Davids Island Study by YO90

davids island study for the city of new rochelle

city of new rochelle/kpf/arup/sbi

october 11, 20111

davids island

letter from mayor noam bramson For almost two generations, Davids Island has both enchanted and bedeviled New Rochelle. It is easy to understand why. There is nothing quite like it: a nearly eighty-acre blank canvas, situated within the largest and most densely populated metropolitan area in America, visible from nearly every portion of our coastline and owned by the people of New Rochelle. But while Davids Island has inspired grand plans, all have faltered in the face of economic, environmental or political obstacles. Today, half a century after the closure of Fort Slocum, the island’s future remains unsettled – its potential for public enjoyment and benefit, like the island itself, just out of reach. In September 2010, New Rochelle opened a new chapter in Davids Island’s history. Determined to avoid the mistakes of the past, the City resolved neither to advance concepts without first testing their value and viability, nor to react to concepts without first establishing a homegrown, community-supported vision. Acting on this new strategy was a volunteer Task Force composed of neighborhood representatives, development experts, environmental advocates and public officials from various levels of government. Together, the Task Force members reflected the spectrum of perspectives that have traditionally had an interest in – and often clashed over – Davids Island. The fact that the Task Force was able to work collaboratively and collegially is, in itself, evidence that historic divisions can be overcome in favor of a fresh consensus. For its hard work, open-minded spirit and creative energy, the Task Force has earned the gratitude of all people in New Rochelle. The findings and conclusions of the Task Force have been tested, illustrated and greatly enhanced by the planning professionals of KPF, ARUP and SBI – among the very best in the world. Rarely has such a generous gift of expertise been donated to a municipality, and I hope that the experience of addressing a site as unique and interesting as Davids Island provides some measure of compensation. The report that follows reflects the insights of the Task Force and the analytical skill of KPF, ARUP and SBI. It constitutes the most rigorous, comprehensive and useful examination of re-use options for Davids Island that has ever existed, and it will be an invaluable tool for the City Council and the people of New Rochelle as we strive together to shape the future of this remarkable place.

Mayor Noam Bramson

letter from davids island task force The Davids Island Task Force was created to examine the challenges and opportunities surrounding a unique waterfront asset and to assist the City Council in shaping an achievable, community-based vision for the Island’s future. In approaching this mission, the Task Force sought to honor several over-arching principles: •

Recognize and take full advantage of the unique nature and value of Davids Island;

•

Draw upon and respect public input from New Rochelle and our region;

•

Appropriately balance environmental, economic and social concerns and objectives;

•

Enable the public to better achieve and enjoy access to the waterfront;

•

Demonstrate and advance a commitment to sustainability; and

•

Consider economic and fiscal constraints to ensure that plans are realistic.

The Task Force conducted a comprehensive assessment of the Island, researched its history and current conditions, and entertained a variety of potential re-use scenarios. We did not attempt to achieve consensus on a single, specific re-use plan, but rather to illustrate the probable benefits, impacts and obstacles associated with a spectrum of options and to provide tools for evaluating the consistency of such options with the principles above. Clarity in the City’s goals and expectations, coupled with additional outreach to the public and stakeholders, will maximize the prospects the successful re-use of Davids Island. The Task Force’s chief conclusions and recommendations are as follows: Slightly More Than Half Of The Island Is Developable: Approximately 45 of the Island’s 78 acres could be developed. This figure accounts for shoreline setbacks, probable sea level rise, the presence of a Consolidated Edison easement, and a variety of other constraints. The 33 non-developable acres could, nonetheless, serve a variety of public functions, and the use and condition of this additional acreage should be integrated into any overall plan for Davids Island. Environmental Remediation Is Necessary & Costly: Significant and costly environmental remediation will be a necessary component of any plan entailing meaningful human access to the Island. The required scope of such remediation will depend upon the intensity and nature of intended development and recommendation from DEC. Balancing Environmental & Economic Objectives Is Essential: A plan that blends private and public uses, with the former wholly or partially subsidizing the latter, is more likely to meet the tests of financial and political viability than a plan that is either exclusively private or exclusively public. Especially at a time of limited public resources, the Island should, over the long-term, at least “carry its own weight” and contribute to the vitality of our local and regional economy. Sustainable Design Presents A Key Opportunity: Sustainable design and operation, from

energy neutrality to innovative waste management, can and should be a defining feature of any re-use plan. In addition to enhancing the overall quality and marketability of any development, sustainable design and operation may also help to reduce infrastructure costs, mitigate negative development impacts, and attract public and/or private financing. The range of options for sustainable design and operation is dramatically larger today than during any previous consideration of re-use plans for Davids Island. Access Should Minimize Car-Dependency: Water-borne transportation, coupled with surface transportation between the downtown central parking district and any ferry embarkation point(s), is likely to be the only cost-effective and least impactful means of providing access to Davids Island, and would also help integrate the Island into the downtown commercial economy. The prohibition of cars on the Island would reduce infrastructure costs and reinforce sustainability principles. Bridge access, although not recommended, is nonetheless examined in this report for the sake of completeness. Implementation Should Be Phased: Re-use plans for Davids Island can and should be phased. Immediate steps should concentrate on facilitating passive public access to the Island for kayakers and boaters and on encouraging greater public awareness of and exposure to the Island’s potential value. Short-term development should be self-contained, sustainable and consistent with a longer-term vision for the Island, and should serve as a catalyst for future development. The Members of the Davids Island Task Force express thanks to the City Council for the opportunity to participate in this exciting and engaging exercise. We acknowledge the guidance and support of City staff, including Commissioner of Development Michael Freimuth, Planning Director Eleanor Sharpe and Senior Project Manager Suzanne Reider. And we express great appreciation to KPF/ARUP, whose donation of time and expertise contributed immeasurably to the professionalism and thoroughness of our report. Task Force Members were deliberately selected to represent a wide array of constituencies, viewpoints and interests. Our exchange of ideas and perspectives was consistently enlightening and thought provoking. After more than a year of working together, differences of opinion about Davids Island still remain, but we are firmly united in the belief that Davids Island holds significant potential for our community and region, and that the time to explore this potential is now. It our hope that the product of our efforts will enable the City of New Rochelle to meet this challenge in a confident and positive spirit, escape a fruitless cycle of reaction to external proposals, and instead formulate a bold, community-based vision that excites the public’s imagination and engenders the durable support necessary to sustain a long-term endeavor. Davids Island Task Force: Doug Hocking, Thomas Lang, Kathy Jensen-Graham, Terence Gargan, Bonnie O’Brien, Rob Balachandran, Cesare Manfredi, Steve Levy, Christine Sculti, William Janeway, Richard Organisciak, Sara Richmond, Ellie Fredston, David Blumenfeld, Gary Trachten, Gregory Merchant, Mayor Noam Bramson, Council Member Albert Tarantino, Michael Yellin

table of contents Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Site Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Density Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Appendix.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

davids island new rochelle, ny

introduction

introduction Davids Island, named for the 19th century owner Thaddeus Davids, is a 78-acre island located about 3,000 feet from the coast of New Rochelle, in Westchester County, New York. Since it was decommissioned as the Fort Slocum army base in the 1960s, several schemes for redevelopment have been proposed. In the 1960s Consolidated Edison owned the island, but returned it to New Rochelle in 1976. In the 1980s, Xanadu Property Associates proposed a 1750 unit luxury residential development, and in 1995 the Trump Organization proposed a four tower scheme, then a scheme with multi-million dollar villas. Both of Trump’s proposals were withdrawn. In 2010, the Davids Island Task Force was established. In February 2011, the Task Force published an Interim Report, proposing a hotel and marina development for the island. Currently, no proposal for Davids Island development has been formally proposed and accepted. The role of Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, PC (KPF) in the Davids Island project is to present the stakeholders of New Rochelle with objective information on the history of Davids Island, zoning regulations and environmental considerations that affect the developable area of the site, a range of potential development options for the site, and initial thoughts on development option viability. Our analysis addresses seawall and zoning setbacks, future sea level rise, the Con Ed easement area, contaminated areas, previous proposals for Davids Island development, and connections to the mainland. We also address higher level sustainability considerations for Davids Island, as based in GreeNR: New Rochelle Sustainability Plan, Green Initiatives of the New Rochelle Municipal Marina, and the Westchester Action Plan for Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Any future proposal for Davids Island should align with the sustainable and overall vision for the City of New Rochelle and Westchester County. No scenario in this document is a scheme or development proposal for Davids Island. Rather, propose general development intensities and evaluate the fiscal, social, and environmental merits of each scenario. This preliminary study provides a portfolio of initial concepts for David’s Island’s development. In future stages of work, a subset of these concepts may, at the City’s direction, be developed into scenarios that build upon and more fully evaluate the potential of the initial concepts. These concepts may be combined, enhanced or substituted altogether to produce more refined propositions for the island. Infrastructure technologies may be

davids island, 2005

selected and innovations introduced that are beyond the scope of the initial ideas. Other considerations, such as the market and technology feasibility of transportation systems, the codification and application of land-use and zoning guidelines and the environmental appropriateness of the various infrastructure concepts may all materially change variables such as the amount and form of development on the island.

U.S.A. General Hospital, 1870

Quarter-Master Buildings, 1872

Davidsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Island, N.Y. Harbor, 1884

Proposed Water Works, 1884

U.S. Military Reservation, 1894

Fort Slocum, Davids Island, 1915

Fort Slocum, Davids Island, 1921

Davids Island, New Rochelle, 1961

history of davids island Native Americans first began to visit what is today Davids Island long before European

nuclear power plant. However, due to public objection, Con Ed withdrew their plan and sold the

colonists arrived on the east coast of North America. Beginning in the 17th century,

island back to New Rochelle for $1 in 1976. Following ten years of neglect, the city designated the

Euroamericans occupied the island, which supported a farmstead, for nearly two hundred

island as an urban renewal area.

years. The U.S. Army established its first post there in 1862, and the island became known as Fort Slocum. The development of Fort Slocum from the 1870s to the 1960s was influenced by three areas of military influence; recruitment and training; military architecture; and coastal and urban defense. The US Army arrived on Davids Island during the Civil War and in 1862 opened a military hospital. After the hospital closed in 1866, the State of New York formally ceded jurisdiction of the island in 1868. During the late 1860s and early 1870s, the Army used the island discontinuously, until a small hiatus in 1874 when the Army abandoned the island due to its dilapidated condition. In 1878, Davids Island was made a Principal Depot of the U.S. Army and served as a military recruiting station and coastal battery, until it was deactivated in 1965.

Since the late 1970s, Davids Island has faced abandonment and neglect while developers and city officials have continuously tried to properly utilize the island. Interested parties, such as Xanadu, Trump, Davids Island Development Group and Westchester County have proposed plans to determine the future of the island. In 2002 it was decided that the county would purchase, restore, and protect Davids Island; these plans were never fully realized. Beginning in 2004, Congress, through the efforts of Representative Nita Lowey, secured a total of $26 million for building demolition and asbestos removal on Davids Island, which was completed in 2009. In 2010, the mayor of New Rochelle announced plans to devise a conceptual plan for Davids Island. In September of that year, the Davids Island Task Force convened to shape and achieve a vision for the island as a destination for both residents and the surrounding region.

In 1967, the City of New Rochelle purchased Davids Island for $485,000, with the goal of redeveloping the island. Con Ed then purchased the island for $3 million in 1968 as a site for a 14

1850

1900

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

present

de camp general hospital1

1862 - 1874

fort slocum2 1878 - 1967

remediation3 2005 - 2009 [phase 1]

new rochelle4 1967 - present

feasibility study & city alive plan5 1967

con ed6 1968 - 1976

hotel columbia plan7 1977

xanadu8 1981 - 1992

westchester county9 1990 - 2010

trump10 1994 - 1996

davids island development group11

evolution of davids island 1 In 1862, the War Department subleased the island from Simeon Leland, an hotelier, who had recently leased it from Thaddeus Davids, a New Rochelle ink manufacturer. The government began constructing De Camp General Hospital, which opened in the same year. The hospital served the U.S. Army through the Civil War, and closed in 1874. 2 Between 1879 and 1967, Ft. Slocum, a post of the U.S. Army, served as a military recruiting station and coastal battery that helped protect the eastern approach to New York Harbor. From 1955-1961, the island was the site of the fire control station of the Nike missile battery, which was the world’s first operational surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, designed to protect major American cities from nuclear attack. 3 Davids Island is currently designated as a “brownfield site.” In 2004, Congress appropriated funds for the building demolition, asbestos removal, and evaluation of PCB cleanup. 16

The $26 million project was completed in 2009. 4 In 1967, New Rochelle purchased the island from the Federal Government for $485,000. After 10 years of neglect, the city designated it an urban renewal area and sought proposals for development. In 2010, the Davids Island Task Force was formed. 5 In 1967, Getter-Green Associates conducted a feasibility study, which produced the City Alive Plan consisting of 2 schemes: one primarily residential and the other primarily commercial. 6 In 1968, Con Ed purchased the island for $3 million as a site for a nuclear power plant, but withdrew the plan to due public objection. After attempting to solicit potential plans, Con Ed eventually sold the island back to New Rochelle for $1 in 1976.

1994 7 In 1977, Hotel Columbia was proposed for Davids Island. The plan included a large complex, made up by four hotels - each with 300 rooms - a convention center, recreational facilities, shopping, casino, and theatre. Island access would be water-borne with one helipad to accommodate some air travel. 8 In 1992, Xanadu Property Associates proposed a new development plan to address issues of the original proposal. However, continued opposition from environmentalist and other community groups led New Rochelle to opt out of extending Xanadu the status of designated developer. 9 Westchester County planned to buy Davids Island and convert it into a waterfront park linked to nearby communities by ferry. To limit the plan’s impact on marine and plant life, the plan includes biking/hiking trails, ball fields, and playgrounds.

10 In 1996 Donald Trump proposed to develop the islands as a luxury residential community. His plan called for three 22-story buildings and one 45-story tower, a 1,000-slip marina, a small retail complex with parking for 3,500, and a ferry service that would provide transportation to the island. Trump faced community resistance and withdrew his plan in 1996. 11 In 1994, Davids Island Development Company, composed of a consortium of smaller developers, formed to create a family entertainment park with a water park, amphitheater, health club and earth science center while connecting the mainland to the island via a magnetic monorail.

fort slocum,1878-1967

city alive plan, 1967

con ed property, 1968-1976 (image indicative of development)

xanadu, 1981-1992

city alive plan, 1967

hotel columbia plan, 1977

trump, 1994-1996

fort slocum (davids island), new rochelle 1961 19

new rochelle, westchester county & davids island, present

davids island task force

davids island present

The Davids Island Task Force was established in September 2010 to assist the City of New

Since Fort Slocum was decommissioned in 1967, many development proposals have been

Rochelle in shaping and achieving a new vision for the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future. It is comprised of a

offered for Davids Island, but none have received broad and sustained support, and all

range of members, including representatives from neighborhoods, nearby municipalities and

have attracted vocal opposition. The island remains a fascinating subject of debate, with

environmental organizations, as well as experts in planning, development and sustainability.

enormous potential and daunting obstacles existing in nearly equal measures. This booklet

The Task Force formed two subcommittees to evaluate existing site conditions and consider

illustrates and complements the findings of the Davids Island Task Force with respect to the

options for future use.

islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history, environmental condition and development potential. It is intended to assist the City of New Rochelle in its effort to shape an achievable and publicly-supported vision for the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future.

site analysis

fort slocum, 1894

davids island, 2011

mean high water - 77.78 acres

water grant line - 119.96 acres Water Grant Perimeter established by the Corps of Engineers in October 1879 (First Lt. Eugene Grifin).

Mean High Water - The average of all the high water heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch.

2050 mean high water - 66.21 acres

2080 mean high water - 55.69 acres

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation projects sea levels in the

diagrams are based on the area determined by the current mean high water line, where KPF

Lower Hudson Valley and Long Island to rise by two feet in 2050, and by four feet in 2080.

has approximated an above-water land area of 66.21 acres in 2050 and 55.69 acres in 2080.

Such a change would affect the developable area for the island. Based on the available

The following analyses in this section are based on the current mean high water line and are

topographic information for the island, KPF has approximated the effect sea level rise might

independent of the projected sea level rises shown here.

have on the above-water land area over the next 70 years. The estimates shown in the above

con

seawall setback - 56.82 acres

con ed easement - 52.62 acres

The New Rochelleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Zoning Code stipulates the following setbacks for land along a waterfront:

Consolidated Edison owns a strip of waterfront along the southern edge of the island. This

35 foot setback if seawalls are present, and 80 foot setback if there is no seawall. Subtracting the

easement allows Con Ed to maintain its 345 kilowatt underwater electric cable. Of the 5.20

area of the regulated Seawall Setback, 56.82 acres remain available for development.

acres, 4.20 acres are within the mean high water line. Subtracting the 4.20 acres of Con Ed Easement, 52.62 acres remain available for development.

heptachlor epoxide (pesticide)

chromium

pcbs

1879

chromium

pcbs arsenic

unidentified potential contamination

chromium; lead arsenic arsenic; lead mercury lead; chromium lead; mercury; arsenic; chromium lead; arsenic; chromium

present

potentially contaminated areas - 52.34 acres

incinerator zone - 49.61 acres

From 2005 to 2009, the US Army Corps of Engineers demolished ninety-four structures and also performed

Originally, there was a water inlet between the Incinerator Zone and Davids Island, which is

an asbestos abatement project on Davids Island. Simultaneously, the City of New Rochelle and County of

now infilled by the significant amounts of ash and slag from the former burning of waste on

Westchester conducted a Site Investigation as part of the Davids Island Environmental Restoration Project, to

Davids Island. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve provided a 50 foot buffer from the incinerator site to the developable

determine the full extent of the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contamination. It revealed the entire site had been affected by polycyclic

land footprint. Subtracting the 2.73 acres of Incinerator Zone, 49.61 acres remain available

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides and metals. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in select

for development.

areas. The potentially contaminated areas are primarily where former drums and transformers were located on the site. Groundwater samples showed no elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Subtracting the 0.28 acres of Contaminated Areas, 52.34 acres remain

In the context of an overall remediation plan for the island, it may be sensible and costeffective to move contaminants from other parts of Davids Island to the Incinerator Zone.

available for development. 30

total setback area - 17.23 acres

additional zoning regulations - 45.10 acres

The New Rochelle Zoning Code requires a 35 foot setback from the mean high-tide line

The New Rochelle Zoning Code requires a minimum of 40% of Davids Island remain open, and a

where there is a seawall, and an 80 foot setback in areas where there is no seawall. The

minimum of 25% of the site be accessible to the public. The Code also stipulates a Vegetated Buffer

above setback also includes the Con Ed easement as well as a 50 foot buffer around the

should cover a minimum of 50% of the side of Davids Island that faces the mainland or Long Island

incinerator zone. Such setbacks create a continuous waterfront yard around Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Island,

Sound. The hatched areas in the above diagram represent these specified areas. The shaded area

approximately 17.23 acres. Subtracting the 17.23 acres of required setbacks areas, 60.55 acres

represents the total land area of 45.10 acres that is available for development within the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning

remain available for development.

regulations. The shape of the 45.10 acres is arbitrary and not indicative of the actual location for site development; this would be determined by future development scenarios.

site remediation Previous development on Davids Island has led to general and acute site contamination. A former incinerator zone occupies 2.73 acres of the southeast portion of the island. The most serious hot spots of localized contamination have been removed, but metals and other contaminates remain in localized areas around drums and transformers. In 2004, Congress appropriated funds for building demolition, asbestos removal, and evaluation of PCB cleanup, and

option 1: build a building or structure over the contaminated site.

between 2005 and 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers performed these tasks. The $26 million project was completed in 2009. Cleaning Davids Island through soil remediation allows for the reuse of a previously developed and contaminated site and prevents continued degradation of the island and the Long Island Sound. The extent of future remediation depends both on the pollutants found and use intensity. The goal of remediation is to prevent exposure of contaminants to inhabitants. A variety of methods exist to remediate contaminated land. This includes building on or paving over contaminated soil, adding a thick layer of clean soil over a contaminated area, and removing polluted soil for off-site cleaning.

option 2: cap the contaminated site with soil. the depth of the cap is related to the land use. potential areas & levels of site remediation high remediation minimal remediation

Natural remediation methods, in which microbes digest harmful chemicals and break them into non-toxic components, should be used to the extent of their effectiveness, although the heavy metal contained on Davids Island likely requires other solutions. Time and cost must also be considered as part of any remediation strategy. Environmental Conservation is working on a site

site management plan

management plan for Davids Island, and final

One way to evaluate the consequences of development is to anticipate the possible levels

remediation recommendations and strategies will

of remediation per land use and density scenario. Two general categories of remediation

Currently, the New York State Department of

be determined by the experts in this department. KPF has illustrated three potential strategies that are appropriate for the contamination on Davids Island.

requirements might include high-remediation and low-remediation. Ultimately, experts on option 3: scrape and remove contaminates from the site. this requires removing the entire contaminated area from davids island.

waste hazards and environmental remediation at the DEC will determine the remediation measures required to build on Davids Island.

net zero energy, water, waste net zero energy, water, waste

new rochelle sustainable design principles Consistent with GreeNR - the New Rochelle Sustainability Plan, the Green Initiatives of the New Rochelle Municipal Marina, and the Westchester Action Plan for Climate Change and Sustainable Development, development on Davids Island should support the sustainability goals of New Rochelle. To do so, the planning of Davids Island must align with the vision of New Rochelle and address sustainability through a â&#x20AC;&#x153;triple bottom lineâ&#x20AC;? approach to environmental, social, and economic well-being.

Energy & Climate Infrastructure and buildings developed on Davids Island should utilize climate appropriate passive and active strategies to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Once the energy load is minimized, renewable energy generation should be investigated at various scales on the island.

Resource Conservation & Waste Reduction Development scenarios on Davids Island should seek to create closed loop systems for waste and water by encouraging conservation, minimizing waste, and increasing reuse, recycling. and efficient buildings. Local water collection and filtration methods, and the production of food and energy on site, will work to foster an efficient use of natural resources and materials.

Ecology, Biodiversity, & Public Health Remediation of Davids Island should provide comprehensive improvements to the soil quality and limit the toxic stormwater runoff that contaminates water supplies, impacting public health. These changes will improve the area ecosystem, provide remediated green space for public use and benefit, and reduce pollution into the Long Island Sound.

Smart Growth & Economic Prosperity

energy, water, waste

solar solar solar biomass biomass biomass geothermal geothermal geothermal wind wind recycling recycling mass transit recycling Trigernation cogeneration Trigernation graywater system led street lights graywater system rainwater catchment graywater system rainwater catchment local food production carpool/car share local food production nighttime thermal storage local food production nighttime thermal storage desiccant dehumidification nighttime thermal storage desiccant dehumidification desiccant dehumidification

electric vehicle charging station

shading shading shading curb cutscuts curb curb cuts openspaces daylighting openspaces composting daylighting bike parking daylighting composting bio-retention composting bike parking porous pavement bike parking public parks native vegetation public parks native vegetation natural ventilation native vegetation natural ventilation building orientation naturalorientation ventilation building light-colored pavement building orientation pedestrian-oriented design pedestrian-oriented design pedestrian-oriented design high albedo, porus pavement high albedo, porus pavement

generate renewable energy generate energy generate renewable renewable energy

low-energy low-energyactive active strategies strategies low-energy active strategies

passive strategies

passive strategies passive strategies

Smart Growth principles should be used to create a node of activity on Davids Island. The development should foster green job growth and attract sustainable businesses to New Rochelle.

Transportation & Mobility amenities, to limit the need for transportation infrastructure on site thereby reducing carbon dioxide

sustainable strategies for davids island

emissions while promoting health and well-being.

The sustainable strategies for the development of Davids Island have been divided into four

All forms of development on Davids Island should look to develop a walkable community with accessible

sustainable strategies for davids island sustainable strategies for davids island The sustainable strategies for the development of Davids Island have been divided into four

main focus areas: waste management, water management, pedestrian comfort, and energy. Public Participation & Awareness The transformation of Davids Island seeks to build on a previously developed site, protecting viable farmlands and agricultural areas in the process. This development can also educate residents about sustainable practices and provide an example of best practices. 36

By creating masterplan with these ideas in mind, New Rochelle have a clean, The sustainable strategies for thefour development of Davids Islandwill have been divided into four main focusa areas: passive strategies, low-energy active strategies, generating renewable green, amenity in Davidslow-energy Island. mainenergy focus efficient areas: passive strategies, active strategies, generating renewable

energy, and closed loop systems that allow for net zero energy, water and waste. By creating and closed loop systems that allow for net zero energy, water and waste. creating aenergy, masterplan with these four ideas in mind, New Rochelle will have a clean, green,By energy a masterplan with four ideas in mind, New Rochelle will have a clean, green, energy efficient amenity inthese Davids Island. efficient amenity in Davids Island.

comparison of energy used to transport one passenger one mile (btu/passenger-mile) 3,600

3,200

existing train station

2,800

2,400

2,000

1,600

bike path

1,200

800

potential ferry dock at wright island

400 potential ferry dock at neptune park

0 private automobile

electric car

bus

ferry boat

bicycle

walking

potential ferry dock

potential transit routes

new rochelle efficient transit Utilizing efficient transit within New Rochelle will help to minimize the number of

Approximate travel times between the existing train station to either of the potential ferry

automobiles, lower fossil fuel consumption, and reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions

docks are listed below for different means of transportation.

while promoting well being and health. Due to its size, transportation to, from, and on the island can be highly efficient. Traversing approximately 1 mile across the Long Island

Cars or Taxis - About 7 minutes from the train station to the potential ferry dock

Sound, a slow ferry could reach Davids Island in minutes while maintaining a low BTU per

Biking - About 11 minutes from the train station to the potential ferry dock

passenger mile.

Walking - About 33 minutes from the train station to the potential ferry dock

pedestrian priority buildings with pedestrian oriented street frontages.

mixed-use districts variety of services within a comfortable walking distance of transit.

vegetation wide sidewalks with vegetation and seating areas.

0.25 MILES 5 minute walk market community center, community farm, bus, shuttle stop, dry cleaners

1.0 MILE

0.5 MILES 10 minute walk supermarket, schools, light rail station, neighborhood park, small scale retail, restaurants

potential ferry landing

e ut

5 minute walk

20 minute walk offices, gym, cinema, restaurants, transit nodes, large retail chains

pedestrian oriented design An average person will walk approximately one-quarter mile to run daily errands and as far as a half-mile to reach health rail transit systems or more specialized shops or civic uses. More than half of Davids Island falls with in a five-minute walk of the potential ferry station.

walking distance from port

The small scale and accessibility of the island opens up the possibility of minimizing or banning vehicles or a completely pedestrian-oriented island.

Glen Island Glen Island

governors island, ny

fire island, ny

davenport neck, ny

downtown new rochelle, ny

site scale comparisons Studying scale comparisons can help evaluate appropriate scales, proportions, and

Notes: Governors Island (car-free island south of New York City); Fire Island (car-free island

densities for a site. It is suitable to draw on precedents from other areas that share similar

south of Long Island); Davenport Neck (residential development in New Rochelle, along

characteristics and potential development typologies to what might be imagined for

coast); Downtown New Rochelle

Davids Island. The above diagrams help to understand the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size, adjacency to water, development intensity, and scale.

Glen Glen IslandIsland oak bluffs, ma

city island, ny

glen island, ny

santa catalina, ca

site scale comparisons Notes: Oak Bluffs (town on Marthaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Vineyard); Glen Island (park island off coast of New Rochelle); City Island (part of Bronx, in Long Island Sound); Santa Catalina (22 miles off coast of Southern California)

density scenarios

components of plan viability

This section presents a number of possibilities for Davids Island, including open parkland, a range of residential development options, light industrial uses, and a research institute.

social

These scenarios show indicative development statistics and infrastructure and zoning requirements prompted by the intensity of the development. To further refine the analysis, KPF presents a rating system to evaluate the schemes. We

social benefits public amenities accessible open space municipal planning viability

believe the addition of a rating system is important because it brings clarity to a rather complex series of issues. The system is based on the three criteria for a sustainable development: the social, economic and environmental impacts of a project on the community, or a â&#x20AC;&#x153;triple bottom line.â&#x20AC;? The scale is composed of a numeric range, from one to five, with three being neutral impact, five being the most positive and one being the most negative. In each scenario, we present our reasoning for each rating. These scenarios are preliminary analyses of conervative development options. Further studies could reveal more integrated and involved ideas for future development, and might include creative design solutions for a sustainable plan for Davids Island. None of the following development scenarios is a design scheme or site plan; they are only diagrams, used to convey the ranges of development possibilities for Davids Island.

fiscal viability remediation costs infrastructure future impact plan longevity

land water air energy inhabitants

An actual design scheme or site plan could certainly encompass elements of several of the development options depicted.

economic 1 negative

3 neutral

environmental

5 positive

glen island park, ny

moors nature reserve, uk

shelby farms, tn

po statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2) pop/dev ac

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming persons

(1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

persons

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population %

rooms

guests -

Retail Space/ person sq ft -

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

scenario 1 - open parkland One option for Davids Island is to leave the island largely untouched, resulting in open

status quo is maintained and no further remediation strategies are taken. Designating the

parkland. The open parkland could be available for public use. Where the island is open

entirety of Davids Island as open parkland would likely preclude the opportunity for future

to the public, remediation likely would be required, and would necessitate minimal

development, but portions of the island could be so designated in the context of an overall

infrastructure development to support island visitors. Maintaining an open space on

mixed-use development plan.

Davids Island would preserve the natural environments, habitats and biodiversity in this area of Westchester County. It does not necessarily improve the environment, if the 50

economic 1 social 4 environmental 3

viability 2.67 51

EN B CA GY ER LE

PATH FERRY

ascension island

pv farm

kumasi, ghana

dock

statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2) pop/dev ac

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming persons

0.02 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

persons

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population % 0%

rooms -

guests -

Retail Space/ person sq ft -

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

scenario 2 - photovoltaic cells Developing a PV system on Davids Island is a possibility, and this scenario proposes platting Davids Island with PV cells. The calculations presented here reflect a highly efficient PV system, and developing such a system would yield a six-year payout for the investment. At the average electricity usage for New York State, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 homes could be powered, making this scheme desirable from an economic perspective. A minimum number of workers would need ti live on the island to manage the PV farm. This scenario considers that all energy generated on Davids Island would be exported to the mainland. A portion of the island could remain open for public usage. 52

economic 5 social 3 environmental 4

viability 4 53

EN B CA GY ER LE

PATH FERRY

eastern oregon

hull, massachussetts

brittany, france

dock

statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2) pop/dev ac

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming persons

persons

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population % 0%

rooms -

guests -

Retail Space/ person sq ft -

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

scenario 3 - wind turbines Davids Island is not located in an optimal windshed area. The possibility of harnessing wind energy for use on Davids Island is marginal, and a wind farm in this location would never turn a profit. Based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) rating map for 50m (164 ft) and 80m (262 ft) high turbines in southern New York, the average offshore wind speed for both a 50m and a 80m turbine is approximately 14-15 miles per hour. In addition to not being economically feasible, the turbines would obstruct views from the mainland and would have a significant impact on the environment. 54

economic 1 social 3 environmental 2

viability 2 55

PATH FERRY

chatham, virginia

marlborough, new zealand

hartford, connecticut

dock

statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2) pop/dev ac

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming persons

0.27 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

persons

240

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population % 0%

rooms

guests

Retail Space/ person sq ft -

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment Y

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion ?

Tidal Power ?

School

Causeway

scenario 4 - greenhouse Good solar exposure and a moderate climate on Davids Island provide an opportunity for commercial

Typical crops could include lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, beans, and peppers. A conservative estimate

food production via high yield hydroponic greenhouses. Traditional agriculture would require extensive

for the annual yield per greenhouse is approximately 20 pounds of produce. The site accommodates 440

remediation of the soil, but these slab-on-grade structures could prevent direct exposure to soil

greenhouses, which could yield 8,800 pounds (4.4 tons) of produce annually. Capital costs for building

contaminants while producing food for the City of New Rochelle. Local food production reduces the

greenhouses, in addition to systems for composting on or off site and distributing the food beyond

negative environmental impact of the transportation of food, known as food-miles. Greenhouse-grown

Davids Island must be considered to establish a viable model.

produce also minimizes yield variation due to weather and hydroponic systems use 1/3 less water than traditional soil based agriculture. 56

economic 1 social 4 environmental 2

viability 2.33 57

governors island

woods hole

scripps institution of oceanography

po statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2)

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming

pop/dev ac

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population

persons

rooms

0.69 238 164 485 39 74 21.1 16.3 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

336

554

165%

299

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

guests

718

Retail Space/ person sq ft

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

scenario 5 - hotel / conference & r&d

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

Y(1) Y Y Y (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households.

This scenario represents a low-density resort and research institute, with some commercial space, associated retail and restaurant space. To avoid a bridge requirement, this scenario provides housing on Davids Island for the workers at the Research Center. Some type of heavy barge pier would be required to transfer laboratory and technical equipment. There is the potential for a large future tax base, which makes it a positive option from an economic perspective. Most of the site would be a public park or nature reserve, and the research institute could bring further prestige to the City of New Rochelle. 58

economic 4 social 5 environmental 3

viability 4 59

oak bluffs, massachusetts

tybee island, georgia

stockholm, sweden

po statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2) pop/dev ac

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming persons

0.28 64 64 235 67 2.1 6.9 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

persons

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population

persons

133

41%

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

rooms -

guests -

Retail Space/ person sq ft -

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

scenario 6 - low density residential 1/2 acre lots

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

This scenario represents a low density housing option, which primarily includes large singlefamily homes (approximately 6,000 sf) on half-acre lots. Because of the low development intensity, no commercial space is provided on the island. The low density development does not maximize the tax base for the area, and because the homes are large, the site coverage on the island will be high, which is less desirable from an environmental perspective. A large public park could be provided in this option, which is positive from a social perspective. 60

economic 2 social 4 environmental 2

viability 2.67 61

provincetown, ma

houston, tx

columbus, ohio

po statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2)

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming

pop/dev ac

persons

1.03 575 418 1,032 149 157 22.8 33.7 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

685

248

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population % 36%

rooms -

guests -

Retail Space/ person sq ft 19.0

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

scenario 7 - low & medium density residential

Piped Sewage System

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

Y(1) ? Y Y (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households.

This scenario represents a low to medium density housing option, which includes single-

the development costs for the island. A more diverse population is accommodated in this

family homes (approximately 2,450 sf) on 1/4 acre lots, row houses (approximately 2,400

scenario, and a park could be provided, yielding high marks from a social perspective. It

sf), and multi-unit buildings (housing units approximately 1,250 sf). The buildings in this

will be difficult to cluster housing in this scenario, and the large site coverage yields low

scenario mostly are large, single family homes. The higher density development does yield a

environmental marks.

higher tax base, but the infrastructure requirements to support the population will increase

economic 3 social 4 environmental 2 62

viability 3 63

c au s e

w ay

peng chau island, hong kong

amsterdam, netherlands

boston, ma

po statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2)

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming

pop/dev ac

persons

1.96 1,415 435 2,812 307 980 68.2 94.5 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

persons

1,992

831

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population % 42%

rooms

guests

491

1,178

Retail Space/ person sq ft 19.2

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

scenario 8 - high density residential row houses

Piped Sewage System Y

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion Y

Tidal Power

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

This scenario represents a high-density housing with a small resort/hotel. Row houses

a tax base to cover the cost. This scenario triggers the need for a causeway or bridge, which the tax

(approximately 1,750 sf) are the primary housing typology, with some multi-unit buildings

base would not cover. Additionally, the causeway/bridge construction would require significant

(housing units approximately 1,250 sf). Because of the ability to cluster housing and

coordination with local, county, and state governments.

development, as well as the provision of park space and other public amenities, it ranks high from a social perspective. The higher density development requires a large amount of infrastructure investment; however, the population density is not high enough to yield 64

economic 1 social 5 environmental 2

viability 2.67 65

c au s e

w ay

london, england

vancouver, canada

trump place, ny

po statistics

Net FAR FAR

Single Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Units Units Units units

units

Housing Residential Density Population DU/DUA

persons

Population Density (2) pop/dev ac

School Age Children Employees - Employees (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming persons

3.17 2,511 384 4,579 357 2,127 174.0 158.6 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

persons

Peak Tourist Jobs/ Residents Hotel Rooms Population

persons

3,610

1,622

45%

Large Ferry/Barge Facility

Island Shuttle Service

rooms

491

guests

1,178

Retail Space/ person sq ft

21.5

triggers Community Septic/Other Treatment

scenario 9 - high density residential multi unit housing

Piped Sewage System Y

District Industrial Energy Anaerobic Plant Digestion Y

Tidal Power ?

School

Causeway

Onshore Pkg/ Car Limit

This scenario represents a high density housing option, including a mix of single family housing (approximately 1,850 sf), row houses (approximately 1,450 sf), and multi-unit buildings (housing or bridge, which the tax base in this option would not be able to cover. The causeway/bridge construction would require significant coordination with local, county, and state governments. This scenario creates a town on the island, which has significant social and environmental impacts for the island, and could direct investment away from Downtown New Rochelle. 66

economic 1 social 2 environmental 1

viability 1.33 67

35 00 ft .

brooklyn bridge

750

f t.

city island road

400 t. 0 f

bronx whitestone bridge

davids island

4760

f t.

george washington bridge

bridge scale comparisons Davids Island is located approximately 3,700 feet from the coast of New Rochelle. Some

Currently, water-based transportation is the only means by which one can reach Davids

development scenarios for Davids Island would necessitate the need for a causeway or

Island. The waterway is a navigable area, and therefore any bridge that would be built from

bridge to connect Davids Island to the mainland. Constructing such a bridge would require

the mainland to Davids Island would have to be constructed to allow for boat clearance.

a significant investment in local infrastructure, and the costs and benefits of constructing such a project would need to be evaluated further.

bridge construction - initial cost estimates davids island bridge, preliminary cost breakdown assuming 3,000 LF at 45' in width, approx two lanes, equal to 135,000 gsf type

$ per sf

deck

175

fdn

rail

mep reloc & coord

lighting & other

Subtotal

direct / trade costs steel framing, deck, concrete, wp, concrete earing surface $1,000/lf at two sides, or $2,000 per lf, converted to sf robert moses causeway bridge

$ 374

xanadu proposed bridge

50,490,000

allow add for approaches, assume equal to cost of bridge 50,490,000

approaches total estimated bridge and approaches, trade costs project logistics @ 12%

100,980,000 12,117,600

new subtotal project general conditions @ 20%

113,097,600 22,619,520

new subtotal contractor profit and fee @ 7.5%

135,717,120 10,178,784 145,895,904

estimated total hard costs soft costs, design fees @ 20%

29,179,181

other fees and permits @ 5%

7,294,795 36,473,976

estimated total soft costs

south padre island, tx

182,369,880

hard and soft costs

18,236,988

design and construction contingency @ 10% estimated bridge total

causeway, florida

200,606,868

sbi consultants, estimated bridge construction costs

Certain development scenarios will trigger the need for vehicular access to Davids Island which would require additional design information including geotechnical and environmental studies. Assuming a two-lane, 3,000 foot long bridge, SBI Consultants provided the above order of magnitude cost estimate in the amount of $200,606,868 which includes hard and soft costs for the bridge and approaches, as well as contingency. Since it is a preliminary, order of magnitude estimate, SBI will revisit the assumptions stated after the issuance of the geotechnical and environmental studies. 70

mud island, tennessee

rickenback causeway, miami, fl 71

executive summary matrix Infrastructure triggers and zoning requirements

   

 

 



                  

 



          

   

            

  

  

 

 



  

 

 





     

  

   

 



     

  

  

 



            

 



           

 



           



 



    



   

   



















      

  

                   

       

       

        

   

               

   

    

     

 

  



legend







   

       

 

     

 

  



   



     

 



  

 

   

 





 

 









scenario viability

next steps in planning process

Comparisons  









PRE-PLANNING

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION INITIAL OUTREACH

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH PUBLIC CHARETTES

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC OUTREACH FACILITATED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENT PUBLIC OUTREACH DEIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS

PLAN DEVELOPEMNT PUBLIC OUTREACH EIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS

PRELIMINARY STUDY



























VISION/GOALS/OBJECTIVES

regulatory review, discussions, address contraints site analysis, economic study

sustainability framework, performance criteria



















































masterplanning study of alternatives

funding, facilities, benefit, fiscal studies

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

preferred other alternative studies, development fiscal impact, financing plan development (1) RFEI/RFP preparation



• Economic impacts concern the fiscal consequences of the requisite development solution on the City’s tax base, on the City’s employment development prospects, and with respect to the City’s economic development goals; costly infrastructure requirements for a given scenario may lead to a relatively unfavorable assessment in this category • Social impacts refer to the consequences of the each development scenario on the perceived quality of life and aesthetics, including the quality and availability of open space; disruptive visual elements may lead to a relatively unfavorable assessment in this category, while quality park and open space may lead to a relatively favorable assessment • Environmental impacts concern the strength of the scenario’s habitat conservation measures and the size of the project’s footprint in terms of energy, water, waste and carbon emissions As previously discussed, each variable is assessed on a 5 point scale, where 1 is the most negative and 5 is the most positive, and where 3 represents the status quo in terms of the net effect of the scenario’s impacts. Each scenario is evaluated for each the three variables and an aggregate “viability” score derived by taking an average of the three scores is cited.

PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT

developer selection process/ proposal preparation FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT

DEIS process



KPF’s survey of preliminary concepts for David’s Island takes into account the triple bottom line impact of each scenario profiled: economic, social and environmental. Each of these three variables are evaluated for the project impacts qualitatively and quantitatively:

ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION

(2) final plan development and presentation (3) EIS process

(1) Developer request for expressions of interest, developer request for proposals (2) NYS draft environmental impact assessment (3) NYS environment impact assessment

These “viability” scores reflect only KPF’s preliminary assessment of the three impacts taken into account. They do not constitute a recommendation for one scenario over another, and they do not take into account other considerations that will be of overriding importance to stakeholders, the City and the public. These other considerations might include variables such as considerations of political process, public values and preferences, regulatory compliance, civic values, and others. The variables not taken into account may, in fact, have greater determinative value than the triple bottom line variables given consideration in this report. This study may be followed by a more comprehensive and integrated planning process for the island, that will identify and then incorporate all of the variables deemed relevant by the City of New Rochelle and its residents and other stakeholders. Generally speaking, KPF would expect that the City will, with public and stakeholder input, wish to identify a smaller number of scenarios as alternatives for further investigation. These alternatives may be designed and visualized architecturally, at a schematic level, and their infrastructure and planning requirements defined in sufficient detail, to allow for an informed public process. Once a preferred alternative is selected or, at least, identified and indicated, the more procedural environmental impact process may be used to further test viability and suitability. Simultaneously, the City may wish to begin the process for soliciting and receiving feedback and proposals from private sector developers. This planning process is graphically illustrated above. A rigorous and broad-based public planning and feedback process will provide the City’s leaders with the guidance they need to select the solution for David’s Island that is most appropriate for New Rochelle. 75

appendix

new rochelle zoning codes

Article IX: Dimensional and Other Requirements (331-68 Planned Waterfront Development – 8 story district) – Davids Island discussed in this section A. Design and development criteria. -

The maximum building height allowed is eight stories.

The maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR) for water-dependent permitted uses

- Building Roofs. shall be designed to minimize the visibility of roof structures,

mechanical equipment and other structures normally built above the roof. Not part of 40% open space requirement.

Setbacks, corner treatments, and other design details shall be used to minimize the sense

of bulk of structures. Facade treatment, building materials, and ornamental elements shall be used as appropriate to enhance and restore Fort Slocum’s historical waterfront context,

shall not exceed 1.0. For one-family, two-family, and multifamily residential use, including

complementing the character and scale of mainland buildings which commonly use red

independent living senior developments, the FAR shall not exceed 0.75 and the density limit

brick, stucco and concrete materials, have a maximum building height of eight stories, and

shall not exceed 22 dwelling units per acre. For all other water-dependent special permit

provide variety in building heights and widths.

nonresidential uses, the FAR shall not exceed 0.40. FAR shall be calculated separately for each use and shall not be cumulative for mixed-use projects. -

Open Space, both accessible and non-accessible to public shall be no less that 40% of DI

total upland area. No less than 25% of w total upland area shall be accessible to the public -

Vegetated Buffers. As viewed from the mainland or Long Island Sound, David’s Island

shall provide the appearance of a horizontal hedge of vegetation and tree canopy which, between ground level and 30 feet above ground level, appears no less than 50% solid, so as to preserve the appearance of a heavily vegetated island and to reduce the vertical scale of buildings facing the mainland or Long Island Sound. -

Setbacks. All buildings and structures, except those needed for a water-dependent use,

shall be set back from the mean high-tide line a minimum of 35 feet where there is a seawall, or 80 feet where there is no seawall, unless a greater setback is needed to provide the previously mentioned horizontal hedge of vegetation and tree canopy. Structures permitted within a waterfront yard area shall be durable, non-obtrusive, harmonious, and unified in terms of color and materials, including exterior lighting, walkways, fences, benches, signs, piers, and docks. -

Traffic Implications. shall not result in mainland intersection traffic capacity below level

Architectural Style. Future buildings shall reflect period styles and architectural details of

existing National Register eligible buildings -

Buildings and spaces shall direct views and pedestrian movements towards the water

Any proposed marina should be located on the western edge of the Island because of

the proximity to the existing navigational channels, the lack of underwater shoals, and the protection afforded from prevailing storms -

Transportation to the Mainland. Waterborne public transportation is the preferred

means of providing access to David’s Island. Access shall be provided by bridge only where the project proponent demonstrates, by competent financial evidence, that the proponent cannot realize a reasonable return by utilizing any other means of access to the Island. -

Mainland Access Roads may be at following locations: Glen Island Access Road, Fort

Slocum Road, Drake Avenue, Pelham Road, Weyman Avenue and Drake Avenue Article IV: General District Regulations [10-20-2009 by Ord. No. 199-2009 -

No building or structure or parking lot or parking space shall be constructed within 75

feet of the boundary of any tidal or freshwater wetland, other than boardwalks, shoreline promenades, bulkheads, piers, docks, marinas, boat ramps and boat-launching facilities, etc.

of service “c” (level of service “c” is a delay at signalized intersections of less than 20 seconds and no more than 35 seconds per vehicle).

task force interim report february 2011

David's Island David's Island land use Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion

DRAFT - For Discussion Land-use

Land-use

Gross Roads/ Infrastruc-Developable AreaOSR ture

Roads/ SingleFamilyInfrastrucTotal Residential Row ture Houses

SingleCommunity Community Family Mixed-use Retail/ Multi-Unit Retail/ Industrial/ Industrial/ Facilities/ Mixed-use Facilities/ Multi-Unit OSR Residential Residential Residential Row Houses ServicesResidential SchoolResidential Club/Marina Services School Commercial Club/Marina Utilities Commercial Resort/Hotel Resort/Hotel

Gross Developable Area

Total

acres

acres %

% %

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Scenario45.10 1 - Open Parkland 100%

45.10100%

100% 0%

0%0%

100% 0%

0%0%

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario45.10 2 - PV Cells

100%

10%

45.10 0%

100% 0%

10%0%

0%0%

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Scenario45.10 3 - Wind Turbines 100%

10%

45.10 0%

100% 0%

10%0%

0%0%

Scenario 4 - Green House

Scenario45.10 4 - Green House 100%

10%

45.10 0%

100% 0%

10%0%

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

Scenario45.10 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 24% 100%

45.10 10%

100%10%

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

Scenario45.10 6 - Low Density Detached 100%

18%

45.10 6%

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

Scenario45.10 7 - Low & Medium 100%Density

22%

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

Scenario45.10 8 - High Density Rows 100%

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit David's Scenario45.10 9 - High Density Multi-unit 100% David's Island Island

0%0%

0% 0%

0%0%

0% 0%

0%0%

0% 0%

0%0%

0% 0%

24%11%

10% 4%

10%0%

11%0%

4% 2%

0% 3%

100%68%

18%0%

6%0%

68%0%

0%0%

0% 3%

45.10 10%

100%41%

22%10%

10% 5%

41%0%

10% 2%

5% 2%

24%

45.10 10%

100% 0%

24%31%

10%10%

0% 5%

31%0%

26%

45.10 10%

100% 5%

26%14%

10% 8%

5% 5%

14%0%

Utilities

0% 0%

0% 90%

90%

0% 90%

90%

0% 80%

0% 10%

80%

10%

16%

15%

3% 5%

16%

15%

3% 5%

0% 3%

3% 5%

10% 2%

5% 3%

0% 10%

3% 5%

10%

8%14%

5% 3%

0% 10%

14%

3% 5%

10%

SingleRoads/ SingleCommunity Community Net InfrastrucMixed-use Retail/ Multi-Unit Retail/ Industrial/ Industrial/ Family Family Facilities/ Mixed-use Facilities/ Multi-Unit Open SpaceDevelopable Residential Row ture Houses Open Residential Space Residential Residential Row Houses ServicesResidential SchoolResidential Club/Marina Services Commercial Club/Marina Utilities Total Resort/Hotel School Resort/Hotel Commercial

Utilities

Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion

DRAFT - For Discussion Net Total Developable acres

Roads/ Infrastructure

acres

acres acres

45.145.1

- -

acres acres -

acres acres

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Scenario 145.1 - Open Parkland -

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario 245.1 - PV Cells

40.6

4.5

45.1 -

40.6-

4.5 -

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Scenario 345.1 - Wind Turbines 40.6

4.5

45.1 -

40.6-

4.5 -

Scenario 4 - Green House

Scenario 445.1 - Green House 40.6

4.5

45.1 -

40.6-

4.5 -

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

Scenario 545.1 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 29.8 10.8

45.14.5

29.8 4.5

10.8 5.0

4.5 1.8

4.5 -

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

Scenario 645.1 - Low Density34.3 Detached

8.1

45.12.7

34.330.7

8.1 -

2.7 -

30.7 -

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

Scenario 745.1 - Low & Medium 30.7Density

9.9

45.14.5

30.718.5

9.9 4.5

4.5 2.3

18.5 -

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

Scenario 845.1 - High Density 29.8 Rows

10.8

45.14.5

29.8-

10.814.0

4.5 4.5

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

Scenario 945.1 - High Density 28.9 Multi-unit

11.7

45.14.5

28.9 2.3

11.76.3

4.5 3.6

45.1 -

acres acres

acresacres

acres

40.6

36.1

4.5

36.1

4.5

1.8 0.9

1.4

7.2

0.9

6.8

1.4 2.3

7.2

6.8

2.3

1.4

1.4 2.3

2.3

1.4

0.9

1.4 2.3

2.3

5.0 -

4.5 0.9

2.3 0.9

2.3

14.0 -

4.5 0.9

2.3 1.4

4.5

0.9

1.4 2.3

4.5

2.3

2.32.3

6.3 -

3.6 6.3

2.3 1.4

4.5

6.3

1.4 2.3

4.5

2.3

ARUP 82

David's Island

Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion far

DRAFT - For Discussion FAR

FAR

Net FAR

Gross FAR

FAR

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Scenario 1 --Open Parkland -

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario0.02 2 - PV Cells

SingleSingleCommunity Community Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Family Mixed-use Family Retail/ Multi-Unit Retail/ Industrial/ Industrial/ Residential Residential Multi-Unit Facilities/ Mixed-use Facilities/ Retail Gross Residential Row Houses Residential Retail Residential Residential Row Houses ServicesResidential SchoolResidential Club/Marina Services School Commercial Club/Marina Utilities Commercial Net FAR FAR Resort/Hotel Resort/Hotel FARFAR - -

0.02

Scenario0.02 3 - Wind Turbines arup information 0.02

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

FARFAR

FAR

FARFAR

FAR FAR

FAR

FAR FAR

- -

0.02 -

- -

0.02 -

- -

0.50 -

0.75-

1.001.00

0.50

1.00

1.00 0.50

Scenario 4 - Green House

Scenario 0.27 4 - Green House 0.24

0.27-

0.24 -

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

Scenario0.69 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 0.46

0.69 -

0.50 0.46

0.75

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

Scenario 0.28 6 - Low Density0.22 Detached

0.28-

0.220.29

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

Scenario 71.03 - Low & Medium 0.70Density

1.03-

0.701.00

1.10

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

Scenario 1.96 8 - High Density1.30 Rows

1.960.55

1.301.00

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

Scenario 93.17 - High Density Multi-unit 2.03

3.171.00

2.031.00

David's Island program

FARFAR

- 1.00 -

FAR

Utilities

FAR

0.02

0.30

0.02

0.50 0.25

1.00

0.50

0.25

0.20 0.25

0.25

1.50

1.00 0.25

0.25

0.30

0.29-

- -

0.20

- 2.00

1.00-

1.100.50

2.001.50

1.00

1.25

4.00 0.55

1.004.50

1.25-

4.002.00

4.50 1.00

2.00

1.00 0.25

2.00

0.25

1.75

8.00 1.00

1.00 10.00

1.75-

8.002.50

10.00 1.00

2.00

2.50

1.00 0.25

2.00

0.25

0.50

David's Island

Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios

DRAFT - For Discussion

DRAFT - For Discussion Program

Total

Program

Total Residential

arup information sq ft sq ft Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Scenario 1 - -Open Parkland -

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario35,362 2 - PV Cells

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Scenario35,362 3 - Wind Turbines -

Scenario 4 - Green House

Scenario 475,423 4 - Green House-

Total NonResidential sq ft

SingleTotal SingleCommunity Community Mixed-use Mixed-use Total Family Mixed-use Family Retail/Multi-Unit Retail/ Resort/ Industrial/ Residential Non- Residential Facilities/ Mixed-use Facilities/ Multi-Unit Total RetailResidential ResidentialResidential Row Houses Residential Retail Residential Residential Row Houses ServicesResidential SchoolResidential Club/Marina Services Hotel School Commercial Club/Marina Utilities sq ft sq ft

sq ft sq ft

sq ftsq ft

sq ft sq ft

35,362

35,362 -

35,362

35,362 -

475,423

475,423 -

- 471,493

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 893,873 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 554,987 338,886

893,873 -

98,228 338,886

554,987 162,076

78,582 -

98,228 -

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

Scenario 423,755 6 - Low Density Detached 36,344 387,410

423,755 -

387,410 387,410

36,344 -

387,410 -

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

Scenario 1,380,101 7 - Low & Medium 1,218,025Density 162,076

1,380,101 -

805,468 1,218,025

162,076 216,101

196,456 -

805,468 -

216,101 19,646

196,456 58,937

-58,937

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

Scenario 2,544,100 8 - High Density Rows 1,935,088

1,935,088 -

609,012 761,265

54,025 785,822

388,000 -

761,265 -

785,822 78,582

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

Scenario 3,983,137 9 - High Density Multi-unit 1,262,227 2,720,910

98,228 2,720,910

1,262,227 481,316

98,228 1,257,316

98,228 884,050

481,316 -

1,257,316 687,595

sq ft sq ft

609,012 2,544,100 54,025 3,983,137 98,228

162,076 -

sq ft

sq ft -

- 35,362

35,362

- 35,362

35,362

- 3,929

471,493

3,929

314,329

147,342

24,557

29,468 -

- 314,329 39,291147,342 29,46824,557

- 11,787

11,78724,557

24,557

58,937

58,93724,557

24,557

388,000 58,937

- 392,911 78,582

58,93724,557

392,911

24,557

884,050 58,937

- 392,911 687,595

58,93724,557

392,911

24,557

19,646

sq ft

Utilities

78,582 39,291 -

Resort/ Industrial/ Hotel Commercial

ARUP 84

David's Island

Land-use Program Scenarios

DRAFT - For Discussion

statistics

Statistics

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Net FAR

Housing Units

Single Family Hsg Units

FAR

units

Single Peak Multi-Unit HousingHousing Residential Population Employees Residential - Employees Population Jobs/ Employees Retail - Space/ Jobs/ Family Hsg Multi-Unit School AgeHousing School Age Employees - Tourist Units Net FAR Density Population Units Units Density (2) Children Units (2) Density Outgoing Population (2) Incoming Density Residents (2) Children Hotel Rooms Population (2) Incoming person Residents (2) Outgoing

-Scenario 1 - Open - Parkland 0.02 Scenario 2 - PV- Cells

DU/DUA FAR -

sq ft

persons units -

pop/dev ac units -

persons DU/DUA persons persons persons units pop/dev ac -

%persons rooms persons guests persons -

240

718 554

0.02

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

0.02 Scenario 3 - Wind - Turbines -

0.02

Scenario 4 - Green House

0.27 Scenario 4 - Green House

0.27

0.69

21.1

238 485

164

21.1 336

16.3

165%

299

336

6.9

133

235

6.9

41%

133

418

33.7

157 149

22.8 685

1,032

248

33.7

36%

149

685

2,812

831

94.5

42%

307

491 1,992

1,178

4,579 1,622

158.6

45%

357

491 3,610

arup information

units

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

0.69 Scenario 5 - R&D 238 & Hotel/Conference 164

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

0.28 Scenario 6 - Low 64 Density Detached 64

0.28

2.1

64 235

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

1.03 Scenario 7 - Low 575 & Medium418 Density

157

1.03 22.8

575 1,032

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

1.96 Scenario 8 -1,415 High Density Rows 435

980

1.96 68.2

1,415 2,812

435 94.5

980 307

68.2 1,992

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

3.17 Scenario 9 -2,511 High Density Multi-unit 384

2,127

3.17 174.0

2,511 4,579

384 158.6

2,127 357

174.0 3,610

Hotel Rooms

Peak Tourist Retail Space/ Population person

16.3

74 -

2.1

485 554

rooms

guests

sq ft

165%

299

718

41%

248

19.0

36%

19.0

831

19.2

42%

491

1,178

19.2

1,178 1,622

21.5

45%

491

1,178

21.5

(1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdgby type). (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for (3) every students) Per100 NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)

ARUP 86

David's Island

DRAFT - For Discussion

Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios employment space/employee Employment Space/Employee

Employment Space/Employee

Retail/ Services

Community Facilities/ School

Club/ Marina

sq ft/emp

Retail/ Resort/ Industrial/ Services Hotel Commercial emp/rm

ft/emp sqsq ft/emp

Community Facilities/ School Utility

Municipal Club/ Marina Services

Resort/ Resort/ Industrial/ Resort/ Hotel Hotel Commercial Hotel

ft/emp sqsq ft/emp

% resi. pop. sq ft/emp

sq ft/rm avg occup.% emp/rm sq ft/emp

Resort/ Utility Hotel

Municipal Services

guests/rm sq ft/emp % resi. pop.

Resort/ Hotel

sq ft/rm avg occup.%

guests/rm

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

1 - Open Parkland 750 Scenario 1,000 900

0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

2 - PV Cells 750 Scenario 1,000

900

0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

3 - Wind Turbines 750 Scenario 1,000 900

0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 4 - Green House

4 - Green House 750 Scenario 1,000 900

0.80

2,000 750

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

2,000 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 750 Scenario 1,000 900 0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 1,050

800 80%

1,100 2.40

1,050

80%

2.40

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

6 - Low Density Detached 0.80 750 Scenario 1,000 900

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

7 - Low & Medium 750 Scenario 1,000 900 Density 0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

8 - High Density 750 Scenario 1,000 900Rows

0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

9 - High Density 750 Scenario 1,000 900Multi-unit0.80

750 800

1,000 1,100

9007%

0.80 800

800 80%

1,100 2.40

800

80%

2.40

Utility

Municipal Services

Total Workers

Resort/ Hotel

sqworkers ft/emp workers sq workers ft/emp workers % resi. pop. workers sqworkers ft/rm avg occup.% guests/rm workers rooms workers peak pop. workers workers

workers

rooms

peak pop.

David's Island

Land-use Program Scenarios employment statistics DRAFT - For Discussion

Employment Space/Employee Employment Statistics

Employment Statistics

Retail/ Retail/ Services Services

Community Community Facilities/ Facilities/ School School

Club/ Club/ Marina Marina

sq ft/emp workers

sqworkers ft/emp

Community Resort/ Municipal Resort/ Resort/ Resort/ Resort/ Industrial/ Retail/ Club/ Resort/ Resort/ Facilities/ Municipal Total Resort/ Hotel Utility Services Hotel Hotel Hotel Hotel Commercial Industrial Services Utility School Workers Hotel Hotel Industrial Hotel Services Marina emp/rm workers

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

- 750

1,000 -

900 -

0.80 -

800 -

1,100 -

7% -

- 800

- 80%

- 2.40

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

- 750

1,000 -

900 -

0.80 -

800 -

1,10033

7% -

- 80033

- 80% -

- 2.40 -

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

- 750

1,000 -

900 -

0.80 -

800 -

1,10033

7% -

- 80033

- 80% -

- 2.40 -

Scenario 4 - Green House

- 750

1,000 -

900 -

0.80 -

2,000 236

1,100 4

7% -

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

- 750

1,000 40

900 33

0.80 239

800 185

1,10023

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

- 750

1,000 -

900 14

0.80 -

800 -

1,10023

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

750 27

1,000 59

900 66

0.80 -

800 -

27 1,10023

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

750 73

1,000 79

900 66

0.80 393

800 -

73 1,10023

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

750 131

1,000 688

900 66

0.80 393

800 -

131 1,10023

- 800 240

- 80% -

2362.40 -

240

40 7% 34

1,050 33 554

23980% 299

1852.40 718

554

299

718

7%17

1480054

- 80% -

- 2.40 -

59 7%73

66800 248

- 80% -

- 2.40 -

248

79 7% 197

66800 831

39380% 491

- 2.40 1,178

197

831

491

1,178

688 7% 321

66800 1,622

39380% 491

- 2.40 1,178

321

1,622

491

1,178

ARUP 88

David's Island

units Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion Units SingleFamily Residential Row Houses units

units

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

units

Residential Population SingleFamily Total Residential Row Houses units

School Age Children

Workers in Residence

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

Total

Single-Family Residential

Row Houses

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

Total

Single-Family Residential Row Houses

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

Total

persons

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Scenario 4 - Green House

238

122

232

485

336

235

157

575

777

255

1,032

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

328

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

111 90

131

435

628

352

1,415

970

1,181

662

2,812

331

1,197

930

2,511

122

692

2,119

1,646

4,579

16 58

150

107

133

149

512

174

685

639

867

486

1,992

447

1,736

1,349

3,610

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

emp/unit

170

307

168

130

357

David's Island

units - sizes Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion SingleFamily Residential Row Houses units Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

units -

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

units

SingleFamily Residential Row Houses pop/unit -

pop/unit -

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

Single-Family Residential

Row Houses

Multi-Unit Residential

Mixed-use Residential

pop/unit

pupil/unit

Single-Family Residential Row Houses emp/unit

emp/unit

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Scenario 4 - Green House

1,850

1,450

1,050

950

2.31

1.77

0.25

0.14

1.49

1.35

1.45

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

2.09

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

6,000

3.67

1.05

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

2,450

2,400

1,250

2.37

2.83

0.28

2.23

1.88

2.31

2.09

1.77

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

1,750

1,250

1,100

1,850

1,450

1,050

950

2.08

0.64

1.56

1.93

0.39

0.14

1.47

1.38

0.25

0.14

1.49

1.35

1.45

ARUP 90

David's Island

Land-use Program Scenarios

DRAFT - For Discussion

infrastructure

Infrastruct

Roof Area for PVs (overlapping PV Coverage w/ Roof Area % greenroofs) sq ft Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 2 - PV Cells

sq ft

sq ftsq ft

Scenario 1 - 50% Open Parkland -

50% 0%

0% -

8,118

50% 0%

4,059

8,118

50% 0%

4,059

0% 108,240

60% 0%

60% 100,799 60,479

80% 40%

8,118 Scenario 2 -50% PV Cells

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Roof Area Roof Area Roof Area for Roof Roof Area for PVsArea for Greenroofs Dual for Dual Dual (overlapping Greenroofs for Dual PV Coverage Greenroof (overlapping Area &Greenroof (overlapping Greenroof 80m&Wind Greenroof & Roofw/ Roof Area & Coverage %Roof Area w/ PVs) PV Roof %Area greenroofs) Greenroofs Coverage PV Farm %Area Total w/ PVs) PV Area PV Roof Area Turbines Greenroofs PV Farm Area Total PV Area

4,059

8,118 Scenario 3 -50% Wind Turbines 4,059

Scenario 4 - Green House

108,240 Scenario 4 -60% Green House 64,944

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

100,799 Scenario 5 -80% R&D & Hotel/Conference 80,639

sq ftsq ft

%acres

sq ftsq ft

%units

sq ft

acres

sq ft

80m Wind Turbines units

0% -

0%40.6

888,109

0% -

40.6

888,109

0% 2.7

62,865

0% 10

2.7

62,865

64,944 38,966

0% 2.7

182,556

0% -

38,966

2.7

182,556

80,639 100,799

60% 2.7

60,479 198,251

40% -

100,799

2.7

198,251

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

69,680 Scenario 6 -75% Low Density52,260 Detached

60%

69,680 41,808

75% 50%

52,260 64,279

60% 2.7

41,808 169,872

50% -

64,279

2.7

169,872

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

146,801 Scenario 7 -60% Low & Medium 88,080 Density

55%

146,801 80,740

60% 45%

88,080 97,255

55% 2.7

80,740 205,692

45% -

97,255

2.7

205,692

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

141,840 Scenario 8 -60% High Density 85,104 Rows

65%

141,840 92,196

60% 50%

85,104 110,989

65% 2.7

92,196 202,716

50% -

110,989

2.7

202,716

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

134,398 Scenario 9 -60% High Density 80,639 Multi-unit

65%

134,398 87,359

60% 50%

80,639 105,166

65% 2.7

87,359 198,251

50% -

105,166

2.7

198,251

David's Island Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion

Coverage

parcel coverage

Employment Space/Employee Community Retail/ Facilities/ Single-Family Services School Residential Row Houses sq ft/emp%

sq ft/emp%

Community Community Club/ Resort/ Industrial/ Municipal Resort/ Resort/ Resort/ Single-Family Standalone Standalone Facilities/ Facilities/ Industrial/ Industrial/ Marina Hotel Commercial Utility Services Hotel Hotel Hotel Multi-Unit Retail Residential Row Houses Multi-Unit Commercial Retail Utilities School Club/Marina Resort/Hotel Commercial School Club/Marina Resort/Hotel sq ft/emp%

emp/rm%

sq ft/emp %

% ft/emp % % % sq resi. pop. %

% % sq ft/rm % avg % occup.% % guests/rm

Utilities %

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

750

1,000

900

0.80

800

1,100

800

80% 2%

2.40

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

750

1,000

900

0.80

800

1,100

800

80% 2%

2.40

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

750 0% 750

1,000 0% 1,000

900 0% 900

0.80 0% 0.80

800

80% 2%

2.40

40% 750 20% 750

55% 1,000

40% 900

0.80

Scenario 4 - Green House Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

50% 750 50% 750

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

50% 750

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

1,000 55% 1,000

900 40% 900

55% 1,000 55% 1,000

45% 900 45% 900

1,100 0% 0% 2,000 1,100 0% 0% 50% 40% 1,10050% 55% 800

0.80

20% 1,10020% 800 40% 50% 1,10050% 55% 800 45% 50% 1,10050% 55% 800

0.80

50% 50% 1,10050% 55% 800

0.80 50% 0.80

800 0% 0% 7% 80030% 0% 20%40% 1,05025% 7% 800-

30%

80%25% 50% 2.40

50%

20%

25%

80%25%

2.40

20%

25%

80%25% 40% 2.40

50%

25%

40%

800-

40% 45% 7% 40% 45% 7%

800-

80%25% 45% 2.40

50%

40%

25%

800-

80%25% 50% 2.40

50%

40%

25%

50%

80%0% 0% 2.40

ARUP 92

electricity demand with efficiency improvements

electricity demand

Electricity Demand - mWh/yr, after efficiency improvements

Electricity Demand - mWh/yr Commercial/ Industrial Institutional

Residential

Residential Multi

Residential

mWh/yr

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

Scenario 4 - Green House

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

1,372

Hotel

Total

mWh/yr

191

849

870

2,109

504

344

1,716

4,558

10,602

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

1,339

196

2,874

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

3,497

729

4,226

281

769

9,503

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

3,033

4,551

7,584

773

875

5,697

22,514

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

2,677

9,878

12,555

1,406

4,164

5,697

36,377

pvs

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland

Commercial/ Industrial Institutional

Residential

Residential Multi

Residential

mWh/yr

Hotel

Total

mWh/yr

Scenario 2 - PV Cells

152

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

152

Scenario 4 - Green House

594

611

1,621

401

Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference

960

241

Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached

870

1,201 870

156

3,615 -

8,039 1,896

Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density

2,448

510

2,958

216

612

6,745

Scenario 8 - High Density Rows

2,275

3,186

5,460

594

697

4,518

16,730

Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit

2,008

6,914

8,922

1,081

3,316

4,518

26,759

pvs with efficiency improvements PV, after efficiency improvements PV, after efficiency improvements

Total PV Area

Elect from Energy/ PV % Elect from % (Deficit)/ Energy/ PV PV Elec from SurplusPV PVPV Total PVArea Area Elec fromArea

1 - Open Parkland ario 1 - OpenScenario Parkland

ario 2 - PV Cells Scenario 2 - PV Cells

sq ft kWh/sq ft/yr sq ft kWh/sq ft/yr mWh/yr

mWh/yr %

10.9

0% -

-10.9

mWh/yr % - 0%

(Deficit)/ Surplus

Total PV Area

sq ft kWh/sq ft/yr sq ft kWh/sq ft/yr mWh/yr

mWh/yr -

888,109

888,109 10.9

9,658 10.9

5058% 9,658

9,467 5058%

9,467

ario 3 - Wind Scenario Turbines 3 - Wind Turbines

62,865

62,865 10.9

684 10.9

358% 684

493 358%

493

ario 4 - Green Scenario House 4 - Green House

182,556

182,556 10.9

1,985 10.9

228% 1,985

1,115 228%

1,115

ario 5 - R&DScenario & Hotel/Conference 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 198,251

198,251 10.9

2,156 10.9

20% 2,156

(8,446) 20%

(8,446)

ario 6 - LowScenario Density Detached 6 - Low Density Detached 169,872

169,872 10.9

1,847 10.9

64% 1,847

(1,026) 64%

(1,026)

ario 7 - LowScenario & Medium 7 -Density Low & Medium Density 205,692

205,692 10.9

2,237 10.9

24% 2,237

(7,266) 24%

(7,266)

ario 8 - High Scenario Density 8Rows - High Density Rows 202,716

202,716 10.9

2,205 10.9

2,205 10%

(20,309) 10%

(20,309)

ario 9 - High Scenario Density 9Multi-unit - High Density Multi-unit 198,251

198,251 10.9

2,156 10.9

2,156 6%

(34,221)6%

(34,221)

from (Deficit)/ Energy/ PV % Elect from % Elect Energy/ PV Area PV Elec fromPVPV SurplusPV Total PV Area Area Elec from

Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 2 - PV Cells Scenario 2 - PV Cells

888,109

mWh/yr %

10.9

-10.9

888,109 10.9

9,658 10.9

6352% 9,658

0% -

mWh/yr% - 0% 9,506 6352%

(Deficit)/ Surplus mWh/yr 9,506

Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines

62,865

62,865 10.9

10.9 684

684 450%

450% 532

532

Scenario Scenario 4 - Green House4 - Green House

182,556

182,556 10.9

10.9 1,985

1,985 325%

325% 1,374

1,374

5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 5 - R&DScenario & Hotel/Conference 198,251

198,251 10.9

10.9 2,156

2,156 27%

27% (5,883)

(5,883)

- Low Density Detached Scenario 6 - LowScenario Density 6Detached 169,872

169,872 10.9

10.9 1,847

1,847 97%

97% (49)

(49)

7 -Density Low & Medium Density Scenario 7 - LowScenario & Medium 205,692

205,692 10.9

2,237 10.9

2,237 33%

(4,508) 33%

(4,508)

Scenario 8 - High Scenario Density8Rows - High Density Rows202,716

202,716 10.9

2,205 10.9

2,205 13%

(14,526) 13%

(14,526)

Scenario 9 - High Scenario Density9Multi-unit - High Density Multi-unit 198,251

198,251 10.9

2,156 10.9

2,156 8%

(24,603) 8%

(24,603)

ARUP 94

PRE-PLANNING PRE-PLANNINGSCENARIO SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION INITIALINITIAL OUTREACH OUTREACH

ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PREFERRED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED FACILITATED STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH OUTREACH PUBLICPUBLIC CHARETTES CHARETTES

PUBLICPUBLIC OUTREACH OUTREACH FACILITATED FACILITATED STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH OUTREACH

PREFERRED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENT REFINEMENT PLAN PLAN DEVELOPEMNT DEVELOPEMNT PUBLICPUBLIC OUTREACH OUTREACH DEIS STAKEHOLDER DEIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS PROCESS

PUBLICPUBLIC OUTREACH OUTREACH EIS STAKEHOLDER EIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS PROCESS

PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY STUDYSTUDY

VISION/GOALS/OBJECTIVES VISION/GOALS/OBJECTIVES

regulatory regulatory review,review, discussions, discussions, address address contraints contraints site analysis, site analysis, economic economic study study

sustainability sustainability framework, framework, perfor-performancemance criteriacriteria

ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION

masterplanning masterplanning study of study alternatives of alternatives

funding, funding, facilities, facilities, benefit, benefit, fiscal studies fiscal studies

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

preferred preferred other other alternative alternative studies, studies, development development fiscal impact, fiscal impact, financing financing plan plan development development (1) (1) RFEI/RFP RFEI/RFP preparation preparation

PLANNING PROCESS

PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY MASTER MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT

developer developer selection selection process/ process/ proposal proposal preparation preparation FINAL PLAN FINALDEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT

(2) (2) DEIS process DEIS process

The Davids Island Study for the City of Rochelle begins a multi-stage planning process. Acceptance by the City of the study’s recommendations may be followed by a scenario development process, followed by scenario

final plan finaldevelopplan development and presentament and presentation tion (3) (3) EIS process EIS process

development, selection and development of a preferred alternative, developer selection, and the SEQR process. Stakeholder and public outreach will underpin this process at all stages.

(1) Developer request for expressions of interest, developer request for proposals

ARUP 96

(2) NYS draft environmental impact assessment (3) NYS environment impact assessment 97

MONTHLY DIURNAL AVERAGES - NEW ROCHELLE, NY, USA °C

W/ m²

1.0k

100

0.8k

0.6k

Stereographic Diagram

0.4k

345°

30° 10°

315° 0

0.2k

-10

0.0k

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

15°

330°

1st Jul 60°

30°

300° 1st Jun

45°

20°

40°

1st May

50°

285°

60°

1st Aug 75° 1st Sep

70°

Legend

1st Apr

Annual Precipitation Air Temperature Direct Solar Radiation Diffuse Solar Radiation

Comfort Zone Cold period heating required Hot period cooling required

80°

270°

90° 1st Oct

1st Mar

Psychrometric Chart

Location: New Rochelle, NY, USA Data Points: 1st January to 31st December Barometric Pressure: 101.36 kPa

255°

105° 1st Nov

1st Feb

SELECT ED DESI GN T ECHNI QUES:

1. passive solar heating 2. exposed mass + night-purge ventilation 3. natural ventilation 4. indirect evaporative cooling

1st Dec

1st Jan 240°

225° 15

Time: 12:00 Date: 21st September Dotted lines: July-December.

120°

135° 210°

150° 195°

180°

165°

DBT(°C)

new rochelle climate analysis

solar access & grid orientation

New Rochelle has a seasonal climate with hot muggy summers and cool winters. Average

The Sun Path plan diagram above shows the annual and daily sun path for Davids Island.

daily temperatures range from 32°F to 73°F with peaks of 87°F in July and lows of 28°F in

The blue lines show the daily path of the sun while the blue figure eight lines indicate the

January. There is a need for heating during the cool and cold periods. Heavily insulated

sun’s location at a given hour throughout the year. The degrees around the outer circle

walls, roofs, and glazing are necessary in winter to prevent heat loss. Consistent direct solar

provide the azimuth of the sun while the concentric circles provide the altitude of the sun,

radiation can provide passive heating in winter but requires shading of building facades and

also known as sun angle. Site boundaries, solar access, and shading requirements impact the

public space to mitigate excessive heat gain. Natural ventilation and night cooling through

street grid and building massing. Maximize the potential for southern building exposure to

operable windows and louvers helps minimize the cooling load.

encourage passive heating and daylight and allow for natural ventilation. 99

Ottawa

0M 50

Nova Scotia

ile

New York

Ohio

Pennsylvania New Jersey

importing material

local materials

use materials with a high recycled content, & are rapidly renewable

Hydroponic farm

Greenhouse Farm

farmers market

traditional food distribution

recycle

local food distribution composting

waste reduction

local food system

A closed loop waste management system is extremely important to an island development

The distance food travels, know as “food miles,” contributes to a person’s or town’s carbon

where importing and exporting goods, materials, and waste can be time consuming and

footprint. Diverse local food production offers open space, fresh foods, and a closed

costly, and the viability of island sourced building materials should be taken into account.

loop agricultural system. Locally grown produce reduces the high energy use typical of

Off site sources should be regional to avoid long shipping distances. Waste on site can be

transporting food from agricultural regions to cities. Urban farms can act as a green space

reduced by minimizing packing and supplies brought onto Davids Island and establishing a

and garden amenity for residents and lower the cost of produce.

waste sorting system. Organic waste could be composted on the island and used as topsoil while the non-organic waste can be reused, recycled, or exported to a landfill. 100

101

Smart Location and Linkage Encourages communities to consider location, transportation alternatives, and preservation of sensitive lands while also discouraging sprawl.

green roofs

courtyards

Neighborhood Pattern and Design Emphasizes vibrant, equitable communities that are healthy, walkable, and mixed-use.

Green Infrastructure and Buildings Promotes the design and construction of buildings and infrastructure that reduce energy and water use, while promoting more sustainable use of materials, reuse of existing and historic structures, and other sustainable best practices.

public parks

curb cuts

Innovation & Design Process Process recognizes exemplary and innovative performance reaching beyond the existing credits in the rating system, as well as the value of including an accredited professional on the design team.

Regional Priority Credits Encourages projects to focus on earning credits of significance to the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s local environment.

reflective, shaded sidewalks

permeable paving

open spaces & rainwater management

benchmarking performance

Encourage open space to provide amenity, mitigate storm water runoff, reduce the urban

Benchmarking systems for green design help demonstrate a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to

heat island effect, remove pollutants from the air, and allow for increased opportunities for

environmental stewardship and social responsibility and garner attention within a broader

views and ventilation. Examples include public parks that can act as storehouses of carbon

marketplace. Davids Island could pursue a green building certification as a neighborhood

dioxide, courtyards which increase biodiversity within the city, curb cuts and porous paving

or for individual buildings. One system, LEED for Neighborhood Development, evaluates the

that filter and slow storm water runoff, and green roofs which can absorb storm water and also improve roof insulation.

location of buildings, the way they relate to each other, and qualities of the public realm that knit them together while LEED for Core and Shell Construction covers base building elements, such as the structure, envelope and building-level systems.

102

103

fort slocum, 1961

proposal, scheme 1

fort slocum, 1878-1967

feasibility study, 1967

Between 1878 and 1967, Fort Slocum, a post of the U.S. Army, served as a military recruiting

In 1967, Getter-Green Associates conducted a feasibility study for the development of Davids

station and coastal battery. In 1967, the City of New Rochelle purchased the island from the

Island. The study concluded that for the city of New Rochelle to improve its tax base, high-

Federal Government for $485,000 so that it could redevelop it.

rise luxury residential, corporate headquarters, or Research and Development site (with an investor willing to fund the capital costs) should be constructed. The report also concluded that access to Davids Island is crucial, and proposed a causeway to connect Davids Island to the mainland.

104

105

indian point

proposal, scheme 2

city alive plan, 1967

con ed property, 1968-1976

Two different development schemes came out of the 1967 Feasibility Study - scheme one

In 1968, Consolidated Edison purchased the Island for $3 million as a site for a nuclear

primarily residential and scheme two primarily commercial. The first scheme proposed 3,500

power plant but withdrew the plan due to public objection and sold the island back to New

luxury residential units in towers and a 70,000 sf convention center, a 200-key hotel, and a

Rochelle for $1 in 1976. In 1977, following ten years of neglect, the city designated the island

70-key boatel. 20 acres are reserved for public parkland, 6 of which are reserved for educational

as an urban renewal area.

facilities. The second scheme proposed an R&D campus on 30 acres of the site, a combination of high-rise and townhouses on 20 acres of the site, and a convention center/hotel complex similar to the proposal in scheme one. Planning was also done for causeway development options. 106

107

hotel columbia plan

harbor condominium plan

hotel columbia plan, 1977

harbor condominium plan, undated

In March 1977, a design called Hotel Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean, was proposed for Davids Island.

Michael Harris Spector & Partners, an architecture firm from New York, proposed a Harbor

The plan included a hotel complex, convention center, recreational facilities, a shopping, casino,

Condominium for Fort Slocum. The only existing documentation of the proposal is a

and theatre. The four hotel towers, 300 hotel rooms each, are located toward the center of the site.

drawing that shows a two to four story podium of condominiums facing the harbor, with

The casino, theatre, and movie complex are planned on the southern portion of the island, and the

a pool and outdoor lounge area located on the roof of the podium. Two 17-story buildings

service center sited over the incinerator s. A park, childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s play area, and recreation center are

of condominiums, which appear to be connected by breezeways, sit on the podium. A small

located in the northern portion of the island. Based on the planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing documentation, island

marina and vehicular parking are also shown in the drawing.

access would be water-borne, with one helipad to accommodate some air travel. 108

109

xanadu proposal

trump proposal

xanadu, 1981-1992

trump, 1994-1996

In 1981, Xanadu Property Associates proposed to develop the island as an exclusive residential

In 1994, Donald Trump pursued the opportunity to develop a luxury residential community

community, which included construction of a 3,465ft. bridge, breakwater for an 800-slip marina,

on the island. His plan called for three 22-story buildings and one 45-story tower, a 1,000-

and 2,000 condominium units. Due to the grand scale and elitist tone of the plans, the proposed

slip marina, a small retail complex, parking for 3,500, and a ferry service that would

development met community resistance and was later withdrawn by Xanadu in 1990. Xanadu then

provide transportation to the island. However, Trump also met community opposition and

proposed a new development plan to address issues of the original proposal. However, continued

withdrew his plan in 1996.

opposition to the development by environmentalist and other community groups led New Rochelle to opt out of extending Xanadu the status of designated developer in 1992. 110

111

natural parkland

rye playland, new york

westchester county, 1990-2010

davids island development co., 1994-1996

During the early 1990s, Westchester County proposed to convert the island into a waterfront park with

Between 1994 and 1996, Davids Island Development Company, composed of a consortium

biking, hiking, and recreational fields, while making the island accessible by ferry only. This proposal was

of smaller developers, formed to create a family entertainment park with a water park,

the only one that would not disturb the fragile ecosystem of the Long Island Sound, though the plan was

amphitheater, health club and earth science center with a magnetic monorail to connect to

not developed. In 2002, it was determined that Westchester County would purchase, restore, and protect

the island.

the island. Again, this plan did not move forward and the island is still owned by New Rochelle. However, in 2010, it was announced that plans to devise a conceptual plan and a Task Force were convened to shape and achieve a vision for the island as a destination for residents and the surrounding region. 112

113

history

Army Corps of Engineers

davids island - ft. slocum, 1894

114

davids island - ft. slocum, 1917

davids island - ft. slocum plan

davids island - de cemp general hospital plan

115

feasibility study, 1967

116

117

xanadu proposal, 1981-1992

trump proposal, 1994-1996

xanadu proposal - model

trump proposal - perspective

xanadu proposal - model

xanadu proposal - model 118

trump proposal - plan 119

bibliography

For Introduction, Site Analysis, Density Scenarios, and Appendix Sections

Works Referenced

Drawings Referenced

Boorstein, Robert O. “OFFSHORE PLANS RAISING AN ONSHORE STORM:

Melvin, Tessa. “David’s Island Is Timely Lunch Topic [sic].” New York Times

Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (SPDES), Discharge Permit. Pages

New Rochelle Downtown Development Study. Figure 1-1. Courtesy of

Special to the New York Times.” New York Times 4 May 1987. Online

28 January 1990. Online Archives.

1-6. NY: Effective Date 2007.

New Rochelle Department of City Planning

Melvin, Tessa. “New Rochelle Invites Comment on Latest Plan For Davids

Shaffer, Gail S. “Letter to the Editor: New Rochelle Develop Plan Threatens

Received from City of New Rochelle, 23 June 2011

Island” New York Times 1 March 1992. Online Archives.

Long island Sound.” New York Times 30 Oct. 1990. Online Archives.

Melvin, Tessa. “Public’s Last Say on David’s Island Plan [sic].” New York Times

Steinberg, Jacques. “New Rochelle Ponders a Trump Tower in the Sound;

29 April 1990. Online Archives.

Where Some See Park, the Developer Sees an Island on Condos, With a New

Archives. Brenner, Elsa. “IN BRIEF; Davids Island.” New York Times 28 February 1999. Online Archives. Brown, Betsy. “WESTCHESTER JOURNAL; DAVIDS ISLAND.” New York Times 15 Feb. 1987. Online Archives. Brenner, Elsa. “Trump Buys Davids I. For Almost $13 Million.” New York Times 21 January 1996. Online Archives. Bronx River Sound Shore Audubon. The Importance of Preserving Davids Island as Public Parkland. Cashin Associates, PC. Final Report: City of New Rochelle Harbor Management Plan. New York:1998.

Melvin, Tessa. “Reveille for New Rochelle’s Abandoned Army Fort?” New York Times 2 Oct. 1994. Online Archives. Melvin, Tessa. “State Takes Initiative on Davids I. [sic].” New York Times 9 December 1990. Online Archives. Melvin, Tessa. “The Clock is Ticking on David’s Island Project [sic].” New York Times 11 February 1990. Online Archives. “Opinion: New Life for Davids Island.” New York Times 27 June 1988. Online

Environmental Restoration Project. Davids Island, Site #E360077

Archives.

Feron, James. “A Reluctant Rejection on Davids Island.” New York Times 15

New Rochelle Department of Development. New Rochelle City Council.

March 1992. Online Archives.

Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, City of New Rochelle. New

Feron, James. “Island Building Plan Dropped.” New York Times 17 July 1990. Online Archives. Feron, James. “New Rochelle Votes to End Exclusive Contract to Develop Island.” New York Times 11 March 1992. Online Archives. Getter Green Associates. A Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Development of Davids Island (Fort Slocum), New Rochelle, New York.” May 1967. Klien, Melissa. “Donald’s island: Ocean ambience, 1000 apartments.” Gannett Suburban Newspapers 17 April, 1995: 3A. Pdf copy. Lawyer, William. “Create a ‘Land Bank’ To Save Davids Island [Letter to the Editor].” New York Times 20 April 2003. Online Archives.

120

Rochelle:1999. Pdf copy.

Name.’ New York Times 20 Oct. 1994. Online Archives. Steinberg, Jacques. “O’Rourke Proposes making Davids Island a Country

1. Merrit Survey – A001.dwg 2. Merrit Survey – FOR GIS.dwg 3. Merrit Survey _FOR_GIS.dwg 4. BASEMAP-A001.dwg

Park.’ New York Times 23 June 1994. Online Archives.

5. BASEMAP-A002.dwg

Tetra Tech EC, for US Army Corps of Engineers. Documentation of

6. GRID-MAP-2.dwg

Contributing Elements, Fort Slocum Historic and Archeological District,

7. Shape Files for Environmental GPS Points; Original Elevation Lines

Davids Island, City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York. Volume 1: Historic Overview and Buildings 1-13, Rev. 1. Concord: Massachusetts, May

Received from City of New Rochelle, 24 June 2011

2008.

1. New Rochelle GIS Information

Tetra Tech EC, for US Army Corps of Engineers. Documentation of

Received from City of New Rochelle

Contributing Elements, Fort Slocum Historic and Archeological District,

1. Appendix D – Electronic Figure File of Excavation Areas

Davids Island, City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York, Volume 6: Buildings 130-135 and Unnumbered Structures (Battery Practice, Flagpole,

Websites Referenced

New Rochelle Department of Development. Davids Island Task Force.

Parade Ground, Rodman Gun Monument, Seawall, System of Roads and

Citizens Campaign for the Environment. http://citizenscampaign.

Interim Report of the Davids Island Task Force. New Rochelle: February 2011.

Paths). Rev. 1. Concord: Massachusetts, February 2010.

com/campaigns/davids-island.asp

New Rochelle Department of Development. Comprehensive Plan Update.

“Trump Wants to Build Big Tower on Island.” New York Times 28 Sept. 1994.

City of New Rochelle, NY. http://www.newrochelleny.com/

14 June 2011. http://noambramson.org/publicdocs/2011/06/Comp-Plan-

Online Archives.

NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. http://www.

“Westchester Buys Davids I. for $6.5 Million to Use as a Park.” New York

dec.ny.gov/Westchester County, NY. http://www3.westchestergov.

Times 25 Oct. 2001. Online Archives.

com/

Westchester Global Warming Task Force. Westchester Action Plan for

Westchester County, NY - Virtual Archives. http://davidsisland.

Climate Change and Sustainable Development. 2008.

westchesterarchives.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=a

Presentation.pdf New Rochelle. GreeNR: The New Rochelle Sustainability Plan 2010-2030 (Draft document). New Rochelle Zoning Code. Articles IV, IX. Accessed online http://www. ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getSimple.jsp?custId=NE0964&guid=6729498

rticle&id=46&Itemid=98

New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation. State

US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/

121

bibliography

For Introduction, Site Analysis, Density Scenarios, and Appendix Sections

Photographs Referenced

Page 112

Hotel and Research Center

Bridge

Xanadu Bridge Proposal. Figg Engineering Group, Davids Island Bridge. New

(Davids Island 2008) - http://davidsisland.westchesterarchives.com/

Image 1: http://www.hawaii.edu/himb/facilities.html

Image 1 (Fire Island): http://www.panoramio.com/photo/31354886

Rochelle, NY

index.php?option=com_rsgallery2&page=inline&id=85&Itemid=61

Image 2 (Woods Hole): http://synergyconsultants.net/woods_hole_

Image 2 (Florida): Wikimedia Commons; Author –Gamweb

Proposed Harbor Condominium for Fort Slocum. Michael Harris Spector &

Page 113

oceanographic_institution_quissett_campus_commissioning.html

(Rye Playland) – Flickr; Author - WalkingGeek

Image 3 (Scripps): Wikimedia Commons; Author – Dan725

Machnitzki

Scale Comparisons

LD 1/2 Acre

Image 4 (Xanadu):

Governors Island: Flickr; Author – AJP79

Image 1: Flickr; Author - Phillip Long

Image 5 (Padre): Flickr; Author – SpartanGirl1998

Fire Island: http://www.loving-long-island.com/davis-park.html

Image 2: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Bms4880

Image 6 (Rickenbacker Causeway) - Wikimedia Commons; Author – Marc

Davenport Neck: Flickr; Author – K. Friend

Image 3: Flickr; Author - Jose Manuel Alonso

Downtown New Rochelle: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Yonkinator

LD & MD

Oak Bluffs: Flickr; Author – Doug Kerr (dougtone)

Image 1: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Phillip Capper

Glen Island: Flickr; Author – K. Friend

Image 2: Flickr; Author – Ian Freimuth

City Island: Flickr; Author – jodimarr

Image 3: apartmentwiz.com/Houston

Santa Catalina: Flickr; Author – mjmst96

Row Houses

php?option=com_rsgallery2&page=inline&id=276&Itemid=61

Open Parkland

Image 1: www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/peng-chau-hong-kongs-most-

Page 18

Glenn Island: Flickr; Author – Walking Green

Indicative image of Con Ed Development (Indian Point): Wikimedia

Moors Nature Reserve: Wikimedia Commons; Author – GeographBot

Partners. NY Model Shots. Courtesy of New Rochelle Department of City Planning Drawings for Hotel Columbia Scheme. Courtesy of New Rochelle Department of City Planning Bike Path Proposal for New Rochelle. Courtesy of Rochelle Department of City Planning Google Earth Page 4 Google Earth Page 13 Davids Island 2005. http://davidsisland.westchesterarchives.com/index.

Commons; Author – Daniel Case Page 19 Fort Slocum (Davids Island), New Rochelle 1961; Flickr; Author – K. Friend Page 104 Fort Slocum (Davids Island), New Rochelle 1961; Flickr; Author – K. Friend Page 107 Indicative image of Con Ed Development (Indian Point): Wikimedia Commons; Author – Daniel Case

Shelby Farms: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Thomas R. Machnitzki PV Cells PV Cells Image 1: Flickr; Author – Lance Cheung PV Cells Image 2: Flickr: Author - windsordi PV Cells Image 3: Wikimedia Commons; Author - ZSM Wind Turbines

Image 3 (Mud Island): Wikimedia Commons; Author –Thomas R.

Averette

underrated-island-escape-510599?page=0,1 Image 2: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Laurens Image 3: Flickr; Author – mr_smee44; Greg Multi-Unit Image 1: http://architecture-now2.blogspot.com/2010/04/bear-lanelondon-united -kingdom.html Image 2: Flickr; Author – Concert Properties Ltd Image 3: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Jim Henderson

Wind Turbine 1: Wikimedia Commons; Author - Fish Cop Wind Turbine 2: Wikimedia Commons; Author - Littlejohn Wind Turbine 3: Flickr; Author – www.FranceHouseHunt.com

122

123

bibliography

For Sustainability Section and Greenhouse Scenario

davids island Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF) is one of the world’s pre-eminent architecture firms, providing architecture,

Images Referenced Page 57 Chatham. http://boulderganic.com/summer2011/hydro/ Marlborough. http://www.theinnovationdiaries.com/1037/hydroponicstrawberries/ Hartford. http://www.freshlinkfarms.com/ Page 36 Icon Images: “The New Rochelle Sustainability Plan 2010 - 2030” from New Rochelle. Page 102 Curb Cuts. http://denomydesigns.com/conservation.html

Importing Material. http://blogs.edf.org/transportation/2010/05/07/ coastal-shipping-a-potential-solution-to-the-challenges-of-a-growingfreight-sector/ Recycled Content Material. http://www.greenspacencr.org/building/pros/ how_b/elements_b/materials.html

members come from 43 different countries, speak more than 30 languages, and include over 70 LEED accredited professionals. KPF’s diverse portfolio, which features over 70 projects certified or pursuing green building certification, comprises corporate, hospitality, residential, academic, civic, transportation, and mixed-use projects located in more than 35 countries.

http://slowbuddha.org/composting-what-why-and-how/ Page 101 Hydroponic Farm. http://www.yanceyvillage.com/farm_to_fork/ hannahs_hydroponics.html

New Rochelle: Mayor Noam Bramson; Council Member Albert Tarantino; Charles B. Strome, III, City Manager; Michael W. Freimuth, Commissioner of Development; Eleanor Sharpe, Director of Planning; Suzanne Reider, Senior Project Manager

Greenhouse Farm. Freshfield Farms. Penfield, NY Farmers Market. http://www.weboflifefarm.com/from-the-farm/farmersmarkets.html

Traffic. http://www.senukexrumer.com/tag/traffic/

Page 103

Electric Car. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9996353-54.html

Icons: USGBC

Bus . http://fleximonkey.com/gallerier/busser/dukketeater-bus/

Works Referenced

Ferrry Boat. http://www.tourroundchina.com/Shanghai-Ferry-Boat.html

“LEEDv3”. US Green Building Council. Retrieved September 2011.

Bicycles. “Boston’s Bike Sharing Myth, And China” Sam Kornstein January

H. Dittmar and G. Ohland, eds., “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in

26, 2011.

Transit-Oriented Development (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2004), p. 120

Walking. http://www.atlantaspineandsport.com/services/custom-

EPA 542-F-01-001 . “A Citizen’s Guide to Bioremediation.” April 2001

Page 39

Operating as one firm with six global offices, KPF is led by 20 Principals and 14 Directors. The firm’s 500+ staff

Recying. http://facops.wsu.edu/Recycling/rec_recycling.htm Composting.

Page 38

orthotics/

interior, programming and master planning services for clients in both the public and private sectors.

Paul Kamen . “A New Proposal for a Berkeley Ferry.” August 2001

Davids Island Task Force: Doug Hocking, Thomas Lang, Kathy Jensen-Graham, Terence Gargan, Bonnie O’Brien, Rob Balachandran, Cesare Manfredi, Steve Levy, Christine Sculti, William Janeway, Richard Organisciak, Sara Richmond, Ellie Fredston, David Blumenfeld, Gary Trachten, Gregory Merchant, Mayor Noam Bramson, Council Member Albert Tarantino, Michael Yellin

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

Kohn Pedersen Fox Project Team: Design Principal: Doug Hocking Project Team: Jennifer Pehr, Stephen Lenz, Jessica Talley Sustainability Consultants: Tiffany Broyles, Gera Feigon

Base map. Google Earth Page 40

Associated Firms: ARUP, SBI

Pedestrian Priortity. http://makevictoriabetter.blogspot.com/p/reads. html Mixed-Use Districts. Rue Sainte-Catherine by Christian Bauer.

Copyright: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC Published by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036

Vegetation. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/02/17/david-brooks-stillrooting-for-auto-dependence-and-sprawl/ Page 100 124

Printed in USA 2011 125

Davids Island New Rochelle, NY

126