-4, M1-5, and various paired M/R districts within the current Special LIC Mixed Use District boundaries.

  • Rezone portions of existing zoning districts (R6B, R6A/C1-5, R7A/C2-5, R7A, M1-3, M1-4, M1-5, M1-4/R6A, M1-4/R7A, M1-5/R9, M1-6/R9) to new zoning districts like M1-2A/R6A, M1-3A/R7A, M1-3A/R7X, M1-4A/R8A, M1-5A/R8, M1-6A/R9, M1-6/R10, M1-6A/R10, M1-4A, M1-5A, M1-6A, M2-3A.

  • Expand the existing Special Long Island City Mixed-Use District boundaries.

  • Modify the Northern Hunters Point Waterfront Access Plan (WAP) for waterfront blocks.

  • Potential Impact: Increasing permitted residential and commercial densities could result in impacts related to: community facilities (schools, child care, libraries), open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, transportation systems, air quality, noise, neighborhood character, etc.

• Zoning Text Amendments: The Special LIC Mixed Use District boundaries would be expanded to cover the rezoning area. Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) areas mapped in the new mixed-use districts like M1-2A/R6A, M1-3A/R7X, M1-4A/R8A, etc.

  • Map new MIH areas.

  • Modify zoning regulations in the expanded Special Long Island City Mixed-Use District related to use, bulk, parking, streetscape, etc.

  • Create special regulations like authorizations/certifications for schools, waterfront bulk, development rights transfers, open space bonuses, height modifications.

  • Potential Impact: Mapping new MIH areas would facilitate permanently affordable housing development. Modifying bulk, height, parking and other zoning regulations in the Special District could impact built form, urban design, shadows, transportation, etc.

• Waterfront Access Plan (WAP) Modifications: The Northern Hunters Point WAP would be modified for waterfront blocks along the East River and Anable Basin.

  • Potential Impact: Changes to requirements for waterfront public access areas, shore public walkways, visual corridors, etc. could impact public access, urban design, natural resources along the waterfront.

• City Map Changes: Streets proposed for demapping include portions of 44th Drive, 44th Road, 44th Avenue west of Vernon Blvd. New streets mapped on Blocks 488 and 489 near the waterfront. Portions of Block 489 mapped as new parkland near Anable Basin. 45th Avenue widened between 5th Street and Vernon Blvd.

  • Potential Impact: De-mapping streets could result in changes to transportation networks and patterns. Mapping new streets could alter transportation conditions but also improve connectivity. Mapping parkland would provide new public open spaces.

• Disposition of City-Owned Properties: City-owned properties on Blocks 24, 489, 488, 428, 429 proposed for disposition to allow future development.

  • Potential Impact: Allowing development on currently publicly-owned sites could introduce new land uses and densities.

Reasonable worst-case development scenarios (RWCDs)

The Draft Scope outlines two RWCDs that will be analyzed in the EIS. The two scenarios differ based on potential development options for a City-owned property comprised of Block 489 Lots 23 and 1, and Block 488 Lots 15 and 11. The incremental differences between the Future No-Action and Future With-Action RWCDS for each scenario will form the basis for analyzing potential impacts across the technical areas in the EIS. In general, both RWCDS scenarios project substantial increases in residential development (including permanently affordable housing), commercial space, and community facility space, while showing a decrease in industrial space compared to No-Action conditions.

• Scenario 1 would result in a net increase of approximately 13,677 dwelling units (DUs), 3,332,212 gsf of commercial space, 339,416 gsf of community facility space, and a decrease of 572,911 gsf of industrial space compared to No-Action conditions.

  • Approximately 3,932 permanently affordable DUs (20-30% of total DUs pursuant to MIH)

• Scenario 2 would result in a net increase of approximately 13,995 DUs, 3,059,206 gsf commercial, 339,416 gsf community facility, and a 572,911 gsf decrease in industrial space.

  • Approximately 4,012 permanently affordable DUs (20-30% of total DUs pursuant to MIH)

Technical Areas of Analysis

The Draft Scope outlines the technical areas of analysis that will be included in the EIS, such as land use, socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, open space, shadows, historic resources, urban design, natural resources, hazardous materials, water and sewer infrastructure, sanitation, energy, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public health, neighborhood character, and construction impacts. For each technical area, the EIS will: describe the existing conditions in the study areas, assess future conditions without the Proposed Actions (No-Action), evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Actions and RWCDS (With-Action), identify any significant adverse impacts, explore potential mitigation measures for any significant impacts, and analyze alternatives to the Proposed Actions.

Community Board Concerns

Based on my reading of the Draft Scope of Work, here are the top potential impacts that the Community Boards should pay close attention to. Identifying and requiring appropriate mitigation measures for any significant adverse impacts will be critical.

• Community Facilities and Services:

  • Potential overcrowding/overutilization of schools, child care centers and libraries due to the substantial new residential development and population

  • Mitigation measures: Require construction of new public schools, daycares and library branches or funding to expand existing facilities to mitigate overcrowding. Secure commitments from City agencies like the Department of Education and School Construction Authority

• Transportation:

  • Impacts on traffic operations, transit (subway, bus) capacity/circulation, pedestrian conditions from new vehicle, transit and pedestrian trips

  • Vehicular and pedestrian safety impacts

  • Parking capacity/demand issues

  • Mitigation measures: Institute traffic operational improvements (signal timing, lane markings, turn bays, bike lanes), transit facility expansions/improvements (new station entrances, mezzanines),  road/intersection reconfigurations, and traffic enforcement measures. Require developer contributions to transit/transportation improvements

• Open Space:

  • Adequacy of existing open spaces to serve the new worker and residential populations

  • Potential for overutilization or deficiencies in open space ratios in the study areas

  • Mitigation measures: Require creation of new public open spaces/parks beyond just the waterfront access areas. Secure funding for improvements and expansions of existing parks/playgrounds. Require amenities like active recreation facilities, playgrounds, plazas in new open spaces

• Wastewater and Stormwater Infrastructure:

  • Increased sanitary sewage generation from the projected new development

  • Potential impacts/constraints on the Bowery Bay Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, which serves the project area

  • Whether there is sufficient capacity in the sewer system to handle the incremental demand

  • Changes to stormwater runoff rates and volumes from the projected development sites due to changes in surface areas/drainage patterns

  • Potential for increasing/exacerbating combined sewer overflow events

  • Impacts on the City's ability to manage/control stormwater flows, especially during heavy rainfall

  • Mitigation measures: Require upgrading/repairing of antiquated sewers, sustainable stormwater management practices on development sites, and increased wastewater treatment capacity at the Bowery Bay facility

Firm Commitments

Queens Community Board 2 should push for firm commitments, funding, and mechanisms to lock in required mitigation measures and infrastructure improvements tied to the projected development. Here are some specific things that we should advocate for:

• Commitments from relevant City agencies (DOE, SCA, DOT, DEP, Parks, etc.) to provide new facilities, infrastructure upgrades, staffing, etc. needed to mitigate impacts. Secure line-item capital funding commitments from City agencies in their capital plans.

• Legally binding agreements/contracts between the City and developers that lock in mitigation requirements for any significant adverse impacts identified in the EIS. Require developers to directly fund construction of new schools, daycare seats, park/open spaces, transportation improvements through impact fees or other payments.

• For City-owned sites, bind requirements through Land Disposition Agreements when properties are disposed.

More broadly, we should tie the pace and scale of new development directly to the provision of supporting infrastructure through a phased implementation approach, which would be a good way to ensure livability and service levels are maintained as the neighborhood grows. A phasing plan would effectively bind the City contractually to make the required infrastructure investments at defined benchmarks before unlocking further development rights, which would help guarantee that schools, transportation improvements, utility upgrades, open spaces and other necessary facilities are in place to support each incremental phase of new population growth. Incorporating this type of phasing plan directly into the proposed zoning actions would give it the force of law and regulatory teeth.

Simply stating that mitigation measures will be explored is insufficient; firm commitments from the City are needed upfront. Quantifiable, measurable benchmarks should be established for key facilities and services like: new school seats created, new daycare/childcare capacity, park/open space acreage developed , sewer/water infrastructure upgrade milestones, new road/intersection improvements, transit service expansions, etc. Only once these benchmarks are met for a given phase would the next phase of development be allowed to proceed through the phased rezoning implementation.

We should also use this opportunity to push for more affordable housing as part of the proposed rezoning. We could push for increasing the affordable housing requirements (for example, 40% total affordable, with specific deeper affordability options like 20% at 40% AMI threshold). We should also push for affordable housing commitments beyond just the MIH requirements, such as setting aside a portion of City-owned development sites for 100% affordable housing.

Our community board is in a strong position to leverage the rezoning to lock in commitments from the City through this phasing plan approach. As the LIC rezoning process moves forward, we need to remain vigilant in advocating for comprehensive mitigation measures, binding infrastructure commitments from the City tied to a phased development approach, and expanded affordable housing requirements to ensure that the neighborhood can grow sustainably and equitably for all residents.