1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction | 4 Foreword | 5 Aknowledgements | 7 Executive Summary | 8 Background | 13 Buyouts + Acquistions | 43 Resiliency | 69 Vision | 89 Conclusion | 108 Bibliography | 110

INTRODUCTION
The Hunter East Shore Studio is a group of Urban Planning Students at Hunter College working to help the East Shore Community, Zone A New York, and SImagines achieve their vision of the Staten Island East Shore post Sandy. The Hunter East Shore Studio seeks to integrate and compare policies, current data, and community involvement in the East Shore study area of Staten Island with a central focus on hazard mitigation. Our ultimate goal is to design a plan for a more resilient, adaptive, and prepared community in the context of future storms. The studio began conducting site visits and background research in August of 2013 to become familiar with the study area prior to the best practices research. A community charrette took place in October to solidify the direction of the plan. This helped to keep community needs and interests as our top priority in the recommendations for the plan. The plan comprehensively discusses Hurricane Sandy data, study area demographics and history, recommendations for buyouts & acquisitions, lowering flood insurance premiums and resiliency measures. Our plan concludes with a progressive vision that aims to fulfill the potential for the East Shore as a vibrant, economically secure community in the future.

The Studio Team: Sara Allen Julia Borredon Matthew Campagna Joseph DeAngelis Anthony Fabre Benjamin Fink Aleda Gagarin Jess Gericke David Leyzerovsky Paul Lozito Hart Migdal Julio Palliero Julie Schipper Jonelle Simunich The Studio was led by: Professor Pablo E. Vengoechea

FOREWORD
Hurricane Sandy was a catastrophic storm that wrought havoc on New York Citys coastal areas and exposed structural weaknesses in our infrastructure, planning and development strategies. It caused many deaths and left many more homeless. For New Yorkers in general, and Staten Islanders in particular, it was a loud wake-up call: address these vulnerabilities and put in place better and more efficient building practices. Recovery in these coastal neighborhoods, such as the East Shore of Staten Island, has been uneven: flood insurance claims and government assistance programs have not been able to cover the cost of reconstruction for many homeowners and businesses, and dissatisfaction with the pace and ad hoc quality of the Buyout and Acquisition Programs has left many feeling that the process is improvised, with the State and City seemingly working at cross purposes. You are about to read the results of one community-based planning response: the East Shore Planning Studio, a fast paced, one semester production that attempts to make order of this disarray and sort through conflicting reconstruction goals and ideas. Working together with the residents of the area this plan responds to their concerns and addresses the reasons for these inequities, and offers a blueprint for achieving a sustainable long-term vision. It is a plan that dares to make some of the hard decisions regarding the areas suitability for habitation and looks at the larger picture to set the framework for the next steps. It is based on extensive fieldwork and direct communication with residents in the impacted areas through surveys, planning workshops and interviews. The plan proposes bold ideas: it does not lay out the specifics of the programs needed. Theres nothing finished here, the tools of community planning have been used to craft a redevelopment concept for the area. This planning studio is on the frontlines of what must be an on-going dialogue on a complex problem, one that in my opinion, these gifted and committed apprentices have tackled successfully. The questions that haunted the Studio from the onset whether we can link redevelopment and affordability, sustainability and social fairness still resonate. To meet the challenges we will need more of the dedicated thinking that has taken place in the Studio within a pragmatic, theoretical, passionate and interdisciplinary setting. Inclusive urbanization with the direct participation of the community is the model for moving forward. I am impressed as always of the way planning students rise to the occasion and the sense of responsibility they bring to their work, how they worked both independently and collaboratively, and how they built their plan on work that preceded the Studio: SImagines East Shore Community Planning Workshop, the Special Initiatives Resiliency Report and of course the visioning workshop they organized with the residents. I thank all of the participants who were so deeply engaged in a planning process that in many ways was a visceral, yet professional, response to the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Such was the need in NYC to address the issues posed by the staggering losses that at least one student delayed graduation by one semester while working full time to be in this studio and indeed, additional seats had to be added to meet the demand.

Pablo E. Vengoechea, Architect

planning for staten island recovery

EAST SHORE S T U D I O

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS FOR THEIR SUPPORT THROUGHOUT OUR STUDIO.

ST. CHARLES SCHOOL

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction The following plan is divided into four parts: background, buyouts & acquisitions, resiliency and vision. The studios clients, Zone A New York and SImagines, requested that the studio look at three Staten Island East Shore neighborhoods: Midland Beach, Oakwood Beach and Crescent Beach. These areas saw staggering levels of damage and destruction and were the sites of nearly half of the entire citys Sandy related deaths. The studio conducted multiple site visits to these neighborhoods and in conjunction with on-the-ground site studies and observations and research on building typology, one hundred year flood maps, Sandy damage statistics, and distance from the waterfront devised the highest risk combined area along the waterfront across these three neighborhoods. In October the studio conducted a community charrette, using small discussions with study area residents while asking residents to draw on large maps of the area, indicating what improvements could be made, where community resources are, where they live, and what areas they deemed as being too high-risk to inhabit. The most common issues discussed and mapped by residents were buyouts, lack of appropriate drainage and sewage systems, street accessibility, the need for berms and other protective measures, displacement, and a lack of help and resources. Another common thread among residents was the extent to which their homes were damaged. When asked to rate the level of damage to their homes on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most severe, the vast majority of respondents listed their homes at a 5. Because so many of these residents homes were totally damaged, the majority are still displaced. As one resident said, I walked out with two bags of clothes from the attic and thats it. Four kids and a lifetime of memories...gone.
8

Buyouts & Acquisitions

Recommendations: Buyouts & Acquisitions The studio recommends buyouts & acquisitions for areas of Midland Beach. In the Midland Beach neighborhood we chose two areas that may be targeted for the buyout/acquisition process. Our primary area is Ocean Breeze, situated southwest of Father Capodanno Boulevard. Ocean Breeze may be divided into two sections, both of which are within the 100 year floodplain or FEMA designated zone AE. While the State of New York has already approved a buyout for the Fox Beach and Kissam Avenue neighborhood, the area of Oakwood Beach adjacent to Miller Field should also be eligible for buyouts and acquisitions. Our rationale is based on research, observation, and the data we acquired during our community charrette, which described widespread damage along Cedar Grove. Further research has shown that most of the buildings constructed in this area were built prior to 1980s, and therefore lack the new building standards that were in place to mitigate flooding and make homes more resilient. South of Roma street alone, there are 505 units, of which 329 were built before 1961. After reviewing the Request for Enhanced Zone Designation of Sandy-Damaged Homes in Coastal Great Kills and Eltingville Communities put together by the Crescent Beach Buyout Committee, a visual assessment of the area almost a year after Hurricane Sandy, and study of the updated information regarding buyouts from NY Rising, we propose that the Crescent Beach neighborhood be a candidate for acquisition. Recommendations: Land Trusts The creation of a land trust for vacated and bought out properties in Staten Island could be an important tool to legally protect, and direct future uses for risk-prone areas in the East Shore. A land trust would have much more flexibility to operate. As a not-for-profit, the trust would qualify for tax breaks and attract donations from other local citizens interested in divesting themselves from flooded properties in neighborhoods like Oakwood Beach, Ocean Breeze and Midland Beach. The protection from development provided from a land trust designation would remove pressure to inspect and oversee development and building codes. Recommendations: Community Land Trust A community land trust option is viable for adoption in locations on the East Shore where acquisitions are an option, such as in the Crescent Beach community. As a way to address New York Citys need for affordable housing, and to provide homeowners in Crescent Beach with a way to rebuild their homes in resilient methods, the ownership of their property could be turned over into that of a community land trust, which would lease back the homes to those in need at an affordable rate guaranteed in perpetuity. Recommendations: Flood Zone Management This studio recommends the creation of a permanent flood management authority comprised of a collaboration of state and city officials, to be granted specific authority over districts recognized as sensitive to flooding. By making NY Rising permanent, we would reduce confusion over separate city and state programs and increase efficiency by consolidating and avoiding the duplication of effort. A clearer process for the authority would be established, improving predictability of response for any future extreme weather crises. Information would be simplified by being housed in one organization, streamlining information regarding buyouts, acquisitions, and storm mitigation for homeowners. Recommendations: Insurance Policy The primary vehicle to drive down flood insurance cost comes from good standing with the Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program. Complying with the Community Ratings System (CRS), the city can reduce flood insurance cost between 5% and 45% for individual homeowners in Zone A, VX which covers most of the study area. New York City is not currently participating in the program despite already performing many tasks which would yield favorable ratings from the system. Many of these reports proposals would help realize the maximum benefit for residents of the study area. Recommendations: Public Infrastructure One point where the City can step up its efforts is to develop and fortify emergency infrastructure. Stricter standards help ensure that hospitals, fire and police stations, shelters, nursing homes and electric substations are fully functional to quickly respond to the needs of the citizenry. Specifically for the East Shore Community, the Staten Island University Hospital, New Dorp High school, and New Dorp Elementary School are updated as critical facilities with new standards in resiliency.
9

Resiliency
Recommendation: Evacuation Routes Our site visits and independent research found that Staten Island evacuation routes are not clearly marked and a defined strategy fails to exist. We identified multiple roadways that should be designated as evacuation routes. These roadways offer the most direct connections to evacuation centers, upland areas, major arterials and Staten Island Railroad hubs. To improve evacuation way finding we recommend new signage be installed designating these roadways as evacuation routes. Recommendation: Contraflow Routes Mass evacuations mirror, in many ways, the daily ritual of commuting and the experience of traffic delays. Staten Island commuters experience an average commute time of 84 minutes, or double that of any other borough. These delays stem, in large part, to the fact that most Island residents are car-dependent. Some coastal states, such as Louisiana and New Jersey, have utilized contraflow routes during storm evacuations. We recommend the DOT undertake a study to determine the feasibility of employing contraflow routes on Staten Islands most heavily-trafficked roadways, specifically: Hylan Boulevard, Amboy Road, Richmond Parkway, Staten Island Expressway and West Shore Expressway. Recommendation: Improved Street Connectivity The East Shore lacks the necessary street connections and major arterials for efficient vehicle evacuation. Our plan will improve street connectivity throughout the East Shore considerably, and includes proposals to connect Father Cappadonna Boulevard with the neighborhoods of Oakwood Beach and New Dorp Beach, and create a new street (Miller Avenue) adjacent to Miller Field that connects to upland areas beyond Hylan Boulevard. Recommendation: Construct and Maintain an East Shore Dune Network Our studio recommends the construction and maintenance of an extensive dune network along the East Shore. According to the SIRR, a beach nourishment project is already planned for some of the East Shore. The addition of dunes to this plan would be a significant step to take to mitigate the effects of future storms. The map below shows the areas our studio identified for dune development. Recommendation: Construct Cobble Berm at Oakwood Beach WPCP Cobble berms help mitigate erosion and also work well in areas with little significant developed beach space while being relatively inexpensive to install and maintain. Due to this fact, we recommend that construction of a cobble berm along the beach-less areas adjacent to Oakwood Beach WPCP. Recommendation: Strategically Placed Bioswale Network Due to the East Shores large amount of space dedicated to parking lots and other hard surfaces, we recommend adding bioswales to these areas. This type of infrastructure not only helps with flooding and drainage control but is also aesthetically pleasing. Bioswales should be placed along Father Cappadano Blvd, Roma Avenue, Mill Rd, Ceder Grove Ave, and Olympia Blvd. Recommendations: Building Codes and Zoning Resolutions Update the NYC Building Code to include more wind resiliency measures, including opening protection requirements. Create a program for wind-hazard mitigation efforts for homes that survived Sandy without triggering a code-based design review or permitting process. Implement the Urban Green Councils Task Force Proposal BR1 to create and use a 2080 Flood Map Based on Climate Change Predictions. The Department of City Planning should undertake a comprehensive zonin study of the East Shore with a central goal of promoting resiliency in the area. Some possible objectives of the resulting plan would be to reallocate density, promote economic development, and to determine land-use policies that correspond better to projected flood hazards in the East Shore. In each effort, a focus should be placed on creating opportunities for the existing community to remain in their unique area. Help foster mixed-use development on the East Shore that balances economic development with new residential opportunities. Create a program to simplify zoning lot mergers.

10

Visioning
This vision comprehensively considers new tracts of green-space, environmental remediation, residential redevelopment, economic revitalization, and vastly improved connectivity. If the resilience of the East Shore is to be paramount, we should consider more than just the threat of storms and flooding. We should also be concerned about the economic health of the borough, the use of green-space, and the well-being of the many thousands who call Staten Island home. Our Vision is influenced by three general themes: Return to Nature, Connectivity, and Redevelopment. Vision: Return to Nature Many residents have expressed a desire for a more natural East Shore. Aside from the effects of Hurricane Sandy, regular floods and brushfires along the waterfront have made life increasingly difficult for sustained habitation. Given the proximity of housing to wetlands and the shore, an expansion of open space along the waterfront could help to define the line between nature and neighborhoods. This natural buffer will blunt the effects of a future storm surge, transform local drainage, and remove permanent residences from the highest risk areas of the East Shore. In this section we hope to capitalize on the buyout and acquisition plan outlined in our Community Transition section and advocate for a massively expanded and re-envisioned East Shore open space network. Rather than simply allowing nature to take over, our plan proposes a phased demolition and remediation of neighborhood buyout zones. Following demolition and remediation, we propose a network of wetlands and open space, primed for either passive or active recreation that will function not only as a buffer, but also as a major community resource. We see the existing waterfront open space network, extensive as it may be, as massively underutilized. In our proposed long term expansion of the open space, we hope to reimagine the use of existing facilities with an eye toward increasing the popularity of the waterfront among both Staten Islanders and New Yorkers as a whole. Vision: Connectivity Existing local transportation networks are heavily congested. While this is partly due to the low density nature of local residential development and high car ownership rates, the limited supply of local roads heavily impacts local traffic patterns. Improved connectivity between neighborhoods could alleviate congestion while having tremendous potential to aid in the event of an emergency, allowing for more efficient evacuations and expanded access for emergency services. Our Connectivity proposals primarily seek to connect the Midland Beach and New Dorp Beach neighborhoods which are currently split by Miller Field. We propose an expansion of Father Capodanno Boulevard through Miller Field eventually ending at Tysens Lane. We also propose the construction of local access roads through Miller Field that will coherently link the more upland residential sections of Midland and New Dorp Beach. This road construction will help to redirect traffic away from the terribly congested and dangerous Hylan Boulevard for both local and longer distance commuting trips. Vision: Redevelopment Large scale buyouts and acquisitions will have a massive impact on the fabric of longstanding East Shore communities. The current buyout of the Fox Beach neighborhood is a testament to not only the pullback from vulnerable areas, but also the flight of hundreds of residents. While these residents will be incentivized to remain on Staten Island with a 5% bonus on top of pre-storm home value, new housing must be made available to maintain coherent East Shore neighborhoods. The realities of life along the waterfront may have necessitated shoreline buyouts and green space conversion, but redevelopment of select areas can help to make sure that these remain active. This section calls for the comprehensive redevelopment and consolidation of acquired (not bought out) property. Bought out areas will remain open space in perpetuity. Our primary proposal revolves around a large scale land swap involving Miller Field and recently bought out, coastal adjacent areas. As the open space network currently exists, Miller Field is owned and administered by the National Park Service. Theoretically, bought out areas will be owned by the City or State. Land areas of approximately equal acreage will be exchanged, with the National Park Service acquiring bought out zones, and the State or City acquiring the upland portions of Miller Field. This upland portion north of Milton Avenue will be redeveloped with resilient housing built according to strict standards. Our hope is for this new neighborhood to serve as a low cost best practices standard for the surrounding area. A Twenty-Year Plan In the final section here we have developed a framework plan to be gradually implemented over 20 years that considers these themes holistically and realistically. Each phase builds upon the previous, with a special early focus on pulling back from the highest risk primary buyout areas, and an eventual long term goal of wider property acquisitions. From two years to 20 years, our vision seeks to preserve the existing character of the East Shore and provide a path toward waterfront, economic, and community-wide resilience.

11

12

1 BACKGROUND

13

Study Area

14

Hurricane Sandy laid bare vulnerabilities of existing development in nearly every flood-prone area of New York City. The resulting damage was so great that it called into question the future of development, reconstruction, and even the existence of some badly flooded communities. Federal, state, and city government have convened task-forces, assembled extensive planning initiatives and programs, and the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) has literally redrawn their maps in response to storm. In spite of all of the activity, the path which navigates the deluge of government products remains unclear at the community level. Furthermore, the power of affected communities to determine their own future is diminished by the multiple interests involved, and the complexity for determining strategies to address areas with vastly different levels of flood risk. In terms of its natural position, its relationship to the larger New York City, and for the character of its existing community, homes, and businesses; the East shore of Staten Island is unique. The storm-surge crossed boundaries to leave a watermark on just about every civic issue in the East Shore though a targeted planning effort oriented to

PART 1: STUDY AREA CRITERIA + METHODOLOGY

the specifics of the area has not yet occurred. Our studio is dedicated to this end. The studios clients, Zone A New York and SImagines, requested that the studio look at three Staten Island East Shore neighborhoods: Midland Beach, Oakwood Beach and Crescent Beach. These areas saw staggering levels of damage and destruction and were the sites of nearly half of the entire citys Sandy related deaths. These neighborhoods are crucial for looking at new planning methods dealing with resiliency not only because of the damage that they have endured, but because they are at a high risk to do so with every coming storm the area will face. The studio conducted multiple site visits to these neighborhoods and in conjunction with on-the-ground site studies and observations and research on building typology, one hundred year flood maps, Sandy damage statistics, and distance from the waterfront devised the highest risk combined area along the waterfront across these three neighborhoods.

15

Six and a half feet of water on first floor, ten feet around the house.

The studio visited and covered the entire study area as a whole group and made return trips in smaller neighborhood groups to make more observations on the study area throughout the semester. We also did large amounts of background research on neighborhood characteristics, building typology, history, demographics, economic background, natural resources, zoning and many other topics to create a more detailed picture of the study area before we met with members of the community to gain their unique expertise and input. On Thursday, October 17th, the Hunter East Shore Studio in conjunction with Zone A New York and SImagines held a community mapping charrette at St. Charles school for East Shore residents in Staten Island. The event was a success and the studio team was able to gather invaluable information first hand from residents about the East Shore study area that will be critical in the studios resiliency plan. We presented our background research to the community to make sure we were in line with how they envisioned their neighborhoods, and created multiple large-scale maps of the study area and allowed residents to draw community resources, areas of concern, and any other ideas or details that they saw as important to our pending resiliency plan.
16

The quote at left is from a New Dorp Beach resident, and is a sadly common story on the East Shore of Staten Island. While residents came from different neighborhoods along the East Shore, some common topics discussed and drawn onto maps were: Buyout programs Lack of appropriate sewage & drainage systems The need to even out streets to prevent flooding in regular rains Increasing accessibility on older, narrower streets and alleys The need for berms Accountability - which agency is accountable for what Mold & community health hazards in destroyed houses that havent been torn down yet Increase in crime in areas with more empty lots Continued displacement Feeling forgotten about The working/middle class burden of making too much money to qualify for FEMA aid, but not having enough money to repair the devastating damage to homes or to incorporate new building codes like raising an entire house

Another common thread among residents was the extent to which their homes were damaged. When asked to rate the level of damage to their homes on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most severe, the vast majority of respondents listed their homes at a 5. Because so many of these residents homes were totally damaged, the majority are still displaced. The majority of residents did not feel well informed by city, state, and federal agencies in the repair/rebuilding process. Slightly more than half of those that filled out the survey were interested in the state buyout program. It is the goal of this studio to use the information gathered through the community mapping sessions and the surveys distributed at the charrette to create a residency plan that meets the needs of East Shore residents, and to explore the buyout program options that may be available to the residents interested.

17

East Shore Community Survey

In addition to site visits, background research, best practices research, and the community charrette, the studio also conducted an East Shore Community Survey. The survey was available during site visits, distributed at the community charrette, and was available online for those who could not attend. The survey asked residents the following questions: 1. What neighborhood do you live in? 2. What is your connection to the East Shore of Staten Island? o Homeowner o Renter o Small business owner o I work in the area 3. In a scale from 1-5 (1 being least vulnerable and 5 being most vulnerable) how vulnerable is your home to flooding? a. Approximately how far are you from the water front? _________________ 4. Are you familiar with evacuation routes in your area? o Yes o No 5. Did you evacuate during Sandy? (If not, please check no, and skip to question 6). o Yes o No a. If so, did you evacuate outside of Staten Island? o Yes o No b. Where did you evacuate to? o City run shelter o Family/friend o Other o ___________________ c. What means of transportation did you use to evacuate? _________________ 6. Would you evacuate in the event of another hurricane? o Yes o No

18

7. What is the extent of the damage to your home? (Scale 1-5, 1=No Damage 5=Severely Damaged) ? a. Describe the extent of your damages if you had them ___________________________________________________________________ 8. Did the Department of Buildings tag your home? o Yes o No a. If yes, did you feel that it was tagged correctly? o Yes o No 9. If you were displaced from your home, how long were you displaced for? ________ a. If you are still displaced, what is your current situation? _______________________________________________________________ 10. Which of the following programs are you familiar with? (select all that apply) o Recreate New York Smart Home Buyout Program o New York Citys Build it Back Program o Loan and Grant Services for Small Business 11. Do you feel well informed by City, State, and Federal agencies involved in the repair/rebuilding process? o Yes o No a. If no, what could the government do to keep you more informed? Please explain. ________________________________________________________________ 12. Are you interested in participating in the Recreate New York Smart Home Buyout Program? o Yes o No a. If you are interested in the buyout program, where are you located? __________ 13. What three changes, if any, does your neighborhood need to make in order to respond better to flooding?

19

Survey Results:
The majority of survey respondents were residents of New Dorp Beach. Over 80% were homeowners, and on a scale of 1-5 rating how vulnerable respondents homes are to flooding the average response ranking was unsurprisingly a 4.7/5. Over 80% of respondents were familiar with evacuation routes prior to Hurricane Sandy, but only just under half actually evacuated for the hurricane. Of the 47% that did evacuate, the majority stayed on Staten Island with a family member or friend. Just over 80% would evacuate in the event of another large storm or hurricane, which is a surprisingly low percentage given the danger and devastation faced during Sandy. When asked to rate the level of damage to their homes on a scale of 1-5, with 1 having no damage and 5 being severely damaged or destroyed, the response average was a 4.2/5. Descriptions of the damage and devastation respondents faced were as follows: Basement and first floor totaled. Destroyed - nothing left. House was condemned - red tag. House was leaning with collapsed foundation. 2nd floor flooded. All three floors were flooded. Entire first floor and bungalow on property. First floor fully damaged, second floor 70% damaged. Crawl space and whole first floor. Lost all my personal property. 40 inches of water in a ranch style house, 2/3 to 3/4 of house very damaged. Just over 93% of respondents said their homes were tagged by the Department of Buildings, 85% of them felt that they were tagged correctly. The most disturbing statistic, given that its been more than a year since Sandy hit, was that slightly over half of our respondents are still displaced from their homes, some permanently so. Most respondents were aware of at least two of the City and States post Sandy programs, but only about 30% felt well informed by city, state and federal agencies after the hurricane. Some suggestions for how communication from agencies could be improved were: Update on eligibility for governments programs. Federal, state and city should coordinate with one another and make sure their employees/representatives receive comprehensive training because depending on who you spoke with you a got a different answer to the same question. Hire the right people and direct them the right way - experienced people with knowledge of the problems and issues in the area. and They could actually help. Not surprisingly given the level of destruction and the risk associated with future storms, 80% of the people who responded when asked about the buyout program were indeed interested in being bought out. The most common themes when asked what changes need to made to these neighborhoods to better respond to future flooding were sea walls, berms, increasing wetlands and coastal plantings, improved sewer infrastructure and raising all homes to a safe height.
20

History

PART 2: STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS

The history of development on Staten Island is closely tied to the ease of accessibility of the Island to the rest of New York. As transportation methods to the Island improved, growth grew proportionally. Staten Island remained a largely pastoral landscape into the turn of the 20th century, connected to the rest of New York by privately run ferry services. With the introduction of rail service through the island, growth was introduced and branched off to the East Shore at South Beach. The turn of the century also brought a wave of new visitors, summertime vacationers looking for an escape from the hot and crowded city. The communities of South Beach, Midland Beach (Woodland Beach), Oakwood Beach and Crescent Beach all sprouted businesses, hotels and seasonal bungalow style housing to accommodate the new visitors. The boardwalk along Midland Beach became the Atlantic City of New York, hosting a variety of entertainments like vaudeville shows, casinos, dancing pavilions and a promenade. After WWII an influx of single family housing was built at an accelerated pace and even more so after the opening of the Verrazano Bridge in 1963. As the East Shores former uses as an entertainment attraction were incorporated and adapted to fit the needs of a residential community, housing types of a great variety now fit in alongside the bungalows on the East Shore.

21

Demographics
Once the citys fastest growing borough, for the first time in decades Staten Islands growth has decreased drastically since the 2010 census. Census figures released in March showed that the borough, now with 470,728 residents, actually lost a small amount of residents between 2011 and 2012. Since the 2010 census the population of the borough has only grown by 0.4%, paling in comparison to other boroughs. Between 1990 and 2010, Staten Island saw more growth than any other borough. According to the 2010 census, the East Shore study area has a population of 29,823 and saw a 5% increase in population between 2000 and 2010. Since that increase growth has been dropping, and while reasons may be varied, for the study area the obvious catalyst for population decrease is the devastation caused by hurricane Sandy. Staten Island continues to be the only borough in New York City with a majority non-Hispanic white population, although the ethnic makeup of the Island has been changing. The area has a unique racial breakdown when compared with the entire city. In 2010, the population of our study area was made up 29,893 people as compared to 8,175,133 in New York City as a whole. This population comprised of 78.7% white and only 33.3% white in New York City. In the past 10 years the area has seen a large increase in Black/African Americans 117%, Asians 45%, and Hispanics 33%. Over the last 10 years the east shore has seen an increase in the median age, which currently is 40.1. This increase in the median age can be attributed to the community aging in place as well as the construction of an assisted living facility nearby. Study Area New York City Total Population 29,823 8,175,133 Population under 5 1,640 (5.5%) 517,724 (6.3%) Population over 65 3,815 (12.8%) 9 9 3 , 1 5 8 (12.1%) Median age 40.1 35.5 White-non Hispanic 23,485 (78.7%) 2 , 7 2 2 , 9 0 4 (33.3%) Hispanic origin 3,726 (12.5%) 2,336,076 (28.6%)

Staten Island Racial Makeup

22

Economics
The majority of the residents within the study area commute out of the neighborhood for employment. In fact, only 3% of the population lives and works in the study area. The sectors with the highest growth rate are education, hospitality, finance and insurance, and Healthcare. Unsurprisingly, manufacturing is shrinking the most, with a loss of 60% of the work force within the past ten years alone. The local sector in particular is focused on Healthcare and retail. The local employment sectors are very similar to the rest of Staten Island, the main difference being the 12% difference in healthcare workers.

Neighborhood Character
The neighborhoods of New Dorp Beach, Oakwood Beach, and Midland Beach are generally similar in character, dominated by mixed forms of single family housing, with stores and businesses generally segregated into shopping centers. These neighborhoods feature a considerable amount of open space given the close proximity of Miller Field, the FDR Boardwalk, and the newly renovated waterfront park at Cedar Grove. The layout is partially grid based, punctuated by narrow dead end streets in wetlands and at Miller Field. The Crescent Beach neighborhood is heavily oriented toward the waterfront. There is a mix of housing in the area, though there are a number of large single family homes. The neighborhood borders the Great Kills Marina and is home to multiple waterfront restaurants and businesses. Much like the other portions of our study area, this neighborhood is low lying and was greatly impacted by flood waters. Given the proximity of the neighborhood to the local marina, dozens of boats washed ashore during Sandy causing significant damage to homes and businesses. Streets and neighborhoods nearer the shoreline are more sparsely populated, and are often set within wilder landscapes. Beach grasses and wetlands interrupt strips of small homes. Streets meander according to topography or existing housing. These neighborhoods are also low lying, and were impacted greatly by Sandy. Today, vacant and boarded homes are a regular sight within the highest risk areas near the shoreline. Observed building materials within the study area used for homebuilding include: wood siding, wood & concrete slab facades, vinyl siding, brick facades, aluminum siding, cinderblock, cinderblock sides and foam/slab facades.

Community Assets
The neighborhoods within this study area are split between two Community Boards. Crescent and Oakwood Beach residents are served by Community Board 3, while Community Board 2 responds to the needs of Midland Beach residents. Staten Island Community Center is located on Jefferson Avenue in the study area. This Center is one of many non-profits on Staten Island that assisted residents in Sandys aftermath. Municipal services offered to East Shore residents include the 122nd Police Precinct and the following Fire Houses: Engine 159; Engine 161, Ladder 81; Engine 162, Ladder 82; and Engine 165, Ladder 85. At the edge of Midland Beach, on Seaview Avenue, is the study areas only full-service medical center, Staten Island University Hospital. The hospital also has a south campus at Seguin Avenue, which is in close proximity to Crescent Beach residents. East Shore communities have an assortment of public schools to choose from, including: P.S. 8, P.S. 11, P.S. 23, P.S. 24, P.S. 38, P.S. 41, P.S. 50, P.S. 52, I.S. 2, I.S. 24, Staten Island Tech High School, and New Dorp High School. Local private and parochial secondary schools are also located within, or near, the study area. SUNY Empire State College has an office on Seaview Avenue which offers mentoring and advising services. Extensive water damage forced these offices to close for 120 days following the storm. Outside the study area, Susan E. Wagner High School and P.S. Petrides Complex serve as evacuation centers during severe storms. Local Churches played a key role in the post-storm cleanup and fundraising but many were also in the storm surges path and suffered significant damage. These include: Oakwood Heights Community Church, Oasis Christian Center, and the Cedar Grove Avenue branch of St. George Malankala Orthodox Church. A relief fund started by St. Margaret Mary RC Church on Lincoln Avenue raised over $230,000 for Sandy victims.

Percent of Staten Islands Sector Employment

Percent of Local Sector Employment

23

Housing + Building Typology Residential:

Bungalow: One of the predominant housing types within the high risk portions of the study area. Bungalows tend to be smaller single story homes on small plots of land. Many of these homes were once seasonal residences, but are now lived in throughout the year.

Single-family fully detached: One of the predominant housing types throughout the study area. These units vary in size, from smaller one story ranches to multistory developments on large plots of land

24

Two-family semi-attached: One of the predominant housing types throughout the study area. Largely the result of relatively recent construction. Newer semi-attached developments within the study area tend to be built at a higher elevation in accordance with new regulations.

Multi-family town homes: One of the predominant housing types throughout the study area. Most townhome development is in the form of recent construction within the study area. Some, especially along Father Capodanno, feature elevated first floors.

Large scale multi-story apartment buildings: Not the predominant housing type, but are popular in key parts of the study areas. The Tysens Park apartments, a sprawling development in Oakwood Beach, are the most visible example. These are tower in the park style developments with multiple storied buildings in the midst of large parking lots. A smaller scale example of multi-story development can be found in the form of senior housing at the intersection of Midland Ave and Father Capodanno Blvd.

25

Commercial:
Mixed use: Commercial below, residential above. This building type is common near the New Dorp and Grant City train stations, but can also be found in older buildings along Hylan Boulevard and in some locations closer to the waterfront such along Midland Ave.

Strip malls: Among the more popular commercial building types in the past 50 years. No residential present, with a one to two story retail strip set back from the street behind a small to medium sized parking lot. Can be found throughout the study area in commercial districts.

Retail centers: Within the study area this development type features a mix of small stores, locally owned restaurants, and big box retail. Set within a large scale parking lot, this style of construction can be found in several commercial centers along Hylan Blvd.

26

Transportation Network
Given the low density nature of the East Shore, the area is heavily reliant on cars for local transportation as well as for Manhattan-bound commuting. Primary roads in the neighborhood include: Hylan Boulevard, Father Capodanno Boulevard, New Dorp Lane, and Midland Avenue. These roads carry considerable capacity throughout the day, but especially during the AM and PM rush hours. Dead end streets pose traffic and connectivity issues abound throughout the study area, especially in neighborhoods bordering Miller Field and the New Creek Bluebelt. Public transportation is heavily used along the East Shore: The Staten Island Railway serves residents 24 hours a day, with expanded and express service during rush hour. Several local and express bus lines serve the East Shore, with faster service enabled by a dedicated bus lane during rush hour along Hylan Boulevard. There is no ferry service along the East Shore of Staten Island. Street and Sidewalk Conditions: o Street condition varies drastically throughout the study area. Some streets appear to have recently poured asphalt while many more are heavily pockmarked with potholes and dips. o Primary roads vary greatly in width, number of lanes, and overall capacity. Some two lane roads (such as New Dorp Lane) carry a high volume of traffic and are remarkably busy, while others seem to be built for much higher speeds and overall volume. o Some streets have proper road markings, dividers, and crosswalks (i.e. Midland Ave) while others are just plain asphalt or have faded markings. Many local streets near the beach have no markings at all. o Neighborhoods with dead-ends may be at risk if the only access point to their street is blocked. This has the potential to slow and complicate evacuations since 15+ dead-end streets would be forced to use main connectors like Greeley Avenue, New Dorp Lane, or Slater Avenue. o Sidewalk conditions vary greatly and in many parts of the neighborhood disappear completely. This is especially true along streets nearer the waterfront. Visibly wealthier neighborhoods seem to have better maintained sidewalks.

27

Sewer and Water Infrastructure

Background The NYC Department of Environmental protection manages the citys water supply and waste water/storm water treatment. Most of New Yorks waste water is collected through a combined sewage system that is treated regardless of the waters origin. Staten Island has a unique separated system that captures much of the islands storm water through a series of man-made watersheds. This method has been favored by DEP. However, unlike other combined sewage systems, the separated waste water system does not disperse overages into large bodies of water such as rivers in case of flooding. When the waste water (non-storm water) cannot be treated and evacuated from the plant quickly sewage backups will occur. Oakwood Beach Plant Staten Island houses two waste water treatment plants - One on the north shore in Port Richmond and the other on the east shore in Oakwood Beach. The Oakwood Beach plant services almost 250,000 east shore residents including those in Midland Beach, New Dorp and Crescent Beach/Great Kills. The 57 year old plant regularly processed nearly 40 million gallons of wastewater daily. Hurricane Sandy During last years Hurricane Sandy the plant helped reduce significant sewage backups. After the plant lost power the plant employees, working off of generators, treated 80 million gallons the day of the storm which is double the average capacity of the plant. The overcapacity plant was also running on a smaller staff since DEP laid off a few workers earlier in the year. Since the storm, DEP has agreed to hire additional staff because of the importance of the plant during major floods. DEP has confirmed that they plan to invest on extensive repairs to the damaged plant. Current and future DEP Projects Before Hurricane Sandy, DEP had neighborhood wide sewer projects in their capital planning pipeline for the east shore section of the island. These plans included major upgrading to the underground pipe network. Project SE798, the Storm & Sanitary Sewers in Robinson Avenue, is in the hands of the Department of Environmental Protection. The project will install storm and sanitary sewers; replace water mains, in Robinson Avenue and vicinity. The cost will top five million dollars and is slated to be complete in October of 2016. The Departments of Transportation and Environmental Protection are also overseeing the Roma & Hett Avenue project, which will install storm and sanitary sewers at multiple locations in the area. The project is in the design phase and is projected to cost upwards of five million dollars with a completion date of December 2013. Before Hurricane Sandy DEP announce a plan to upgrade major pumping stations throughout the island including one at Mason Avenue in Dongan Hill. This area was one of the few on the east shore that was hit hard with sewage contamination. After the storm, DEP obtained funding from FEMA to help expedite the work.

28

Parks & Open Space

Public open space, including outdoor school yards, state, federal, and municipal parks, beaches, boardwalks, and playgrounds, are abundant in the East Shore of Staten Island. The area that is roughly described as between Hylan Blvd and the shore of the Atlantic ocean was largely swamp and wetlands prior to development, and the many open spaces remaining in the area are largely occupied by wetlands to this day. Federally administered parks constitute nearly half of the nearly 1500 acres of parkland in the area, with 580 acres of Great Kills Park and 187 acres of open space located at Miller field, both of which are part of the large Gateway National Recreation Area, a division of the National Parks Service. The largest city managed (Department of Parks and Recreation) sites are Franklin Delano Roosevelt boardwalk and beach which comprises 2.5 acres miles of the waterfront beach area, and a large portion of beachfront Great Kills Park, immediately north of the federally manages hook surrounding Crescent beach is also managed by the city. Taken together, all of the before-mentioned parks combine to form the entire waterfront of the study area. The area further inland towards Hylan Blvd contains the expanding passive open space of the Blue belt system (2 watersheds are in the study area), and the also expanding 135 acre Ocean Breeze park is dedicated mostly to active open space purposes, including the 10 acre PlaNYC sponsored 2,500 seat track and field house slated to complete construction in 2014. The remaining significant open spaces are all relatively small, with 3 outdoor playgrounds, 7.5 acre Midland field, and the 5 acre South Beach Wetlands Park. The Bluebelt 80% of Staten Islands Wetlands have been lost due to human activities. The Bluebelt helps improve air quality, and provides for natural drainage on the Island, and established soft infrastructure that has been working for over 20 years. The Bluebelt eliminates the cost of traditional sewage infrastructure; tanks, tunnels, and pipes, in favor of natural drainage.

29

PART 3: HURRICANE SANDY

Hurricane Sandy was the second-costliest hurricane in United States History. Sandy made land fall on October 29th and affected 24 states including the entire Eastern seaboard. The damage was particularly severe in New York City, where it flooded city streets and the subway system. Thousands of homes were destroyed across the city, and the borough of Staten Island was hit particularly hard. 43 people in New York City were killed as a result of Hurricane Sandy; 23 of them were from Staten Island; East Shore communities were the hardest hit in loss of life with 20 of the boroughs 23 deaths. All of the East Shore casualties occurred in the Citys Evacuation Zone A.

30

The Cost of Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandys Costs in New York State Governor Cuomo estimated Sandys cost to be $42 billion: $33 billion to repair damaged housing and infrastructure and $9 billion to help protect transit systems, the power network and sewage treatment facilities from future storms. More than $15 billion of the funds dedicated towards cleanup would be for New York City. Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight estimated that the storm would cost about $20 billion in damages and $10 to $30 billion in lost businesses. Another forecasting firm, Eqecat, also predicted it would cost as much as $50 billion in total economic losses. The figures put Sandy at the second most expensive storm in U.S. history after Hurricane Katrina, which cost $108 billion or $128 billion if adjusted for inflation today. Included in the damage estimates were some of the following costs: More than $5 billion to repair substations, tracks and equipment for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, as well as another $124 million to compensate the authority for lost revenues. South Ferry-Whitehall Street subway station alone will require a $600 million restoration. Service from there to Brooklyn was shut off weeks after the hurricane. The MTAs chairman, Joseph Lhota, told The New York Daily News that South Ferry was destroyed. It wasnt hurt. It wasnt wrecked. It was destroyed. Hospitals and other health facilities in New York will need more than $3 billion to restore services. More than 300,000 housing units were destroyed or damaged, costing $9.6 billion to replace or repair, with $3.1 billion of that in New York City alone. Making new houses storm-resistant might add 10 to 20 percent to costs. o Government response efforts cost $1.6 billion. o Businesses lost about $6 billion. o New Yorks parks and other environment facities sustained downed trees and more at a cost of about $800 million. Staten Island Statistics: In all over 9,000 homes were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. 58 per cent of Staten Islands damage happened on the East shore in the neighborhoods of Midland Beach, Oakwood Beach and Crescent Beach. Midland Beach had more than 20 per cent of the Islands damage, while Oakwood Beach suffered over 30 per cent.

Total Damage

Damage over $10,000

31

Natural Damage
Agencies and Jurisdiction During Weather Disasters on the East Shore of Staten Island There are agencies that respond to natural disasters in New York City across the federal, state and municipal levels. Below is a list of the different response agencies, many of whom played a role in Staten Island post-Sandy. Beneath each agency is a brief description of their role and when they are active in a disaster. The below breakdown is also meant to demonstrate the capacity for jurisdictional confusion in response to weather-related disasters. Agencies from different levels of government will often find themselves in direct competition with each other in all four phases of emergency response. On the ground decision-making often occurs outside of the traditional federal/state/local chain of command. This has the capacity to greatly complicate the picture for storm victims and residents. Red tape and bureaucracy have the capacity to cloud longer term recovery and mitigation strategies as exemplified by resident confusion over the competing Mayors Office and Governors Office housing buyout plans.

Both natural ecosystems and personal gardens were harmed during hurricane sandy. Evergreen trees were burnt by the salt, fruit trees drowned, and years worth of mature flora is gone forever. For those residents with surviving plants the work ahead is almost as difficult as starting anew. The soils have been contaminated, imagine anything and everything from your neighbors basements has made it into the soil; light bulbs, lead, beer bottles, and so on. Many gardeners and plant experts are recommending potted plants as opposed to planting in the soil. For those plants that made it through seemingly intact problems could be lurking under the surface. Salt water can be absorbed into the roots of the flora and prevent them from absorbing the water and nutrients needed to survive. For gardeners who had fruit trees and shrubs make it through the storm, many are afraid to eat their produce.

32

Federal, State, + City Agencies Federal Agencies

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency): Involved in all phases of emergency management. Serves as a coordinating agency and as a primary go to destination for those affected during the response phase. Issues guiding documents for federal, state, and local agencies during the preparedness phases. Distributes grants during the recovery and mitigation phases. Active during: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. HUD (Housing and Urban Development): Provides guidance on best housing practices and issues grants for storm mitigation and local resiliency. Currently operating the Rebuild By Design competition in order to promote innovation in housing design and later implement the best proposals in at risk areas. Active during: mitigation and recovery. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): Assisted in damage assessment of homes, water facilities, and hazardous waste sites in immediate response and recovery phases. Provides guidance on best practices for water treatment, hazmat security, storm mitigation and local resiliency. Distributes grants for mitigation, recovery, and preparedness phases. Active during: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. NPS (National Park Service): Manages property that is affected by weather events. Can directly implement mitigation infrastructure. Active during: Recovery, mitigation phases. U.S Army Corps of Engineers: Leading agency for storm mitigation strategy and implementation. Also active in the late recovery phases after early plans have been completed. Active during: mitigation, recovery.

State Agencies

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation: Assisted in damage assessment of homes, water facilities, and hazardous waste sites in immediate response and recovery phases. Provides guidance on best practices for water treatment, hazmat security, storm mitigation and local resiliency. Distributes grants for mitigation, recovery, and preparedness phases. Active during: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. NYS Office of Emergency Management: Coordinating agency for other organizations in order to best allocate critical resources during the response phase. Active during: Preparedness, response. MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority): Active in all phases, but with special regard to the operations of the MTA. Also plays a critical role for residents and responders in the response and initial recovery phases. Active during: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: Critical role in the movement of goods and personnel during the preparedness and response phases. Active during: Preparedness and response. Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation: Similar role to the NPS through the operation of park property. Can directly implement mitigation strategies which assist in long term recovery. Active during: Recovery, mitigation phases. NY State National Guard: Play the role of first responders in the event of a weather emergency. Assist in the distribution of vital supplies to victims and affected residents. Active during: Response phase.

City Agencies

NYC Mayors Office: Serves as a primary disseminator of information and grant funds in all phases, as well as serving an overall coordination role. Active during: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. NYPD: One of the primary preparedness and response organizations. Serve a longer term role for regional stability and safety in the recovery phase. Active during: preparedness, response, and recovery. FDNY: One of the primary preparedness and response organizations. Serve a longer term role for regional stability and safety in the recovery phase. Active during: preparedness, response, and recovery. NYC OEM (Office of Emergency Management): Coordinating agency for other organizations in order to best allocate critical resources during the response phase. Active during: preparedness, response. NYC Parks: Similar role to the NPS through the operation of park property. Can directly implement mitigation strategies which assist in long term recovery. Active during: recovery, mitigation phases. NYC DEP (Department of Environmental Protection): Plays a critical role in the assessment of local homes and infrastructure, as well as long term storm mitigation strategies. Active during: recovery, mitigation phases.

33

Evacuation Routes
In the storms aftermath emergency management agencies have reevaluated the boroughs existing evacuation zones and hurricane shelters in order to better assist the most vulnerable residents. However, the Citys comprehensive strategy might not be detailed enough to fulfill the unique needs of Staten Islands East Shore residents. NYCs Post-Sandy Hurricane Evacuation Strategy Before and after Sandy, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has been charged with planning the Citys emergency evacuation strategy. The Citys evacuation zones are generated from SLOSH maps (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricane) created by the National Weather Service and US Army Corps of Engineers. In June of 2013, the OEM revised the pre-Sandy evacuation zones. Replacing the old Zones A, B and C are the more detailed Zones 1 through 6 which include more residents (600,000+) than the former zones. The general purpose of the zone change is to give the City more flexibility in pinpointing areas to evacuate before a storm. In Staten Island, five evacuation centers are available to those who cannot find shelter outside the evacuation zone. However, the city does not require the evacuation centers to have parking for evacuees. The City strongly suggests residents use public transportation to reach evacuation centers. In a car-oriented borough like Staten Island not having parking at evacuation centers might keep potential evacuees from leaving their home putting both themselves and emergency personnel in danger. In addition to reorganizing evacuation zones, the OEM is attempting to better educate and prepare residents to the dangers of extreme weather events. The agency designed a brochure, titled Ready New York Hurricanes and New York City which provides tips for emergency preparedness and what to bring in the event of an evacuation. For seniors and the disabled, the agency designed the Ready New York My Emergency Plan which allows users to list personal information and emergency contacts in an easy to use pamphlet.

34

Building Codes & Policy Related to Natural Disasters + Sandy

Policy Structure: FEMA, the NFIP, and Building Codes for Flood-prone Areas of NYC Regulations for the built-environment in flood-prone areas of New York City have numerous levels of oversight, beginning with the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a program began in 1968 to minimize and distribute the overall burden of flood-damages sustained in Significant Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), which are broken into risk-related zones. V zones are coastal flood hazard zones, A zones include all other special flood zones, and AE, VE, or other zones either A or V followed by numbers are those zones with specific Base Flood Elevations (BFE = the 1/100 year flood level). Provisions for coverage under the program mandate the minimum elevation for structures and their utilities, as well as the use of flood damage-resistant materials, which are determined relative to BFE and zone. Though flood insurance under NFIP can be required as a condition of mortgage lending, or as a condition of receiving FEMA disaster-aid, enrollment in the program is voluntary. Market penetration for insurance under the NFIP is low when compared with the number of properties located in flood-prone areas, particularly in the East Shore. Premiums increase substantially if certain requirements are not fully met, such as elevating the living quarters to the current design flood elevation level. Programs exist to offset mitigation costs to bring properties flush with new codes, such as FEMAs Increased Cost of Compliance ICC and through Build it Back program. Regardless of the status of membership in the NFIP program, or the changing state of its current maps, the influence of the program on building code standards in NYC following its 1968 inception have been direct and profound. Under the NYC DOB, the East shore of Staten Island is among the nearly half of flood-prone communities in the U.S. to have adopted flood-resistant building code that meets or exceeds NFIP requirements with the adoption of Appendix G of the NYC building code in 1983. In 1988, elevations were updated from the previous 1929 elevation datum. An important provision under Appendix G is that new or substantially altered buildings must elevate their lowest finished floor or flood proof their homes up to BFEs provided by flood insurance maps from FEMA. Building professionals can supplement these standards with volumes of engineering documents also provided by FEMA. Remapping Risk and the NYC Building Code: Changing Policy Landscape Evidence of this close relationship between FEMA regulations and the citys building code is replete in the period since the storm. Though the DFIRM remapping process had begun before Sandy, regulatory guidelines following the storm have been in a period of constant flux, where FEMA has made updates and the citys building code has followed. More than one year after Sandy, FEMA and the NFIP are still in the process of adjusting New York Citys nearly 30 year-old DFIRMs, expanding the period of regulatory transition to complete in 2015. In February of this year, new Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFE) were determined by FEMA to help guide rebuilding efforts, and the mayor updated zoning and the building code in affected areas. A few months later in June of 2013, the Preliminary Work Maps PWM (a more advanced stage in the DFIRM development process) were released, and elevations were again revised. In each update, the citys building code and zoning had to be adapted, and the mayor issued an executive order justified by the emergency status left by Sandy to avoid going through the lengthy and difficult processes the city usually undergoes for adjusting zoning maps and updating the building code. New construction and rebuilding efforts undertaken during this period of transition are subject to their respective periods of regulation as per the mayors executive orders. According to the PWMs released by FEMA in June, 2013, the East Shore study area is now dominated by AE-12 and AE-14 zones. This means the BFE in those areas are 1214ft above zero elevation, and increase of 2-4ft in many areas. Grade is at 6ft above 0 elevation. For one and two family dwellings, the city specified the lowest habitable floor (LHF) to be 2 ft. above BFE for each area, a buffer zone known as freeboard. The city calls this figure (BFE + 2ft= LHF) the Zoning Design Flood Elevation (ZDFE). The ZDFE is designed to incorporate freeboard, given the context of the changing maps and sea level rise. The PWMs are considered the best available information until FEMA releases its updated a draft of the FIRMs at the end of 2013. Linked to climate change, rising sea levels, and the projected increased magnitude and frequency of coastal storms on the East Shore, the area within the newly determined 100-year floodplain has expanded 37 percent in land area over the 1983 FIRMs. The area west of Ocean Breeze Park, almost the entirety of the Midland Beach area (in some parts the new flood-plain extends more than a mile inland, to cross Hylan Blvd.), and many blocks into New Dorp Beach and Oakwood Beach area have been added or have increased BFE in the new maps.

35

Post-Sandy Land-Use Policy from the City

While FEMA maps address changes in flood-risk on the federal level, and the NYC building code has adopted new elevations to match, certain amendments have been necessary to the zoning code as well. The same emergency Executive Orders issued from the mayors office which address these shifts also make simple provisions to allow properties elevating to new code elevations to fall within height limits specified in the zoning laws for the neighborhoods. New zoning amendments allow for the total ZDFE heights including freeboard to be essentially added to the allowable heights for buildings in the area. In light of NYCs extensive use of zoning to regulate development, these provisions are necessary to coordinate future development in the area, as well as to sanction the compliance of existing structures. 3 Studies Emerge: East Shore Still Waiting for Large-Scale, Policy-Driven Relief Efforts In spite of a lot of planning activity initiated by the mayor and the Department of City Planning (DCP), targeted recommendations that would benefit the unique character and typologies in the East Shore study area have found little expression in the citys studies. In June of 2013, DCP released 2 studies related to Coastal Flooding. The first and smallest of the three reports, Designing for Flood Risk, essentially summarizes FEMAs techniques for flood-mitigation and makes a few urban-design centered approaches for programming the connections and ground-level uses of structures that had been designed to mitigate flooding. The second is an extensive report entitled Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies (also commissioned by Housing and Urban Development (HUD)), which looks at a number of land-use and built environment typologies predominant in NYC. This report specifies a process for selecting mitigation strategies, based on the predominant concerns of each typology. Unfortunately, only 2 of its 130-some pages are dedicated to land use management (zoning) as a tool for hazard mitigation, and the recommendations related to building techniques for the East Shore all but reproduce FEMAs strategies for making homes more flood-resistant. These reports have influenced the findings of the most extensive report released by the mayors office, the SIRR, released later in the same month. The SIRR report includes a number of city-wide initiatives related to buildings that would likely benefit the East shore, though the majority constitutes a broad stroke at solving the problems experienced in the study area. Only one of the initiatives appears to involve significant changes to zoning, and is most precisely: a call for a more targeted study: Buildings Initiative 3: Study and implement zoning changes to encourage retrofits of existing buildings and construction of new resilient buildings in the 100-year floodplain tasked the Department of City Planning (DCP) to undergo a study of promoting resiliency in the area sometime in 2013. It is specified that DCP must assess the vulnerability of low-lying non-compliant homes (i.e. bungalows) as well as consider mechanisms for the combination of smaller lots to solve some of the issues of egress and American Disabilities Act compatibility related to the small lots and structures in the area.

36

A Note about Site-Specific Building Methods for Flood Resistant Design This report does not go into detail about the particular methods for making homes more flood proof, in part because FEMA has produced comprehensive materials addressing this subject and the city has reproduced these techniques and placed them in the NYC context. Targeted engineering documents for retrofitting owners or industry professionals can be accessed through FEMAs website. Examples include: -FEMA P-259 Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures (Third Edition, December 2011) -FEMA P-55 Coastal Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting, Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas (Fourth Edition, August 2011) -FEMA 347 Above the Flood: Elevating Your Floodprone House (May 2000) -FEMA 348 Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage: Principles and Practices for the Design and Construction of Flood Resistant Building Utility Systems (November 1999) -CodeMaster for Flood Resistant Design (2011) -FEMA P-85 Protecting Manufactured Homes from Floods and Other Hazards (Second Edition, November 2009)

37

Methods for Retrofitting, Briefly Considered: Wet-Proofing, Dry-Proofing, + Elevation Wet-proofing a home keeps utilities and living areas of a structure out of the way of water, while allowing flood waters to pass through resistant ground floor uses, such as adequately prepared garages or piers on the ground level. It minimizes damage, greatly reducing loads on walls and floors by equalizing hydrostatic pressures. In sum, wet-proofing is often more cost effective than many other flood-proofing measures, such as the full-scale elevation or relocation of a property, or the construction of site-specific levees. In New York City, properties located in the SFHAs must wet-proof their homes to the BFE height. Dry-proofing involves the strengthening of existing foundation, floors, and walls to withstand flood forces, making the structure water-tight. Due to uplift factors and the challenge of engineering tolerances for existing foundations, this measure is not allowed under NFIP maps for SFHAs. Elevating a home is often the best way of protecting a home in a flood-risk area, though involves extensive costs in the relocation of utilities and the raising of the existing structure. Under NFIP, this usually requires elevating the Design Floor Elevation (DFE), where living spaces and utilities are located, to 1 foot above BFE. In NYC, elevation is required to the ZDFE, which is 2 above BFE, to incorporating additional freeboard. The mayors executive order contains zoning relief provisions for buildings in SFHAs to comply with new elevations without violating height requirements for their zoning districts. Relocation: FEMA identifies relocation as another site-specific technique, though acknowledges that it is frequently cost-prohibitive. Relocation involves taking an existing structure and moving it either to a less floodprone area of its current building lot, or to another lot altogether. Though usually costly at the outset, relocation can reduce or eliminate flood insurance altogether.

38

Rebuilding: Persistent Challenges for the East Shore Due to the significant damage of the storm, properties located in the 1/100 year floodplain that were substantially damaged are required in their reconstruction to adhere to stringent codes related to BFEs that were not considered at the time of their construction. One and two family homes which make up approximately 75% of the building floor area in the East shore study area, often suffered the most severe damage. The average build date in the area is 1968. Built for seasonal use before flood-standards had been observed in the area, single-level bungalow-style housing is the least compliant in terms of old and new codes provided under Appendix G. These constitute roughly 540 of the one and two family homes in the study area. As homeowners rebuild these and other structures in the East Shore with or without the benefit of FEMA flood Insurance payouts, new challenges emerge in their reconstruction. 1. Many of the damaged homes and their corresponding lots are inefficient or inappropriate to bring to new standards. Roughly 35% of all of the one and two-family homes in the 1/100 year flood zone of the study area were built before 1961, a benchmark date the city used in the SIRR which divides homes which fared better and worse in Hurricane Sandy. More than 60% of those homes were built before 1983, when the city adopted flood-plain building standards. Flood insurance is prohibitively expensive for many owners of homes built below or even at BFEs. According to the New York State Department of Environmental Coordination (DEC), homes built two feet above BFE as the city requires for new development can cost half as much to ensure as those built to BFE. Home built as little as one foot below elevation can cost as much as four times as much to insure as homes built to BFE. The grandfathered and non-code-compliant status of these properties pre-storm was lost in the storm along with the integrity of their structures. From a resiliency perspective, the obligation of substantially damaged homes to rebuild observant of new flood-specific codes/ elevations are a good thing, though the enormous cost and difficulty of adapting homes in the area puts many owners in a difficult position. Narrow lot sizes pose further challenges to the methods advocated by the city and FEMA to elevate a home, creating other conflicts for accessibility (ADA) and acceptable transitions from facade to the roadway. 2. Government response to the storm was expedient and efficient for certain categories of building owners, though longer-term policy solutions must be created to increase the resiliency of the built environment in the East Shore. Due to the enormous breadth of inter-agency coordination required in disaster response, rebuilding support efforts can be slow to coalesce. Even a year after Sandy wreaked havoc on homes and businesses on the East Shore, some owners remain waiting for rebuilding funds from FEMA or the state. Those who had the means to begin work on rebuilding their homes often did so without waiting for reconstruction programs and grant funding structures to come together, expecting that policy would meet them in their recovery efforts. In many case, buildings were improved to a certain point, often reaching above the low-level that the citys programs have targeted for assistance. This has left many structures noncompliant with the citys code, ineligible for flood-insurance, and most worrying, vulnerable to future storm events. Programs such as the Rapid Response and Build it Back programs were swift responses to the storm, but real resilience to ever-increasing flood-risks in the East Shore require advance planning of mechanisms that will increase resiliency in the long-term.

39

NYC Special Initiatives

Staten Island East and South Shore Chapter The NYC SIRR is a report that is meant to prepare NYC for future storms, rising water levels and climate change. The report was written as a direct response to Sandy and its findings are being used to mitigate future damages that will be the result of expected storms. One of their chapters focused specifically on the East and South Shores of Staten Island. The chapter starts with a detailed description of the area, the damage that it took, and ends with a list of initiatives that affect all aspects of storm resiliency and preparation. Below is an abridged list of some of the key highlights that affect the East and South Shores of Staten Island: Note: All of these initiatives are only going to be implemented with required funding. They will not be acted upon until proper funding can be secured. USACE to create a study of flood risk to East and South Shores NYC will assist owners in the rebuilding and repairing of buildings or will facilitate the acquisition of property to new owners Create an incentives program for building owners in the flood plan to adopt flood resiliency measures NYC will work with FEMA to create insurance options that are more manageable for urban environments Get federal funding to implement a Community Wildfire Prevention Plan for at risk areas on the East Shore Launch a capital project for the Mid-Island Bluebelt in Midland Beach Call for a request for interest in commercial investment in beaches and shores Create a plan for Great Kills harbor and public recreation lands and beaches PLANYC PlaNYC is a plan that was undertaken by the Bloomberg administration, initially in 2007 and updated in 2011, to set the strategy for how the city will handle the challenges of future. These challenges focus on climate change, affordable housing, economic vitality, transportation, parks, and quality of life improvements. While the plan lays out the approach for the entire city, there are several parts that focus on Staten Island. PlaNYCs plans for Staten Island include expanding the sewer network, the Blue Belts, bus service on Hylan Avenue, and creating a new underground water reservoir. Office of Storm Recovery New York Governor Anthony Cuomo founded the Office of Storm Recovery in 2013 to assist neighborhoods and residents that were affected by Super Storm Sandy and to prepare for future storms. The three main goals of the office are to administer the Housing Recovery program, a Small Business program and a Community Reconstruction program. These initiatives are for the whole state; however a recent presentation to the Planning Committee, in October 2013 highlighted their plans for Staten Island. The three major themes that were focused on were to leverage available funds for maximum value, strengthen connects to the East and South Shores, and continue the building of strong networks of civic, health, and social service organizations.

PART 4: PREVIOUS NEW YORK STUDIES + PLANS

40

New York Citys Build It Back Program Mayor Bloomberg announced the opening of registration for the New York City Build It Back Program on June 3rd, 2013. The program exists to help homeowners, landlords and tenants in all five boroughs that were affected by Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012. According to the citys recovery website, NYC Build It Back provides several pathways to help affected residents return to permanent, sustainable housing by addressing unmet housing recovery needs in several categories. According to WNYC, there are an estimated 20,000 people who are expected to be eligible. As of early August, 14,000 had registered for the program and $519 had been allocated to single and multi-family homes. The $648 million Build It Back program was designed as a follow up program to the citys Rapid Repair Program, which helped cover emergency repairs, such as replacing boilers and electrical wiring, but not bigger work, like installing new sheet rock and lighting or even raising properties out of the flood plain. Build It Back will take on the repair and rebuilding work through city-selected contractorswhich the administration is still in the process of choosingthough property owners can also work with their housing recovery specialist to qualify their own contractors. The program is designed to make Federal Aid more accessible to New York City residents recovering from the storm. Build It Back will administer the Federal Community Development Block Grants that have been set aside for Sandy recovery. During the programs announcement in June, Mayor Bloomberg explained that: Hurricane Sandy was the worst storm ever to hit New York City and today, we are launching a new program to continue the road to recovery. Through NYC Build it Back, we are making our Federal aid package simple and understandable, and tailoring assistance to the specific needs of the families and businesses most impacted by Sandy. Whether its personal assistance in the rebuilding process or reimbursements for completed repairs, this program will provide a new infusion of support to

help families, neighborhoods and businesses come back stronger and more resilient than ever before. According to the Mayors office, NYC Build it Back provides four pathways to help New Yorkers affected by Hurricane Sandy return to sustainable homes: Repair: A NYC Build it Back professional contractor can help eligible participants whose homes require minor to moderate repairs. Registrants also have the option of selecting their own contractor within Federal and program guidelines. Rebuild: If a home is substantially damaged and needs to be rebuilt, qualifying participants can choose a home model that is designed specifically for their community, uses the best available resiliency standards and is designed by a NYC Build it Back developer. Alternatively, registrants can choose their own architect and contractor to develop and build their homes within Federal and program guidelines. Reimbursement: The City can also help participants recover eligible out-of-pocket costs for minor repairs already made to their homes that satisfy all Department of Housing and Urban Development and other requirements. Acquisition: Some owners may want to voluntarily sell their homes and in some cases, the City will be able to work with communities to strategically redevelop these properties in a smarter, more resilient way. Housing Recovery Specialists will be able to explain these options. The program requires residents to register and then have their damage assessed by a housing recovery specialist, who will also assess how much aid has already been received, and how much more money is necessary to fix or rebuild a home. The program will offer up the difference in the cost of a grant. Staten Island residents only have until September 30 of 2013 to register for the program.

Early Critiques of the Build It Back Program Despite the citys promise to help New Yorkers repair, recover and rebuild as quickly as possible through the Build It Back program, many residents have expressed doubts and frustration with the process. According to an August article in the Staten Island Advance, Notwithstanding the citys promise that its Build it Back initiative will replace hundreds of Staten Island homes destroyed or ruined by Hurricane Sandy, some borough residents discouraged by endless setbacks in the recovery process and betraying an overall lack of confidence in government programs doubt theyll ever actually return to their properties. While the program itself is young, residents that have been burned by earlier programs, agencies and contractors have deep doubts about getting the repairs they need in a reasonable time. Many residents who participated in the citys original Rapid Repair program reported major delays and poor workmanship. This has led to doubts about the efficacy of the Build it Back Program. Many city residents are also frustrated that it has taken so long to start receiving the federal aid theyve needed. Originally the aid was supposed to start being dispersed in May or June, which was still many months after the hurricane. According to the Director of the Mayors Office of Housing Recovery Operations, the delay has been caused by the lengthy environmental approval process that the US Departments of Housing and Urban Development Requires. There are a lot of hoops to jump through, Gair said, and a lot of things that have to be done just very carefully, because if we dont do environmental right, and we dont do procurement right, HUD will not reimburse us.

41

42

BUYOUTS + ACQUISITIONS
43

Staten Islands South Shore (Midland Beach, New Dorp Beach, Crescent Beach, and their sub-neighborhoods) require a comprehensive approach to recovery from Hurricane Sandy and to protect the area from similar destruction in the future. These efforts are commonly referred to as resiliency. Insurance, Buyouts, acquisition of flood-prone lots, Land Trusts, and other policy changes comprise many of the tools that can be used to create a more resilient region. The study area is comprised of varying topologies, water networks, and storm issues, and each neighborhood requires different resiliency applications and overarching policy recommendations.

INTRODUCTION

Our criteria for buyout and acquisitions are defined as follows: broad community support for the buyout/acquisition process, building typology, proximity to the waterfront and the 100 year floodplain, and data we collected from surveying the neighborhoods. The criteria we used are prominent in every neighborhood. In Midland Beach, for example, we found broad community support for buyouts as well as vulnerable housing affixed in the floodplain. The studio decided to designate the Ocean Breeze area of Midland Beach and New Drop beach for acquisition because of the level of damage from the storm surge, proximity to the wetlands, and consensus from the community in visioning sessions, while buyouts are an appropriate and well-supported for Midland Beach and New Dorp Beach. New York State is currently conducting a planning exercise in response to Hurricane Sandy called New York Rising. New York Rising and the State have qualified our buyout effort targets by designating Oakwood Beach and Ocean Breeze as lands to be acquired. We advocate for further buyouts in other areas adjacent to Staten Islands Bluebelt, a natural land reserve and storm water management system. Flood Insurance is also a major overarching issue for the area. Due to of changes with the National Flood Insurance program, experts predict a major increase in flood insurance monthly costs for homeowners in the area.

This increase creates issues of housing affordability, home value, costs to renovate, and tax revenue for the city. The flood insurance program is more than a collective of personal issues; there are implications for New York City as a whole and methods to mitigate substantial increases need to be considered on a broader scale. These mitigation efforts include buyouts, housing elevation changes, land reserves, and other policies required by the Federal Government to receive area-wide flood insurance reductions. Other complimentary policies could also help the community to become more resilient in the future including a land trust program and a regional authority for easily flooded areas. The creation of land trusts where lots are unsuitable for development can legally protect these areas without the need for substantial government intervention. Community Land Trusts exist in Manhattan; they are cooperatives between public and private partners to steward land for an economic or social benefit. A flood zone authority provides a way to regulate land use and development along the flood plain throughout the New York-based metropolitan area. A coordinated effort from an authority that supersedes local zoning could create a uniform land development system from New York and other areas. An authority could represent the aforesaid flood mitigation needs and prevent competition between local jurisdictions over ease of development in flood-prone areas.

44

Neighborhood Recommendations

Midland Beach Oakwood Beach Crescent Beach

Midland Beach Buyouts & Acquisitions: In the Midland Beach neighborhood we chose two areas that may be targeted for the buyout/acquisition process. Our primary area is Ocean Breeze, situated southeast of Father Capodanno Boulevard. Ocean Breeze may be divided into two sections; the first is bound by Oceanside, Seaview, Quincy, and Naughton Avenues, the second is bound by Father Capodanno and Slater Boulevards, Quincy Avenue, and Sioux Street. Our secondary area is bound by Lincoln Ave, Hunter Ave, Freeborn Street, and Father Capodanno. Both areas are within the 100 year floodplain or FEMA designated zone AE. This area is more difficult to define due to clusters of vacant housing often surrounded by more modern resilient building typology. For this secondary area we recommend buyouts, as well as a broad acquisition policy. Our rationale is based on surveying the neighborhood, information acquired during our community charrette, and research. During our survey of the neighborhood we observed high numbers of properties that were either destroyed or vacant in Ocean Breeze relative to the greater Midland Beach Neighborhood. After plotting the addresses and developing a map of the vacant properties throughout Midland Beach, two large clusters formed which were predominantly found in Ocean Breeze, and the community charrette reinforced our findings to support a buy45

out. On November 18, 2013, Governor Cuomo and the State of New York confirmed this assessment by including Ocean Breeze in the State buyout program. The program will include 129 properties in the Ocean Breeze neighborhood, which will be acquired by the State of New York and returned to nature. The secondary buyout/acquisition area of Midland Beach is more difficult to define. During our survey we observed a disparate building typology, as well as contrasting street and lot elevations. This is evidenced by walking on Olympia Boulevard or Hunter Avenue where it is common to see a cluster of early twentieth century bungalows adjacent to elevated two to three story townhouses. Variation in structural elevation and integrity may also be to blame for these scattered destroyed homes. Newer more resilient housing is built above the street level, while the older homes are built below the street level. 208 of the 521 homes in the study area were built before1980 and lack standards needed to mitigate flooding. The current building typology presents a problematic dichotomy for neighborhoods with respect to fostering resiliency and future development patterns. As such, we cannot advise a wholesale buyout. Rather, we recommend a combination of buyouts and acquisitions depending on community support and the given situation. For example, if properties are adjacent to the Blue Belt or open space, then the lots may be incorporated into those land uses. However, if the homes are surrounded by other homes that have fared well, then the land may be suited for a strategic acquisition and rebuilding in a more resilient way. Similarly, if it is determined that the block requires open space it may be beneficial to return select clusters of land to open space. Neighbors with newer more resilient housing may elect to buy the adjacent vacant land to expand their own properties. The City and the State should work with homeowners to make this option available to the Midland neighborhood.

46

Oakwood Beach Acquisition Recommendation: While the State of New York has already approved a buyout for the Fox Beach and Kissam Avenue neighborhood, the area of Oakwood Beach adjacent to Miller Field should also be eligible for buyouts and acquisitions. This area is separated along a boundary of Cedar Grove in the South, Milton Ave in the North, and New Dorp Lane in the East. Cedar grove and housing closer to the shore should be given buyout preference, with the buyouts contingent on community interest and willingness to participate in the program. As we move North in our study area toward the Milton Ave boundary, the area affixed between Roma and Milton should open broadly to acquisitions and buyouts. Our findings have shown that patches of this area were more resilient, particularly along Wavecrest Street. As such, a wholesale buyout cannot be possible at this time. Rather, the area between Cedar Grove and Milton should be slated for a gradual return to nature. Our rationale is based on research, observation, and the data we acquired during our community charrette, which described widespread damage along Cedar Grove. Further research has shown that most of the buildings constructed in this area were built prior to 1980s, and therefore lack the new building standards that were in place to mitigate flooding and make homes more resilient. South of Roma street alone, there are 505 units, of which 329 were built before 1961. Overall, buildings built before 1980 make up sixty percent of the buyout area. This is problematic because during the 1980s Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) were elevated to account for wave action, as older building-types like those in Oakwood were vested into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Consequently, when flooding occurs, these older homes suffer tremendous damage. Many of these older homes are of low-lying, single-story bungalows and ranch houses. In the past, these homes were seasonal, and were not designed to overcome seasonal flooding, much less the storm surge which accompanied Hurricane Sandy. This is important when we take into consideration that most of the older homes have their utilities (gas and electricity) below the
47

Crescent Beach: Acquisition Recommendation BFE and are only habitable at the first floor level. As such, even minimal flooding can cause severe damage to the structure and can be particularly dangerous for those that live there. While retrofitting these homes is an option, we must warn that it is a difficult task given the lot sizes of most of the homes. Many of the homes are defined by incredibly narrow lots or are semi-attached to other structures. In fact, 364 (roughly 1/3) of the buildings in the study area are attached or semi-attached. These homes are extremely difficult to elevate efficiently to BFE or to Zoning Design Flood Elevation (ZDFE). The NYC Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) report estimated that owners of approximately 39 percent of the buildings in the 100-year floodplain would face considerable challenges if they sought to retrofit their properties. To make matters worse, if these homeowners cannot retrofit, they are then constrained by the burden of flood insurance cost. According to the New York Times, owners of a $250,000 home with a ground floor built four feet below sea level could pay nearly $9,500 a year for flood insurance. The high cost of insurance is important when we take into consideration the geographical characteristics of the region. The region defined in our boundary is within a topographical bowl effect and is actually below sea level. As such, based on FEMA projections of an expanding floodplain these characteristics make even the more resilient housing erected post- 1980s vulnerable to future storms. In light of these characteristics, and given that the area is in AE flood zone (the same designation was given to Fox Beach and Ocean Breeze, which are both slated for Buyouts), is within the 100 year flood plain, the State and the City should aggressively work on returning the entire area to nature over time. In the neighborhood of Crescent Beach, below Hylan Blvd in an area between Whitman Ave to Oceanic Ave, there are clusters of homes that have requested a buyout. The intensity of the concentration is mostly along Wiman Ave and Goodall Street, near the water and the homes are older bungalows found in pockets surrounded by newer, densely built housing which are raised to meet building code. These homes cannot easily or cost-efficiently be raised to meet updated building standards, as will be further discussed in this report. These homeowners would rather be bought out than invest huge sums to raise their homes, or pay for the rising costs of flood insurance. After reviewing the Request for Enhanced Zone Designation of Sandy-Damaged Homes in Coastal Great Kills and Eltingville Communities put together by the Crescent Beach Buyout Committee, a visual assessment of the area almost a year after Hurricane Sandy, and study of the updated information regarding buyouts from NY Rising, we propose that the Crescent Beach neighborhood be a candidate for acquisition. They are not currently included in the NY Rising priorities for buyouts/ acquisitions, and as funds become available it would be beneficial to assist these homeowners with a buyout for the purpose of acquisition. Due to the high value of home prices in this area, and the resiliency of much of the neighborhood after Hurricane Sandy, buying these properties from their owners to rehabilitate and then either build homes that meet resiliency standards, or create open space would be the most feasible solution. The concerns of the homeowners in Great Kills and Eltingville that submitted their names to the Crescent Beach Buyout Committee are valid. The recent development of homes, built at higher elevations than the streets at the waters edge cause more severe flooding of older, lower lying bungalow homes. The reality of returning these areas to nature, in light of all the recent development in this area makes it an unlikely scenario due to the high pressures of development and the piecemeal nature of buyout interest in Crescent Beach. Acquiring parcels, and converting them to small parklet spaces, as neighbor-

48

hood interest dictates, is certainly feasible. New capital improvements, like improved sewer and drainage systems in Crescent Beach below Hylan Blvd, and updating building codes so that new development is prepared to meet the challenges of future storm surge flooding will likely mediate many of the problems encountered during Hurricane Sandy. Acquisitioning these properties will help families that have experienced enormous amounts of stress and heartache due to the damages caused by the storm by purchasing their home for their pre storm value. These properties can then be rebuilt in a sustainable manner and incorporated back into the neighborhood fabric. Crescent Beach Potential Acquisition/Buyout Map) As shown in the maps below, of the 321 homes built in the area, 208 were constructed before 1980, when new flood mitigation standards were implements.

Buyout Considerations beyond the Study Area: As our Studio neared its conclusion, our client informed us of a growing groundswell of support for buyouts in South Beachs shoreline communities; specifically: Sunnymeade Village and attached homes along Crestwater Court and Sand Lane. Building off of Governor Cuomos recent support for a buyout of Ocean Breeze, residents here (with support from the South Beach Civic Association) have petitioned for buyouts claiming that the criteria used to evaluate Ocean Breeze proximity to coastline, low topography, and outdated non-compliant housing stock in the flood plain also characterizes some of South Beach. We performed a brief survey (remotely) of Sunnymeade Village and the adjacent areas and found that some of the criteria we used to evaluate the resiliency of our study area can be found in these places. For example, Sunnymeade Village, similar to Ocean Breeze, sits in a topographical low-lying bowl and has a considerable quantity of old housing stock. Crestwater Court, despite being somewhat elevated, is surrounded by wetlands, and attached homes along Sand Lane are in close proximity to the shore line. Nevertheless, given the limited timeframe of our Studio, a full comprehensive study of South Beach could not be conducted at this time. We do, however, recognize that the potential for buyouts and land acquisitions may stretch beyond the boundaries of our study area. At this time we recommend further analysis of South Beach which would include extensive community outreach, on-site observations, best practice research and in-depth housing study to determine if buyout or land acquisitions would be the best course of action for these communities.

49

Flood Insurance
Overview This section analyzes the implications of the revised National Flood Insurance Program on Staten Island in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. From the research, the section finds that flood insurance is expected to increase for the vast majority of participants and potential participants. This increase will comprise a significant amount of monthly income. The impact will affect the amount of money a borrower will be able to afford to purchase a house. The change in property purchasing power has the potential to affect the value of housing in the area and the economic profile of individuals who can afford a home. There is mitigation of this impact in the form of a consortium to raise homes. Historical Context In 1968, the United States created the National Flood Insurance program. The law exists to insulate homeowners from personal hardship and economic distress, acts as an additional protection for residents of the flood plain in addition to natural and man-made defense, and acts as an incentive to increase the federal purview over development in flood plains. Over the 45 year lifespan of the law, the NFIP accomplished many of its stated goals. However, early 21st Century flooding, Hurricane Katrina as a notable example, threatened the solvency of the program funded by insurance premiums. This eventually provoked Congress to pass the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The act will significantly increase the flood insurance rate for flood plain homeowners. At inception, the flood insurance program covered all homeowners in the flood plain regardless of the buildings level of risk at a subsidized level. For example, a building at zero elevation with no elevation off the ground paid an amount deeply reduced from the actual risk of rebuilding in the case of a flood. This is the case with many buildings in the South Shore of Staten Island in Midland and New Dorp Beach. In 1974, revisions to the NFIP required all homes in the flood plain to purchase flood insurance if that home needed mortgage financing in Special Flood
50

Hazard Areas (SFHA). In New York City, SFHA are the flood zones A to C, and defined as, locations that have a chance of experiencing coastal or river flooding in any given year. The 100-year flood designation means the area has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. The South Beach of Staten Island (Midland Beach, New Dorp Beach, and Crescent Beach) meet that criteria. As noted in other sections, buildings in this area often lay at zero elevation with no built elevation. 1988 marks a significant year in the National Flood insurance program. The program developed the North American Vertical Data 1988 which measured elevations across the country. With this data, the government developed a set of requirements which stated that all properties within the flood plain must be elevated to eleven feet from zero elevation in order to qualify for flood insurance among other requirements. However, the government still insured homes built before 1988 with no increases in their rates relative to the risk. This affected many properties in the South Beach of Staten Island. Properties within New Dorp Beach and Midland Beach tend to be older than the 1988 requirement while properties in Crescent Beach tend to be built after 1988. This results in less damage in the Crescent Beach area despite similar ground elevations. In 2003, the Federal government determined that the Flood Insurance program premium did not cover the costs of the program. To mitigate that issue, Congress passed the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 which restricted the number of claims a flooded property could make to no more than two claims exceeding $1,000 dollars in a ten year period. The cost of Hurricane Katrina exposed further vulnerabilities of the National Flood Insurance Program. The budget deficit from for the flood insurance program reached as high as 19 billion dollars between 2005 and 2010, yet the Program is not allowed to hold a reserve fund. This means that it must turn over any proceeds from the pro-

gram to the United States Treasury at the end of any year, unlike other insurance programs, which invest proceeds in less risky years to cover costs in more risky years. Ironically, the NFIP can borrow from the United States Treasury with interest during years where the program must cover more costs than premium income. As of 2010, the NFIP program could not charge market rates or assess properties based on actual risk, making the program financially unsustainable. The vulnerabilities with regard to the NFIP lead to the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Under the law, rates for all properties must be set to cover the average historical loss year, including catastrophic loss years, in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principlethis translates into actual risk assignment. New rates take affect for new property purchasers as of July 1, 2012, and rates go up by 10 to 20% per year for existing participants in the flood insurance program until their premium matches their risk using actuarial assessment. The penalty for non-compliance with the program increases from $300 to $2000 per year. Rates rise when a place sees catastrophic loss. The Biggerts-Waters Act significantly affected the insurance premiums of those in Staten Islands South Beach. Most of the properties developed in the area have been grandfathered through time to maintain participation in the flood insurance program. These properties are prone to flooding and very vulnerable in the case of a 100 year storm surge, as illustrated by Hurricane Sandy. With the contraction of government subsidy, the actual value assessment, and the new risk as defined by the effects of Hurricane Sandy, many of these property owners insurance rates are set to skyrocket by over 100%. That speculation is qualified by data below and conversations at the October 17th public meeting in Oakwood Beach.

Analysis of the Issue The South Beach of Staten Island is determined to be a High Risk Area as defined by the NFIP. This information is based on maps of GIS data from FEMA. The NFIP defines (A and V Zones) as high risk areas, and calculates flood risk based on a variety of factors, including elevation and building construction. It is generally understood that High-Risk Areas are assessed at a higher rate than other areas. The tier below high risk is known as Residential Standard Zones (B,C,X). The chart below illustrates rate estimates for these areas. The average property value in the study area is difficult to estimate after Hurricane Sandy. Some see the area as a sellers market post storm because of a reduction in inventory. Using New York City PLUTO data from the City Planning, our team put together a charge of market valuation of housing in the area based on pre-storm totals. The largest number of single family homes are zoned R-2 with a market value of $430,308. The largest number of multi-family homes are 2-family homes zoned R3-1 with a market value of $623,903 and a value of $364,084 per unit. We used the market value from these predominating lot types when modeling for the impact of flood insurance on Staten Island. It is important to note that housing values vary widely after Hurricane Sandy. Many houses were significantly damaged, and the city has not re-assessed damage to properties following the storm.

Pre-Sandy Market Value of Lots in the Study Area Zoning C3A C4-1 C8-1 R1-2 R2 R3-1 R3-2 R3X Total Market Value by Zoning $ 1,498,868,142.86 $ 2,753,955,814.29 $ 62,857,071.43 $ 40,350,842.86 $ 197,081,071.43 $ 4,300,568,342.86 $ 6,651,502,300.00 $ 188,488,085.71 # of Lots 281 106 12 45 458 6,893 1,067 832 By Building Sqft. By Unit $ 199.33 $ 370,548.37 $ 575.85 $ 854,734.89 $ 1,137.31 $ 1,795,916.33 $ 201.96 $ 877,192.24 $ 267.69 $ 369,065.68 $ 281.54 $ 364,084.69 $ 248.69 $ 332,541.86 $ 191.19 $ 209,198.76 By Lot $ 5,334,050.33 $ 25,980,715.23 $ 5,238,089.29 $ 877,192.24 $ 430,308.02 $ 623,903.72 $ 6,233,835.33 $ 226,548.18

Using the average housing value identified above, conservative estimates can be made with regard to the cost of flood insurance in the study area. Using a $430,000 valuation for a single family home, the average cost of insurance for a building in Staten Island should be in the range of $3,500 a year under new rates in Zones (B,C,X). One would assume that the number would increase because South Beach is a neighborhood with more risk. Some residents at the community charette mentioned flood insurance that increased from $500 per year to $4,000 per year. There are anecdotes of some peoples flood insurance increasing from $500 per year to $25,000 per year. That may be an outlier, but still an actual occurrence. To develop some key findings for this study, the team chose to use the conservative estimate of $3,500/year as the new insurance rate, and $500/year as the previous insurance rate. Coverage Annual Premium1 Coverage Annual Premium1 Coverage Annual Premium2 $35,000/ $10,000 $572 $35,000 $414 $10,000 $203 $50,000/ $15,000 $807 $50,000 $569 $15,000 $282 $75,000/ $20,000 $1,031 $75,000 $714 $20,000 $361 $100,000/ $30,000 $1,204 $100,000 $782 $30,000 $466 $125,000/ $40,000 $1,322 $125,000 $850 $40,000 $515 $150,000/ $50,000 $1,439 $150,000 $919 $50,000 $565 $250,000/ $100,000 $1,958 $250,000 $1,191 $100,000 $812 (National Flood Insurance Program) Household Size Area Median Income 1 Person $58,100 2 Persons $66,400 3 Persons $74,700 4 Persons $83,000 5 Persons $89,700 6 Persons $96,300 7 Persons $103,000 8 Persons $109,600

51

Given a generic single family homeowner with typical debt entering into a mortgage, the group finds that the new flood insurance rates greatly affect home affordability in the study area. We have developed a generic individual Joe Policorpo to purchase a house in the study area. Joes full income breakdown, debt, and expenses are broken down below. Joe has an average student loan, auto, and credit card debt profile which totals $50,000 with a monthly debt service of $797.00. He is a single individual looking to purchase a single-family home at a value of $430,000 with average complimentary insurance and tax costs. The taxes follow the NYC rate for Class A 18% assessment at 6% of the homes value. Joes income is determined to be the area median income according to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2013 on Staten Island. We use median income because its less prone to skew from the wealthy. The full-income detail per family size is in the chart at right. Using that chart, we determine that Joe makes $58,100 dollars a year. According to the estimates, Joe would not have been able to purchase a home in the study area before Hurricane Sandy. The chart shows that his $58,000 dollar income would not have been able to handle a monthly payment of $2,134 dollars a month. The minimum income required to purchase this home would be $73,000 per year. The pre-storm value assumes a flood insurance of $500/year. Using a $3,500/year flood insurance cost after Hurricane Sandy, Joes position significantly worsens. He would need a minimum income of $81,000 per year to purchase the same home according to the chart to the right. Joe is in better condition with regards to purchasing a multifamily home. Pre-Sandy, Joe would need an income of 63,000 per year to purchase a $623,000 home if we assume $ 1,800 rent revenue. Post-Sandy, Joe would need $75,000 in income to make the same purchase. We assume that Joe would need a minimum of $5,000 in insurance for his multi-family home. The information poststorm chart details our calculations below.

52

Potential Implications The increase in cost for this neighborhood has implications that span beyond affordability. The increase in the insurance cost has the potential to drive down the property value of housing in the flood plain. If flood insurance begins to consume a part of the overall monthly payment, and if people are not willing to pay more than the current price, then the housing price will need to diminish to meet the demand for a certain maximum mortgage payment in the neighborhood. For example, if Joes total payment of $2,134.00 is a hard ceiling on monthly payments for single family homes then the flood insurance increase will push down the cost of homes so that someone can still pay $2,134 for the same property. The chart below illustrates this condition. The diminished property value in the flood plain could devastate the South Beach community. Homeowners could owe more on their mortgages than the value of their homes. That effect, known quite ironically in this case as an underwater mortgage, would prevent homeowners from selling their homes in order to leave the area. If a homeowner cannot sell for the cost to repay their mortgage, that homeowner would still need to pay a monthly payment to a mortgage company to resolve the debt on their homes. Furthermore, homeowners would not have the ability to borrow against the value of their homes to make needed renovations. The issue with renovations would most likely adversely impact renters.

An owner has less incentive or financial tools to upgrade or maintain quality housing units when property owners do not see a return on their investment nor can they borrow money at a low cost to make improvements. Diminished home value makes a financial impact on New York City. If property values fall in the South Beach of Staten Island, New York City will then receive less tax revenue. Increased flood insurance cost and diminished property value could potentially ruin New Yorks competitive advantage against other waterfront communities on Long Island and New Jersey. As an example, New Yorks coastal communities see less month to month expenses borne relative to other communities. This largely stems from New York Citys low property tax assessment. Whereas the average property tax burden for a million dollar costal home can approach $25,000 or more per year in some communities, when that burden in New York would total approximately $10,800 dollars. If flood insurance rises dramatically, monthly housing costs could rise to such a point where there is little value realized from the property tax difference. To provide a dramatic example, our chart notes that with an average property value a homeowner pays about $1,500 in mortgage, $400 in property tax, and $50 in flood insurance per month currently for a total payment of $1950 a month. In an area where the tax rate is higher, a buyer may pay $800 dollars a month in property tax for a grand total of $2350 with the same

housing and flood costs. The buyer with double the taxes pays 20% more in total monthly payments. If the flood insurance rate increases dramatically to say $300 per month in our conservative estimates, the buyer pays only 18% less to live in New York. The proportion of monthly payment dedicated to flood insurance decreases the percentage advantage of New York Citys discount with low property taxes. That could lead to residents choosing other costal housing markets instead of New York City.

53

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATEN ISLANDS EAST SHORE

Introduction
As the East Shore of Staten Island confronts the realities of rehabilitation, the challenges faced by the community are varied. Meeting these unique challenges requires a palette of solutions, from returning the land to its natural state to rebuilding resiliently and with a reinforcement of community interest and involvement to finding suitable places for resilient new development were displaced residents could reside. The tools considered here, land trusts, community land trusts, and government management strategies such as the creation of special districts with zoning and development oversight constructs and one unified flood management organization, are all meant to be adaptable strategies for consideration.

54

Recommendations
Land Trusts
The creation of a land trust for vacated and bought out properties in Staten Island could be an important tool to legally protect, and direct future uses for risk-prone areas in the East Shore. The Land Trust Alliance defines a land trust as a nonprofit organization that, as all or part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisition, or by its stewardship of such land or easements. As a land trust, vulnerable properties that are bought out by the government using specially allocated Hurricane Sandy relief funds would benefit most by shifting from government control into the control of a not-for-profit organization with close ties to the community. The not-for-profit land trust would be in charge of maintaining the property in line with the wishes of the community, but work cooperatively with the New York City government to focus its mission in keeping with the overarching city plans for the East Shore. With this organizational structure, a land trust would have much more flexibility to operate. As a not-for-profit, the trust would qualify for tax breaks and attract donations from other local citizens interested in divesting themselves from flooded properties in neighborhoods like Oakwood Beach, Ocean Breeze and Midland Beach. As the City is establishing the acquisition of property to extend the Blue Belt system in Midland Beach, surrounding property that does not fall within those technical boundaries would still benefit the community as open space. The existence of severely damaged and vacant properties in some of the hardest hit areas from Hurricane Sandy have an adverse physical and psychological impacts on the surrounding community due to mold, hazardous buildings, and tracts of vacant street. An additional way to look at these land trusted properties, is as a conservation buffer which would work along with the Blue Belt to provide environmental, health, and recreational benefits to the community in the areas near, or surrounding sensitive wetland environments. The protection from development provided from a land trust designation would remove pressure to inspect and oversee development and building codes.

Community Land Trusts

A community land trust is viable for adoption in locations on the East Shore where acquisitions are an option. A community land trust is a non-for-profit corporation that stewards viable community assets. Moreover, land trusts already exist in New York City out of the pressing need to provide economic and social benefits to the community. An excellent example is the Cooper Square Community Land Trust, established with a multi-faceted of empowering the community and cultivating open land. In the view of Dr. Tom Angotti, Director of the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development (CCPD), the land trust strengthens the community and provides legal assistance and knowledge of tenant rights, the protection of historic and culturally significant properties in the neighborhood, and assistance for locally owned small businesses.

control works, and (3) maintaining the integrity of the flood control system. In Harris County, the creation of a special purpose district by the government attended to their mission: to provide flood damage reduction projects that work, with appropriate regard for community and natural values. By devising storm water management plans; 2) Implementing the plans; and, 3) Maintaining the infrastructure. In this role, of a government agency carrying out flood management plans, with concern for community and environmental needs carries weight for the situation of New York State and New York City. Harris County and the California Valley Flood Protection board developed their own separate government institution to monitor buyouts and oversee flood mitigation measures. In the case of Harris County this includes buyouts, acquisitions, and flood mitigation measures like the development of watersheds and the Greens Bayou Wetlands Mitigation Bank. In contrast, New York Rising is nebulous and seems temporary, a program created as an immediate reaction and designed for reconstruction purposes. If NY State is to be successful, this studio recommends NY Rising becoming a permanent independent authority. California and Texas have benefited from creating a specialized agency dedicated directly to issues of flooding and damage prevention. By granting their flood management organizations clear authoritative powers and a supporting budget, they were able to improve efficiency and initiate improvement.

Case Studies in Flood Zone Management

Successful flood planning management of prone areas can be found in several examples across the United States. Exemplary among these are the California Central Valley Flood Protection Board and the Harris County Flood Control District from Houston, TX. There are several commonalities in the operation of these two organizations that contribute to their success. Each was established after acute flooding early in the 20th century with regulatory control and authority over a specified area of concern to reduce the future instances of catastrophic flooding. According to the California Central Valley Flood Protection Board, In 1911 the Legislature created the California State Reclamation Board, which was given regulatory authority over the Sacramento Valleys Local Maintaining Agencies (LMAs), with the objectives of (1) assuring a logical, integrated system for controlling flooding along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries in cooperation with United States Army Corps of Engineers, (2) cooperating with various agencies in planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining flood

55

Structure This studio recommends the creation of a permanent flood management authority comprised of a collaboration of state and city officials, to be granted specific authority over districts recognized as sensitive to flooding. By making NY Rising permanent, we would reduce confusion over separate city and state programs and increase efficiency by consolidating and avoiding the duplication of effort. A clearer process for the authority would be established, improving predictability of response for any future extreme weather crises. The Urban Land Institute also supports the creation of a collaborative authority, what they call a task force, to promote regional coordination. By emulating the most successful flood management programs in the nation, New York can get ahead of any future disasters, and more effectively protect its citizenry. Information would be simplified by being housed in one organization, streamlining information regarding buyouts, acquisitions, and storm mitigation for homeowners. The agency could expedite the tracking of housing with repeated flooding, which could be used to direct future buyouts, and increase the presence of resiliency programs undertaken by both the city and the state. The agency would also make the buyout/acquisition process permanent as our study areas gradually return to nature. Furthermore, the acquisition process would alter and provide the authority the right to further redevelop the property for more resilient housing or return it to nature depending on community needs and where the housing is situated. The buyout/acquisition areas that fall under the authoritys jurisdiction are critical to ensure that flood mitigation strategies are implemented and building standards are upheld. The authority would provide needed oversight over development. For example, if developers disturb the designated buyout/acquisition areas, they would be required to pay an exaction dedicated to the preservation of open space, Blue Belt/wetland creation, or infrastructure improvements. Another advantage of a separate flood management authority is to communicate directly with federal agencies like FEMA. To qualify for FEMA CRS ranking, New York needs to submit data for review by FEMA. The collection of this data and the task of passing it on to FEMA would be the responsibility of the flood management authority. Preventing repetitive collection of insurance money is also important to FEMA; by having an authority keep track of New York applications and awards, the federal, state and city governments would all benefit, and relief money would be more effectively allocated to property owners who need it most. To better understand the benefits of ranking on the CRS, please refer back to the FEMA/Insurance section in this report.

Conclusion The individual neighborhoods of Crescent Beach, Oakwood Beach, and Midland Beach all have unique challenges and unique opportunities for recovery in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. There is a not one-size fit all answer in approaching solutions for each neighborhood. In this section we explored the consequences of higher insurance costs, the importance of NYC entering into the National CRS ranking, the best practices of buyout programs from around the country, the possibility of using land trusts and community land trusts for conserving land for purposes of affordable housing and open space preservation. Lastly, this section prepared a recommendation to reorganize, and form a consolidated, permanent government authority to regulate all aspects of flood management and recovery. The spectrum of solutions presented in this paper are meant to be possibilities, tools to be chosen by each neighborhood as they identify unique problems, utilize available assets, and decide what they want the future to look like. This palette of tools can help accomplish a community driven vision for the future of Staten Island.

56

Policy Recommendation
Insurance Policy Recommendations
Because of the recommendations above, New York City should take proactive steps to mitigate the effects of flood insurance increases. The primary vehicle to drive down flood insurance cost comes from good standing with the Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program. Complying with the Community Ratings System (CRS), the city can reduce flood insurance cost between 5% and 45% for individual homeowners in Zone A, VX which covers most of the study area. Favorable CRA ratings yield a maximum of 10% reduction in Zone B and other areas. New York City is not currently participating in the program despite already performing many tasks which would yield favorable ratings from the system. Many of these reports proposals would help realize the maximum benefit for residents of the study area. The NFIP awards favorable ratings based on a points system .The point system is shown in the chart below. CRS class 1 is the gold standard with class 10 as the least favorable award. CRS 1 is a community with over 4500 points; CRS 10 is a points level less than 450 points. Different flood mitigation activities represent earns different point levels. Table at Right: Community Rating System (CRS) Classes Different activities yield different point awards from the NFIP. However, the program requires that each community attempt most of the flood prevention activities; specifically the issuance of elevation certificates for properties in the flood zone and the location of information about flooding risk at local libraries. New York currently engages in most of eighteen flood prevention activities including the information component and issuance of elevation certificates. This is why a University of Pennsylvania study found the non-participation of the city of New York in the program extremely confusing.

57

Chart at Right: List of CRS Activities and Points Awarded Per Section This chart illustrates points as allocated by the community rating system. New York meaningfully engaged in the following activities prior to Hurricane Sandy: 300: Elevation Certificates, Mapping Information Service, and Flood Protection information 400: Additional Flood Data, Open Space Preservation, Higher Regulatory Standards, Flood Data Maintenance, Storm water management. 500: Flood management planning, Flood protections, and Drainage management The implementation of the above activities dates back to the 1980s. Elevation certificates and high regulation standards for buildings date back to 1983 building regulations. The City of New York has a legacy of storm management plans that is consistently updated with new data. The City continues to make critical investments in the area form sand dunes, parkland, and to elevated roadways to buffer potential storm surge. New York has historically kept a map of flood prone areas, evacuation routes, and emergency shelters. Information about those routes is located at key public libraries. The most recent maps are based on the North American Datam Vertical 1988. The advent of the Bluebelt built open space for the purpose of storm water management. Since Hurricane Sandy, New York state has engaged in a robust buyout program, which this study recommends is continued more aggressively. Post-Sandy, the Governor announced the formation of New York Rising as an outreach organization to develop new plans for flood prone areas. Post-Sandy efforts have provided for a number of activities for Hazard disclosure by real estate agents to flood protection assistance. All of this information contributes to the development of a new flood management plan and updated flood data, drainage management, storm water management and warning systems. As illustrated, the City of New York in conjunction with the state is engaging with many of the CRS qualifying activates. As noted by the CRS chart above, the average total award from the CRS system is 2,023a 20% reduction
58

59

in their flood insurance program. As applied to New York, an award of this number of points may be conservative. Furthermore, given the recommendations of this studio, the city stand to gain class one status through point allocation. Specific to the recommendations of this studio, New York should more aggressively engage a buyout program and redevelop those plans as park space or storm water management by way of the Bluebelt. The maximum award for a gold standard buyout program is 3,200 points. The average point award in that class is 695 points. There is an opportunity here for New York to gain more points in this category. Furthermore, earning points in this category can earn New York points in other categories. Land preservation may qualify as a flood protection as a park and can earn the city a maximum of 2,800 points if allocated as a park space, and 330 points if added to the Bluebelt. Narratives presented in the buyout section on Houston and Tulsa illustrates the success of this regiment, through which both communities gained class one rating in the CRS system. In line with some of the major recommendations of this studio, the Community Rating System awards a relatively large amount of points for acquisition and relocation, and open space preservation. As detailed in the Buyouts portion of this report, this studio recommends a combination of buyouts and acquisitions throughout the East Shore including in Ocean Breeze, neighborhoods adjacent to Miller Field, and properties scattered throughout the area. Given that our plan recommends relocating residents of these areas to less flood prone grounds and converting acquired properties into open space, if the East Shore were to join the Community Rating System, it is likely to be awarded a substantial amount of points and receive even further discounted flood insurance premiums. Below is a table directly from the CRS Coordinators Manual detailing the maximum points awarded in each category of the Community Rating System. For the most part, the points awarded are dependent on the acreage of the land acquired and the number of buildings affected. Hurricane Sandy revealed that City and State efforts are not properly coordinated. This studio recommends the establishment of a single authority to deal with flood prevention and recovery. As explained above, preparation and recovery is currently handled by multiple City and State agencies which do little to coordinate their efforts, leading to confusion among residents and the agencies themselves. To receive credit in the Community Rating System and reduce insurance premiums for East Shore residents, a single entity must be responsible for gathering all information necessary to participate in the Community Rating System and provide it to FEMA. Without the submittal of the appropriate paperwork, community-wide discounts are not likely to occur. A single entity controlling flood-related preparation and response will reduce confusion among the population about who is responsible for recovery efforts.

Conclusion It is inevitable that flood insurance will rise significantly for New York residents. That rise in flood insurance will potentially make the East Shore less affordable or devalue housing in the area. This devaluation will affect property value and compounds complicated issues of the area including the danger from flooding to life and property. The city can mitigate the rise in flood insurance premiums by complying with the CRS system. These activities will further allow the city to further initiatives to protect life and people, and provide for a better quality of life for the residents of Staten Island.

60

Flood Preparedness & Response

Preparing for and responding to flood events encompasses a wide variety of planning techniques; including changes to the physical environment and the application of emergency management procedures. The Community Rating System rewards communities that invest in preparing for and responding to flood events because prior planning often prevents property damage as well as loss of life. An example of physical improvements is the protection of critical facilities which requires commitment from local governments in the form of monetary appropriations for improvements. Simpler and less costly mechanisms such as the preparation of an evacuation plan and outreach efforts to educate citizens are also important and rewarded in the Community Rating System.

Hardening Hurricane Sandy Public Infrastructure One point where the City can step up its efforts is to develop and fortify emergency infrastructure. The CRS recommends the fortification of crucial infrastructure, and this particular recommendation helps to ensure the health, safety and welfare of Staten Islanders. Hurricane Sandy revealed the vulnerability of the East Shores infrastructure and most important facilities. The CRS Manual makes reference to levees, flood gates, and water management techniques to help communities prepare for and manage flooding. Many East Shore facilities could benefit from upgrades to their infrastructure. The CRS Coordinators Manual defines a critical facility as health and safety facilities, utilities, government facilities, and hazardous materials facilities. Protection of these facilities includes many of the techniques used to protect homes from flooding such as raising buildings and elevating utilities systems. However, because these structures are crucial in allowing officials to respond to the needs of entire communities immediately before and after floods, the CRS has special requirements in order to award points and reduce community flood insurance premiums. For example, new critical facilities should be built above the 500-year flood level rather than the usual 100-year flood level requirement. These stricter standards help ensure that hospitals, fire and police stations, shelters, nursing homes and electric substations are fully functional to quickly respond to the needs of the citizenry. The Community Rating System categorizes hazardous materials facilities as critical infrastructure because of the negative effects a malfunctioning hazardous materials facility can have during and after a flood. Wastewater treatment plants for example, should be protected to avoid the overflow of toxic sewage into streets, contamination of the water supply, and ultimately the spread of disease. Staten Island University Hospital: Staten Island University Hospital (SIUH) was greatly affected by Hurricane Sandy when access roads to the hospital were blocked and vital machinery in basement levels were destroyed by flood

waters. University administrators are currently working with FEMA to lift electric machinery to higher ground but the issue of accessibility to the hospital grounds has not been addressed and warrants attention. Installing a drainage system could help guarantee that flood waters do not block streets and that people needing medical attention can reach the hospital grounds immediately after a storm. A buyout of the Ocean Breeze community and a conversion of the buyout properties into natural landscape, as discussed in the Buyouts section of this report, would allow a larger direct connection of the Staten Island Blue Belt to the New York Bay. This project is crucial because the SIUH is adjacent to the Blue Belt which saw flood waters overflow because of inappropriate drainage and lack of access to the Bay. An unobstructed path to the bay would provide the Bluebelt with greater drainage and decrease flooding in the adjacent streets leading to the hospital. Flood gates and appropriate drainage would also have to be installed near Father Capodanno Boulevard to avoid a bowl effect caused by the higher elevation of that street. New Dorp High School: New Dorp High School is another important community asset that must be protected due to its viability as a shelter during floods and other emergencies. The structural fortitude and central location of New Dorp High School within the Midland Beach neighborhood and nearby Hylan Boulevard are some of the reasons why it qualifies as a critical facility. Although the building itself was not flooded during Sandy, flood waters crossed Titus Avenue and almost reached Mill Road, one of the streets bordering the high school. To ensure that New Dorp High School is prepared to withstand the next storm, the heating, cooling and or other electric and crucial machinery should be moved to higher grounds to ensure they are not damaged if flood waters were to reach the school. The school should also be designated as an official storm shelter and equipped with a communications center for the East Shore. Many residents of the East Shore, especially senior citizens, do not have anywhere to go in case of severe weather and New Dorp High Schools location is accessible to the main thoroughfare of Hylan Boulevard.
61

Buyouts
New Dorp Elementary School: Another facility that should be designated as an emergency shelter is New Dorp Elementary School located on Clawson Street between Locust and Otis Avenues. The school is situated north of Hylan Boulevard in an area unaffected by Sandys flood waters but is still centrally located to neighborhood residents, the main thoroughfare of Hylan Boulevard, and the Staten Island Rail Road. Like New Dorp High School, New Dorp Elementary Schools vital utilities equipment should be inspected to ensure that it is located above the base flood elevation, even if the risk of flood damage is considerably lower than for New Dorp High School. Along with upgrades to critical facilities like hospitals and schools to be used as shelters, it is essential that an evacuation route is designed and that proper signage is installed directing East Shore residents to these facilities. An outreach campaign is also necessary to educate residents about what to do and where to go during hurricane. Sandy revealed that a large portion of East Shore residents ignored evacuation orders in what appears to be a tradition of underestimating the strength of storms. During Hurricane Irene, emergency shelters throughout Staten Island saw only a small fraction of East Shore and Staten Island residents visit. Many of them were unaware that an evacuation order had been issued. Though Irene caused little damage, Sandy revealed that future storms and evacuation orders are to be taken seriously. With proper signage and an outreach program that educates the public about evacuation rights and safe shelter locations, the aforementioned facilities will be able to properly serve their purpose.

Overview: The purpose of this section is twofold: to outline the current status and policy concerning Buyouts and Acquisitions on the East Shore of Staten Island, and to provide an assessment of the Buyout policy in the United States. Overall, the section demonstrates that a proactive Buyout policy is one of the most successful and cost-effective flood mitigation strategies. (Fig Below: New York State Community Block Grant Funding Distribution) Introduction New York State Sandy Buyout and Planning Policy: On January 29, 2013 President Barack Obama signed into a law the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), which appropriated 50.5 billon dollars in aid in the recovery following the devastation incurred by Hurricane Sandy. The SRIA empowered FEMA to provide up to 25 percent of estimated hazard mitigation costs in advance of eligible costs. The new bill granted New York with targeted financial resources to obtain the data to prioritize, select, and develop timely hazard mitigation strategies. The United States provided an additional 15.8 billion dollars in aid through United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) with a mandate to assist cities, counties, and States recover[ing] from presidentially declared disasters.

62

New York State and City funded planning resilient housing, and flood mitigation strategies with HUD CDBG funding. HUD granted New York State with $1.714 billion dollars and New York City with 1.77 billion dollars. Initially, the funding structure established a hands-off policy: At this time, New York State is prioritizing assistance through the New York State allocation to areas outside of New York City. It has been determined that the $1.77 billion received by New York City will be the primary source of assistance for areas within the New York City area. However, where eligible, homeowners participating in the States Recreate NY Smart Home Buyout Program will be assisted by the States CDBG-DR allocation. The hands-off policy changed with regards to buy outs. Based on conversations with State officials (as of November 18, 2013), the State and the City of New York reached a Memorandum of Understanding which empowered the State to implement the Buyout program within City limits. The City retained control over planning and recovery efforts not related to the buyout process. This policy is written in the State of New York Action Plan for Community Block Grant Program Disaster Recovery, (published April 2013) and the funding in Figure 1 removes the counties subject to New York City from its distribution. The State further revised its intervention policy in October 2013 by establishing an action plan which provides funding for planning within New York City. State intervention is important to note because the he East Shore of Staten Island has been included in this effort with a budget of 25 million dollars. It is also important to note that funding for the implementation of this project is not guaranteed: Inclusion of a project or action in this conceptual plan does not guarantee that a particular project or action will be eligible for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding. Proposed projects or actions may be eligible for other state or federal funding, or could be accomplished with municipal, nonprofit or private investment.

NY State Buyout Structure: New York State established the following state-wide buyout structure: Standard Buyouts: This option provides homeowners with 100% of prestorm fair-market value for substantially damaged (>50%) properties within highest risk areas along the water. FEMA refers to V-Zones and Zone A as the highest risk areas The lots selected for standard buyouts within the V-zone will be converted into open space/parkland, and will remain as such in perpetuity. Under certain circumstances, the State may offer homeowners with a 10% Group Buyout incentive to certain clusters of homeowners (2-10 consecutively located properties) that are located within the high risk V Zone. It is important to note that none of the homes slated for buyouts on the East Shore of Staten Island are in the V-Zone, and are thereby excluded from the Standard Buyout option. Enhanced Buyouts: The second buyout option is for select and pre-defined targeted areas. Their determination is made in consultation with county and local governments. The enhanced buyout area will provide residents with additional incentives (up to 15%) on top of pre-storm fair-market values of the properties to remain in the county. 5% will be granted for in-county relocation, and 10% will be given to encourage maximum homeowner participation. The lots that are bought out will be maintained as coastal buffer zones or other non-residential/commercial uses. The areas subject to buyouts on the East Shore of Staten Island fit into this category of the States buyout program. Overall, the State will give preference to households earning less than 80% of the area median income.

NY Buyouts Structure: Buyout Payouts are capped and based on Federal Housing Administration housing loan limits: Richmond County Is Defined as such: $729,750 (Single Family Home) $934,200 (Duplex) $1,129,250(Triplex) $1,403,400 (Fourplex) Thus, the pre-storm fair- market value of the homes may not exceed the aforementioned prices. Buyout Strategy: The State of New York developed a buyout policy and documented considerable interest in the program. However, the States initial assessment of the program expected far fewer buyouts than initial interest would suggest: Analysis of pre-registration data for homeowners across New York State shows initial indications of interest from just over 2,500 homeowners (including New York City). While the State expects to receive more interest in the program as marketing and outreach efforts ramp up, New York ultimately expects to conduct far fewer buyouts than this initial interest might suggest. New York State made this determination because it is unclear how many homes incurred damage in excess of 50%, which is currently the primary criterion for buyouts. Although initial counts yielded 9,500 homes meeting the excess of 50% damage requirement, the State of New York did not expect to conduct more than 1,000 buyouts of eligible properties. The State made this determination based on historical precedent: only 10 percent of the homeowners who qualify accept buyouts. The State also excluded homeowners second properties from the buyout structure thereby reducing the buyout total.

63

Current Buyout Areas: While the States buyout program was anticipated to level off at 1,000 properties as of November 19, 2013, the program is slated to include 549 homes in Staten Island alone. There are an additional 613 properties in Suffolk County approved for buyouts. As it stands, the current total exceeds the States 1,000 home projection (1,162 properties to date). These statistics suggest that the State may be open to expanding the Buyout program beyond their original projection. On the East Shore of Staten Island, the Enhanced Buyout areas are approved in Oakwood Beach, and most recently (November 18, 2013) in Ocean Breeze. The area in Oakwood Beach, federally designated Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE), is bordered by Kissam Ave on the East, Tarton Street on the West, Mill Road in the North and includes parts of Riga Street, and Delwit Ave. In total, Oakwood Beach has 420 homes slated to be bought out. In Ocean Breeze, properties from Naughton Avenue to Seaview Avenue and Quincy Avenue to Oceanside Avenue will be eligible for buyouts at 100 percent of pre-Sandy fair market value, with a 5 percent incentive added to remain in New York City. In all, 129 properties are scheduled to be bought out. Governor Cuomo, in a press release, noted that:

Homeowners and businesses on Staten Island endured among the worst destruction and devastation in New York State as a result of Hurricane Sandy The reality is that extreme weather is happening more frequently and we must take a new, smarter approach to rebuilding our communities in areas prone to storm damage. By extending the states buyout program to homeowners in Ocean Breeze, we are giving residents an opportunity to move out of an area that could get hit hard again by a future storm and start over without the fear of future devastation as a result of extreme weather. The decision to buyout the properties in Ocean Breeze were based on: history of damage caused by extreme weather events, collective interest by homeowners of contiguous properties in the floodplain, and agreement among municipal officials. It is also likely that Ocean Breezes community grass-roots organization, and vocal support for buyouts, led to the formal approval of the area for the Enhanced Buyout program.

(This photo was taken at the State public workshop on November 14, 2013. The majority of the suggestions asked for buyouts in Ocean Breeze. )

64

New York City and Acquisition Policy: (Fig Below: New York City Community Block Grant Funding Distribution) On October 10, 2013, the first home was acquired by the City of New York as part of its acquisition process. The home was located in Tottenville, and owned by Mrs. Patricia Dresch, who lost her thirteen-year-old daughter and husband to Sandy. The home was acquired at post-Storm fair-market-value and the lot will be redeveloped by the City in a more resilient way. To date, this is the only recorded acquisition made by the City of New York. Further City mandated acquisitions will follow a same pattern. Under the helm of the NYC Houses Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program, the City will acquire homes for the rehabilitation or reconstruction. The City will target either individual homes or clusters of homes to mitigate future risk. It is important to note that acquired housing and lots must be made available for redevelopment and cannot be left as open space. With regard to cost, the acquisitions would be made at prices based on post-Sandy fair market value, and the City will provide interim relocation assistance toward a permanent housing solution. Per conversations with State officials, the City will work hard to bridge the gap between the post and pre-Sandy fair market value of the homes by paying the cost of relocation. While the City and States policy reflects national FEMA policy, it is of value to look at several notable national examples and FEMA policy as they relate to buyouts.

65

Tulsa, Oklahoma Tulsa, Oklahoma is one of the first municipalities in the United States to implement a voluntary buyout policy. Until the mid-1980s, Tulsa was Americas most flooded city, and had been declared a federal disaster area nine times in fifteen years. Following a massive flood in 1984, Tulsa aggressively pursued a policy that converted the floodplains to wetlands, open space, and repurposed its land use. To do this Tulsa implemented a voluntary buyout program wherein Tulsa actively pursued buildings within the floodplain and researched the viability of purchasing and relocating each building. This research also included the open space potential of where the building is located and the recurrent flood damage the structure has suffered. The municipality set priorities for their acquisitions, most being given to critical facilities like hospitals and sites that house hazardous material. Acquisition is then based on the fair market value of the building pre-flood. Tulsa also covered moving expenses and additional money for relocation outside the floodplain. Tulsa has also been proactive in saving structurally sound homes and transporting these homes to new sites. The buyout program has been an overwhelming success in Tulsa as evidenced by very low flood insurance rates. In the 1990s the flood insurance rates dropped by twenty-five percent following Tulsas buyout program, and were the lowest in the nation. As of 2013, Tulsa has the second lowest flood insurance rate. In fact, according to FEMAs Community Rating System fact sheet, the city has an average premium discount of $514 after clearing over 900 hundred buildings from the citys floodplain.

FEMA and the National Buyout Policy The mid-1990s were a turning point in the way FEMA approached flood management. Following the Great Flood of 1993, which saw the flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri river causing damage in seven states, there was a new commitment from FEMA to aggressively champion voluntary buyouts. FEMAs new perspective was likely the result of reliance on flood mitigation capital projects that cost millions, but did little to prevent flooding. From 1970-1995, FEMA spent 140 billion dollars in federal tax revenue on flood recovery and mitigation, on top of that total the Army Corp of Engineers spent an additional $25 billion on flood control projects. Despite these massive expenditures, flooding continued. To improve flood mitigation it was necessary to alter the nations approach to flooding. Rather than attempting to control nature, it was determined more beneficial to preserve the floodplain and accept the inevitability of flooding. The ideological shift in flood mitigation strategy was determined more cost-effective. This was confirmed following the Great flood, when former Missouri Governor Carnahan created a task force to evaluate the worth of a buyout program; the taskforce found that it was less expensive to purchase floodplain property from willing sellers than to continue repetitively paying insurance claims and/or providing disaster relief. As such, FEMA called voluntary buyouts and other nonstructural mitigation measures the cornerstone of emergency management. To this day, a commitment to buyouts grants municipalities the most amount of points in FEMAs Community Rating System, which determines insurance cost. The more points the community obtains, the lower the premiums. Below are several noteworthy case studies that further illuminate the scope and potential of a more aggressive buyout policy.
66

Houston, Texas Houston, part of Harris County, Texas, receives an average of 46 inches of rainfall per year, and is characterized by highly impermeable soil, making drainage difficult. These physical conditions make it more prone to flooding. As such, Houston and Harris County have one of the highest rates of repeat flood insurance claims in the United States. Houston is also a fascinating case study because it is one of the only cities in America that has no zoning; however, it has one the most strict flood mitigation policies in the country. Houston devotes most of its resources to mapping floodplains where development regulation may be enforced. According to the Harris County Flood Control District, the purchase of or buyout of houses in a flood-prone area is the most cost-effective tool in the Districts flood damage reduction toolbox. The district demonstrates that an average house built in a floodplain could have upwards to four insurance claims due to flooding thereby costing FEMA $232,000 dollars, whereas a buyout would cost roughly $191,000. When you factor in additional administrative costs associated with filing and processing damages four claims could potentially cost FEMA over 500,000, thereby making the buyout process more advantageous. Harris County evaluates every potential buyout differently and relies heavily on prescribed FEMA standards. Potential buyouts are ranked according to a formula that assesses risk, severity, and history of flooding. Harris County uses FEMAs Benefit/Cost ratio, which once fully evaluated, should show that the cost of acquiring and demolishing a home is less than the cost of projected future flood damage to that home. Generally, if the ratio is greater than 1, than a buyout is determined beneficial. To obtain funding for the buyout program, the Harris County Flood Control District relies on FEMA grants that are available yearly to needy municipalities. Some of these grants require the President to declare the county a National Disaster area, while others like the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program provides funds to implement mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. To obtain funding, the county must provide at least 25% of the funding locally. Between 1989 and 2001, Harris County in partnership with other agencies purchased 440 homes of the most repetitive flood-loss homes in Harris County for a total cost of 44 million. Since the damages incurred from Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, Rita (2005), Ike (2008), working with FEMA and the State of Texas, the county has purchased about 2,400 severely at risk and flood damaged homes for a total cost of 240 million dollars. After the buyout is complete, the county worked with local neighborhood associations to convert the open land into a community amenity, like a park or a community garden. Houstons proactive buyout and flood mitigation strategy has led to a lower Flood Insurance Community Rating of 5 which saves Houston residents 25% on their insurance policy.

Conclusion Based on the recent inclusion of Ocean Breeze into the overall buyout structure, we are hopeful that the State will advance the buyout process beyond the current borders. As evidenced by the aforementioned case studies, by removing housing from the floodplain, the State and the Federal Government actually saves money over time. While retrofitting properties and structurally rebuilding is another viable alternative, it is also costly and does not remove homes from the floodplain. As long as homes remain in the floodplain, they are prone to amassing damage due to varying storm surges. As such it is in the interest of the City and State to institute a task force that continuously monitors the East Shore, and other vulnerable communities for potential buyouts. More information regarding the development of a task force, and other specific policy suggestions will be made available in the following section.
67

68

RESILIENCY

69

Building off our robust plan for large-scale buyouts in the previous section, this next part of our plan will put forth a series of policy recommendations and building and urban design standards that will markedly improve the areas ability to withstand future storms. These strategies are designed to improve the East Shores resiliency in both the near and far future. The recommendations in this section will cover the following areas: Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Response Coastal Protection Measures and Stormwater Management Building Codes and Zoning Resolutions While buyouts will mitigate the flood risk in the most vulnerable East Shore neighborhoods, the residential and commercial areas that remain will still need protection from future storms. Beyond simply retreating from the shoreline, East Shore communities should implement policies and development standards that will protect the remaining communities and any new developments from even the most conservative sea-level rise estimates.

RESILIENCY : SHORT + LONG TERM MEASURES FOR THE EAST SHORE

70

PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE

The NYC Office of Emergency Management is charged with planning and preparing for emergency evacuations, educating the public on disaster preparedness, and the coordination of emergency responders. OEMs existing, highly-centralized evacuation and emergency response plan fails to address the unique evacuation needs of Staten Islanders which differ, in many ways, from the other four NYC Boroughs. Our disaster preparedness and emergency response recommendations consist of physical improvements and policy programming that will improve evacuation efficiency, educate residents on the dangers of potential storms, target residents who need evacuation assistance, identify roadways best-suited for evacuation, and improve communication in a natural disasters aftermath. The following case studies and recommendations are informed by our site observations, best practices research, the SImagines Planning for Recovery Program, and the NYC Hurricane Sandy After Action Report. In contrast to some of our more robust and visionary recommendations for the East Shore, most of these strategies can be implemented immediately and be in place before the next hurricane season arrives.

Recommendations:
Clearly Defined Evacuation Routes
Our site visits and independent research found that Staten Island evacuation routes are not clearly marked and a defined strategy fails to exist. We identified multiple roadways that should be designated as evacuation routes. These roadways offer the most direct connections to evacuation centers, upland areas, major arterials and Staten Island Railroad hubs. To improve evacuation wayfinding we recommend new signage be installed designating these roadways as evacuation routes.

71

Publicly Assisted Evacuation of Vulnera- BEST PRACTICE: City-Assisted Evacuation Plan New Orleans, Louisiana ble Populations
Extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy often claim the lives of the most vulnerable and isolated populations -- such as the elderly and disabled. Just over sixty percent of the lives lost on Staten Island were over the age of 60, and included a man who suffered from cerebral palsy. We recommend the OEM keep a database of the citys most vulnerable residents and partner with the MTA to safely transport these residents to upland evacuation centers 48-hours before a storm makes landfall. Keeping a database of vulnerable residents will allow OEM to locate residents needing assistance promptly. A similar strategy employed in New Orleans has been praised for its reach and efficiency by the American Planning Association. The development of such a plan requires interagency coordination from state (MTA) and local (OEM) governing bodies. In New Orleans, a non-profit Evacuteer.org is responsible for maintaining the CAEP database.

Contraflow Routes

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of the deadliest and most costly storms ever recorded, New Orleans sought to improve the Citys evacuation plan for elderly, disabled, and car-less residents. A joint study by Harvard University and The Washington Post found that between 20,000 and 30,000 residents in New Orleans might require assistance during evacuations. In 2008, prior to Hurricane Gustav, New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness started a program entitled the City-Assisted Evacuation Plan (CAEP). The program requires residents who cannot self-evacuate to register with the City online or by dialing 311. Two days prior to a storm reaching landfall the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority puts all its regional vehicles, drivers, and other resources at the disposal of the CAEP. Seventeen CAEP pick-up points, four of which are designed specifically to assist the senior citizens, are located throughout the City. The CAEP has partnered with Evacuteer.org a non-profit organization that recruits, manages, and trains volunteers to assist during an evacuation. During Hurricane Gustav it is estimated that 20,000 people used the CAEP.

Mass evacuations mirror, in many ways, the daily ritual of commuting and the experience of traffic delays. Staten Island commuters experience an average commute time of 84 minutes, or double that of any other borough. These delays stem, in large part, to the fact that most Island residents are car-dependent. Some coastal states, such as Louisiana and New Jersey, have utilized contraflow routes during storm evacuations. According to the Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Under such a strategy, the flow direction in the underutilized inbound lanes of a roadway is reversed to serve traffic in the outbound direction without the time or expense needed to plan, design, and construct additional lanes. Fundamentally, it is a quick and inexpensive way to double the capacity of a road without spending much money or waiting for it to be built. We recommend the DOT undertake a study to determine the feasibility of employing contraflow routes on Staten Islands most heavily-trafficked roadways, specifically: Hylan Boulevard, Amboy Road, Richmond Parkway, Staten Island Expressway and West Shore Expressway.

72

Improved Street Connectivity

Dead end streets abound throughout the Midland Beach, Oakwood Beach, and New Dorp Beach neighborhoods. Coupled with the never realized Moses plan for a Shore Front Drive thoroughfare, the East Shore lacks the necessary street connections and major arterials for efficient vehicle evacuation. Our plan will improve street connectivity throughout the East Shore considerably, and includes proposals to connect Father Cappadonna Boulevard with the neighborhoods of Oakwood Beach and New Dorp Beach, and create a new street (Miller Avenue) adjacent to Miller Field that connects to upland areas beyond Hylan Boulevard. Improved street connectivity will give residents multiple evacuation route options during an emergency and also allow emergency vehicles better access to distressed areas.

Improve Amenities at Evacuation Centers

According to the NYC Hurricane Sandy After Action Report, evacuation centers should be prepared to accommodate stays beyond 3 to 5 days. Sheltering residents for longer stretches requires evacuation centers to expand their services to include showers and laundry. Our research found that Staten Island evacuation centers do have shower facilities but do not have laundry facilities capable of handling an evacuated population. The Loads of Hope Program, a partnership of the American Red Cross and Tide, provide mobile laundry vans and trucks which are capable of washing 300 loads of laundry a day. OEM should consider partnering with this program and employing their vehicles at Staten Island evacuation centers.

Mobile Cell Towers

Effective communication is essential for safety before, during, and after severe storms. Many residents blamed communication failures for the delayed emergency response on Staten Island. There are many different ways communication can be improved, including expanding the reach of 311 and Notify NYC as the City has planned to do, but there are concerns this does not go far enough. Post-storm there needs to be ways of restoring communication that was lost during the storm. In the event of extensive power outages from damaged utility lines and generators, alternative communication infrastructure needs to be made available. One way to restore communication is through mobile cell towers. These units are mounted on trucks allowing them to move into areas where cell communication has been lost.

73

Storm Preparedness Education Seminars

COASTAL PROTECTION MEASURES & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Aggressive coastal protection measures and a multi-modal stormwater management network are imperative for communities located in coastal lowland areas such as those found in the East Shore. In the report, A Stronger More Resilient New York (SIRR), the city believes it needs to bulk up its coastal protection to help mitigate the effects of sea level rise and storm flooding. The following recommendations are informed by our site observations, best practice research, and community outreach. BEST PRACTICE: Coastal Dunes Point Lookout and Lido Beach Long Island, New York Dunes are sand hills that form naturally from wind and water deposits or can be artificially constructed for protection against storm surge. In coastal areas dunes are usually located along the back edge of beaches creating a barrier between the beaches and inland areas. Dunes require maintenance as they often erode during severe storms and need to be replenished with sand. Well established dunes develop sea grass ecosystems. The deep root structure of the sea grass helps keep the dunes in place and combat erosion. There are many different types of dunes including primary and secondary dunes. Primary dunes are smaller dunes that are obstructed first during a storm while secondary dunes are generally hit after. While a two dune system isnt necessary, it is optimal when wanting more protection from storms and sea level rise. Below is a picture illustrating primary and secondary dune systems. Dunes continue to prove their strength throughout storms. Long Beach is a small city on Long Beach Barrier Island off the South Shore of New Yorks Long Island. In 2006, the Army Corp of Engineers proposed a project to elevate and build dunes along the six miles of beach in this area. Many residents were opposed to the project, instead preferring a wide, flat dune-less beach. Due to the opposition of the project, the City of Long Beach voted down the project. Neighboring Long Beach communities, Point Lookout and Lido Beach, decided to approve the project and 15 foot dunes were built in these areas. The dunes that were built held strong and protected the communities during Sandy. According to Jo Vietri, director of coastal and storm risk management for the Army Corps of Engineers, You can see the evidence on Point Lookout and Lido Beach, which did much better than Long Beach.

Pre-storm communication outreach should include educating the public on the dangers of storms and how they should prepare for them. Educating people on the dangers of coastal storms can save lives and property. The OEM should hold annual disaster preparedness educational seminars in at-risk neighborhoods, to educate residents on evacuation routes and centers, how and when to best evacuate prior to a storm, how to help neighbors, and what they can do to help safeguard their property as best they can. (INSERT PHOTO: Part 3_Education Seminars)

74

Construct + Maintain a Dune Network

As proven by the experience in Long Beach, a well maintained dune network can substantially mitigate the effects of storm surge and erosion. Our studio recommends the construction and maintenance of an extensive dune network along the East Shore. According to the SIRR, a beach nourishment project is already planned for some of the East Shore. The addition of dunes to this plan would be a significant step to take to mitigate the effects of future storms. The map below shows the areas our studio identified for dune development.

75

BEST PRACTICE: Cobble Berms Cape Lookout State Park Tillamook, Oregon Berms, like dunes, are a protective infrastructure built to lessen the effects of storm surge in low lying areas. Cobble berms are a unique type of berm in that they combine the characteristics of what are often referred to as soft and hard infrastructures. Cobble berms are natural in appearance, similar in character to riprap, and relatively inexpensive to build and maintain when compared to other coastal protective structures such as bulkheads or seawalls. Cobble berms are also an excellent coastal erosion deterrent and are often used in conjunction with dunes or in areas without established beaches. Construction and maintenance of cobble berms is fairly simple as the placement of the cobbles does not need to be exact since the cobbles are expected to move during increase wave activity. In 1999, The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department constructed a substantial cobble berm network at Cape Lookout State Park. The two main reasons for building this berm was to mitigate wave activity and protect against coastal erosion. Since the implementation of the berm, there have been several major storms. The berm has endured these storms thereby proving the effectiveness of this type of structure. There have been a few storms that have toppled over the berms resulting in the displacement of cobble. However, this is to be expected with this type of structure as some human maintenance is required.

Construct Cobble Berm at Oakwood Beach WPCP

Based on previous research and information collected by our studio and community members, increasing the amount and height of the berms in the East Shore would have a significant impact. This type of infrastructure is relatively inexpensive to install and maintain making it ideal for this neighborhood. Cobble berms help mitigate erosion and also work well in areas with little significant developed beach space. Due to this fact, we recommend that construction of a cobble berm along the beach-less areas adjacent to Oakwood Beach WPCP. The map below identifies the recommended location.

76

BEST PRACTICE: Bioswales and Rain Gardens Arverne by the Sea Far Rockaway, Queens Bioswales are stormwater management systems used as an alternative or accompaniment to traditional storm sewers. These systems are designed to capture and convey water during rain and snow storms. The system allows the water to infiltrate the ground over a 24-48 hour period. The water is soaked up by the vegetation and soil thereby reducing the flood risk to nearby buildings and infrastructure. Bioswales are often used in areas with significant paved surfaces and work best when the sides of the area are sloped. The sloping sides of the bioswales should be planted with native species. Bioswales can be used in both residential and commercial environments and are often found adjacent to roadways or in place of traditional traffic medians. Rain gardens are systems used to treat storm water runoff from hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, roads, and parking lots. During storms runoff is collected by drainage pipe which route the water into the garden and infiltrates deep into the soil. The soil in rain gardens is about 1200mm deep and usually has a mix of sand and organics. Above the soil mix should be a 50-75mm layer of organic mulch. The mulch guards against erosion and filters out harmful contaminants. Rain gardens are aesthetically pleasing, cost effective, and considerably low maintenance. Arverne by the Sea is a waterfront community in Far Rockaway, Queens. Far Rockaway, like the East Shore, is a seaside community that was severely impacted by Hurricane Sandy. During construction in 2004 the developers employed several forms of green infrastructure, including bioswales and rain gardens. They have placed these types of infrastructure next to impervious services to help control the drainage and flow of water. These green installations proved successful during Hurricane Sandy as Arverne by the Sea recovered rapidly while other neighboring communities were decimated.

Residential Rain Garden Network

Rain Gardens do well in residential settings. For the proposed redevelopment of the East Shore we recommend residents install rain gardens within their backyards and front yards. The illustration below shows how we envision the layout of rain gardens on private lots.

77

Strategically Placed Bioswale Network

Due to the East Shores large amount of space dedicated to parking lots and other hard surfaces, we recommend adding bioswales to these areas. This type of infrastructure not only helps with flooding and drainage control but is also aesthetically pleasing. Bioswales should be placed along Father Cappadano Blvd, Roma Avenue, Mill Rd, Ceder Grove Ave, and Olympia Blvd. We have chosen these streets for our bioswale network because this will provide the most amount of protection from storm surge. Within these bioswales we recommend planting native plants of the region and cattails. Cattails act as natural filters removing pollutants from storm water. The map below shows the specific locations for the bioswale network.

78

BUILDING CODES & ZONING RESOLUTIONS

SCOPE OF BUILDING CODE RECOMMENDATIONS: Update the NYC Building Code to the make use of the most current available code standards and incorporate additional above-and-beyond measures to better meet changing flood-risk related to climate change. Intuitive understanding about flood elevation standards can be deceptive, and building to BFE stipulated for a 1/100 year area does not ensure the safety of a building located in a flood-zone. In a 2012 article detailing the status of building codes in New Jersey and New York released by The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IHBC), a simple point is made: a building built to a flood elevation that has a 1-in-100 chance of being met or exceeded each year has a 40% chance that the property will be flooded at least once during a 50-year period. For residential areas, common practice in the U.S. was to specify the BFE plus an additional foot, to be the lowest habitable elevation, and height for utilities. After Sandy, the city has responded by incorporating 2 feet of freeboard as a buffer for LHF elevations in 1/100 yr flood areas. The NYC Building Code is right to adopt freeboard into its requirements for new building and elevation recommendations, though this measure may not be enough to prepare the citys buildings for future storm events. Considering that codes in the city are among the most stringent and prescribed in the country, and yet they do not yet contain the latest standards for wind resilient buildings.

Update the NYC Building Code to include more wind resiliency measures, including opening protection requirements.
The NYC building regulatory system remains exempt from NYS requirements; even as it is in process of adopting the 2009 edition of the IBC to create a 2013 NYC Building Code (the city is currently enforcing the 2008 NYC Building Code). According to the IHBC, if the 20062009 International Residential Code that is observed by New York State was followed without modification, then because Staten Island is located with-in one mile of the high water line where basic wind speed is 110mph or greater, it would be required to adopt measures for opening protection. According to FEMA, opening protections are impact-resistant glazings designed for closed or partially closed structures, including storm shutters, anchorage of window and door assemblies, and other systems built to ensure that a buildings openings are strong enough to withstand wind pressures associated in wind-borne regions. The danger of not protecting openings is the damage resulting from excessive wind forces entering a structure and compromising it with uplift, or other destructive internal pressures resulting from a broken window or door which can nearly double forces trying to rip off and fold exterior walls.
79

80

BEST PRACTICES: Urban Green Building Resiliency Task Force Wind-Resiliency Proposals BRTF1 and BRTF11.

Create a program for wind-hazard mitigation efforts for homes that survived Sandy without triggering a code-based design review or permitting process
Building codes only affect new construction and the alteration or repair of substantially destroyed or altered buildings (as defined earlier in this section); so many homes which were constructed before wind resiliency entered the NYC Building Code are in need of attention. In a similar vein to the Rapid Repair Program, a program could be created to address this risk. According to IHBC, protecting openings is the most accessible step for older homes that want to increase resiliency, and can take place without major disruption to the home. Additional measures related to the roof are also stressed in their articles.

To date, New York City council has passed 13 of 33 legislative proposals made by the New York City chapter of the Urban Green Building Resiliency task force, a volunteer group of building professionals and lawmakers called on by the mayor to propose policy changes related to resiliency. In October of this year, the groups BRTF11, a wind resiliency measure designed to strengthen codes for large-occupancy places of public assembly and hospitals, was signed into law. Another measure designed to be enforced through the city building code is BRTF1: Prevent Storm Damage to Homes. This measure is devoted almost entirely to wind resiliency for single family homes, though has not yet passed. Like BRTF11, it is a list of code requirements for windows, doors, and their frames and fasteners. The requirements for single-family homes are ideally suited for the most vulnerable properties of the East Shore.

81

BEST PRACTICES: FORTIFIED for Existing Homes IHBC has developed a wind standards program which has been included in FEMAs P-804 Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings. It provides prescriptions for single-family homes in hurricane-prone regions. The program has been created in coordination with FEMA and the DFIP to identify three designations: Bronze, Silver, and Gold which prescribe protocols for evaluation and methods for reducing insurance premiums through tiered building interventions.

Implement the Urban Green Councils Task Force Proposal BR1 to create and use a 2080 Flood Map Based on Climate Change Predictions
The Urban Green Council is the New York Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a nonprofit legislative advisory organization established in 2002 with a central goal of making New York more sustainable. To date, 45 of 111 of their proposals have been incorporated into law rule or practice, and half of 10 recommendations suggested by Their Climate Adaptation Committee related to flood and non-flood hazards have been adopted. One essential recommendation related to incorporating climate change into the citys own flood projections should be put into action. Current flood maps (DFIRMS) are based on historical data, and the new maps that are currently under development only incorporate current data and do not incorporate future sea level rise and other effects related to climate change into their coastal flooding predictions. The amendment proposed to the New York City Charter, Section 498, stipulates that coastline flood projects be based on 3 sources: 1) The 90th percentile sea-level rise projection developed by the New York City Panel on Climate change and several specified scientific bodies; 2) The 90th percentile storm-surge projections developed by the same groups; and, 3) FEMAs topographic maps.

82

BEST PRACTICES: UK Climate Impact Programme London has developed flood maps based on climate change, and are in process of linking the building code to these maps. The highest estimates as indicated by the global mean sea level projections up to 2080 have been used, and reports are updated yearly. SCOPE OF ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of City Planning should undertake a comprehensive study of the East Shore with a central goal of promoting resiliency in the area. Some possible objectives of the resulting plan would be to reallocate density, promote economic development, and to determine land-use policies that correspond better to projected flood hazards in the East Shore. In each effort, a focus should be placed on creating opportunities for the existing community to remain in their unique area. Currently, DCP has two proposals underway for Staten Island, one for the West Shore and another for the North Shore of the island. The reports make use of zoning tools to create working waterfront, land-use, and transportation improvements for those neighborhoods with a scope ranging to 2030. Hurricane Sandy has brought to the surface an urgent need to begin a comprehensive look at using zoning tools to guide future development and the continued rebuilding effort on the East Shore. Zoning tools can potentially mitigate the effect of severe storm events on the built environment, though currently they are not being used as such in the study area. To date, DCP and the Mayors OLTS have devoted their coastal design efforts primarily to regulating new development and the urban design involved in that task. For existing owners from the study area, zoning has only been adjusted to accommodate the changing requirements from FEMA and the NYC building code, and not as a tool for promoting resiliency. The use of zoning tools in targeted areas of the East Shore might operate to increase the open space ratio, regulate density, stimulate economic development, and maintain neighborhood character. Promoting more open spaces and green infrastructure can reduce the number of homes that need to be elevated.

A rezoning in the East Shore should be the product of a long-term planning effort to identify and integrate concepts guiding development for the next few decades. Though these are by no means a comprehensive list of concepts for such a study, two key components are suggested in the following section of this report. Following these shorter-term areas of inquiry are land-use suggestions related to our broader, long term vision for the East Shore. COMPONENT 1: The upland areas of the east shore are under-utilized One of the challenges in promoting commercial growth in the area is the Lower Density Growth Management Area (LDGMA) comprising all of Staten Island, which already contains far less land zoned for commercial development than other parts of the city. Currently, zoning controls for

commercial areas in the LDGMA make mixed-use development difficult. While this makes sense on the whole for Staten Island, modern mixed-use development for new structures could be ideal for the study area. Generally, the redevelopment of the high grounds (out of the 1/100 year flood areas) can serve as vehicle to stimulate economic development, without the difficulties that come with building in the flood-prone areas. Furthermore, the reallocation of density from lower lying areas, which can be zoned as natural areas or otherwise unzoned in favor of parkland, should be included. Thoughtful mixeduse and high density development may help curb the disinvestment that often accompanies disaster areas.

83

Help foster mixed-use development on the East Shore that balances economic development with new residential opportunities
The current C4-1 zoned area fronting Hylan Boulevard has commercial uses covering roughly 20% of the overall lot areas; the majority of the large lots are covered with impermeable parking space. The overlay currently contains 1163 residential units in the Tysens Park multi-floor elevator buildings, which are unique in terms of density for the area. In addition, 72 one- and two-family attached and semi-attached units were built in 2005 in the area. A reassessment of the commercial spaces in this area could balance the unusually high residential density already contained in this C4-1 district.

84

BEST PRACTICES: Stapleton Homeport Stapleton, Staten Island As of January this year, the New Jersey-based Ironstate Development plans to spend $150 million to build a LEED-certified residential and retail project at a former Homeport Naval base. The project will consist of two buildings containing 900 market-rate apartments, 30,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space, and 600 parking spaces. The city will contribute $32 million for infrastructure improvements and public spaces associated with the development. COMPONENT 2: Zoning should address/facilitate the differing preferences of the existing community Various community engagement efforts led by the city and state (as well as our own community charrette) have identified two key groups made up from residents, home and business owners from the study area: those who want to stay and rebuild, and those who wish to be bought out to relocate. In terms of policy, these groups often have diverging requirements for a government response, though zoning mergers constitute a point of convergence.

Create a program to simplify zoning lot mergers

Zoning lot mergers, which can include transfers of development rights (TDRs), are a critical tool for development in New York City. Essentially, they allow smaller lots to be combined to facilitate the construction of more efficient, larger scale buildings which might not be allowed under the existing zoning. Many of the East Shore building lots are so small that mitigation procedures such as elevation are too cumbersome or impossible. The average lot size in our study area is 25% smaller, and one and two family homes located in the 1/100 year flood zone of that area are on average 40% smaller than lots on the rest of Staten Island. Existing lots are considered merge-able as-of-right under the current zoning, but the process is still difficult and caters primarily to real-estate developers in the Manhattan and Brooklyn context. Creating a flood-resiliency lot merger program for the East shore would allow homeowners who wish to stay to potentially situate their homes on larger lots, while making it easier for them to meet the resiliency challenges of rebuilding in flood-prone areas. Among the building issues related to elevation, are the American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and design specifications for entranceways, are better served by larger lot sizes allowing homeowners more setback to build their homes and entryways. Relocation on larger lots can, in some cases, allow a home to be built in a less flood-prone area of conjoined lots, in some cases reducing or eliminating robust flood insurance rates. Under a solidly designed program, the open-space ratio of the area can only increase by regulating the footprint size of buildings constructed on merged lots. Staten Islanders wish to maintain the low-density character of their neighborhoods, and prefer a low profile to their buildings in residential areas. The Unified Bulk program of 1999 places controls on the transfer of development rights for split lots and zoning lot mergers to ensure that resulting building heights are not out of context with the zoning districts. A customized program for floodplain areas of the East Shore might also interface with the community to ensure that TDRs and mergers result in a built environment that is desired by the community.

85

BEST PRACTICE: New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Program (NJPDCP) New Lisbon, New Jersey The NJPDCP constitutes one of the oldest and most successful TDR programs in the world. Under the program, developers have been able to build roughly 50% more residential units while eliminating development from targeted preservation and agricultural areas. As a program that balances open space with development, rather than one that primarily manages low and high building densities as is the case in NYC, it provides an important example for a new program in the East Shore with similar objectives. Long-term Zoning Recommendations for the Study: Part Four of this plan identifies our long-term vision for the East Shore. Central to our vision for resiliency measures in the East Shore is a balance of economic development with the return to nature of several high-risk residential areas. The following zoning recommendations should be considered to allow for this vision to fully develop:

86

LONG-TERM ZONING RECOMMENDATION 1: Part Four identifies New Dorp Lane as a key corridor for low-rise commercial development In general, there are currently few commercial opportunities for small businesses to locate in the areas east of Hylan Blvd. There is a small, C1-1 overlay on New Dorp Lane, extending 3 blocks north of Roma Avenue to Milton Avenue. The current overlay is in place to allow for local stores, and currently is home to a deli, cafe, computer repair shop, auto repair shop, pub, and a few other locally owned small-businesses mixed with residential. If New Dorp Lane becomes a feeder for ferry service, as is put forth in Part Four of this plan, commercial demand would significantly improve for the area. Extending the borders of the current C1-1 from Milton Avenue down to the water would comprise over 200,000 sq. ft of potential mixed use development. As it would fall in the current LDGMD, ground floor uses would be required to be commercial, but as C1-1 is a residence district overlay, the area with existing homes would constitute a unique residential area extending into the proposed additional parkland below Milton Avenue. LONG-TERM ZONING RECOMMENDATION 2: The East Shore contains a large quantity of un-built or underutilized land The first stage of successful land-use planning practice is to identify neighborhood assets and resources. The significant damages visited by Hurricane Sandy on low lying areas suggest that a consideration of buildable land outside of the SFHAs is necessary to this effort. Furthermore, climate change, changes to the NFIP, and the significant challenges facing non-compliant structures to mitigate flood hazards efficiently all outline a need for planning efforts to consider how the existing community can relocate within the neighborhood. The citys Build it Back Program has provisions for acquiring existing residential lands to be rebuilt employing resilient practices, though few plans have identified new areas within the East shore for development. One obvious openspace within the study area is deserving of consideration: Miller field currently comprises 187 acres of open space that is federally owned and administered by the National Park Service (NPS). Most of the park is now dedicated to active uses such as ball fields and soccer fields. Roughly half of the Miller field is above 10 ft elevation. As a result, relatively little of its area suffered the excessive flooding that adjoining lower-lying residential areas did. An upland area that makes up roughly 30% (about 55 acres) of the park could potentially be swapped for an equal or larger open area which this report has proposed (see: Part Two) to be bought out and gradually uninhabited. Ball fields, soccer fields, and other active uses could be assigned to these topographically low-lying areas. In the event of serious flooding, these spaces would recover more quickly as open areas, also posing less risk to human life, and requiring less re-investment than with residential uses. Zoning would be assigned to this new upland portion that would be consistent with the neighboring R3-X neighborhoods. Like most of the recovery effort, this would require extensive interagency coordination and would likely be a long process, but the results could be extraordinary for the East Shore. Further details on what this vision would look like are in the next section of our plan.

87

88

VISION
89

90

Introduction
In the course of our research, we uncovered few concrete plans for the future form of the East Shore. While vague notions such as returning to nature, or waterfront retreat were bandied about by politicians, government agencies, workshop participants, and residents, only limited recommendations for the future of these areas have been presented to the public. How would the East Shore be returned to nature? How long will it take? What would this work entail? Where would residents live? What impact would a drastically reduced population have on the local economy? Should the area be used for recreational space or preserved as a natural wetland area? Perhaps most of all, we wondered how the area could be best improved for and utilized by the people of Staten Island. These questions drove us toward a large-scale vision for the East Shore. This vision comprehensively considers new tracts of green-space, environmental remediation, residential redevelopment, economic revitalization, and vastly improved connectivity. To pine for a retreat from the waterfront is admirable. Clearly, the safety of Staten Island and its residents would benefit greatly from the passive protection afforded by a buffer between homes and the shore. Yet abandoning the waterfront ignores the complicated reality of comprehensive and efficient storm mitigation, the prospect of a growing population, and the needs of a borough with a proud and diverse history. In some ways, it is a question of clarification and balance. If the resilience of the East Shore is to be paramount, we should consider more than just the threat of storms and flooding. We should also be concerned about the economic health of the borough, the use of greenspace, and the well-being of the many thousands who call Staten Island home.

Return to Nature Many residents have expressed a desire for a more natural East Shore. Aside from the effects of Hurricane Sandy, regular floods and brushfires along the waterfront have made life increasingly difficult for sustained habitation. Given the proximity of housing to wetlands and the shore, an expansion of open space along the waterfront could help to define the line between nature and neighborhoods. This natural buffer will blunt the effects of a future storm surge, transform local drainage, and remove permanent residences from the highest risk areas of the East Shore. In this section we hope to capitalize on the buyout and acquisition plan outlined in our Community Transition section and advocate for a massively expanded and re-envisioned East Shore open space network. Rather than simply allowing nature to take over, our plan proposes a phased demolition and remediation of neighborhood buyout zones. Following demolition and remediation, we propose a network of wetlands and open space, primed for either passive or active recreation that will function not only as a buffer, but also as a major community resource. We see the existing waterfront open space network, extensive as it may be, as massively underutilized. In our proposed long term expansion of the open space, we hope to reimagine the use of existing facilities with an eye toward increasing the popularity of the waterfront among both Staten Islanders and New Yorkers as a whole. Connectivity Existing local transportation networks are heavily congested. While this is partly due to the low density nature of local residential development and high car ownership rates, the limited supply of local roads heavily impacts local traffic patterns. Improved connectivity between neighborhoods could alleviate congestion while having tremendous potential to aid in the event of an emergency, allowing for more efficient evacuations and expanded access for emergency services. Our Connectivity proposals primarily seek to connect the Midland Beach and New Dorp Beach neighborhoods which are currently split by Miller Field. We propose an expansion of Father Capodanno Boulevard through Miller Field eventually ending at Tysens Lane. We also propose the construction of local

access roads through Miller Field that will coherently link the more upland residential sections of Midland and New Dorp Beach. This road construction will help to redirect traffic away from the terribly congested and dangerous Hylan Boulevard for both local and longer distance commuting trips. Redevelopment Large scale buyouts and acquisitions will have a massive impact on the fabric of longstanding East Shore communities. The current buyout of the Fox Beach neighborhood is a testament to not only the pullback from vulnerable areas, but also the flight of hundreds of residents. While these residents will be incentivized to remain on Staten Island with a 5% bonus on top of pre-storm home value, new housing must be made available to maintain coherent East Shore neighborhoods. The realities of life along the waterfront may have necessitated shoreline buyouts and green space conversion, but redevelopment of select areas can help to make sure that these remain active. This section calls for the comprehensive redevelopment and consolidation of acquired (not bought out) property. Bought out areas will remain open space in perpetuity. Our primary proposal revolves around a large scale land swap involving Miller Field and recently bought out, coastal adjacent areas. As the open space network currently exists, Miller Field is owned and administered by the National Park Service. Theoretically, bought out areas will be owned by the City or State. Land areas of approximately equal acreage will be exchanged, with the National Park Service acquiring bought out zones, and the State or City acquiring the upland portions of Miller Field. This upland portion north of Milton Avenue will be redeveloped with resilient housing built according to strict standards. Our hope is for this new neighborhood to serve as a low cost best practices standard for the surrounding area.

Our Vision is influenced by three general themes: Return to Nature, Connectivity, and Redevelopment.

91

20Year Plan for the Future of the East Shore

We have developed a framework plan to be gradually implemented over 20 years that considers these themes holistically and realistically. Each phase builds upon the previous, with a special early focus on pulling back from the highest risk primary buyout areas, and an eventual long term goal of wider property acquisitions. Short term buyouts and long term property acquisitions will lead to a massive increase in local green space, wetlands, and waterfront access. Select areas will be targeted for road, pedestrian, bicycle, and ferry connectivity, relieving local traffic congestion while also allowing for safer evacuations in the event of future floods. In order to prevent large declines in local population, select areas have been slated for residential redevelopment, while portions of the waterfront will be targeted for a commercial renaissance. From two years to 20 years, our vision seeks to preserve the existing character of the East Shore and provide a path toward waterfront, economic, and community-wide resilience.

Two Years: Our proposed two year plan will expand upon both our buyout recommendations (see: Community Transition, Buyouts) and the already established State buyout zones. Phase 0 buyouts include those neighborhoods already receiving buyouts, namely Ocean Breeze and Fox Beach. We also propose phase 1 buyouts, which would establish community wide buyout zones in the highest risk coastal neighborhoods. Community-wide large scale buyouts require neighborhood consensus. 100% of residents and property owners must be on board. Given the extensive damage and limited recovery of the first few blocks of Midland Beach and the Cedar Grove section of New Dorp Beach, we believe that these areas have the most potential for buyouts. Within two years, we believe the sale of bought-out homes to the State of New York should be complete, allowing for the demolition of properties and the priming of the area for open space remediation. Aside from the primary zones that have the potential for a critical mass of homeowners seeking buyout relief, we have also outlined a wider swath of the East Shore as a secondary buyout or acquisition area. Within two years, we believe these boundaries could theoretically be mapped out with a plan for the long term acquisition of the highest risk properties. Over 20 years, these properties could be gradually acquired by the City or State, avoiding problematic block or neighborhood consensus through a measured and slow acquisition process. These properties will be acquired with an eye toward continued open space expansion and bolstering the shoreline buffer between residences and the shore.

92

Five Years: In five years, we propose the completed demolition of primary buyout zones and an ongoing transition to open space and wetland zones. We believe that wetland remediation and conversion should be primarily confined to the Ocean Breeze neighborhood and Fox Beach. Ocean Breeze already sits at the mouth of an existing Bluebelt. By incorporating Ocean Breeze into the Bluebelt, overall drainage can be improved for much of the East Shore. Fox Beach is a marshy neighborhood with proximity to the natural and wild areas of Great Kills Park. Returning this area to a natural state will be a major benefit to surrounding communities. Within 5 years, we believe the acquisition of secondary buyout zones should be underway. The City or State should focus primarily on residents interested in moving from the area, arranging for the sale of properties directly to the government. These properties will be placed into trust as a long term strategy for the area is developed. Commercial revitalization is a major component of our long term vision. By the five year mark, we believe this revitalization should be underway. We have targeted our commercial renaissance toward the activation of the waterfront. The existing FDR boardwalk and waterfront Miller Field connection is a vital, priceless community resource. Yet we also feel that the purely recreational focus of the existing boardwalk is not serving the community to its fullest potential. We have identified a small zone at the base of Miller Field for commercial activation.

93

Boardwalk Commercial Development: Our proposed boardwalk will harken back to the vibrant days of the old East Shore. The East Shore waterfront was once a bustling commercial area, full of hotels, beachfront vendors, stores, and restaurants. We believe that a small scale return to that form is possible. Since The FDR Boardwalk proper is already a popular recreation destination, we believe the beachfront foot of Miller Field to be far more suitable to commercial boardwalk development. This area is extremely underutilized by the community. It breaks the continuity between city owned parks to the north and south, and it should be more of a central linkage than it currently is the tarmac and the rapidly deteriorating hangars mar an otherwise prime location for activation and community use. As envisioned, our proposed boardwalk can be a model for low cost-high benefit commercial development. Through an innovative deployment of converted shipping containers, we believe we can achieve the small scale that is in line with neighborhood character and historical precedent, modular enough for future expansion, resilient to possible new flooding, and affordable enough for small businesses to successfully operate. The size of the buildings in Coney Island can help envisioning how the future boardwalk could look like, even if the aimed tourist attendance would be lower.

94

Ten Years: Our ten year plan marks the beginning of our development phase. We believe a critical mass of uses and attractions are an essential piece of the East Shore puzzle. While we generally advocate for a massive increase in local green space, a critical mass of attractions with appropriate connectivity could help to transform the region into a destination for both Staten Islanders and off-borough visitors alike. Miller Field Land Swap, Residential Redevelopment, and Road Connectivity The Miller Field land swap is the lynchpin in our development and connectivity vision for the East Shore. Within 10 years, we propose a large scale swapping of land between the City/State and the Federal Government. The National Park Service, which currently administers and maintains Miller Field would swap the upper portion of the park, everything above Milton Avenue and below New Dorp High School, for an equal or almost equal acreage of newly bought out green-space to the north and south of the existing park. This will accomplish two major aims of our redevelopment plan: 1) No recreational space will be lost. Sports fields should be allocated in these new green-space areas acquired by the National Park Service, and 2) Resilient residential development on the upper half of Miller Field will soften the blow of population loss as a result of local buyouts. Swapping, purchasing, or arranging for the sale of such large tracts of land will be difficult. The coordination required between government agencies will likely be enormous and complicated, thus our plans for such a deal within 10 years. Large scale acquisitions of land between the City, State government and Federal agencies are not without precedent. Governors Island itself was sold for just $1 by the State to the City of New York after years of wrangling over the islands future. The redevelopment of Miller Field should be a model for future coastal development both on Staten Island and city-wide. Strict building standards, such as those outlined in our Resiliency section, should be an absolute requirement for construction. Redevelopment will not only help to stem some population loss, but will also bring major connectivity improvements to the East Shore. Miller Field currently stands as a barrier between the Midland Beach and New Dorp Beach neighborhoods. Local road construction through Miller Field as part of a holistic development plan could help to reduce traffic on Hylan Boulevard where it is often most gridlocked, roughly between New Dorp Lane and Midland Avenue.

95

96

Father Capodanno Extension Staten Islanders face enormously difficult commutes. Hylan Boulevard has become the defacto East Shore connection to the Verrazano Bridge up to Midland Avenue. Not only do we envision major connectivity improvements for upland portions of New Dorp and Midland Beach, we also propose an extension of Father Capodanno Boulevard, currently ending on the northern side of Miller Field through the park, along the shore, and eventually meeting up with Tysens Lane. By maintaining Father Capodannos continuity through to Tysens Lane, major gridlock conditions on Hylan Boulevard can be avoided and reallocated to a road more capable of handling larger traffic volumes. An extension will also allow for a major connection with our proposed East Shore Ferry (see: East Shore Ferry), which could potentially provide direct connections between Staten Island and Lower Manhattan. Given the acquisition of land along the waterfront, our proposed extension incorporates several improvements that will allow for easy pedestrian and bicycle access along and across Father Capodanno, as well as major flood mitigation improvements. The roads proximity to the shoreline could potentially allow for it to function as something of a berm, protecting inland neighborhoods without the expense and obtrusiveness of a single use seawall. An extension of Father Capodanno Boulevard is not without precedent. A local access road, currently accessible only by members of the National Park Service already exists through Miller Field. Many have advocated for making this connection open to the public, especially given the effect such an extension would have on Hylan Boulevard traffic problems. Early plans for what would later become Father Capodanno envisioned an elevated highway extending along much of the East Shore. Our vision discounts this elevated highway scheme in favor of the more contextual boulevard that allows for easy resident access to the waterfront, though we do believe that a road connection connecting with New Dorp and Oakwood Beach is absolutely essential.

Climate Research Center Rising sea levels and a probable increase in the frequency and severity of major weather events will likely have an outsized impact on New York City. In light of Hurricane Sandy, many of New Yorks public and private universities have taken considerable interest in the effects of climate change on the form of our city and the future of our coastal settlements. Mayor Bloombergs PlaNYC has helped to guide city policies for the last half decade, bringing storm mitigation and citywide resilience to the fore. Given the convergent interests of university research and city policy, we propose an innovative Climate Research Center along the New Dorp Beach waterfront. This facility will serve as a central hub for the research of climate change, weather patterns, rising sea levels, storm mitigation, resilient building construction and design, and responsible coastal development. The building itself will be a model for coastal building design, and could potentially serve as a safe haven in event of future emergencies. We believe the waterfront edge of Miller Field is a perfect location for our proposed facility. A locus of activity and employment is essential to maintaining New Dorp Beach as a viable destination for Staten Islanders and New Yorkers. The buyout of homes and the loss of hundreds of residents will likely sap local economic vitality and neighborhood strength. The New York City Climate Research Center will be a crucial part of a proposed center of activity in the New Dorp Beach neighborhood. By connecting our proposed facility with the abandoned hangars at Miller Field, we can bring new life and vitality to aging landmarks. A visionary repurposing of these buildings can help to signal the future of the East Shore as a hub for jobs and activity, while also acknowledging and capitalizing on a historic past. The building could also serve as an event space for the community. We believe our proposed facility would be able to seek funding from a variety of sources, especially from the CUNY and SUNY systems. The College of Staten Island has been extremely active since Hurricane Sandy in organizing forums and conferences on the future of New York Citys waterfront neighborhoods. Lead researchers and professors from CSI have been relied upon by both city and state officials and local politicians for expertise on waterfront issues and responsible development. Our proposed facility could potentially capitalize on CSIs growing research presence by bolstering the tools and funding at the schools disposal. Given the states soon to be increased presence along the East Shore (thanks to buyout activity) we believe considerable contributions from the state for the operation of the facility could be possible.

97

East Shore Ferry East and South Shore residents of Staten Island have some of the longest commuting times in the nation. Drivers face severe local and expressway traffic, while public transit users endure long multimodal commutes on local and express buses, the Staten Island Railway, and the Staten Island Ferry. Given the demand for simpler commuting options, we propose an East Shore Ferry centrally located in New Dorp Beach. There have been a number of previous studies on the feasibility of an East or South Shore ferry. A short-lived ferry operated from Great Kills Harbor in the weeks after Hurricane Sandy to temporarily relieve severely constrained commuting options. This service was discontinued early due to low ridership. We do not believe this temporary ferry failed due to lack of demand. Rather, service was severely hamstrung by a combination of factors, including: an isolated location, lack of information, and a quick, unheralded deployment in the midst of initial response and recovery to Hurricane Sandy. There are several reasons why we chose the New Dorp Beach shoreline as the location for our proposed ferry. First, multimodal access was a must. The waterfront edge of Miller Field has ample room for parking (which is currently occupied by the underutilized hangar, and badly maintained tarmac), is easily accessible from New Dorp Lane, and sits directly along the route of the S76 bus which connects with the Staten Island Railways New Dorp station. Second, there should be a multitude of uses to increase the likelihood of regular ridership. Since New Dorp Beach is the location of our proposed commercial boardwalk, research facility, lower New Dorp Lane redevelopment, and recreational facility expansion, the service will not just be concerned with outbound commuters, but also inbound shoppers, beach-goers, and picnickers. Third, open space connectivity. Both Miller Field and Sandy Hook, New Jersey are a part of the National Park Services Gateway National Recreation Area. An existing ferry already operates seasonally from Sandy Hook, New Jersey to Lower Manhattan. By connecting these two major park properties via ferry, the National Park Service could finally link these parks by direct connection.
98

Funding and Operation: Existing East River ferries have been heavily subsidized by the City, even in areas where there is access to subways and commutes are relatively short. The need for a direct connection from mid and south Staten Island is considerably greater than these areas. Given the costs inherent for the operation of smaller scale ferries and in the interest of keeping prices competitive with driving and express bus use, our proposed ferry would likely require subsidization by government agencies. Dual funding from both local and federal sources should be sought to operate the ferry. Since the ferry will be located on NPS property, and could potentially connect two Gateway locations, federal funding could be a major component to help defray the costs to the city. If possible, ferry service should be tied directly into the Metrocard system, with payments to the ferry operator made by the City.

Twenty Years: 20 years from now, we envision an East Shore that has been transformed into a regional model of resilience. After 15 years of slow and steady property acquisitions, large land areas have been turned over to the public trust for selective redevelopment of greater open space development. In conjunction with early phase buyouts, a fully programmed East Shore will not simply be open land reminiscent of the current Miller Field. Rather, we envision an open space plan that seamlessly integrates remediated wetlands, zones of active and passive recreation, and transition zones that allow public access within a naturally landscaped environment.

99

Wetlands and Natural Space Transition Zones Several areas lend themselves to a pure and traditional return to nature. Ocean Breeze, with its low elevation and precarious position between the existing Bluebelt and the shore should undoubtedly revert to a natural wetland. Transition zones should incorporate a natural landscape, but permit active use by residents. Several areas may be suitable for such programming. Areas of Oakwood Beach, especially the Fox Beach region bordering the northern edge of Great Kills Park could function as an open access wetland, with winding elevated paths bringing residents to a reconstructed beach and providing sweeping views of remediated nature. Recreation The existing East Shore is a vibrant and well-used recreational hub. Soccer, football, and baseball fields are heavily used on Miller Field and all along the FDR boardwalk. We propose retention of these recreational areas and reallocation based upon where new development may occur. The Miller Field Land Swap proposes residential development on the upper portion of Miller Field, which will require the relocation of playing fields to newly acquired areas along the shore The boardwalk itself is a tremendously popular destination for walkers, runners, and cyclists in the spring and summer months. We propose greater shoreline continuity which will finally connect

Great Kills Park with the existing boardwalk at Midland Beach. In conjunction with our proposed commercial redevelopment of the New Dorp Beach waterfront, we believe a new era of recreation and activity is possible for the East Shore, built on open, unrestricted access to shoreline destinations. A diversity of recreational uses will help to attract a wide range of visitors of all age ranges. With this in mind, passive recreational areas are a major element of our open space proposal. Picnic areas, walking paths, and even camping factor into our proposal. Picnic areas adjacent to and shielded from Father Capodanno Boulevard will allow families to spend a warm spring afternoon outdoors. Coupled with serene trails through landscaped gardens, these areas will highlight more peaceful and less intensive park uses. There are precious few areas in New York City that allow for an outdoor, overnight camping experience. Yet given the vast swaths of open space that will be opened up following both buyouts and the 20 year acquisition plan, wilder areas of the East Shore may be suitable. We propose less land intensive alternative camping, which will incorporate the natural and built environment around temporary structures and waterfront proximity, rather than the traditional tented experience. Given the transportation improvements we proposed earlier, we believe our open space plan will be easy to access regardless of transportation mode. Bicycle paths and walking paths will link sports fields, wetlands, and picnic areas alike. The Father Capodanno extension will hopefully bring in visitors from the South Shore with the promise of an easier trip. Even off borough visitors, given out ferry proposal could potentially be accommodated.

A Culmination of Previous Plans Our plan sets incredibly ambitious targets for buyouts, land remediation, natural rehabilitation, and redevelopment. Yet we think it is both possible and incredibly important for the future of the East Shore. The redevelopment of the upper portion of Miller Field will enable the neighborhood to retain residents and serve as a model for waterfront construction. The buyout and acquisition of land will create a natural buffer for inland residences, pulling back from the most dangerous areas while simultaneously bolstering the open space network. Connectivity improvements in the form of the Father Capodanno extension and East Shore Ferry will connect Staten Islanders to jobs, friends, and family better than ever before, easing travel times for thousands. The commercial activation of the New Dorp Beach waterfront will bring local residents, tourists, tax dollars and jobs to a currently underutilized area. The founding of a Climate Research Center can make the East Shore a locus of educational activity by capitalizing on the precarious relationship between coastal storms, the changing climate, and our waterfront neighborhoods. With all of these lofty goals in mind, it is important to remember why people have chosen to live on the East Shore for years: the sense of community, closeness with family and friends, and proximity to an open and beautiful waterfront. Our proposed plan seeks to bolster the close relationship residents have with the wider East Shore community. By stressing greater connections, advocating for responsible redevelopment, and planning for wider and more inclusive open spaces, we believe that our plan charts a wonderful, contextual way forward for the East Shore of Staten Island.

100

RECOMMENDATIONS Redevelopment
Educational Center Considering our project of a building hosting an educational facility and an event space, we recommend to recycle the existing plane hangars at the end of New Dorp Lane. Those buildings proved to be very resilient after Sandy since the water simply passed through it. What is more, there is no need to get rid of everything that composes the actual East Shore and the plane hangars are part of Staten Islands history. We recommend building inside the hangars, with new facilities on upper levels. Side to side, the plane hangars cover about 50,000 square feet (183 x 271 feet). Their height goes approximately from 18 feet to 40 feet. Thus there is space to build new structures inside those envelopes, the same way than the architect Cedric Price conceived his Fun Palace.

Parking lots We recommend the parking lots to be organized as a long strip so it would be spread over and would not ruin the landscape. Furthermore, people could then choose to park on one side or on the other considering where they are going the more useful the parking lots are, the less people will park elsewhere. The parking lots should be as less visible as possible when no car is parked on them and should let water penetrate into the soil. That is why hollow pavers with grass in the middle could be used, as shown on this picture. The grass makes the pavers almost invisible but it is still easy to park a car, no matter the weather.

101

Ferry terminal Since we want to implement an East Shore Ferry, there is a need for a new ferry terminal. It has to be adapted to the scale of the expected attendance, which is to say nothing that can be compared with the St. George Ferry. This ferry would be more like the actual East River Ferries. The ferry terminal should be quite small, as discrete as possible so it would not affect the East Shore landscape too much.

New Dorp Lane Linking these new functions will be New Dorp Lane. We propose the expansion and improvement of New Dorp Lane through the means of widening the street to allow for movement of traffic as well as two lanes of parking. Additionally the new installment will develop sidewalks along both sides for pedestrian traffic, as well as incorporate bioswales along the road to aid in future hurricane resiliency.

102

RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMING
According to the 2004 General Public Outdoor Recreation Survey ordered by the State of New York, among New Yorkers favorite outdoor activities are picnicking, walking and jogging, biking, field and court sports, camping, using playgrounds. The answers to the question: What two activities would you most like to participate in, but cant for any reason? gave the following statistics: 1. Boating (10.9%) 2. Swimming (9.1%) 3. Camping (8.0%) 4. Hiking/Walking (7.9%) 5. Tennis (5.9%) 6. Outdoor Theater, etc. (4.5%) 7. Horseback Riding (4.3%) 8. Field Games (4.3%) 9. Golfing (4.2%) 10. Biking (4.1%) This list can inspire how the recreational areas on Staten Islands East Shore should be developed. What could be implemented on our study area are facilities for camping, walking, tennis, outdoor theater and others, horseback riding, field games, golfing and biking. But we need to take in consideration the feasibility and most of all the characteristics of the neighborhood. In the end, it seems that we should select: Camping: all the existing campgrounds are far away from New York City, Walking: we could provide a footpath going through the new open spaces, Biking: there is already a bike lane along the beach but the global facilities are not satisfying (for example, there is no bike lane leading to shore). It is worth mentioning that we dont want to take out existing facilities. It means that we need to maintain or to improve the sports fields, the boardwalk along the beach and the barbecue area. It is necessary too to develop real green space on the un-built areas where there is only grass and concrete and on the new open spaces (buy-out zones). Consequently, we can set a list of what we want on the future green space: Pathways (for pedestrians, joggers and bikes), Picnic and barbecue areas, Sports fields (for football, baseball, soccer), A campground, Forested areas (to be seen in the Green Spaces section) o Landscaped areas o Wilder areas, wetlands, to preserve animal habitat and the Bluebelt.

Campground The need for a campground closer to New York City fits with the additional green spaces available. Nevertheless, it is important to implement a campground that would be respectful of this environment and not disturb the neighborhoods inhabitants. An alternative campground will be able to achieve this because it is a place where people dont bring their own tents but rent non-permanent installations, spread over the land without too much density. For example, some tents can be settled on little platforms, which makes the whole resilient (it can be put on a wetland) and moveable (for the winter season). Here are some examples. This campground has to stay small, so it shall not disturb the natural balance.

103

Recreational Facilities We placed recreational areas between Father Capodanno Blvd and the beach to increase continuity along the waterfront while allowing for road connectivity across the shoreline neighborhoods, which will be connected from Ocean Breeze Park to the extended Great Kills Park. It is in this area that we envision developing future recreational facilities. They should be thought to create a certain atmosphere, which could be related to Staten Islands identity. The following pictures of La Villette in Paris and of the Diana Memorial Playground in Kensington Garden, London, can serve as inspiration. The large available space should be used to implement games that cannot be found everywhere, like a zip wire. It could also be interesting to lightly distribute recreational furniture along the beach. Since the ocean can be very tempting during the summer but not very healthy, a shallow pond could be implemented somewhere, in the same way that it has been done on the Rhones edge in Lyon, France. There should also be a barbecue area, and picnic tables should be lightly distributed over the recreational areas. There is a need for homogeneity of the outdoor furniture in general (recreational furniture, picnic tables, benches, etc.). We recommend them to be as discreet as possible.

104

Community gardens Some of the free open space could be used by the local residents to develop community gardens. Since the soil may be polluted, those spaces could be the place to experiment Straw Bale Gardening, which is a technique that uses straw bales both as container and as compost.

105

GREENSPACES
Recreational Areas If some parts of the new green spaces should remain semi-wild, others should accommodate people in the way a park does. Still, those places must be well integrated. It is more about landscaping the nature so that it will be able to welcome the people. Central Park can be an inspiration, as well as Les Jardins dEole in Paris by Michel Corajoud on a smaller scale. In this latter example, some very discrete furniture has been added in some places while elsewhere, one can lean on berms.

106

Wetlands Staten Island currently hosts many plants and animals. As the terrible Sandy episode reminded us, nature cannot be erased from the East Shore and should be preserved. Wetlands are a great place for fauna and flora. We recommend to take benefit from this opportunity to create a beautiful landscape in which could be integrated an elevated path to accommodate pedestrians in seek for amazement. There are different examples of how such a path could be built, as shown below.

107

CONCLUSION
The East Shore neighborhoods of Crescent Beach, Oakwood Beach, New Dorp Beach, and Midland Beach all face distinctive challenges, but also potential opportunities for recovery in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. There is a not a one-size fits all solution for each neighborhood. In this report we explored resiliency issues through the lenses of policy makers and land use planners. From a policy standpoint we surveyed the current Federal, State and City strategies for buyouts and acquisitions and identified additional areas in the East Shore which should be considered as part of this program. Additionally, we researched the cost burden East Shore residents will incur from new flood insurance rates and what measures can be used to remediate the potential negative effects of this issue. In Part Three we looked at coastal protection measures, whether infrastructure or program related, that would serve residents who were not part of a large scale buyout program but remain in the flood plain. These measures included, among others: creating a unique evacuation program for special needs populations, building an extensive network of beach dunes, improving street connectivity and an ambitious proposal to swap residential land in the flood plain for upland park property. Lastly, we took the next step to imagine what the long term vision for Staten Island could be two, five, ten, and twenty years into the future. Beyond simply returning bought out areas back to nature we suggested a variety of active uses both passive and recreational that could serve Staten Island residents and also be a destination for greater Metropolitan inhabitants. Through targeted improvements to local connectivity, transportation, commercial opportunities, residential redevelopment, and a massive expansion of coastal parkland, we have outlined a path for the future of the East Shore as an integral part of both Staten Island and the wider region. This balanced framework of policy proposals and planning vision could potentially allow for the continued recovery of the East Shore and its residents. We truly believe the plan we have crafted can be a useful guiding document for members of the community, local advocacy organizations, and government agencies. For all that this area has struggled over the past 13 months; a bright and resilient future is in store for the East Shore of Staten Island. With proper planning and continued community advocacy, this future is possible. Thank You Putting this plan together was a tremendously demanding and ultimately rewarding experience. It simply would not have been possible without the assistance of our studio adviser, Professor Pablo Vengoechea. The massive geographic and wide-ranging policy areas could have been overwhelming without his guidance and attention to detail. We are truly grateful for his support. We would also like to thank our clients Zone A New York and SImagines. Joseph Pupello and David Gaul at Zone A New York were fantastic sources for on the ground community information and outreach. They were ready and able to assist us throughout the entire process, especially with hands-on East Shore specific knowledge and expertise. We are in their debt. David Businelli and Timothy Boyland at SImagines were always available with technical expertise and constructive feedback which enabled us to better hone our visionary plan for the future. This section would be incomplete without expressing our gratitude to the Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, GUAPA, and St. Charles School and Community Center. Finally, we would like to thank the people of the East Shore of Staten Island. You have endured the loss of loved ones, the flooding of childhood homes, and the uprooting of your communities. Yet in the face of all of this you have exhibited enormous faith and belief in the fabric of your neighborhoods and your hope for the future. Thank you for all that you have provided us over the last several months. We truly appreciate it.

108

THANK YOU
109

Association of State Floodplain Managers Inc., ASFM. Last modified 04 24, 2013. http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=61cJAAaQ54gi1LM4tCX2Nz7Xn/0s+qeFjMbWZBc8FTqr2hQBcwfKby4EjVikYF1sTAljvTYe6lW1HMqZvEsu/IOno/0wnFpDd8bjsIDdEdg=. (Accessed November 24, 2013) Bloomberg, Michael. The City of New York Office of the Mayor, www.nyc.gov : Executive Order No. 230. Last modified 01 31, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/eo/eo_230. pdf. (accessed November 24, 2013.) The Bowery Boys. Staten Island Already Had a Gigantic Ferris Wheel -- in 1893! The Bowery Boys: New York City History. 28 Sept. 2012 http://theboweryboys.blogspot. com/2012_09_01_archive.html. (Accessed September 20, 2013.) Bowles, Jonathan, and Laurel Tumarkin. Staten Island: Then and Now. Center for an Urban Future. May 2011. http://nycfuture.org/research/publications/staten-island-thenand-now (accessed September 2013). Burton, Andrew. Cuomo: Sandy damage cost NY $42 billion. CBS News. November 26, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuomo-sandy-damage-cost-ny-42-billion/ (accessed 2013). Chaban, Matt City Details Plans to Help Rebuild Post-Sandy, Crains New York, June 3, 2013 http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130603/REAL_ESTATE/130609992(accessed September 2013) Chung, Jen. NYC Has New Hurricane Evacuation Zones. Gothamist, June 18, 2013. http://gothamist.com/2013/06/18/map_nycs_new_hurricane_evacuation_z.php#photo-1 (Accessed September 20, 2013.) City of New York, Welcome to NYC Recovery, http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/home/home.shtml (accessed September 18, 2013) City of New York, Press Release: Mayor Bloomberg Announces NYC Build it Back Program to Help New Yorkers with Homes by Hurricane Sandy Recover and Rebuild, http://www. nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2013a%2Fpr185-13.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1(accessed September 2013) City of New York, Press Release: Mayor Bloomberg Announces NYC Build it Back Program to Help New Yorkers with Homes by Hurricane Sandy Recover and Rebuild, http://www. nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2013a%2Fpr185-13.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1(accessed September 2013) City of New York. PlaNYC: The Plan. PlaNYC. 2013. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full_report.pdf (accessed November 2013). Read the Report. NYC: Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency. 2013. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/sirr/SIRR_spreads_Hi_Res.pdf (accessed November 2013). DC37. Sewage Treatment Workers. 2013. http://www.dc37.net/news/PEP/1_2013/sewage_treatment.html. Dept. City Planning, Coastal Climate Resilience, Designing for Flood Risk. Last modified June 2013. www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/sustainable.../designing_flood_risk.pdf. (Accessed November 24, 2013.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY | BACKGROUND

110

Dept. City Planning, Flood Resilience Zoning Text Amendment. Approved!, 10 08, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/flood_resiliency/index.shtml (accessed November 24, 2013). Dept. City Planning, Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies. Last modified June 2013. Accessed November 24, 2013. www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/sustainable.../urban_waterfront_print.pdf. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, Hurricane Sandy: Rebuilding Strategy: Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region. Last modified 08 01, 2013. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/sandyrebuilding. (Accessed November 24, 2013.) Department of Environmental Conservation, DEC Floodplain Construction Requirements in NYS. Last modified 2013. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/40576.html. (Accessed November 01, 2013.) DEP, NYC. DEP Announces Expedited Sewers and Pump Station Upgrades in the Dongan Hills Area of Staten Island. 2011. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/11-95pr.shtml. Department of Environmental Protection Provides Update on Repair Work at City Wastewater Treatment Plants. 2012. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/12-86pr.shtml. New York Citys Wastewater Treatment System. 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/wastewater/wwsystem-plants.shtml. The Staten Island Bluebelt: A Natural Solution to Stormwater Management. 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt.shtml. Dominowski, Michael W. 2010 Census: How NYC master Builder Robert Moses Made Staten Island What It Is Today. SILive. Staten Island Advance, 8 May 2011. http://www. silive.com/opinion/columns/index.ssf/2011/05/2010_census_how_nyc_master_bui.html (Accessed, September 13, 2013.) Federal Emergency Management Agency, Catalog of FEMA Wind, Flood, and Wildfire Publications, Training Courses, and Workshops. www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1625.../fema_p787.pdf. (Accessed September 24, 2013.) FEMA. Housing Assistance Data Hurricane Sandy New York & New Jersey. Federal Emergency Management Agency. September 3, 2013. http://www.fema.gov/media-library/ assets/documents/30714?id=6963 (accessed October 2013). Fischer, Henry, et al. THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA: As Told by the First Responders A Case Study of What Went Wrong & Recommendations for the Future. Natural Hazards Center at University of Colorado at Boulder. 2006. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/qr189/qr189.html (accessed September 2013). Flores, Hilton. Staten Island Community Center head pulls together event to help in Sandy recovery. Staten Island Advance. August 11, 2013. http://www.silive.com/news/index. ssf/2013/08/staten_island_community_center_2.html (accessed September 2013). IHBS, Staff. Status of Building Codes in New Jersey and New York: The Future of Resilience in a Post-Sandy Environment. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, Last modified 10 01, 2013. http://www.disastersafety.org/topic-based/status-of-building-codes-in-new-jersey-and-new-york-the-future-of-resilience-in-a-post-sandy-environment/. (Accessed November 01, 2013.)

111

IHBS, Staff. Building Codes: Rating the States. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, Last modified 08 01, 2013. http://www.disastersafety.org/building_codes/ rating-the-states_ibhs/. (Accessed November 24, 2013.) Jeroen Aerts, Wouter Botzen, and Hans de Moel, Cost Estimate for Flood Resilience and Protection Stategies in New York City, Annals of the New York Academy of Science: 1-127, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915111 (accessed November 10, 2013). Jeroen Aerts, Wouter Botzen, Flood-resilient waterfront development in New York City: Bridging flood insurance, building codes, and flood zoning, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1227, no. June (2011): 1-82, http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=e32c3732-147e-4365-b48e-3d7f6f17865b (accessed November 01, 2013). Jorgensen, Jilian. Mayor Bloomberg praises DEP workers at Staten Island wastewater plant. SI Live. December 3, 2012. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/mayor_bloomberg_praises_dep_wo.html (accessed September 2013). Keller, Josh. Mapping Hurricane Sandys Deadly Toll. New York Times, November 17th, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/17/nyregion/hurricane-sandy-map. html (Accessed September 20, 2013.) Lavis, Ryan, Staten Islanders Express Lack of Confidence in Post-Sandy Build it Back Program, The Staten Island Advance, August 22, 2013 http://www.silive.com/news/index. ssf/2013/08/staten_islanders_express_lack.html (accessed September 2013) New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. Evacuation Plans. http://www.norta.com/getting_around/Evacuation_Plans/index.html (Accessed September 20, 2013.) New York State. Recover Resource Center. Office of Storm Recovery. 2013. http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/sites/default/files/crp/community/documents/committee_meeting_3_-_presentation.pdf (accessed November 2013). New York Times Editorial. Hurricane Sandys Rising Costs. New York Times. November 27, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/opinion/hurricane-sandys-rising-costs. html?_r=2& (accessed 2013). NYC Dept. of Buildings, Rebuilding NYC After Hurricane Sandy: A Guide to New Code and Zoning Standards. Last modified 10 06, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/rebuilding_after_hurricane_sandy.pdf. (Accessed November 24, 2013.) NYC Office of Emergency Management. NYC Hazards Coastal Storms and Hurricanes. Webpage retrieved from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms.shtml (Accessed September 20, 2013.) NY Richmond Gen Web, A Brief History of Richmond County, Staten Island. Background: History, Geography, and Community. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nyrichmo/background.shtml (Accessed, September 13, 2013.) Mayors Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability, Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency. Last modified June 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/home/ home.shtml. (Accessed November 20, 2013.) Old Staten Island. South/ Midland Beach. Old Staten Island. n.d. http://www.statenislandhistory.com/southmidland-beaches.html (accessed September 13, 2013).

112

Randall, Judy. Staten Island, city pump stations get $5.1 million from FEMA in Hurricane Sandy aid. SI Live. April 11, 2013. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/staten_island_city_pump_statio.html (accessed October 2013). Saint Margaret Mary, RC Church. Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief Efforts. Saint Margaret Mary, RC Church. 2012. http://stmmsi.org/SandyDisasterRelief.html (accessed September 2013). Schuerman, Matthew, Citys Sandy Aid Program for Homeowners 3 Months Behind Schedule, WNYC, August 6, 2013 http://www.wnyc.org/story/310728-citys-sandy-aid-program-homeowners-3-months-behind-schedule/ (accessed September 2013) Sherry, V.N. Salt Water from hurican Sandy takes a toll on Staten Island Gardens. SI Live. May 3, 2013. http://www.silive.com/eastshore/index.ssf/2013/05/staten_islanders_are_ warned_th.html (accessed September 12, 2013). Sledge, Matt. Hurricane Sandy Damage In New York By-The-Numbers. Huffington Post. December 3, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/hurricane-sandy-damage-new-york_n_2234335.html (accessed October 2013). Staten Island Advance. Registration Ends September 30 for Staten Islands Build it Back Program, The Staten Island Advance, August 28, 2013 http://www.silive.com/news/ index.ssf/2013/08/registration_ends_sept_30_for.html (accessed September 2013) Staten Island Advance. Moses promised land never materialized. SI Live. February 19, 2012. http://blog.silive.com/memories_column/2012/02/moses_promised_land_never_materialized.html (accessed September 13, 2013). SUNY Empire State College. After 120 Days, SUNY Empire State College Staten Island Office Reopens after Hurricane Sandy. Empire State College News Release. March 18, 2013. http://www.esc.edu/news/releases/2013/staten-island-reopens.html (accessed September 2013). United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. 2013. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (accessed September 2013). US Census Bureau. County Business Patters. United States Census Bureau. 2013. http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/ (accessed September 2013). Wolshon, Brian. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER (UTC) STRATEGIC PLAN for The Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency. September 2008. http://evaccenter.lsu.edu/LSU-UNO%20UTC%20Strategic%20Plan_APPROVED.pdf (Accessed September 20, 2013.) Young, Deborah. More People Leave Staten Island Than Arrive for the First Time in Decades. Staten Island Advance. March 15, 2013. http://www.silive.com/news/index. ssf/2013/03/more_people_leave_staten_islan.html (accessed September 2013).

113

Angotti, Tom. Communit Land Trusts and Low-Income Multifamily Rental Housing: The Case of Cooper Square, New York City. New York: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2097. Bill Nechamen, Merrie Inderfurth, Washington Liaison. Summary of Contents Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. 7 6, 2012. http://www.floods.org/ace-files/ documentlibrary/2012_NFIP_Reform/2012_NFIP_Reform_Act_ASFPM_Summary_of_Contents.pdf (accessed November 12, 13). Board, California Central Valley Flood Protection Stategic Plan. January 1, 2013. http://www.cvfpb.ca.gov/strategicplan/2013/9012013_CVFPB_Sragetic_plan.pdf (accessed November 10, 2013). Bob Freitag, Susan Bolton, Frank Westerlund, Julie Clark. Floodplain Management: A New Approach for a New Era. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009. CDBG Active Disaster Grants. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. November 24, 2013. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_ planning/communitydevelopment/programs/drsi/activegrantee. City of New York. New York City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Office of Emergency Management. March 2009. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hazard_mitigation/section_3j_flooding_hazard_analysis.pdf (accessed December 11, 2013). Community Rating System. FEMA. May 1, 2006. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/manual200605/19crs.pdf (accessed November 15, 2013). EAST & SOUTH SHORES STATEN ISLAND. NEW YORK RISING COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM. October 2013. http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/sites/default/files/ crp/community/documents/staten_island_conceptual_plan.pdf. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) Coordinators Manuel. n.d. Federal Emergency Managment Agency. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System. Washington, DC: United States of America, n.d. Federal Housing Administration. FHA Limits. 1997-2013. http://www.fha.com/lending_limits (accessed November 20, 2013). FEMA. A Year After Hurricane Sandy, FEMA Individual Assistance Tops $1 Billion In New York. October 24, 2013. http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2013/10/24/year-after-hurricane-sandy-fema-individual-assistance-tops-1-billion-new. FEMA Community Rating System. n.d. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1605-20490-0645/communityratingsystem_2012.pdf. Fetch, J.T. FEMA Officials tour SI Hospital to Assess Sandy Damage. New York: N1.com, 2013. Governor Cuomo Announces State to Extend Buyout Program for Staten Island Homeowners Affected by Superstorm Sandy. NY State. November 18, 2013. http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/11182013-staten-island-homeowners-affected-by-hurricane-sandy. Harris County Flood Control District. January 1, 2010. http://www.hcfcd.org/buyout.asp?flash=yes (accessed November 5, 2013). Higher Ground: A Report on Voluntary Buyouts in the Nations FloodPlain. National Wildlife Federation, 1998. Holladay, J. Scott. Institute for Policy Integrity. Flooding the Market: The Distributional Consequences of the NFIP. 04 2012. http://policyintegrity.org/documents/FloodingtheMarket.pdf (accessed November 12, 2013). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Community Land Trust: Leasing Land for Affordable Housing. 2013. http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/landowners/faqs-1/faq-landtrusts (accessed November 14, 2013).
114

BIBLIOGRAPHY | BUYOUTS

Mayor Bloomberg Annouces First Acquisition of Hurricane Sandy-damaged Property Through NYC Build It Back. New York City. October 10, 2013. http://www1.nyc.gov/officeof-the-mayor/news/328-13/mayor-bloomberg-first-acquisition-hurricane-sandy-damaged-property-nyc-build/#/0. National Agro Forestry Center. Conservation Buffer. 2008. http://nac.unl.edu/buffers/index.html (accessed November 10, 2013). National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System. FEMA. 2013. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1708-25045-7720/99032_nfip_small_brochure. pdf. New York Rising. 2013. https://apply.nysandyhelp.ny.gov/intelligrants_NYSDR/Login2.aspx?APPTHEME=NYSDR. NYC Recovery Build it Back. 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/homeowners/faqs.shtml#e2 (accessed October 15, 2013). Porpora, Tracey. Staten Island Advance SI LIVE. Advent of sellers market seen for Staten Island real estate. 9 2, 2013. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/advent_of_ sellers_market_seen.html (accessed November 12, 2013). Randall, Judy L. Four-block radius of Staten Islands Ocean Breeze section gets Hurricane Sandy buyout. Staten Island Live. New York City, November 18, 2013. Gov. Andrew Cuomo expands Staten Island Sandy buyout zone in Oakwood Beach. August 19, 2013. State of New York Action Plan For Community Development Block Grant Program Disaster Recovery. New York State. April 2013. http://www.ny.gov/assets/documents/CDBGActionPlan.pdf. Staten Island. New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program. November 14, 2013. http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/nyrcr/community/staten-island. Sutton, William C. Floodplain Management: Concept and Practices Case Studies on Houston, Texas and Miami-Dade County, Florida. Virgnia Polytechnic Institute and State University College of Architecture and Urban Studies. April 18, 2011. The City of New York Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Action Plan Incorporating Amendement 1. New York City. August 23, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/ html/cdbg/downloads/pdf/cdbg-dr_action_plan_8-23-13.pdf. United States Congress. BUNNING-BEREUTER-BLUMENAUER FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2004. 2004. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ264/html/ PLAW-108publ264.htm (accessed November 12, 2013). United States Congrress. 42 USC 4001 - National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Public Law. Washington, DC, 1968. United States Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA. 11 12, 2013. http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/7277?id=2216 (accessed November 12, 2013). Urban Land Institute. After the Storm: Advisor Services Panel Report. Page 10, July 14-19, 2013. Wrombleski, Tom. Staten Island response is low at Hurricane Irene evaculation shelters. Web Article, New York: the Staten Island Advance (SI LIVE), 2013.

115

Aerts, Jeroen. Wouter Botzen, and , Flood-resilient waterfront development in New York City: Bridging flood insurance, building codes, and flood zoning, Annals of the New York , Academy of Science, 1227, no. June (2011): 1-82, http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=e32c3732-147e-4365-b48e- 3d7f6f17865b (accessed November 01, 2013). Allan, Johnathan C., Ron Geitgey, and Roger Hart. Dynamic Revetments for Coastal Erosion Stabilization: A feasibility Analaysis for Application on the Oregon Coast. Baker City: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2003. Association of State Floodplain Managers Inc., ASFM. Last modified 04 24, 2013. http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=61cJAAaQ54gi1LM4tCX2Nz7 Xn/0s+qeFjMbWZBc8FTqr2hQBcwfKby4EjVikYF1sTAljvTYe6lW1HMqZvEsu/IOno/ 0wnFpDd8bjsIDdEdg=.( Accessed November 24, 2013). Bloomberg, Michael. The City of New York Office of the Mayor, www.nyc.gov : Executive Order No. 230. Last modified 01 31, 2013. Accessed November 24, 2013. www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/eo/eo_230.pdf. http://

BIBLIOGRAPHY | RESILIENCY

Capital Rrgional District. Rain Gardens. n.d. http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/lid/garden.htm (accessed October 20, 2013). City of New Orleans. NOLA Ready City-Assisted Evacuation. Webpage retrieved from: http://www.nola.gov/ready/evacuspots/ Dept. City Planning, Coastal Climate Resilience, Designing for Flood Risk. Last modified June 2013. www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/sustainable.../designing_flood_risk.pdf. (Accessed November 24, 2013). Dept. City Planning, Flood Resilience Zoning Text Amendment. Approved!, October 08, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/flood_resiliency/index.shtml (accessed November 24, 2013). Dept. City Planning, Unified Bulk Program Executive Summary. Last modified 1999. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pub/unibulk.shtml.( Accessed November 04, 2013. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, DEC Floodplain Construction Requirements in NYS. November 01, 2013). Last modified 2013. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/40576.html. (Accessed

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Protection of Openings- Shutter and Glazing Technical Fact Sheet No. 62. Last modified December 2010. http://www. fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1537-20490- 6588/fema499_6_2.pdf.( Accessed November 23, 2013.) Federal Emergency Management Agency, Catalog of FEMA Wind, Flood, and Wildfire Publications,Training Courses, and Workshops. www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1625.../fema_p787.pdf.( Accessed September 24, 2013). IHBS, Staff. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, Status of Building Codes in New Jersey and New York: The Future of Resilience in a Post-Sandy Environment. Last modified 10 01, 2013. http://www.disastersafety.org/topic-based/status-of-building-codes-in new-jersey-and- new- york-the-future-of-resilience-in-a-post-sandy-environment/. (Accessed November 01, 2013). IHBS, Staff. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, Building Codes: Rating the States. Last modified 08 01, 2013.http://www.disastersafety.org/building_codes/rating-the-states_ibhs/. (Accessed November 24, 2013).

116

Irinia, Iranova. Finally, its a go for Staten Islands Homeport. Crains New York Business, June 20, TATE/130619843 (accessed November 21, 2013).

2013.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130620/REAL_ES-

Komar, Paul D., and Johnathan C. Allan. Design with Nature Strategies for Shore Protection: The Construction of a Cobble Berm and Artificial Dune in an Oregon State Park. 2010: 117-126. Navarro, Mireya, and Rachel Nuwer. New York Times. 12 3, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/earth/after-hurricane-sandy-dunes-prove-they-blunt-storms. html?_r=0 (accessed 10 20, 2013).. New York Times. 12 3, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/earth/after-hurricane-sandy-dunes-prove-they-blunt-storms. html?_r=0 (accessed October 20, 2013). New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. Evacuation Plans. Webpage retrieved from: http://www.norta.com/getting_around/Evacuation_Plans/index.html ( Read the Report. NYC: Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency. 2013. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/sirr/SIRR_spreads_Hi_Res.pdf (accessed November 2013). Rockaway Waterfront Alliance. Planning for a Resilient Rockaways: A strategic Planning Framework for Arverne East. New York City, 2013. http://www.rwalliance.org/rwa/ (Accessed October 20, 2013) Rudin Center for Transportation NYU Wagner Graduate School for Public Service. Transportation During and After Hurricane Sandy. November 2012. Sloss, Craig R., Michael Shepard, and Patrick Hesp. Coastal Dunes: Geomorphology. 2012. http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/coastal-dunes-geomorphology-25822000 (accessed October 20, 2013). U.K. Climate Impacts Programme, LCLIP: A Local Climate Impacts Profile, http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=236&Itemid=330 (last visited Jan. 26, 2010); and U.K. CLIMATE IMPACTS PROGRAMME, U.K. 21ST CENTURY CLIMATE SCENARIOS 2008 (2008), available at http://www.ukcip.org.uk/images/stories/Pub_pdfs/08_booklet.pdf Urban Land Institute, After Sandy: Advancing Strategies For Long-term Resilience and Adaptablity. Last modified July 19, 2013. http://www.uli.org/press- ter-sandy-report/. (Accessed November 24, 2013). Urban Green Council, Building Resiliency Task Force Report to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. summary. (Accessed November 24, 2013). release/af-

Last modified June 2013. http://issuu.com/urbangreen/docs/brtf_executive_

Urban Green Council, NYC Green Codes Legislative Tracker, BR5. Last modified 2013. http://www.urbangreencouncil.org/ProposalStatus. (Accessed November 18, 2013) Wittenberg, Nancy. The New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit (PDC) Program, Fact Sheet. Last modified September 2012.http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/infor/fact/ PDCfacts.pdf. Accessed November 24, 2013). Wolshon, Brian (2008, September). UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER (UTC) STRATEGIC PLAN for The Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency. Retrieved from: http://evaccenter.lsu.edu/LSUUNO%20UTC%20Strategic%20Plan_APPROVED.pdf

117