Hunters Point South Development - Community Feedback

We, the undersigned, ask for consideration of the following points:

(1) Increase proposed park space, in particular passive recreation space, and use natural grass .

The current plan for HPS development does not incorporate enough park space for all the residents that are planning to join the community, let alone the existing residents of the community. To give a sense of magnitude – The Trust for Public Land, the leading national conservation-focus non-profit, states that a commonly accepted standard of adequate open space is 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The HPS development is looking to bring approximately 13,000 new residents (5,000 housing units) to the community while only 10 acres of park land are contemplated; thus proposing a mere one-third of the park space given the density of the project.

The shortage of park space will be further exacerbated by the lack of passive recreation space for enjoyment of community residents and their families – the proposed plan calls to cover "The Green," the vast oval lawn that will be used primarily for sporting activities, with artificial turf. Our concerns with artificial turf encompass: (a) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), (b) heat (a 2008 Daily News investigation found that artificial turf installed in city fields can heat up to a blistering 162 degrees even on a mild Summer day), and (c) waterfront is a bird nesting area and thus the turf will have to be subject to regular cleaning, raising concerns as to frequency, funding and potential danger of washing off the chemicals into the fragile river ecosystem.

(2) Improve communication regarding environmental testing and remediation measures

Numerous soil contamination issues cased by the dumping of chemicals, toxins and oil leaks for well over 100 years were identified within the Hunters Point area given the areas industrial-use past.

For example, Chapter 10 of the Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) for HPS project states:
-“A geophysical survey was conducted in the northern part of the site [A]… Two geophysical anomalies were detected during the geophysical survey; however, further investigation has not been conducted.” Further on the same page it is noted that “two borings near an active petroleum underground storage tank at the Tennisport complex… exhibited evidence of petroleum or VOC contamination” (page 10-40);
-“The greatest potential for exposure to any constituent of concern would be during demolition and construction, especially those activities related to excavation, storage, transport, and disposal of potentially contaminated soil and fill materials” (page 10-8); and
-“To ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to avoid impacts related to hazardous materials [the applicable Land Disposition Agreement] will require that appropriate testing and remediation activities are performed prior to and/or during development of the parcels on Site A such that future redevelopment proceeds in a manner protective of public health” (page 10-10).

The community is in the dark as to what is happening in our backyard - we are looking to improve communication on these vital matters. With construction taking place daily producing dust and debris, we need to know what kind of environmental testing took place, what are the results and what is the timing and scope of remediation measures to be undertaken.

(3) Increase capacity of public transportation options, such as the No. 7 train

The public transportation options in the area are already operating at capacity – the closest subway line, the No. 7, is already crowded during rush hours. Aside from increase in ridership from the contemplated new 13,000 residents of HPS development, the No. 7 subway line will be extended to serve the Hudson Yards Development in Manhattan. The study referred to in the EIS was performed based on outdated (2006) data – a new study should be performed to capture the current needs of our rapidly growing neighborhood. In addition, placing reliance on MTA budget to enhance the platform and expand the service (as addresses in the Q&A section of the EIS) does not give us comfort as to the timing and success of these initiatives.

(4) Give preference to development plans that contemplate home ownership

We urge the decision makers on HPS project to favor development proposals that contemplate home ownership to help further develop HPS into a strong and vibrant residential community.

(5) Preserve view corridors for the benefit of existing residents

While we are pleased that the plan references preserving view corridors, we would like to point out that the currently proposed maximum base height of 125 feet is an unprecedentedly high base as compared to other NYC developments and is much higher than the base of neighboring buildings on the Long Island City waterfront.

To this point, we would like to emphasize that the building base in Parcels A will dwarf the existing residential structures behind it that range from two to eleven stories in total height (and well below the proposed base). We would like you to consider supporting the recommendation to limit the height of the base of the development in Parcel A to a maximum of 60 feet (while keeping the height of the towers unchanged) and emphasize that our recommendation:
(a) is within the proposed guidelines for the base, referred to as low-mid-rise residential and contemplated to be in the range of 40-120 ft (as per the NYC Economic Development Corp website);
(b) is achievable in the context of the overall HPS development as the square footage can be allocated to other parcels;
(c) Will preserve the view corridors and sunlight for the existing residents directly behind the proposed construction; and
(d) Will maintain an LIC skyline consistent with the existing Hunter’s Point developments.