City of Rochester Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

J
3
UN

STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

ALBANY. N.Y. 1223 1 -0001
GAIL S. SHAFFER
SECRETARY OF STATE

AgQ2
MAY

Mr. James Burgess
Chief
Coastal Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
National Oceanic -and Atmospheric
Administration
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Universal Building South
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Burgess:

Enclosed is the City of Rochester Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The
LWRP has been adopted by the municipality and approved by the New York State Secretary of
State. In addition, your office has concurred on its incorporation into, the State's Coastal
Management Program as a routine program implementation action. Copies of this document are
also being transmitted to State agencies, as well as selected federal, county, and local agencies.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this document, feel free to contact either
myself or Charles McCaffrey of this office at (518) 474-6000.

Sincerely,

Geo rge; R. Stafford
Director
Division of Coastal Resources
and Waterfront Revitalization
GRS:gn
Enclosure

ej printed on recycled oam

City of Rochester
Local Waterfront Revitalization ''Pro g@@ ram

US Department of Commerce
V) NOAA Coastal Services Cz7n@ter Library
22341 South Hobsws Avanue
Charleston, SC 204.05-2413

Adopte&
City of Rochester City Council, September 13, 1990

Appmved:
NYS Secretary of State Gail S.- Shaffer, November- 26, 1990
k 01 Concurred.-
U.S. Office Of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, January 28.,. 1991

This Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has been adopted
and approved in accordance with the provisions of the Waterfront
Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act
(Executive Law, Article 42) and its implementing regulations
(6 NYCRR 601). Federal concurrence on the incorporation of this
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program into the New York State
Coastal Management Program as a Routine Program
Implementation has been obtained in accordance with the
provisions of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-583), as amended, and its implementing regulations (15
CFR 923).

The preparation of this program was financially aided by a federal
grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amen&d. Federal Grant No. NA-82-AA-D-CZ068.

The New York State Coastal Management Program and the
preparation of Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs are
administered by the New York State Department of State, Division
of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization,
162 Washington Avenue, New York 12231.

US Departmen-t Of COMMerCO
NOAA Coaot!7@,@ Center LibrsWl
2234 S3,c-'

STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY. N.Y. 12231-0001

GAIL S. SHAFFER
SECRETARY OF STATE
November 26, 1990

Honorable Thomas P. Ryan
Mayor
City of Rochester
City Hall
30 Church Street
Rochester, NY 14614

Dear Mayor Ryan:

It is with great pleasure that I inform you that, pursuant to the Waterfront
Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act, I have approved the
City of Rochester Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The City is
to be commended for its thoughtful and energetic response to opportunities
presented along its waterfront.

I will notify State agencies shortly that I have approved the City LWRP and will
provide them with a list of their activities which must be undertaken in a manner
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Rochester LWRP.

Again, I would like to commend the City on its efforts to develop the LWRP and
look forward to working with you in the years to come as you endeavor to
revitalize your waterfront.

Sincerely,

Gail S. Shaffer

GSS:gn

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby certify that the following is a true copy of an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council Of

the City of Rochester on September 11, 1990 and Approved by the
(not disapproved, approved, repealed after disapproval)
Mayor of the City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on September 13, 1990 in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law. Ordinance No. 90-362

Approving The Locai Waterfront
Revitalization Program And Authorizing
Its Transmission To The New York State
Department of State

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:
Section 1. The Council hereby approves the City's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program and the Mayor is hereby authorized to transmit said program
to the York State Department of State for approval in accordance with Article 42
of the Executive Law of New York State.

Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.

Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, Council members Childress Brown, Giess, King, Mains,
Muldoon, Norwood, Padilla, Stevenson - 9.
Nays - None - 0.

Attest

City Clerk

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Washington, D.C. 20235

George Stafford
Director
Division of Coastal Resources
and Waterfront Revitalization
Department of State
162 Washington Street
Albany, N.Y. 12231

Dear George,

The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management concurs with
your request to incorporate the City of Rochester Local Water-
front Revitalization Program (LWRP) into the New York State
Coastal Management Program as a Routine Program Implementation
(RPI) change. We received comments from three Federal agencies,
none objecting to incorporating the LWRP as a RPI. This approval
assumes you will make no further changes to the document in
addition to the ones submitted.

In accordance with the Coastal Management Regulations, 15 CFR
923.84, Federal Consistency will apply to the City of Rochester
after you publish notice of our approval.

Sincerely,

Timothy R.E. Keeney
Director

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION SECTION TITLE PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUNNARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION AREA BOUNDARY
Boundary narrative description . . . . . . . . . 1-3
Naps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3
Inventory and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5

VATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN POLICIES
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-3
Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-5

IV PROPOSED LAND AND WATER USES AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3
Recomended land uses for each LWRP subarea . . . IV-13
Reco =e nded projects within the LWRP . . . . . . IV-32
Sumary of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-52

V TECHNIQUES FOR INPLENENTATION OF THE PROGRAN,
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3
Implementing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9
Slumary of implementing techniques . . . . . . . V-39
Summary of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-40

Vi STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIONS AND PROGRANS, LIKELY
TO AFFECT IMPLEMEMATION
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3
Actions and programs to be undertaken in a
manner consistent with the program . . . . . . . VI-4
Actions and programs necessary to further
the program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-26

V11 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AFFECTED FEDERAL. STATE
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

Vill LOCAL CONNITHENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-3

APPENDIX
Rochester River Harbor Redevelopment Design and
Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislation Resulting from the Rochester LWRP 47

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

LISTING OF MAPS

I-1 LWRP boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5
II-1 Location Map - City of Rochester . . . . . . . . . II-6
II-2 Rochester's Waterfront planning areas . . . . . . . II-8
II-3 Early Rochester settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10
II-4 LWRP existing land uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15
II-5 Public parkland within the LWRP . . . . . . . . . . II-25
II-6 LWRP scenic views and vistas . . . . . . . . . . . II-35
II-7 LWRP natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-39
II-8 Major land owners within the LWRP . . . . . . . . . II-54
II-9 The Port and River Street sites . . . . . . . . . . II-57
II-10 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats . . II-67
IV-1 LWRP subareas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7
IV-2 Ontario Beach Park, Port Authority Site and . . . . IV-39
River Street Redevelopment Area Concept Plan . . .
V-1 Zoning in the LWRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN

LISTING OF TABLES

II-1 LWRP existing land uses . . . . . . . . . . . ... . II-14
II-2 Culturally significant sites within the LWRP . . . II-34
II-3 State designated wetlands within the LWRP . . . . . II-44
II-4 NYS Registry inactive hazardous waste sites
within the LWRP II-51
II-5 Relevant laws and regulations II-52
IV-1 Summary of LWRP policy evaluations by subarea IV-20
V-1 Summary of legislation and additional actions
which implement LWRP policies V-39

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN (LWRP)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
The New York State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) is designed to
give coastal communities an opportunity to analyze their shoreline areas,
establish policies to guide development, and implement appropriate waterfront
land uses and projects. A LWRP is a planning framework foe future public and
private development activities or actions within the waterfront revitalization
area. Approval of a LWRP also makes municipalities eligible for state financial
assistance to implement proposed projects.

The City of Rochester considers its Lake Ontario and Genesee River shorelines to
be among its most important recreational , aesthetic and economic resources. The
ci tyl s LWRP wi I I restore and revi tal i ze deteri orated and underuti I i zed waterf ront
areas by promoting water and recreation-oriented uses and activities appropriate
for the waterfront revitalization area. Rochester's LWRP will become the New
York State Coastal Management Plan for this area, requiring state and federal
acti ons wi thi n the boundary to be cons i stent wi th I ocal 1 y determi ned pol i ci es and
development guidelines.

OVERVIEW
The City of Rochester's LWRP is divided into eight sections and an appendix:
SECTION I provides a narrative description and map of the LWRP
boundary;
SECTION II provides an inventory and analysis of the natural and
man-made resources within the LWRP;
SECTION III describes the policies governing the LWRP;
SECTION IV details proposed land uses and projects within the LWRP;
SECTION V summarizes the techniques to be used for implementing the
LWRP;
SECTION VI describes the state and federal programs likely to affect
implementation of the LWRP;

ES-1

SECTION VII provides a summary of the city's consultations with
other affected municipalities and government agencies; and
SECTION VIII describes the methodology for obtaining local
commitment and citizen input.
The APPENDIX consists of city zoning and ordinance regulations.

SUNNARY OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER'S LWRP

SECTION 1: BOtMARY KAP AND NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

The city's LWRP boundary is based on the coastal boundary determined for
Rochester by the New York State Department of State. The "spineu of the
boundary follows the Genesee River within the city, from the Middle Falls
near Ravine Avenue, north to the river's mouth at Lake Ontario. The
boundary includes part of the northern-most section of the city and
contains portions of the Maplewood and Charlotte neighborhoods, as well
as Seneca Park, Maplewood Park and Turn ing Point Park. The LWRP boundary
also covers the city's Lake Ontario shoreline including Ontario Beach and
Durand-Eastman Parks. A smal I portion of Tryon Park which borders Ironde_
quoit Creek just south of Irondequoit Bay is also included in the city's
LWRP boundary. The boundary is shown on a map on page ES-3.

SECTION 11: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

Water has been extremely important to the economic development of
Rochester. The Genesee River falls and rapids have provided cheap,
accessible power throughout the history of the city. The river and lake
have been key in establishing shipping as an important industry in the
area. The early settlements whichwere the forerunners of the city began
because of proximity to the river and Lake Ontario.

In recent years, the river and lake have been rediscovered by city
residents and visitors. Because of stricter environmental controls, the
efforts of private industry and the completion of several major public
works projects, water quality of the river and lake has improved

ES-2

CITY OF ROCHESTER

UP swomy

i i v

CC77

CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (LWRP) BOUNDARY

ES-3

significantly. As a result, the Genesee River and Lake Ontario can once
again be enjoyed and appreciated as unique areas for hiking, sightseeing,
fishing, swimming and boating. The increased use of waterfront
recreational facilities is creating additional demand for water-dependent
and water-enhanced uses such as boat slips and pedestrian trails within
the LWRP boundary.

The city's LWRP contains a wealth of natural and man-made resources.
Marinas, boat slips and docks, public parks, beaches, historic sites,
scenic views and vistas, and wetland areas are just a few of the many
water-oriented resources or land uses that currently exist within the LWRP
boundary. Additionally, the New York State Department of State has
designated approximately six and one-half miles of the lower Genesee River
as a coastal fish and wildlife habitat of statewide significance.

There are several obstacles to development that exist within the LWRP
boundary. The most critical obstacle is wave surge action in the river
caused by northeastern storms. Other obstacles include the steep slopes
of the river gorge and the relative inaccessibility of the river in many
locations. These constraints limit development in a substantial portion
of the LWRP boundary. There are, however, several sites that have
significant development potential within the LWRP boundary. The most
important of these are the River Street area (including the former Conrail
switching yards on the river, near the historic Genesee Lighthouse) and
the former Port of Rochester site. Neither of these parcels has
significant infrastructure problems, although each has its own unique set
of development problems and constraints.

SECTION III: POLICIES

The most pertinent state policies that impact the city's LWRP are listed
below.
(1) Restore, revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized
waterfront areas for commercial. industrial, cultural, recreational
and other compatible uses.

ES-4

(2) Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats shall be protected,
preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain their
viability as habitats.
(3) Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal
areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing
existing stocks and developing new resources. Such efforts shall be
made in a manner which ensures the protection of renewable fish and
wildlife resources and considers other activities dependent on them.
(4) Activities or development in the coastal areas will be undertaken so
as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from
flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features
including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs.
(5) Protect. maintain and @increase the levels and types of access to
public water-related recreation resources and facilities so that
these resources and facilities may be fully utilized by the public
in accordance with reasonably anticipated public recreation needs
and the protection of historic and natural resources.
(6) Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites
that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology
or culture of the state, its communities or the nation.

SECTION IV: LWRP USES AND PROJECTS

The policies of the city's LWRP outlined in SECTION III were translated,
with input from a citizen's advisory committee, into a conceptual
development plan for the city's waterfront areas. This was accomplished
by identifying appropriate land uses and projects for the following
subareas within the LWR1P boundary:
Subarea A - Durand-Eastman Park
Subarea B - Open Space / Critical Environmental Areas
Subarea C1 - Developed portion of the Upland Area
Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the Upland Area
Subarea 0 - River Harbor Zone and Lakefront Area
Subarea E - Industrial Areas

ES-5

The following generalized land uses are recommended for each LWRP subarea:
SUBAREA RECOMMENDED LAND USES
(A) DURAND-EASTMAN PARK Public walkways, fishing areas,
swimming areas, picnicking areas,
parking, cartop boat access,
spectator site for off-shore events,
treatment facilities, field sports,
and outdoor entertainment.

(B) OPEN SPACE / CRITICAL Public walkways, fishing areas,
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS picnicking areas, parking areas,
cartop boat access, swimming, outdoor
entertainment, museum, and zoo.

(CI) DEVELOPED PORTION Public walkways, marine-related
OF THE UPLAND AREA support facilities, hotel, general
re tail facilities including
restaurants, office research
facilities, parking, and housing.

(C2) RUILDARLF PORTION Public walkway, housing, parking,
OF TUF 11PLAND ARFA office research facilities, and
manufacturing facilities.

(D) RIVER HARBOR-ZONE Public walkways, swimming areas,
AND LAKEFRONT AREA fishing areas, picnicking areas,
outdoor entertainment, festival
sites, field sports, marinas,
marina-related support facilities,
parking areas, cartop boat access,
retail facilities including
restaurants, hotel/boatel or bed &
breakfast inn, and housing.

ES-6

(E) INDUSTRIAL AREAS Public walkways, fishing areas,
parking, manufacturing facilities,
power generating facilities, office
research facilities, water treatment
facilities, shipping, water-related
retail support facilities, hotel or
bed & breakfast inn, and housing.

SECTION V: INPLEKEWATION TECHNIQUES

Changes to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance were adopted in order
to implement many of the state coastal policies applicable to the LWRP.
Some of the major changes are listed below.
(1) Modification of the city's River Harbor (RH) Zoning District to
permit such uses as housing, hotels, motels and boatels, multiple
uses, and to allow certain uses subject to special permit.
(2) Modification of the RH Zoning District to include: a purpose
statement with references to the preservation and enhancement of the
recreational character and visual quality of the river harbor area,
the preservation and promotion of public access to the shoreline and
the encouragement of tourism in the area; and a new use list which
will permit such facilities as marinas, boat launches and docks, and
public walkways.
(3) Adoption of the Harbor Town Design Overlay District which will
require a certificate of design compliance for certain types of new
development in the shorezone, to be granted after a review process
based on design guidelines for landscaping, signage, visual
compatibility, site development, etc.

SECTION VI: STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRANS LIKELY TO AFFECT INPLEMENTATION

A wide variety of federal and state programs and actions are likely
to impact or be affected by the city's LWRP. The general program
categories involved are listed below.

ES-7

* Economic Development Policies and Programs
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Programs
* Flood Control Projects
* Navigation Projects
* Community Development Block Grants / Entitlement Grants
* Fish and Wildlife Restoration and Research Projects
* Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Programs
Department of Transportation Programs
Air Pollution /Water Pollution Control Programs and Grants
Environmental Protection Programs and Grants
Environmental Conservation Programs and Policies
Division of Housing and Community Renewal Programs and
Policies

SECTION VII: CITY'S CONSULTATIONS VITH AFFECTED AGENCIES

As part of the preparation of the LWRP, the city consulted with numerous
county, state and federal agencies, as well as with neighboring
municipalities. Included in these consultations were the New York State
Departments of State, Environmental Conservation, and Transportation, the
Monroe County Planning Department and Parks Department, as well as the
Towns of Irondequoit and Greece.

SECTION VIII: LOCAL CONNITNENT

The City of Rochester established a citizen's advisory committee to assist
in the overall planning process and the development of specific LWRP
recommendations, as well as to ensure public support and commitment for
implementation of the LWRP. Organizations that were represented on the
advisory committee included neighborhood and business groups within or
adjacent to the study area, the County Planning and Parks Departments, the
City Planning Commission and Environmental Commission, and groups with
maritime interests such as New York State Sea Grant, the Monroe County

ES-8

Fishery Advisory Board, a yacht club, a marina owner, and a real estate
brokerage firm.

Support for the LWRP was also sought through meetings with the agencies
and organizations which could be affected by implementation of the LWRP.
Policy and project coordination also occurred between the city and
adjacent towns who were preparing LWRPIs. Further public participation
in LWRP development occurred through the implementation requirements of
the plan as well as through the LWRP adoption process.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Questions, comments or requests for additional information concerning the City
of Rochester's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program should be directed to:
Larry 0. Stid
Director of Planning
Department of Community Development, Office of Planning
Room 125-B, City Hall
30 Church Street
Rochester, New York 14614
Phone (716) 428-6924

ES-9

SECTION 1: WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION AREA BOUNDARY
0

The City of Rochester's Local-Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) boundary
described in this section is based on the coastal boundary determined for the
city by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) under the Coastal Zone
Manage-ment Program. The city's LWRP boundary is delineated on lu=400 ft. land
use maps and 10=24,000 ft. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSOOT)
planimetric maps. The boundary is shown on MAP I-1 on pages 1-5 through 1-9.

The city's northern LWRP boundary follows the Lake Ontario shoreline. This
boundary runs from the Rochester /Greece municipal line on the west near Greenleaf
Road, to the Rochester/Irondequoit municipal boundary located just east of the
U.S. Coast Guard Station, on the east bank of the Genesee River. This section
of the LWRP boundary includes the mouth of the Genesee River at Lake Ontario.

The "spine" of the City's LWRP boundary follows the Genesee River within the
city, from the Middle Falls area near Ravine Avenue, north to the river's mouth
at Lake Ontario. The boundary includes a large portion of the northern-most
section of the city, which contains the Maplewood and Charlotte neighborhoods,
as well as Ontario Beach Park, Seneca Park and Maplewood Park. The boundary also
includes Durand-Eastman Park, which while technically contiguous to the city, is
remotely located from the city proper. This park is located on Lake Ontario and
is surrounded on three sides by the Town of Irandequoit. Portions of the LWRP
study area are adjacent to the Town of Greece on the west, and the Town of
Irondequait on the east.

The western boundary of the LWRP begins at the western edge of the city's Lake
Ontario shoreline, and proceeds south following the Rochester/Greece municipal
line to the Lake Ontario State Parkway (LOSP). The boundary then heads east
along the southern edge of Lake Avenue to Driving Park Avenue. Properties on the
east side of this section of Lake Avenue are included within the LWRP boundary.
Properties on the west side of this section of Lake Avenue are outside the
boundary. At the Lake Avenue/Driving Park Avenue intersection, the boundary
turns east, following the southern edge of Driving Park to the Genesee River
Gorge. The boundary then heads south along the top of the gorge wall on the west
side of the river, to the Middle Falls Dam.

At the Middle Falls Dam, the boundary heads southeast across the dam, then north,
following the top of the gorge wall on the east side of the Genesee River Gorge.
The boundary then heads south along the top of the gorge wall on the west side
of the river, to the Middle Falls Dam.

At the Middle Falls Dam, the boundary heads southeast across the dam, then north,
following the top of the gorge wall on the east side of the Genesee River, to
Driving Park Avenue. At Driving Park Avenue, the boundary turns east and follows
the eastern edge of St. Paul Street to Long Acre Road. Properties on the east
side of this section of St. Paul Street are located outside the boundary while
properties on the west side are located within the boundary.

At the intersection of Long Acre Road and St. Paul Street, the boundary picks up
the Rochester/ I rondeuoi t municipal line and follows that line north, roughly
parallel to the Conrail railroad tracks which are located on the eastern bank
of the Genesee River. In one particular location along the east bank of the

1-3

river, north of the Turning Basin, the boundary, by following the city/town line,
actually extends out into the river, thereby excluding the river shore and
adjacent sensitive environ-mental features from both the city's and Irondequoit's
LWRP study areas. The eastern boundary of the city's LWRP continues north along
the Rochester/ Irondequoit municipal line to the Lake Ontario shoreline. The
boundary terminates just east of the mouth of the Genesee River at Lake Ontario,
near the U.S. Coast Guard Station.

The city's LWRP boundary also includes Ourand-Eastman Park, which is located on
Lake Ontario. The park is not immediately contiguous to the city, with the
exception of a long, narrow strip of land which is used as the Culver Road
right-of-way and provides access to the park through the Town of Irondequoit.
The park is bounded on the north by Lake Ontario, and on the east, south and west
by the Town of Irondequoit.

The LWRP boundary for Durand-Eastman Park includes the shoreline of Lake Ontario
on the north. The western boundary begins at the western edge of the park's Lake
Ontario shoreline and proceeds southwest, following the City of Rochester/Town
of Irondequoit municipal line. The boundary in this location runs roughly
parallel to Oakridge Drive in the town, to an area near the intersection of
Oakridge Drive and Scotch Lane. The boundary then heads east, following the
city/town line, then turns south near where Kings Highway enters the park. At
this point, the boundary turns east again, near Rainbow Drive in the town,
jogging slightly south to Durand Drive. The boundary then heads north, to an
area just north of Park Road in Irondequoit, then heads east, parallel to Park
Road, and continues to Culver Road. The boundary follows Culver Road north to
Havenwood Drive, then heads east to an area just west of Birchhills Drive. The
boundary then turns north, and continues to the Lake Ontario shoreline where it
terminates to the west of Scenic View Drive.

Rochester's LWRP boundary also includes a portion of Tryon Park, which is located
on the east side of the city, near Irondequoit Creek which is adjacent to Ellison
Park. Tryon Park is situated to the east of the Route 590 Expressway, north of
Browncroft Boulevard. The LWRP boundary for Tryon Park includes the City of
Rochester/Town of Irondequoit municipal line on the east, north and west. The
boundary on the south is a continuation of the city/town line which runs west to
east, just north of Colebourne Road.

A potential problem exists regarding the exclusion of certain sensitive
environmental features from both the Rochester and Irondequoit LWRP study areas
adjacent to the river, north of the Turning Basin. These features include steep
wooded slopes, wetlands, floodplain and drainage areas, and the shoreline itself.
Development of these sensitive environmental features could adversely impact
Genesee River water quality, scenic views and vistas, and the availability of
public access to and through the shorezone. The city's control over this area
is limited by its own municipal boundary. The city is therefore concerned that
the existing LWRP boundary along this portion of the river may not be sufficient
to protect these sensitive environmental areas. The city believes that the LWRP
boundary should be based on existing topographic and/or soils characteristics as
well as other natural features in this area, rather than on martificialO
municipal boundary lines.

1-4

LOCAL WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Rochester, New York

Legend

emomino LWRP Boundary

n%l a 4.0

41,
04 ,61

v 9'

A
cis

61rr /7 -2r.-

/D#

Jim

-OLC"
-C--mmunity Deve
Department of o
Match Line A Bureau of Planning and Zoning
1,0000 0 2, 00(f
N
scale

for the Now York State DEP&MMOnt Of State COMC&I
n- nap - prepared
Ponagueent FrOVANIN @Lth fLINICL&I &SSLStAnce fr= It'le office of ')Man and
C*a&t&L ReMWO8 I INk"S t. 4&tjOn41 OCeAn&C and AWOvph8tLC AdwLStZAtiOn.
CEW I(PY -_n.
provuled -..Mr the Coastal @. ftna"wron, 1,ct *1 1111, ""lad, r.&c*j
bi Grant Raftnei MA-42-AA-0-V-068.

CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL NATERFROINU REKITALIZATION PROGRAM BOUNDARY

1-5

L
JF
AA
At

AIL -V
fill
IF
--atch Line A

-:7-

A .0
RIVERSIDE CEME111"y k
b

IUL( 194 CIEWEI R
Z

ST BIER"m
oil A L L_

gvuvo.l Ad
A$

A"*
7 it

A "61
-LIL Al
I . __ . I

a -AAAAASAAAAAAA
LN
.4 11 SHALL
MSG. SCHOO
IL

3 AL
rod I@
I L At

at'.
Al .!A AH
I L
a T
OA I.An

SCHOUL
rRANIVILIN

a 1) U I N A S
msriTurE
IL
IfE 0
"AA
I L_ 1
IV 1!r:@mA tAwh
--- - .1 1" A. I

oil-
s PLO."
A-
IV
It A o" . r ::j, I I I.-I I - I--U
LOW py"T
If
sc
us,*
- -1 ra-Awrl
to

kL
L4 I, ve
FLI[ Xit
a

it 1L --- it- it
oft _;r
ASLSL
71 -z-
--q@:zi
IF

OIL
It to
1i L
A

it
@at
ILL '01
lit
-- * I -it.
L I --
lkkj!@@ (__
-7:'

sell
A
IIt
@e
........ f4l
A,
PARK ZZ"k

kv..
jr

CITY OF-ROCHESTER LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM BOUNDARY

1-7

SECTION II: IKVElffORY AND ANALYSIS

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

SECTION 11: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBSECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE

1. COMMUNITY PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5
A. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5
B. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5
C. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5

2. LWRP BOUNDARY AND SUBAREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7
A. Overview . . . . . 11-7
B. LWRP boundary and suia@eis* 11-7
C. Rochester's waterfront planning areas . . . . . . . . 11-7

3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-9
A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-9
B. Early Rochester's waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-11
C. Waterfront rediscovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12

4. GEOLOGIC HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12

5. EXISTING LAND USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13
A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13
B. General description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13

6. WATER-DEPENDENT AND WATER-ENHANCED USES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19
A. Overview and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19
B. Water-dependent and water-enhanced uses . . . . . . . 11-19
C. Market demand for new uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-20

7. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . 11-23
A. Recreational opportunities (public parkland) . . . . 11-23
B. Public access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31

8. HISTORIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32

9. VISUAL QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33
A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33
B. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33

10. NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-38
A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-38
B. Fishery resources and habitats . . . . . . . . . . . 11-38
C. Wildlife resources and habitats . . . . . . . . . . . 11-42
D. Tidal and freshwater wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-43
E. Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-44
F. Air quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-45

11-3

SECTION II: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)

11. FLOOD HAZARD AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45
A. Waterflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45
B. Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45

12. EROSION HAZARD AREAS, SILTATION AND DREDGING . . . . . . . . . . II-46
A. Coastal erosion hazard areas . . . . . . . . . . . . II-46
B. Other erosion problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-47
C. Siltation and dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-47

13. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-48

14. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-48

15. OTHER ISSUES II-50
A. Hazardous waste sites and storage of
toxic materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-50
B. Summary of local laws and regulations . . . . . . . . II-52

16. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . II-52
A. Overview . . . . . II-52
B. General description of development parcels II-53

C. The port site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-53
D. The River Street area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-59

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-61

II-4

1. CONNUNITY PROFILE

A. Location

Rochester is the third largest city in New York State and is located on
the southern shore of Lake Ontario, between Buffalo and Syracuse (see MAP
II-1 on page 11-6). The Genesee River flows northward through the center
of the city to the lake. The New York State Barge Canal runs along the
southern edge of the city, in a generally east-west direction. To the
east of the city is Irondequoit Bay which was the pre-glacial outlet of
the Genesee River to Lake Ontario. The city is connected to the New York
State Thruway via Interstate Routes 390 and 490.

B. Population

Rochester is at the center of a larger metropolitan region which includes
Monroe County and the counties of Wayne, Ontario, Livingston, Orleans and
Genesee. According to the 1980 Census, Monroe County had a population of
702,238 people and contained 252,217 households, while the city had a
population of 241,741 people and contained 94,597 households. As with
many cities located in the northeastern United States, Rochester's
population declined between 1960 and 1980. However, in recent years
Rochester's population has begun to stabilize. The city's 1985 population
was estimated by the Center for Governmental Research to be approximately
242,000 persons and is projected to reach 245,000 by 1990.

According to the 1980 Census, approximately 14% of Rochester's population
was 65 years old or older. Almost 17% of the population lived below the
poverty 1 evel . The med i an i ncome for the ci ty was $13, 641, as compared to
a median income of $18,940 within the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA).

Based on 1980 figures, the city's housing stock consists primarily of one
and two-family units. Forty-six percent of the city's occupied housing
units are owner-occupied while 54% are renter -occupied. The average
selling price of a single-family home in the city increased from $20,330
in 1976 to $42,247 in 1983. Since 1977, approximately 15% of the city's
housing stock has been upgraded through the use of one of several city-
sponsored housing rehabilitation programs.

C. Empl oyment

Rochester has traditionally been an area of relatively stable employment.
The major employers in the city are Eastman Kodak Company, Xerox
Corporation, the University of Rochester and General Motors Corporation
(Rochester Products and Delco Divisions). Total employment in Monroe
County in 1986 was approximately 342,000. The Rochester area's
unemployment rate at the end of 1986 was 4.8% as compared to the national
rate of 6.3% (seasonally unadjusted).

11-5

Scale in miles mo
QUE
0, !@o ONT VT ME

..... ............

.. .... . ....
..........
. ........... ......
NH
I 'llH
Mill
............. . .. ...
TO ......
v NY MA
ROCHESTE
mm:
CT
Buttalo
ml
Detroi
............. ....
mi Efic
...........
...... .. Tom
.............. ............
PA chy . ........

.. ..........
..........
Clevti .........
........ ...... ....... .............
0 ....... .............
fladelphis NJ
Pit"bur" Baltalml
mo
............
...............
wv ............ .....

MAP II-I
LOCATION MAP-- CM OF ROCHESTER

11-6

2. LVRP BOUNDARY AND SUBAREAS

A. Overview

Rochester's LWRP boundary includes a coastal zone with two distinct
components. These are the Genesee River gorge, and the Lake Ontario
shoreline. The Genesee River runs in a northerly direction through the
center of the city to Lake Ontario, and provides a unique urban waterfront
environment. A large portion of the riverfront north of downtown
Rochester is characterized by a 200 foot deep gorge. There are over
71,000 feet of river shoreline within the entire city.

The approximately 14,000 feet of Lake Ontario shoreline within the City of
Rochester are located at the extreme northern end of the city, in the
neighborhood of Charlotte, and within Durand-Eastman Park. A large part
of the 6,100 feet of lakefront shoreline located at the northern end of
the city is utilized as a public beach and is contained within Ontario
Beach Park. Durand-Eastman Park, located several miles to the east and
surrounded by the Town of Irondequoit, contains approximately 7,600 feet
of lake frontage and includes wooded slopes, several ponds, a golf course
and a variety of passive recreational facilities.

B. LWRP boundary and subareas

The City of Rochester's LWRP boundary is shown on MAP 1-1 on pages 1-5
through 1-9. The boundary has been divided up into 6 subareas that are
delineated and described in SECTION IV: USES AND PROJECTS. The subarea
boundaries are shown on MAP IV-1 on page IV-7.

C. Rochester's waterfront planning areas

The city's waterfront can be divided into three distinct sections with
respect to city planning activities. These sections are shown on MAP 11-2
on page 11-8. The northern-most portion of the river, from the Middle
Falls area north to Lake Ontario, and the lake frontage within the city
limits, are included within the boundaries of the LWRP.

The area from the Veteran's Memorial Bridge south through downtown to the
Troup-Howell Bridge is included within the city's Urban Cultural Park
(UCP) Management Plan. The portion of the river between the Middle Falls
and the Veteran's Memorial Bridge is, therefore, included in both the LWRP
and the UCP. Development within Rochester's UCP will focus on the signi-
ficance of the Genesee River in the city's history and growth, both past
and present. The river's primary role was as a source of power to the
city's early milling industries. The river was also important in
providing transportation to and through the city, in facilitating
Rochester's evolution from a mill town to a high technology manufacturing
center, and the growth of Rochester's immigrant labor force which contri-
buted to the city's industrial development. All oil these ideas will be
developed in some form within the UCP.

11-7

CITY OF ROCHESTER

........................... . . . . . .
..........
... ..... . . . . . ............. ...
SCALA
xxx .. ....
xx
X X.

Xo:

. . . . . . . . . . . . ......

------ E,@W BOUNDARY

... .... .......
E.@M BOUNDARY

. . ....... ...

I . .....

URBAN CULTURAL PARK BOUNDARY

.. ...........

. ........ .............
GENESEE RjSb�,WTH C .-.X.

-X.M. N.:

................

MAP 11-2
CITY OF ROCHESTER'S WATERFRONT PLANNING AREAS

JI-8

The adaptive reuse of the Brown's Race area within the park is key to the
success of the city's UCP. Several other areas within the UCP have also
been identified for development or preservation including Olde
Rochesterville, the Upper Falls industrial area, the Lake Avenue plateau,
the Brewer Street f 1 ats area, and the area around the Mapl ewood YMCA, near
the Driving Park Bridge.

The area of the river from Ford Street south to the New York State Barge
Canal (Erie Canal) is included in the Genesee River South Corridor Land,
Use and Development Plan. This plan, which focuses on the southern-most
portion of the river within the city, was jointly funded and undertaken by
the University of Rochester. the County of Monroe and the City of
Rochester in the fall of 1984. The plan ties the redevelopment of the
east side of the Genesee River, which is primarily occupied by the
University of Rochester campus, with the phased development of the west
bank.

The university plans to redevelop the east bank as an open space and
recreational area, to permit university-related recreational activities,
public hiking, etc. This redevelopment will include the closing of a
portion of Wilson Boulevard, which now separates the main portion of the
university campus from the river. The plan also includes residen-tial
development on the east bank. The west bank, much of which is vacant land
recently acquired by the city from Conrail, is proposed for housing
development and open space/recreational uses. The adjacent neighborhood
is a mix of marginal industrial or warehousing uses and low to
moderate-income housing.

This area is currently the focus of plan implementation projects being
undertaken by the city, Monroe County and the University of Rochester.
These projects include the construction of a pedestrian bridge across the
Genesee River, and east and west river bank pedestri an/bi king trails-that
will connect with downtown.

3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

A. Overview

Water has always been important to the economic development of Rochester.
The Genesee River falls and rapids have been a source of relatively cheap,
accessible power throughout the history of the city. The river and the
access it provided to Lake Ontario have also been key to establishing
shipping as an industry in this area. Early settlements which were the
forerunners of the City of Rochester all began in this area because of the
proximity to the Genesee River and,lake Ontario. These settlements are
shown on MAP 11-3 on Page 11-10.

11-9

wee
'o

-WUUL--,,

14.

It ,,g foli -Aft
ccra

OF
SAW BovA

fin i
Wits I

Dun- 19AM

@-J

Lhooln Pgrk Is

14AP H-3
EARLY ROCHESTER SETTLEMENTS

11-10

B. Early Rochester's waterfront

The abundance of fish and game drew the Seneca Indians to the shore of the
Genesee River in the years prior to the arrival of the white man. In
1789, Indian Allen, attracted by the potential energy source of the rapids
and falls, built the first mill in the area. This was the first white
settlement in what is now Rochester's central business district (CBD). It
was not a permanent settlement, however, and lasted only a year. Three
years later, in 1792, another settlement sprang up on the river. William
Hincher, his wife, and their eight children settled at the mouth of the
Genesee River on the site of Rochester's present day port. This settle-
ment eventually became known as the Village of Charlotte. In 1797, Gideon
King and Zadock Granger settled King's Landing, later known as Hanford's
Landing, on the west shore of the river, at the current site of Eastman
Kodak Company's treatment plant. This area became an important shipping
settlement.

The Village of Carthage was established on the east bank of the river in
1817. While Hanford's Landing and Carthage competed for shipping commerce
from Lake Ontario, Colonel Nathaniel Rochester and several partners bought
a 100 acre tract of land south of the Upper Falls. Their tract was the
nucleus of the Village of Rochesterville which was chartered in 1817.

As a result of the completion of the Erie Canal in 1823 and Rochester's
new link with the Hudson River, the city's population boomed, growing from
5,400 in 1826 to 50,000 by 1860. The river was crucial to this develop-
ment, as a source of power to run the many saw mills and flour mills.
Schooners bringing wheat from Canada could navigate up the river to the
Lower Falls. The milled flour would then be shipped to New York City via
the canal system. The shipping industry on the lake soon flourished,
making the Port of Rochester one of several important ports on the Great
.Lakes for both trade and shipbuilding.

The river and the lake have also provided significant recreational oppor-
tunities during the city's history. In the 19th Century, sidewheelers and
other excursion boats evolved into a popular past time, with scheduled day
trips departing regularly from Glen House near the Lower Falls. As time
went on, other large boats provided excursions along the lake and to
Canada.

The Village of Charlotte was a major tourist destination from the late
1880's to approximately 1915. An amusement park, several hotels and
resort facilities were developed in Charlotte and attracted many visitors
and summer residents to the area. The beach area in Charlotte became
known as the "Coney Island of the West" during this time.

As other forms of transportation and power began to be developed, the
importance of the Genesee River and Lake Ontario to the city began to
decline. Over the years, dumping of industrial waste and municipal sewage
into the river and lake resulted in a decline in the use of the lake and
river as a recreational resource.

C. Waterfront rediscove

During the last 15 years, the Genesee River and Lake Ontario have been
rediscovered by city residents. As a result of stricter environ-mental
controls, the efforts of private industry and completion of several major
public works projects, the water quality of the river and lake have
improved significantly. Because of this, the city's water resources can
once again be enjoyed and appreciated. These areas provide opportunities
for hiking, sightseeing, fishing, swimming and boating, all within the
city limits. The river has been stocked with trout and salmon, and sport
fishing has been revitalized. Ontario Beach Park was reopened for public
bathing in the late 19701s. The reopening of the beach has encouraged a
new appreciation of and interest in Rochester's water resources among
city residents. The City of Rochester's sesquicentennial celebration in
1984 centered around the waterfront and included a tall ships visit to the
port area, as well as tens of thousands of visitors to the port and beach
area during the event.

4. GEOLOGIC HISTORY

The City of Rochester rests on the Erie-Ontario Lowland, a relatively flat-lying
plain, at an altitude of about 500 feet above mean sea level (msl). The
principal geologic features within the LWRP boundary are the old and more recent
courses of the Genesee River, and the lake ridge or former shore of glacial Lake
Iroquois. The high point of land in the area, now known as Ridge Road, is the
southern edge of the giant Lake Iroquois, which was the last of a series of
glacial lakes which once covered the entire Great Lakes Basin.

Before the last glacier retreated roughly 10,000 years ago, the Genesee River
flowed in a more easterly course, through what is now Irondequoit Bay, before
emptying into the Ontario River, a westward flowing river which predates Lake
Ontario. As the glacier retreated, the course was shifted near the Town of
Hendon to i ts present course. The modern course carved out the three waterf al I s
within Rochester and the steeply sloped river gorge which begins just north of
the CBD and continues on to Lake Ontario. Elevations in this area range from
about 490 feet above sea level at the Upper Falls, to 250 feet above sea level
at Lake Ontario.

The Genesee River gorge in Rochester exposes the preglacial rock record and
provides a unique resource for geologic study. Between the Upper Falls and the
Lower Falls (a distance of about 1.5 rivermiles), the rock strata or layers date
back approximately 400 million years and include a classic section of Silurian
aged rock. At least 200 species of marine fossils have been identified along
this stretch of river, indicating that this area was once part of an inland sea.

The oldest rock in this area is the Queenston Formation, which forms the base
layer or stratum. The next stratum is about 50 feet thick and is known as the
Grimsby Formation or Red Medina Sandstone. This rock is used extensively as
building material throughout the Rochester area. Other distinctively colored
strata include the nearly white Thorold Sandstone or Kodak formation, which
separates underlying red shale from a 20 foot exposure of green Maplewood Shale.
These two strata can be viewed about halfway up the west side of the gorge from

11-12

the Rochester Gas and Electric Company (RG&E) service road just north of the
Lower Falls. The Kodak Formation forms the cap rock, or hard layer at the top
of the Lower Falls. Reynales Limestone, the next, stratum, is about 17 feet thick
and caps the Middle Falls, providing a base for the floodgates located there.
At the Upper Falls, the Gorge walls expose an 85 foot layer of dark blue-grey
Rochester Shale capped by 20 feet of grey Lockport Dolomite Limestone. The gorge
is listed in several New York State geological field guides, and is used for
geology trips by schools, colleges and museums in the region.

5. EXISTING LAND USES

A. Overview

The City of Rochester's waterfront revitalization area includes a variety
of land uses within approximately 2,800 acres or 4.4 square miles. LWRP
land uses are listed in Table II-I on page 11-14. Approximately 62% of
the city's waterfront revitalization area is used for recreation, parkland
or as open space. Approximately 20Y. is in residential use, 2% in
commercial use, 3% in industrial use and 8% is vacant land. The remaining
land is used for transportation or utility purposes. Existing land uses
within the LWRP boundary are shown on Map 11-4 on pages 11-15 through 11-
17. Because the city's coastal area is primarily urban in nature, there
are no agricultural uses existing within the boundary.

B. General description

The portion of the river included within the LWRP boundary is divided into
two distinct segments. The area from Lake Ontario to the begin-ning of
the wetlands just south of Riverview Marina is characterized by intensive
marina and boating activity and related development. Within this area the
river appears to be nothing more than a channel between several large
marinas. North of the railroad bridge, however, the river widens to 500
feet or more. On the west bank of the river in this area are the remains
of the original Village of Charlotte that include several buildings and a
rail switching yard. The banks of the river in this area are lined with
boat slips. The visual quality is degraded by outdoor storage of boats,
and several dilapidated or inappropriate land uses.

The remaining portion of the river from the Riverview Marina south to the
Middle Falls is characterized by densely wooded steep slopes and the
absence of significant shoreline development. Seneca Park, which includes
the Seneca Park Zoo, ball fields, and passive recreational facilities
occupies most of the eastern river bank and upland area. The western bani
includes Maplewood Park, the proposed Lower Falls Park as well as
cemeteries and undeveloped open space.

The majority of land within the LWRP boundary is currently used for
recreational or other open space uses. Almost all of the four miles of
riverfront, from the Middle Falls north to the Turning Basin, are utilized
as parkland or cemeteries. Existing parkland along the river includes

11-13

TABLE II-1

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
EXISTING LAND USES

TYPE OF USE TOTAL ACRES

(1) Residential
Medium density 526.2
High density 37.2
SUB-TOTAL 563.4

(2) Commercial 48.0
SUB-TOTAL 48.0

(3) Industrial
Light manufacturing 42.6
Industrial park 28.8
Sewage treatment 15.2
SUB-TOTAL 85.6

(4) Public/semi-public
Cemeteries 323.7
Educational facilities 21.5
Other 75.8
SUB-TOTAL 421.0

(5) Outdoor recreation
Public parks 1246.2
Marinas and boat launching sites S7.3
SUB-TOTAL 1303.5

(6) Utilities
Electric generation and transmission 2.7
Sewage treatment 80.8
SUB-TOTAL 83.5

(7) Transportation
Streets/highways/expressways 21.4
Railroads 38.7
SUB-TOTAL 60.1

(8) Vacant land
Open space 29.6
Woodlands 204.3
SUB-TOTAL 233.9

TOTAL COASTAL ZONE ACREAGE 2800.0

11-14

LOCAL VATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Rochester, Now York

EXISTING LAND& WATER USES
Legend

RESIDENTIAL
Urban RU
....... ......
.!*N

CCWMCIAL
General ConTmrcial CG

PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS & FACILITIES
PE
Educational
B
Medical & Healt'h PH
Other PO

. . . . . . . . . ......
17
INDUSTRIAL
7
Light IL
Heavy IR
. .. ..............0-V

0.0
RECREATION
OS
YL Beaches & Pools
Marinas & Boat
Launching Sites OB
Other ox

......... .. ...
TRANSPORTATION
Railway Facilities TR
Other Tx

.. ..... .....
UTILITIES & COMMUNICATIONS
Electric Generation
& Transmission UE
Sewage Treatment us

OX - P VACANT

ownership: State(S), Other
Public(P), Private(V) eg. OS-p

ox-
Departnierit of Convmwdty DWA**Mnt
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Match Uns A Bureau of Plard*19 and Zoning
1,000, 0 2, 00(f
MAP 11-4
-LWRP EXISITNG LAND USES
scale

".Ww@ ow"M-W f"Ww." few to G"uwf VW ON
ft@ -Wwv@. @Mw_ - - AN AM.PM. 'Wuft@
ftr -@ C.4"" A- I'm -.913. 0

6
Existing Land & Water Uses

-Match Line A
Y

.............

.............
............... y

...........
............
..................

Jftmwu@

_e=j

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

6@
-7-

7,
do
JL.@ sc'ocli

...........
L
Tr
W."

-ft-V
-LJUN&L
lt
%,.tuft

'3
1

ft AMILL--

Or
3 A
L
-mr r L .6

J
U4 Departs I WN I OtCa=TLx*y Dwelopmrt
Bumau of Plwdft mW Zorft
000, o 2, 00(f
MAP H-4
LWRP EXISITNG LAND USES N
scale

0. '1" me -W mmome fto go qm "m as" ommum of ftm coon"
1- 16
owniiieime 40 at ;Iva. a 4111111". Foam"
Q_

ExistIng Land A Woof Uses

0 1".4,9,,o

ox- p N
-It

F.V

a Z -

6x- p 60

Dopadnwd Of camuty DewbpTmft
Bureau of Plwmft and Zonft
1,000, o 2, 00(f
MAP 11-4
LWRP EXISITNG LAND USES scale

"m m BMW" "r -ift qw ll@ Iftm* commm" sl'ft@
Im to mum N'Amo IN
-W.X;.-@Vic -.77,w -
11- 17 dmEmm.

Ontario Beach Park, Turning Point Park, and Maplewood Park along the west
bank, and Seneca Park along the east bank. Lower Falls Park is proposo I?d
for development along the west bank of the river, adjacent to the Lower is
Falls and just south of the Driving Park Bridge. Riverside Cemetery is
located along the west bank of the river, just south of Turning Point
Park, in the vicinity of the former St. Bernard's Seminary which is now
owned by Eastman Kodak Company.

The steep banks of the Genesee River culminate in a gorge that exceeds 200
feet in depth in some areas. Located within this gorge, near the Lower
Falls, is the Station 5 RUE hydroelectric power plant. The Veteran's
Memorial Bridge carries Route 104 over the Genesee River. Just north of
this bridge is a pedestrian bridge which offers specta-cular views of the
river gorge, and which was constructed as part of the Combined Sewer
Overflow Abatement Program (CSOAP).

Further north, at Hanford's Landing, Eastman Kodak Company has built an
industrial waste treatment plant. A vacant wooded area on the west side
of the river stretches north from Kodak's treatment plant to Turning Point
Park. In this 3/4 mile long area, the uplands beyond the river gorge
contain Kodak's Research Laboratories and the former Seminary site. This
site was rezoned to an IPO District (Industrial Planned Development) and
is being utilized by Kodak as an office and research complex.

The east and west river banks are primarily vacant from the Turning Basin
north for approximately 3/4 mile. Near Denise Road, the primary land uses
again become recreation and open space and continue north to the river
mouth for approximately 1.3 miles. Boat slips and private marinas are the
major types of waterfront development. Physical access to the shorezone
becomes easier in this area, with the exception of a 1/2 mile long section
along the west bank which contains railroad tracks. The portion of this
area north and south of the Stutson Street Bridge has been purchased by
the city.

The only existing commercial shipping activity on the river is conducted
by the Rochester Portland Cement Company. Ships carrying approxi-mately
8,500 tons of cement make weekly trips up the river from the lake,
stopping at the company's docking facilities on the west bank of the
river, adjacent to Turning Point Park. These ships arrive from Ontario,
Canada. There are no commercial fishing facilities or activities on the
river at the present time.

As one moves away from the gorge rim or riverbank and into the upland
areas, land uses become more urban in character. These uses have no
physical connection with the river. Actually, the river all but
disappears from view in these areas. Residential uses predominate in the
upland areas, with some commercial and industrial development located
along major streets or at major street intersections. In addition, there
are two large cemeteries in the upland areas on the west side of the
river, approximately halfway between downtown and the lake.

11-18

The major portion of lake frontage within the city's LWRP boundary is
designated as public parkland. Ontario Beach Park is located at the mouth
of the Genesee River and contains approximately 2,100 feet of lake
frontage. Park facilities include a bathhouse, a large public beach area,
a bandstand and several picnic pavilions. Durand-Eastman Park, located
several miles to the east, contains over 7,600 feet of lake frontage.
This area also included a public beach, at one time. The remaining lake
frontage within the LWRP boundary is in residential use and includes the
4,000 feet of shoreline to the west of Ontario Beach Park.

6. WATER-DEPENDENT AND VATER-MANCED USES

A. Overview and definitions

Water-dependent land uses are structures or economic activities that
cannot exist without a waterfront location such as marinas, boat ramps,
sewage treatments plants, etc. Water-enhanced land uses are struc-tures
or economic activities that increase their value or importance because of
their proximity to a shoreline. Frequently, they function as support
services for water-dependent uses and could include parks and other
recreational facilities, as well as some types of commercial development.

B. Vater-dependent and water-enhanced uses

Water-dependent uses along the river primarily involve recreational
activities such as boating and fishing. The river is navigable by power
boats and sail boats for the five miles from Lake Ontario to the Lower
Falls area. The river has a mature warm water fish population and has
significant trout and salmon runs in the spring and fall. Thus, it is
used for fishing as well as for pleasure boating.

The steep slopes along the river gorge make development and access
extremely difficult in most locations. Because of this, these areas are
largely undeveloped and remain in their wooded state. Water-enhanced,
passive recreational activiti-es such as hiking and bird watching are the
primary uses within these areas. North of Turning Point Park, the upland
areas drop closer to river level and significant wetlands begin to line
the shoreline on both banks. Further north, near the Stutson Street
Bridge, private marinas line the river shoreline. In this area, the river
is primarily used for water-dependent activities such as boating, fishing
and other types of recreation. The Genesee Lighthouse which was built in
1821, the U.S. Coast Guard Station, two vacant warehouses, a public boat
launch, and a railroad swing bridge are also located in this area.

There are several industrial uses located along the river that are also
water -dependent. The RGH Station 5 hydroelectric plant and Eastman Kodak
Company's industrial waste treatment plant are dependent on the river for
power as well as for processing water. The Rochester Portland Cement
Plant, located on the west bank across from Rattlesnake Point, is
dependent on the river for its shipping operations.

11-19

The lakeshore area supports water-dependent and water-enhanced
recreational uses such as boating and fishing. Public bathing is
permitted at Ontario Beach Park. Public bathing also takes place at
Durand-Eastman Park. Picnicking and other water-enhanced passive
recreational activities are also supported at each park.

In summary, existing water-dependent uses are located in several areas
within the city's LWRP boundary. These uses include:

the Portland Cement Company, located on the west river bank, within
Turning Point Park;
Eastman Kodak's waste treatment facility, located on the west river
bank, near Hanford Landing and just north of the Veteran's Memorial
Bridge;
various marinas, boat slips and docks located along the east and
west banks of the river, including the Rochester Yacht Club, the
Genesee Yacht Club, Shumway Marina, Pelican Bay Marina, Voyager
Marina, and the Riverview Marina (including the Spirit of Rochester
tour boat);
the Monroe County Boat Launch located on the Port Authority Site,
along the west bank of the river, just north of the railroad swing
bridge;
bathing beaches located at Ontario Beach Park and Durand-Eastman
Park; and
RG&Els Station 5 hydroelectric power plant.

Existing water-enhanced uses are also located in several areas within the
city's LWRP boundary. These uses include:

public parks (Ontario Beach Park, Turning Point Park, Seneca Park,
Maplewood Park, and Lower Falls Park); and
various commercial uses along River Street, just north of the
Stutson Street Bridge.

C. Market demand for new uses

Water-dependent uses which are appropriate for and compatible in the
city's waterfront areas include marinas, a boatel, boat slips and docks,
and boat launching ramps. Water-enhanced uses which are appropriate for
and compatible in these areas include recreational facilities, some types
of commercial development and hotel, motel or bed-and-breakfast
facilities.

Future demand within the LWRP boundary for water-dependent uses such as
marinas and boat slips was investigated as part of a land use and
marketing study of the Port of Rochester site completed for the city in
1986 by a consultant team. The Rochester Port and River Street Area Land
Use/Marketability Study concluded that the Rochester harbor at the mouth
of the Genesee River was a premium location for marina development due to
its deep water, excellent access to Lake Ontario and the availability of
land. The study indicated that there was sufficient demand within the
region to accommodate up to new 300 slips at a full service marina at the
port site. The majority of these slips would be for boats in the 16'-251

11-20

size range, with a smaller number of slips reserved for boats over 26' in
length. The study said that up to 1M. of the slips could be reserved for
daily rentals to provide dockage for visiting boats.

A detailed analysis of both current and projected demand for boat slips on
Lake Ontario, the Genesee River and Irondequoit Bay was completed as part
of the study. This analysis showed that there was a deficit of approxi-
mately 300 slips for medium-sized boats through 1987 and sufficient demand
for approximately 120 more slips by 1990 within the region. The extent of
the boating market within the Rochester/Monroe County area was based on
current and projected supplies of boat slips from Oak Orchard to Fair
Haven, including the Rochester harbor and Irondequoit Bay, along with
current and projected demand for boat slips by Monroe County residents
through 1990.

The study indicated that demand for winter storage of boats at the
Rochester harbor would continue and that any potential marina developed at
the port site should include both indoor and outdoor storage facilities
for boats. Dry-stacking of boats involves outdoor storage of smaller
pleasure boats for use whenever the owner desires. The study indicated
that dry-stacking facilities should not be considered for the port site
because of the large amounts of land required and the high volumes of
parking generated by such a use.

Additional demand data for water-dependent and water-enhanced uses along
the river corridor were developed as part of the River Harbor Redevelop-
ment Area Design/Feasibility Study prepared in 1989 by the Reimann-
Buechner Partnership. This study is included as an appendix to the City
of Rochester's LWRP. The market information prepared by Phoenix
Associates, Inc. for that study related to the development of new
water-enhanced commercial and residential uses along the Genesee River.
Another study completed by Phoenix Associates in 1987 and entitled
Discovery Center Feasibility study summarized visitation estimates for a
maritime museum or interpretive center which could be constructed in one
of the warehouses on the port site. These two reports included the
following data and conclusions:

Visitation estimates for a maritime museum or interpretive center
located adjacent to the Genesee River at the port site range between
60,000 and 115,000, depending on the scale, offerings and
seasonality of the facility. These estimates were based on
visitation at Ontario Beach Park, regional attractions and other
similar Great Lakes facilities.

Such a facility could potentially provide: a destination point for
drawing county and regional visitors to the city's waterfront; the
foundation for an expanded year-round market for existing and
proposed commercial development in the area; and, an oppor-tunity
for the city to demonstrate to the development community its
commitment to the waterfront area through active promotion of such
a facility.

11-21

If the city's River Harbor area remains a seasonal attraction,
non-food retail space should be programed at no more than 10,000
square feet, particularly considering some of the vacant or
marginally used commercial space currently scattered throughout the
area. If the River Harbor area becomes a year-round activity
center, additional specialty retail space could be programmed at up
to 30,000 square feet, over time.

Based on current housing market studies, an estimate of the drawing
capacity of the River Harbor area, and a realization of the city's
commitment to develop new housing in other areas, new residential
construction in the River Street area near the Genesee River should
be limited to no more than 80 units over a five year period.

A hotel or motel in the River Harbor area is more likely to be
feasible when and if the area becomes a year-round attraction, and
when the level of activity at the visitor's marina becomes more of
a known quanti ty. A seasonal hotel or motel f aci I i ty i s more 1 i kel y
to occur in tandem with another primary use such as a
restaurant/bar.

The Monroe County Waterfront Recreational Opportunities Stud completed in
September, 1989 by Environmental Design/Research contained the following
market demand data and conclusions related to the City of Rochester's
LWRP:

Based on trends in boater registration, it is estimated that there
is a current deficit of around 350 slips in Monroe County. Most
marinas are at capacity and have waiting lists. Nearly all marinas
and yacht clubs surveyed indicated that they could easily rent more
slips if they could offer them.

Demand for additional slips is expected to grow in the future, based
on registration trends. Ownership of boats in Monroe County has
grown by 6,000 boats, or 30%, in the past 10 years. The projected
resident demand for slip space in Monroe County, through 1992, is
675 slips in the 161-251 range and 205 slips for larger boats.

There currently are only 20 designated transient slips in Monroe
County along the Lake Ontario shoreline. However, yacht clubs and
marinas have a policy of renting slips by the day when resident
boats are out sailing or cruising. Nevertheless, visitor slips are
very scarce throughout the area.

No reliable statistics from Canadian authorities or New York State
agencies are available for the number of boats capable of or
inclined to cross or cruise Lake Ontario. Conversations with
Canadian port authorities, other New York State planning departments
and marina owners and operators indicate a strong demand for more
visitor slips, although the amount of this demand cannot be
quantified. Private development of visitor slips seems unlikely due
to their lower profitability in comparison to rental by the season.

11-22

The current demand within Monroe County for improved launch ramps
for trailered boats was estimated, based on current registrations
and patterns of boat usage. Current resident demand is 30 lanes of
launch capacity at 40 boats per lane, or a deficit of 8 launch
ramps. Current deficits in slip space exacerbate the deficit in
launch capacity. This does not take into account non-resident
demand, which adds 2 lanes at present utilization rates.

From estimates of five-year registration increases in boats 161-25'
and decreases in boats under 161, future demand for launch ramps to
serve trailered resident boats is 7 lanes of additional launch
capacity through 1992. Additional launch capacity would be
appropriate in the Rochester Harbor/Lower Genesee River area to
provide for additional lake access.

Rochester has the highest use/capacity ratio for swimming in New
York State, with the exception of New York City. This figure
demonstrates a need for additional swimming facilities within Monroe
County. Durand-Eastman Park offers opportunities for increased
public beach and swimming areas.

7. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS

A. Recreational opportunities (public Parkland)

Lake Ontario and the Genesee River offer many outdoor recreational
opportunities such as swimming, boating and fishing as well as passive
recreational activities. According to the Coast Guard, the river main-
tains a depth of approximately 10 feet as far south as the Veteran's
Memorial Bridge. This permits a variety of small pleasure boats to use
the river. Canoeists and kayak enthusiasts are able to continue up the
river as far south as Seth Green Island. Beyond Seth Green Island, swift
river currents make upstream travel difficult. The natural river depth is
maintained in the port area by annual dredging operations conducted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The dredging operations ensure a
river depth of approximately 21 feet which permits access up the river for
large recreational craft.

Berthing or mooring in the river is not possible for all the boat owners.
Although the port area has a number of marinas and yacht clubs that
contain approximately 1,000 boat slips, this does not meet present demand.
Rochester and Monroe County have been nationally identified as a market
with tremendous growth potential in boat sales, particularly in the
161-251 range. While many marina owners would like to expand their
facilities along the river, development costs and the lack of land for
expansion and parking have become major limitations.

Owners of smaller trailered boats are also experiencing launching and
docking problems in the area. Only one public boat launch exists within
the LWRP boundary. The four-lane boat launching ramp constructed at the
port site by Monroe County has the capacity to accommodate 107 cars with
trailers. Renewed interest in sport fishing has increased the use of this
facility. However, the location of the launch on the west bank north of

11-23

the railroad swing bridge has made maintenance of the ramp a continuous
and costly concern because of a significant river surge problem that is
eroding and undermining-the launch area.

The west breakwall and pier at the mouth of the river are often used for
fishing and provide direct public access to the river. The east breakwall
and pier adjacent to the Coast Guard Station are periodically closed for
security reasons. The east and west piers have been improved by the USACE
and are generally in good condition. The portion of the west pier south
of the beach area has experienced severe undermining and erosion in the
past due to major winter storms. The east pier has varying surface
conditions and is not as suitable for public access. The Corps has
completed all repairs on the east and west breakwaters and has no plans
for any additional repairs in the foreseeable future.

Formal recreation opportunities within the LWRP boundary are provided at
a number of public parks. The location, facilities, special features,
estimated usage and development opportunities of each public park or open
space area within the LWRP are listed below (see Map 11-5 on pages 11-25
through 11-27).

(1) DURAND-EASTMAN PARK (965 Acres):

Location: On Lake Ontario, west of Irondequoit Bay and east
of the Genesee River; the park can be entered
from Lakeshore Boulevard and Kings Highway.

Facilities: Hiking, bridle, and cross-country ski trails; 7
picnic shelters; playground area; winter warming
shelter and riding stable; 18-hole golf course,
golf clubhouse with food concession and pro shop;
parking permitted on park roads.

Special
features: Steep wooded slopes; valleys; scenic vistas;
small lakes and ponds; on Lake Ontario; botanical
collections. Portions of the park make up part
of the Monroe County Arboretum. Spring flowering
trees and spectacular fall foliage colors make
this park an area of exceptional beauty. Unique
topography and soils permit the growing of plants
not native to the area.

Estimated
Usage: Not available.

Development
Opportunities: Development of beach area for swimming (park is
currently undergoing a phased capital
improvement project totalling $5.1 million).

11-24

LOCAL VATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Rochester, Now York

Legend

1 ONTARIO BEACH PARK

2 TURNING POINT PARK

3 SENECA PARK

4 MAPLEWOOD PARK

5 LOWER FALLS PARK

6 SETH GREEN DRIVE AREA

7 DURAND-EASTMAN PARK

-zzz,.

Jill

iLII

L
W-

C;kr
4f- match Lim A Oepartnwt of Commnity Dealolynant
Bureau of Planning and Zoning
z77
MAP 11-5 1, 00(f 0 2, 00(f
LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC
scale
PARKLAND WITHIN THE LWRP

ff" .10 ft propend tw %ft ft. @ am@ moomm 69 SLAM C@"
---- "-- -m dmmt@ t"m m affma W %.a ft
C*ft " ftm@ mmv@. pm@ Qm@ am Aum"mm
11-25 PM= 40.9 tre C@ @.Wmmm- @ a

Match Lone A

.WWI 'C@ rf,
I rim

sum

'up-

LAL2mL%-a

ar
@.5@ FL-
-to q.

7 T

Departnwt at CMTMN*Y
--S 7=
BLweaj of PIMV*lg and Z
4
-110001 0
MAP 11-5 2, 00(t
LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC
PARKLAND WITHIN THE LWRP scalo

-w One== ftr an mm "m ft@ a@ ftim, amom
"oww @ 1-mm"LL oiiimI@ oviiiiiiio an am= ".
"ou@- fm@ anwas IM Ammmww Ammom,..
'MW cft Q-- -m f@ an W L073.
11-26

0
'9"0

L7 _%;oval

ri
rl

Department of Community Dralopment
Bureau of Plannft and Zonft
MAP 11-5 1,00(y 0 2, 000'
LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC
V: @zz

PARKLAND WITHIN THE LWRP scale

rr" me = ampow fte tM vm 9@ el stm aNsw

27 as G"w" an swralmm 4" so Ma. a domews.
cam& ommo.

(2) KAPLEWOOD PARK AKD ROSE GARDEN (14 acres)

Location: West side of the Genesee River, from Driving Park
Avenue north to Hanford Landing Road; rose garden
located at the intersection of Lake Avenue and
Driving Park Avenue; park can be entered from
Driving Park Avenue, Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood
Drive, and Bridge View Drive as well as from
various pedestrian trails.

Facilities: Informal picnicking and strolling areas; tennis
courts; fishing areas; parking area provided off
Bridge View Drive; parking area for rose garden
provided along park entrance drive from Driving
Park Avenue.

Special
features: Pond located in lower Maplewood Park area; scenic
views and vistas of Genesee River gorge and
Veteran's Memorial Bridge; the rose garden, one
of the largest in the country (selected by the
American Rose Society as an "All American Rose
Test Gardenu; peak blooms in late June and
September); several overlooks that provide
spectacular views of the Genesee River gorge.

Estimated
Usage: Not available.

Development
Opportunities: Improved access to gorge for hiking and
fishing.

(3) LOWER FALLS PARK (3 acres):

Location: Proposed park to be located on the west bank of
the Genesee River south of the Driving Park
Bridge, overlooking the Lower Falls area; access
to the park will be provided via Driving Park
Avenue.

Facilities: Currently an undeveloped area. Potenti al uses
could include picnic areas and shelters, river
overlooks, pedestrian and hiking trails, and
other passive recreational facilities.

Special
features: Spectacular views of Lower Falls and river gorge;
remains of various historic structures evident in
some areas.

11-28

Estimated
Usage: Park is currently undeveloped.

Development
Opportunities: Historic/archaeologic resources; scenic views and
vistas of lower and middle falls; pedestrian and
biking trails.

(4) ONTARIO BEACH PARK (39 acres):

Location: Northern-most portion of the city; on Lake
Ontario, at the mouth of the Genesee River; park
can be entered from Lake and Beach Avenues.

Facilities: Public beach; bathhouse; 6 picnic shelters; food
concession stand; outdoor performance pavilion;
ice-skating rink; historic carousel; parking
areas for approximately 1,500 cars on the port
site to the south and within an area south of
Beach Avenue and west of Lake Avenue; soccer
field and 2 softball fields located in an area to
the south, along Estes Street.

Special
features: One of the best natural sand beaches on Lake
Ontario; supervised swimming areas; boat launch
on the Genesee River; antique Dentzel Carousel
designated as a City of Rochester Historic
Landmark.

Estimated
Usage: 800,000 visits / year

Development
Opportunities: Enhancement of beach area; rehabilitation of
bathhouse and pier; redesign of existing
bandstand; improvements to circulation;
coordination with events and facilities on Port
of Rochester site (park is currently undergoing a
phased capital improvement project totalling $6.7
million).

(5) SENECA PARK (297 acres):

Location: Eastern bank of the Genesee River, north and
south of the Veteran's Memorial Bridge; park can
be entered from St. Paul Street, just north of
Route 104 (Ridge Road East).

Facilities: Outdoor swimming pool with bathhouse;
playgrounds; softball fields; 2 picnic shelters;
hiking trails; marked nature and jogging trails;

11-29

zoo; parking area adjacent to zoo and along lower
park road.

Special
features: Seneca Park Zoo; pond; steep wooded slopes along
the river bank; wetlands; scenic views of the
Genesee River gorge; park was originally designed
by Frederick Law Olmstead.

Estimated
Usage: Not available.

Development
Opportunities: Enhancement of Olmstead Plan; improved access to
river gorge for hiking and fishing;
rehabilitation of zoo and public pool (park is
currently undergoing a phased capital improvement
project totalling $3.9 million).

(6) SETH GREEN DRIVE AREA (2.3 acres/part of Seneca Park):

Location: Eastern bank of the Genesee River; enter from St.
Paul Street; area runs from Norton Street north
to Seneca Towers.

Facilities: Undeveloped open space area used for passive
recreation; I'switchback trail" provides access to
river gorge for fishing.

Special
features: 8Switchback trail" on steep wooded slopes along
river provide spectacular views of Veteran's
Memorial Bridge and river gorge.

Estimated
Usage: Not applicable.

Development
Opportunities: Scenic views and vistas; pedestrian or hiking
trails; improved fishing access.

(7) TURNING POINT PARK (100 acres):

Location: West bank of the Genesee River, just south of the
Turning Basin; park can be entered from Lake
Avenue via Boxart Street; park borders Riverside
Cemetery to south.

Facilities: Relatively undeveloped; hiking trails (connection
to Lake Avenue); picnic areas; fishing piers and

11-30

dock; birdwatching; parking area at end of Boxart
Special Street, at entrance to park.
features: Park provides access to the water's edge for
fishing and canoeing; park provides spectacular
views of river gorge and Turning Basin-, small
waterfalls.

Estimated
Usage: Hot available.

Development
Opportunities: Scenic views and vistas; pedestrian or hiking
trails; improved fishing access.

(8) TRYON PARK (82 acres):

Location: Adjacent to Irondequoit Creek and southwestern
edge of the Irondequoit Creek wetlands, just
south of Irondequoit Bay; park can be entered via
Tryon Park Road.

Facilities: Relatively undeveloped; hiking trails;
passive recreational opportunities.

Special
features: Steep wooded slopes; wetlands, scenic views and
vistas of the Irondequoit Creek wetlands and
Irondequoit Bay.

Estimated
Usage: Not available.

Development
Opportunities: Enhancement of scenic views; new hiking and
biking trails.

While not officially designated as parkland, Riverside Cemetery and Holy
Sepulchure Cemetery, located just south of Turning Point Park on the west
bank of the river, also offer passive recreation opportunities such as
hiking, biking and birdwatching.

B. Public access

With the exception of Durand-Eastman, all of the parks listed above are
adequately serviced by public transportation (bus) via either Lake Avenue
or St. Paul Street. Adequate parking is available at all of the sites
with the exception of Ontario Beach Park where overflow parking is a
problem during peak periods of summertime weekend use.

11-31

The CSOAP project, which involved construction of underground holding
tunnels to reduce the water quality impacts of the city's combined storm
and sanitary sewer system in certain areas, included the construction of
a pedestrian walkway across the river, just north of the Veteran's
Memorial bridge. This walkway links Seneca Park with Maplewood Park and
provides unique physical and visual access to the river gorge for
pedestrians and handicapped persons.

Within the LWRP, direct public access to the water is limited, despite the
many public parks and open space areas. The problem with providing direct
public access to much of the city's waterfront is complicated by the
topography of the areas involved. These areas include heavily wooded
steep slopes which become more difficult to traverse as one moves south
from the mouth of the river to the Lower Falls area. Even i f better
access to the river could be provided in certain areas, the safety of
potential users would remain a significant issue.

On the east side of the river, Seneca Park has a variety of hiking trails
that provide access along the rim of the river gorge and to the river
itself via "switchback trailsu. Direct pedestrian access to the river on
the east side is only possible from Seth Green Drive, located just south
of the Veteran's Memorial Bridge, and from an RUE service road located
just north of the Driving Park Bridge.

Along the west bank, direct access to the river is possible from Turning
Point Park, although visual access is provided from a variety of sites
including Riverside Cemetery and Maplewood Park. Some informal trails
exist along the east and west banks of the river, particularly near the
Driving Park Bridge. Fishermen use these trails for access to prime
fishing areas along the river. Hastings Street, located just south of the
bridge, leads to Lower Falls Park and provides access to an open area with
spectacular views which runs from the Lower Falls southward to the Middle
Falls. A formal hiking trail has also been developed in Maplewood Park
from the Veteran's Memorial Bridge to the Kodak Park area.

Ontario Beach Park, with its long sandy beach, provides direct public
access to Lake Ontario. However, few public trails or walkways exist for
passive recreation use along the lake shoreline. A small public lakefront
sidewalk currently exists along Beach Avenue between Clematis and
Cloverdale Streets.

8. HISTORIC RESOURCES

Because Rochester began and grew along the Genesee River, there are many historic
resources within the city's LWRP. These include archaeological sites, a local
Preservation District, local, state and national landmarks, and a number of
properties eligible for landmark designation.

In 1986, the Rochester Museum and Science Center prepared the Cultural Resources
Inventory for the City of Rochester LWRP. This report identified 21 known
archaeological sites, seven historic Euro-american archaeological sites, two
landmarks listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places, and

11-32

three locally-designated landmarks. In April, 1987, the Beach Avenue
Preservation District was designated, pursuant to the city's zoning ordinance.
The Genesee Lighthouse, at 70 Lighthouse Street, is perhaps the most historically
significant site within the LWRP and gives an indication of the wealth of
resources in this area of the City of Rochester. The site is listed on the
National and State Registers of Historic Places, is a local landmark, contains
the remains of the first lightkeeper's house (c. 1822), was the site of the
cabin of the first permanent Euro-american settler in what was to become
Rochester, and contains evidence of American Indian occupation.

Table 11-2 on page 11-34 illustrates the various historic and archaeological
resources that exist within the LWRP boundary.

9. VISUAL QUALITY

A. Overview

Rochester's coastal area has a variety of unique topographical features
including waterfalls, a river gorge, ravines, and several small river
islands. Several breathtaking views and vistas are found throughout the
city's waterfront revitalization area and enhance the city's urban
environment. Significant scenic views and vistas within the city's LWRP
are shown on Map 11-6 on pages 11-35 through 11-37.

B. Description

The beach and port area dominate the land use pattern in the extreme
northern portion of the city's waterfront revitalization area and
contribute to the overall visual quality of that area. An exceptional
view of the lake and mouth of the river can be seen as one drives north on
Lake Avenue, past the Conrail railroad bridge. However, some of the
cluttered, underutilized or dilapidated land uses along the Lake Avenue
commercial strip detract from the aesthetics of the area.

Moving south from the port along the river, several spectacular views and
vistas exist but are not easily accessible. A river overlook along the
southern map approach to the Veteran's Memorial Bridge offers tremendous
views of the river gorge and the eastern riverbank. Several vacant
properties along St. Paul Street, on the eastern side of the river, also
offer panoramic views and vistas of the river gorge and the western
riverbank.

RG&Els Station 5 hydroelectric plant at the Lower Falls provides good
views of the river in the spring and early summer. During the summer
months, however, dense foliage obscures this view. Further north, near
Kodak's research laboratories, is an area that could provide a spectacular
river overlook, if developed properly.

Seneca Park, located along the river's eastern bluff, provides an
excellent view of the river's wetlands and wooded slopes. Seneca and
Maplewood Parks are connected via a pedestrian bridge which crosses the

11-33

TABLE 11-2

LOCAL WATERFRONT-REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT SITES WITHIN THE LWRP

Properties listed On the National and State Registers of Historic Places:

Genesee Lighthouse - 70 Lighthouse Street
"Shinglesidem (house) - 476 Beach Avenue

Properties designated as local landmarks:

Ontario Beach Carousel - Ontario Beach Park
Genesee Lighthouse - 70 Lighthouse Street
St. Bernard's Seminary - 2260 lake Avenue

Properties within the Beach Avenue Preservation District:

Properties between 480 and 670 Beach Avenue on the north side of street
and 551 Beach Avenue on the south side.

Historic Euro-american Archaeological Sites:

Genesee Lighthouse Historic Site
Lower Falls Mill and Industrial Site
Carthage-Brewer's Dock Historic Site
Carthage Flats Mill and Industrial Site
Glen House Historic Site
King's-Hanford's Landing Historic Site
Kelsey's-Buell's Dock Historic Site

Archaeological Sites:

Twenty-one sites as identified by the Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Properties Potentially Eligible to be Listed
on the National and State Registers of Historic Places:

According to the City of Rochester Historic Resources Survey prepared by
Mack Consulting Associates in 1986, two districts and 26 individual
properties may meet the criteria for listing on the National and State
Registers of Historic Places. The individual properties are, for the most
part. clustered on Beach Avenue, Stutson Street. Latta and River Roads,
and on Lake Avenue between Driving Park Avenue and Flower City Park. The
Ontario Beach Park District is wholly within the LWRP, while approximately
half of the Maplewood District falls within the LWRP boundaries (south of
Seneca Parkway).

11-34

. .....................................
..... LOCAL VATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
......... ............
...... ..... .. Rachestor, Now York

NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
..... .. . ...
. ............
. ....................... ....... Lmpnd
:*..,*"*,,*,*"-...*,.*,--.***.-'* ......... 0.,. * * * :::
....................*............................
.. ................... ................
Av .......
...................... :*.* ......................
......... .
..... PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
.................. .......
.....................

........... . .
.. .. .....
..........
FRESHWATER WETLANDS

..........
U
WILDLIFE HABITATS
SIGNIFICANT FISH and

BEACHES

UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHIC/
UEOGRAPHIC FEATURES

SCENIC VISTA

L2@ -
07

/*
44

A ...

C; L-W@ Ak-1 11 Dopartffmt of CAmmx*y 13melopftnt
Mateh Line A Buremi of Planning and Zoning
1,000, 0 2. 00(f
MAP 11-6
LWRP SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS scale

-W@ pvwm..m 9= 1@ aff@ .9 'A- ft
xwuma @ ---w ca@" Zan pwWasma we al J". 0 mm". ftrAm
-15
AF

Natural Resorces Inventory

_v
Match Uns A

V W

7L
OL

bal- _j

lot.'
L

.46..
it
--jui

W-ftf

Jam

vi,
sum-*=
L!
'OEM
A
1.,LF

"AL
7i

Departrnent of Cornrnunity Dew%lopmnt
M"au of Plamb and ZonkV
i1L
2, 00(f
MAP 11-6 N
LWRP SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS scale

w No "MUNN 1w %m "m OLM aw@ 40 mm cmmBA4
mm ffs
Am"
we cum" an MWOUL OVAOM&
11- 36.1

Natural ReWmes Irwdory

O'V "4,9,,o

. ................. . .....
.............
........... ...

...........
..... ...... .....

...................... ...... ....

............. ... .. .....
...........

..............
---------- F W
......... FW
...........
...........
. . ............
.............. ........ .... .. .... ..
7 ........ . ....... .... ..
............
............

...... . . ....... ...........
...... .......

......... .

ow
.............

'All
IN

41" XXXXX Xgm

Departinarit of Convmx*y
Bursas of Plarving and ZwdM
MAP 11-6 1, 00(f 0 2, 00(f
LWRP SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS A
scale

11-37 pmmm "A 9,-Ap*@L 4806"@ me 'Jown

river and provides spectacular views of the river gorge. Kodak's waste
water treatment plant on the opposite side of the river detracts from this
view, however. The overlook at the end of Boxart Street provides a view
of the wooded slopes near Seneca Park and views of the river gorge to the
north. Areas within Turning Point Park provide spectacular views of the
river and the Turning Basin, as well as the wetland areas along the
eastern bank.

A footpath that leads down the steep slope at Turning Point Park provides
direct pedestrian access to the river. A path which continues north from
the park passes Riverview Marina and the remains of Old Charlotte and
terminates at the Genesee Lighthouse, providing unique views of the land
and the river.

Additional scenic views and vistas of Lake Ontario and various ponds and
valleys exist in Durand-Eastman Park. Scenic views and vistas of
Irondequoit Creek, Irondequoit Bay and the adjacent wetlands exist in
Tryon Park. Views from the river and the lake of existing development and
upland areas are also significant in many areas.

10. NATURAL RESOURCES

A. Overview

Rochester's waterfront revitalization area contains a variety of
significant natural resources and environmental features. These include
fish and wildlife habitat areas, wetlands and unique topographic features .
These areas are shown on MAP 11-7 on pages 11-39 through 11-41.

B. Fishery resources and habitats

The Genesee River flows north through the City of Rochester and is one of
four major New York State tributaries of Lake Ontario. The large size of
the Genesee, and the fact that much of the river corridor is essentially
undisturbed, make it one of the most important fish and wildlife habitats
in the Great Lakes Plain ecological region of New York State. However,
water pollution and extensive alteration of the lower channel have reduced
the environmental quality of the river.

The New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) has designated almost six
and one-half miles of the river as a mcoastal fish and wildlife habitat of
state-wide significance". (See the Appendix to the Inventory and Analysis
for a detailed description of the Genesee River habitat). This habitat
area extends from the mouth of the river at Lake Ontario to the Lower
Falls, just south of the Driving Park Bridge. The Lower Fal I s i s a
natural impassable barrier to fish. The lower river area received a
rating of 54, which is well above the 15.5 threshold for designation as a
state coastal fish and wildlife habitat. The rating system was based on
five criteria: ecosystem rarity; species vulnerability; human use;
population level of species present; and replacability.

11-38

...... .....
LOCAL VATERFRONT
.... .. .......
........... ::I:::**'.
....... REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

........................
...... .....
............ Rochester. Now York
.. .... ... NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
...... ........ ........
:..:t** ....... Legend
............

. ... .............. *.: ..........
........... .......... .....
..............
.......... PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
...........0 .......... .....
..........
............
.... ..................
........... ...
...........
FRESHWATER WETLANDS

. .......... S GNIFICANT FISH and
WILDLIFE HABITATS

BEACHES

UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHIC/
LZOGRAPHIC FEATURES

SCENIC VISTA

\IJ

... ......

or-

e,; or -
Departrnent of Cormmx*y Developtnent
Bure
au of Planning and Zoning
1,000, 0 2,00(f"

scale

il@@ #=..v glum Va.
fta."

MAP 11-7
LWRP NATURAL RESOURCES

11-39

Natural Resorces -invoiltary.

L
d, @j
.. ...... Match Lens A
3-5
XA

St."

---------------

da. am 4"r-
L

flu

rr 7.
4-

..jU

1;77
-Mai L

.. 10
L
-U--j

J
2 Department ot Community Development
IL
Bureauof PlanningaAd Zoning
@!',,j 000, 0 2, 00(f
MAP 11-7
L
,j

i'LWRP NATURAL RESOURCES
-A scale

11-40
"ftm@w ".Woo ..m wt@ w X@ ft
'3M" ft=WM qg@. V=Wn" JMMAG &U
@C A%=9WWW
Wwwww an a7z, .9
zraft 0@.

Natural R es Inventory

I-E

041@-4'9/0

................
. . . ......... ...........
. ...........

............... ..

.. ............
. .............. ... ..... .
. ............... ...

..................
............ ......... ...
. ... .... ..... ... ...
......... . .......

........... FW
... ............. .....
..........
..... . ..... ......
...........

... ........ ..
............
...... ...... . .. ....

. ..........

ljrl@l

Department of Convmx*y Dwelopment
Bureau of Planning and Zoning
1,000, 0 2, 000'
MAP 11-7
LWRP NATURAL RESOURCES
scale

11-41
-M4" MUM 'd
-- .--- JMWAN MW AUMWWW AW@atj-89@.
Ei

The Genesee River is a highly productive warmwater fisheries habitat which
supports concentrations of many resident and Lake Ontario based fish
species. Among the more common resident species are smallmouth bass,
brown bullhead, northern pike, channel catfish, walleye, carp and white
sucker. Lake-run species found in the Genesee River include white bass,
yellow perch, white perch, smelt, bowfin, sheepshead, rock bass and
American eel. These fish populations are supplemented by seasonal
influxes of large numbers of trout and salmon. In the spring (late
February -April), steelhead (lake-run rainbow trout) and brown trout run
up the river, and lake trout occur at the river's mouth. In fall
(September - November), concentrations of coho and chinook salmon, brown
trout and steelhead are found throughout the river during their spawning
runs. The salmonid concentrations in the Genesee River are among the
largest occurring in Lake Ontario tributaries, and are largely the result
of an ongoing effort by NYSBEC to establish a major salmonid fishery in
the Great Lakes through stocking. In 1985, approximately 20,000 steelhead
and 300,000 chinook salmon were released in the river.

The Genesee River provides an important recreational fishery, attracting
anglers from throughout New York State and beyond. Its location within
the City of Rochester results in very heavy fishing pressure from
residents of the metropolitan area. Major fishing areas along the river
include the river mouth at Lake Ontario, and the riverfront between Seth
Green Island and Lower Falls. Although the seasonal salmonid runs attract
the greatest number of fishermen to the area, the river also supports an
active warmwater fishery. Easy access to the river for fishing is a
problem in many areas, however, due to the topography of the river gorge
Ponds within Durand-Eastman Park also receive heavy fishing use during th;
spring and summer months. The fishing derbies held in the park are
important to many local residents.

C. Vildlife resources and habitats

Wildlife use of the river and shorezone is extremely limited and not well
documented. It appears to be limited to those species that can inhabit a
relatively narrow riparian corridor, and are somewhat tolerant of human
activities in adjacent areas. Possible or confirmed breeding bird species
include mallard, wood duck, red-tailed hawk, spotted sandpiper, belted
kingfisher, red-winged blackbird, swamp sparrow and various woodpeckers
and woodland passerine birds. Other species occurring in the area
probably include beaver, deer, squirrel, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, northern
water snake and painted turtle. Due to the inaccessibility of the gorge,
there are no significant wildlife-related human uses of the river. The
steep slopes of the gorge and the wooded areas of Durand-Eastman Park
provide refuge for many types of wildlife. The park is an invaluable
nature area that contains significant wetlands and a deer population of
between 200 and 300 animals.

11-42

Tidal and freshwater wetlands

Wetl ands are val uabl e f i sh and wi 1 dl i fe habi tats and serve as nesti ng and
breeding areas for many migratory species as well as spawning and nursery
areas for many species of fish. Wetlands also provide flood and
stormwater retention capacity by slowing runoff and temporarily storing
water, thus protecting downstream areas from flooding. Aquifer recharge,
erosion control and recreational opportunities are other benefits of
wetland preservation.

In recognition of the benefits of wetlands, New York State enacted the
Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation
Law). Wetlands encompassing 12.4 acres or more are protected, as are
smaller areas having unusual local significance such as supporting a rare
or endangered species. Any filling or alteration of a wetland or within
a 100 foot buffer zone immediately surrounding the wetland requires a
permit from the NYSDEC.

Wetlands are classified into four categories. Class I wetlands are the
most valuable and least disturbed, while Class IV wetlands are the least
valuable. Permits for alteration of a wetland are more likely to be
granted for Class III and IV wetlands than those in the higher classes.
TABLE 11-3 on page 11-44 1 ists state-designated wetlands within the city's
LWRP, and the state classification category of each.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), a branch of the U.S.
Department of the Interior, has classified all significant wetlands in the
Rochester area, regardless of size. Maps showing wetland boundaries and
indicating the type of structural features and vegetation present were
completed using 1978 and 1981 aerial photography. The USFWS classifi-
cation system categorizes wetlands first by the ecological system present.
In Rochester, this is usually riverine (in or adjacent to a river) or
palustrine (poorly drained or swampy area). Some lacustrine (in or
adjacent to a lake) wetlands are found in and adjacent to Durand and
Eastman Lakes in Durand-Eastman Park. Further classifications include
open water areas. emergents (vegetation which is rooted under the water
with parts of the plant extending up out of the water), shrub/scrub areas,
and forested areas. Common examples of emergent vegetation in Rochester
are cattails and purple loose strife. Vegetation found in shrub/scrub
areas includes alder, buttonbush and dogwoods. In forested wetland areas
within Rochester, willows, red and silver maples and red ash are likely to
be found.

The USFWS areas identified generally occur in those areas shown on the
NYSDEC maps, with the exception of certain smaller and isolated wetlands
scattered throughout the city. Federally designated wetlands impose
requirements upon federal agencies and federal ly-assisted projects, as
well as requiring permits through the USACE.

11-43

TABLE 11-3

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN
STATE DESIGNATED WETLANDS WITHIN THE LWRP (12.4 acres or greater)

State Code State Class Location

RH-6 II River, NE, north of Rattlesnake Point

RH-8 11 River, NW, below Riverside Cemetery

RH-9 11 River. NE, Turning Point Park and northward

RH-20 I River, NE, Seneca Park

RH-21 11 River, NE, Seneca Park and northward

RH712 I Durand-Eastman Park

RH-13 I Durand Lake, D-E Park

RH-14 Eastman Lake, D-E Park

RH-15 Durand-Eastman Park

RH-16 Durand-Eastman Park

PH-1 Tryon Park (small portion of Ellison Park
wetlands area)

E. Water quality

The Genesee River accumulates and transports a variety of pollutants to
Lake Ontario. Water quality in the lower river has degraded over the
years because of the dumping of industrial wastes and untreated sewage
into the river. According to the Monroe County Health Department (MCHD),
the combination of combined sewer overflows, Eastman Kodak Company waste
discharges and connections with the Barge Canal have significantly
contributed to the pollution of the Genesee River. Because of
improvements to the city's sewer systems and the upgrading of Eastman
Kodak's King's Landing waste treatment plant which now removes silver and
other chemicals from plant waste water discharges, river water quality has
begun to improve. Small amounts of cadmium used in the photographic
process still collect in river sediment, however, and can constitute a
health problem when the river is dredged causing these toxic metal
particles to become suspended in water. The NYSDEC is currently
investigating elevated levels of toxic sediments in the lower Genesee and
the toxicity of Kodak discharges.

11-44

The Monroe County Pure Waters Agency (MCPWA) was formed in 1967 to
consolidate and improve municipal sanitary waste discharges. The
Rochester Pure Waters District, one of five county sewer districts,
operates and maintains treatment facilities, interceptor sewers and a
collection system which serve the entire city. A network of sewer
interceptors and new overflow tunnels collects sewage, stores it during
periods of high storm water runoff, then directs it to the Frank E.
VanLare Treatment Plant in Durand-Eastman Park for secondary treatment.
Five chlorination stations also serve the city.

Even though the upgraded city sewer system and improvements to industrial
wastewater treatment have greatly improved Genesee River water quality,
there are occasional periods of high storm water runoffs that cause
serious but temporary pollution problems in the river. Pollution
resulting from combined sanitary and storm water sewers has been a
long-term problem for the Genesee River. When stormwater runoff and
sanitary sewage is carried in the same system, a heavy rainfall will
generally produce flows which exceed treatment plant capacity. When this
happens, the excess flow of combined stormwater and sewage bypasses the
treatment plant and flows directly into the river. Rochester and Monroe
County are involved in the CSOAP project which has been designed to
correct this problem through the construction of large, underground
holding tunnels.

F. Air quality

At the current time, Rochester's air quality is not known to be a
significant problem and meets all national air quality standards.

11. FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

A. Waterflow

The greatest impact on waterflow in the river is created by a series of
dams. These include the Mount Morris Dam, the Court Street Dam and the
Middle Falls floodgates. These dams regulate overall river levels and
flows in order to provide flood control for the region and to generate
electricity. Streamflow in the lower Genesee fluctuates extensively
according to NYSDEC records. Mean annual flow is generally in the 3,000
to 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) range. Mean annual maximum flows
generally fall in the 14,000 to 16,000 cfs range with mean minimum flows
in the 450 to 500 cfs range.

B. Flooding

As noted earlier, the Genesee River follows a well-defined channel through
much of its course through the City of Rochester. Flooding along the
river was virtually eliminated with the construction of the Mt. Morris
Dam in 1952. The dam is located about 35 miles south of the city. The
only large area of the city which is below the 100 year flood elevation is
Genesee Valley Park, which is largely open space. Floodplain development
has been kept to a minimum in the city due to the steep topography of the

11-45

river gorge. Areas of lower elevation near Lake Ontario have been
protected from flooding by filling, breakwalls and bulkheading.

The Federal Insurance Administration conducted a flood insurance study for
the City of Rochester in 1978. The study calculated the magnitude of wave
run-up during storm conditions in the city's waterfront revitalization
area at between 1.7 and 3 feet, using a method based on the Army Corps of
Engineers Shore Protection Manual. This methodology considered wind
direction, wind speed, open water distance, near shore slope, and water
depth at representative shoreline cross-sections. Flood elevations which
include this wave run-up factor along Lake Ontario vary from about 252
feet mean sea level (msl) at Durand-Eastman Park, to 251 feet ms1 along
the shore north of Beach Avenue. Flood elevations in the lower Genesee
River corridor near the lake are as low as 249 feet msl. The mean lake
level for October 1-15, 1986 was 246.09 feet, only 0.24 feet below the
maximum recorded level of 246.33 feet taken in October, 1945.

Considering the recent trend in Great Lakes levels, the flood levels
estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers may no longer be accurate.
Lakeshore damage in Rochester would be the most severe for the area west
of Clio Street and north of Beach Avenue. These areas are already
suffering from erosion. Ontario Beach Park and Durand-Eastman Park may
also lose some beach area in the event of significant flooding which
occurs during times of peak lake levels.

12. KROSION HAZARD AREAS, SILTATION AND DREDGING

A. Coastal erosion hazard areas

A coastal erosion hazard area has been designated by the NYSDEC along the
shoreline of Lake Ontario, from the City of Rochester/Town of Greece
municipal boundary on the west, along the shoreline, to the City of
Rochester/Town of Irondequoit municipal boundary on the east, at the
eastern end of Durand-Eastman Park. This area is shown on maps prepared
by the NYSDEC entitled: Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map, City of Rochester
and dated August 29, 1988. These maps are on file in the City Clerk's
Office at City Hall, and show the boundaries of- natural protective
features and structural hazard areas within the LWRP.

These maps i ndi cate that the shorel i ne area north of Beach Avenue from the
city / Town of Greece municipal boundary east to Welland Street is eroding
at a rate of approximately 1.5 feet per year. The shoreline area from
Welland Street east to Clematis Street is eroding at approximately 1.0
feet per year. The shoreline area contained within Ontario Beach Park has
been designated as a natural protective feature. The shoreline area
within Durand-Eastman Park from the western park boundary to Sunset Point
Road has also been designated as a natural protective feature. The
shoreline area that runs from Sunset Point Road east for approximately
1100 feet is eroding at approximately 1.0 feet per year. The remaining
portion of the Lake Ontario shoreline within the boundaries of the LWRP is
eroding at approximately 1.5 feet per year.

11-46

A natural protective feature is defined as a nearshore area, beach, bluff,
primary dune, secondary dune, or wetland, and the vegetation thereon. A
structural hazard area is defined as those shorelands, other than natural
protective features, subject to erosion and located landward of shorelines
having an average annual recession rate of 1 foot or more per year. The
inland boundary of a structural hazard area is calculated by starting at
the landward limit of a bluff and measuring along a line which is
perpendicular to the shoreline a horizontal distance which is 40 times the
long-term average annual recession rate.

B. Other erosion problems

A significant erosion problem does occur in the lower Genesee River, north
of the Stutson Street Bridge, near the river's outlet with Lake Ontario.
This problem involves wave surge action in the river caused by severe
northeastern storms. This wave action causes damage to boats and boat
docks in the river, as well as the undermining of other structures and
facilities along the river bank. Many marinas along the river north of
Stutson Street have suffered damage to structures, boats and shoreline due
to the wave surge action of major storms during the last several years.

Lower Genesee River levels will be higher as a result of higher lake
levels, and the gorge may, therefore, suffer from increased shoreline
erosion. Heavy motorized boat activity in the river can accelerate
erosion of sensitive soils found along the steeply sloped banks of the
gorge. Wetlands provide some protection from erosion for the riverbanks
in the lower gorge, however.

C. Siltation and dredging

Siltation, primarily caused by bank and sheet erosion, construction
activities and some farming practices, can have a significant effect on
water quality. Turbid water is visually unattractive. Silt also destroys
stream habitats by changing the natural water environment. Silt covers
and retains sewage wastes and other organic materials, which, through the
process of decomposition, depletes the supply of dissolved oxygen in the
water resulting in the killing of fish as well as water insect
populations. Silty water can also negatively impact fish spawning.

Bank erosion, a major factor in siltation, occurs partly because of
natural wave acti on and surf ace runof f as wel I as from the wash created by
powerboats on the river. A speed limit of 6 mph has been set by the Coast
Guard as a safety measure and as a means to protect riverbanks from
serious erosion. Enforcement of the speed limit is difficult, however.

Dredging activities in the port area designed to deepen the channel and to
clear marina slips of silt have also had a negative impact on water
quality. When dredging occurs, sediment is released and suspended in the
water. The larger, heavier particles soon resettle on the bottom while
the finer silts and clays remain suspended for longer periods of time and
are transported from the dredge site by local currents. This causes
significant pollution problems within the river and is detrimental to the
natural fish and wildlife populations present there.

11-47

Both the NYSDEC and the Monroe County Heal th Department (MCHD) operate
water quality monitoring stations in Lake Ontario and the Genesee River.
NYSDEC's three surveillance stations are located near the Charlotte docks,
approximately two miles south of the Stutson Street Bridge at Boxart
Street, and on the east bank of the river between RG&EIs Station 5 power
plant and Driving Park Avenue. The MCHO maintains several stations in the
lake and along the river and has increased the frequency of data
collections since 1972.

13. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE

Existing water and sewer lines and service within virtually all areas of the
city's LWRP are adequate and in relatively good condition. There are no
developable areas that are not currently serviced for water and sewers. No major
problems have been identified with this element of the public infrastructure.
Therefore, adequate water and sewer service within the LWRP is not currently a
hinderance to development.

14. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

The transportation network within the city's LWRP boundary involves an extensive
system of existing streets, and roads and highways that are operated and
maintained by the city, county and New York State. Major and minor arterials and
principal collector streets within the LWRP include Lake Avenue, St. Paul
Street, Ridge Road West, the Lake Ontario State Parkway (LOSP), Beach Avenue,
Stutson Street, Lakeshore Boulevard and Driving Park Avenue. Virtually all
developed areas within the LWRP boundary are also serviced by public
transportation through the Roches ter/Genes ee Regional Transit Authority (R/GRTA).

The four current major transportation network issues within the city's LWRP are
the condition and capacity of Lake Avenue, general traffic congestion in the
vicinity of Ontario Beach Park during periods of peak summer use, the condition
of and operating problems associated with the Stutson Street Bridge, and
potential linkages with the New York State Seaway Trail..

From Ridge Road West north to the LOSP, Lake Avenue is part of the State
legislated arterial system. The section north of the parkway is on the Federal
Aid Urban System (FAUS). Lake Avenue is a major north/south arterial which runs
parallel to the west bank of the Genesee River. Lake Avenue provides access to
downtown Rochester, Kodak Park, the West Ridge Road area, several residential
areas, including the Maplewood and Charlotte neighborhoods, -'several strip
commercial areas, the parkway, Ontario Beach Park and the Port of Rochester site.
The northern terminus of Lake Avenue is Beach Avenue, near Ontario Beach Park.

A study entitled Project Initiation Request: Lake Avenue which was completed by
Bergmann Associates, P.C. in 1987, identified several problems associated with
Lake Avenue. These included a deteriorated roadway base in several areas, narrow
travel lanes resulting in reduced capacities and increased accidents, inadequate
curb reveal and stopping sight distances, lack of left-turn storage lanes at many
intersections, confusing intersection geometrics, poor levels of service and
excessive delays at some intersections, lack of accommodations for bicycles, and
lack of adequate pedestrian faci-lities. The study recommended a combined

11-48

reconstruction and rehabilitation project for Lake Avenue which would include
geometric improvements at several intersections, a variety of surface and
sub-surface structural improvements, and provision of new pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in several areas.

Traffic congestion in the vicinity of Ontario Beach Park is a problem during
periods of peak park use during the summer as well as during special events or
festivals held at the park. Traffic volumes on Lake Avenue fluctuate between
14,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day according to the Monroe County Department of
Traffic Engineering. The Lake Avenue / Stutson Street and Lake Avenue / Beach
Avenue intersections operate at level of service F on summer weekends. This
indicates significant delays and limited traffic movement during these periods.

Monroe County is investigating the engineering feasibility of replacing or
rehabilitating the existing Stutson Street Bridge. The bridge was designed in
1913-14 for the City of Rochester, and construction was completed in 1917. The
city retained ownership and operation of the bridge until 1968 when these
responsibilities were transferred to Monroe County.

The bridge is currently in a deteriorating condition. Replacement parts for the
machinery which raises and lowers the bridge must now be custom made. Bridge
openings during the summer months to accommodate boat traffic on the Genesee
River cause traffic congestion and back-ups at the Lake Avenue / Stutson Street
intersection. Queues for traffic turning left and heading eastbound onto Stutson
Street from Lake Avenue can back up to Holy Cross Church when the bridge is open
during summer weekend afternoons. Construction of a new bridge which would be
relocated to the south of the existing location and which would line up with the
parkway would help to alleviate much of the traffic congestion and convoluted
traffic circulation patterns that exist at the Lake Avenue / Stutson Street
intersection. Development of the design, engineering and construction details
for any proposed Stutson Street Bridge replacement project should be done in
close cooperation between the city, the Town of Irondequoit, Monroe County and
the State of New York.

An integral part of the New York State Seaway Trail is located within the city's
LWRP boundary. This section of the trail includes the LOSP, Stutson Street and
Lakeshore Boulevard. The Seaway Trail is a mixed-use, shared right-of-way
recreation corridor which runs for approximately 474 miles from the New York/
Pennsylvania border to Massena, New York. The Seaway Trail has been designated
a National Recreation Trail and will be the initial element of a proposed Great
Lakes trail system to run from Grand Portage, Minnesota to the New England
seaboard. There is a potential to develop loops or linkages to existing and
proposed recreation/tourism facilities in the city from the Seaway Trail via
informational signage, brochures and marketing. Areas that could be included in
this expanded trail system include the Genesee River gorge, Ontario Beach Park,
Turning Point Park, Seneca Park and Maplewood Park.

11-49

15. OTHER ISSUES

A. Hazardous waste sites and storage of toxic materials

The NYSDEC maintains a list of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites
known as the NYS Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.
State funds for cleanup of these sites are currently provided by tFe
Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA) of 1986, which provided $1.2 billion
for remediation of inactive hazardous waste sites. Three of the twelve
sites on the NYS Registry for Rochester are located within the LWRP
boundary. These sites are summarized in Table 11-4 on Page 11-51 from
data taken from the City of Rochester State of the Environment Report
(1988).

Generators of hazardous wastes, or those companies, institutions, govern-
ment agencies, and other facilities which produce hazardous wastes in
their operations, are required to obtain permits and report regularly to
the NYSDEC and USEPA on their activities under State and federal law. The
City of Rochester has 65 permitted hazardous waste generators, producing
approximately 26,331 tons of wastes annually. The top ten generators
produce close to 97% of all hazardous wastes generated in Rochester. The
largest generator is Eastman Kodak Company which produces about 21,737
tons annually from seven locations in Rochester, or about 83% of the
regulated hazardous waste in the city.

Seven industries operate treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDF's or TSD's) for their own hazardous wastes. There are no commercial
TSD's located in Rochester. The Eastman Kodak Company operates a
hazardous waste incinerator at Kodak Park. The remaining TSD's are used
for temporary storage of material prior to disposal outside of the county,
either in the Buffalo area or out of state.

Pursuant to the Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites Act of 1979
(Article 27, Title 13 of the New York State Environmental Conservation
Law), Monroe County has responsibility for the identification of suspected
inactive waste disposal sites. Sites which are suspected of containing
hazardous waste are referred to the NYSDEC for further investigation.

The county has developed draft maps of all suspected and confirmed
dumpsites in Rochester using aerial photography, public agency files, and
information provided by the general public. Over 90 dumpsites were
identified within the city. The county has also compiled site activity
records which are keyed to these maps.

It should also be noted that at present, no program for proper disposal of
household hazardous waste such as insecticides, used automobile oil and
paint remover exists at the city, county, or state levels of government.

11-50

TABLE 11-4

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN
HYS REGISTRY INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES WITHIN THE LVRP

Site/(State Id.#) Classification Summary

1. Old Rochester City 2a Active period: 1930's -1970. Approx
Landfill size: 20 acres. Former city landfill:
(Pattonwood Drive) Soil contaminated with hydrocarbons.
(8-28-009) Scheduled for Phase 11 investigation
in 1990.

2. Genesee River Gorge 2 Active period: 1800-1970's. Site
(8-28-044) generally located between Upper and
Lower Falls, including former Deep
Hollow Ravine. Coal gasification
wastes suspected of being disposed of
in gorge. Chemical seeps leaching
out of face of Lower Falls, similar
in nature to material encountered
during Cliff Street siphon tunnel
construction (Feb.- March 1985).
Xylene, toluene, benzene, creosote
products found. Expanded Phase I
report completed in 1988. DEC is
negotiating with the potentially
responsible parties (PRP) to conduct
the RI/FS. City and RG&E have
proposed work program to DEC.

3. Eastman Kodak Co. 2 Active period: 1953-present.
Kodak Park East, Approx. size: 60 acres. Groundwater
(8-28-071) contaminated with methylene chloride
and other solvents. As an interim
remedial action, a few recovery wells
are removing groundwater and
discharging it to Kodak's King's
Landing Waste Water Treatment Plant.

11-51

B. Sum" of local laws and regulations

Local laws and regulations which were enacted as a result of the LWRP are
contained in the Appendices to the LWRP. Local laws and regulations which are
relevant to the City's LWRP are summarized in TABLE 11-5 below. Zoning within
the northern portion of the LWRP boundary is shown on MAP V-7 on page V-71.

TABLE 11-5

LOCAL VATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN
RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS

ZONING DISTRICT OR OTHER SLINMARY OF
REGULATIONS PRIMARY LWRP AREAS REGULATIONS

*River-Harbor (R-H) * Port Authority Site *Permits water-retated
District * East and west river recreation and commercial
banks from Lake to development; Minimum waterfront
Denise Road Area setbacks are required. Special
* Summerville area permit required for uses within
Portions of the 100 feet of river.
River street Site

Open Space (OS) Public parkland *Restricts development to
District Genesee River Gorge parks, cemeteries, and outdoor
Riverside Cemetery recreation faciLities. Special
permit required for many uses.
Site plan review ALL LWRP areas *Requires review of site plan
procedures designs for virtually all
development or rehabilitation
in city. Includes criteria for
review of plans.
Environmental Review Ali LWRP areas *Requires detailed environ-
Procedures mental review for aLL Type I
and Unlisted Actions. Review
requires identification of
proposed mitigating measures.
Type I actions include develop-
ment in sensitive environmental
areas in shorezone.

16. DEVELOPNEW OPPORTWITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

A. Overview

Steep slopes, potential erosion problems and inaccessibility make any
significant development in the river gorge itself unfeasible. Sl ope
problems are most severe in the area from Turning Point Park south to the
Upper Falls. At the park, the waterfront revitalization area broadens
into a series of three plateaus stepping down to the river. At this
point, however, the presence of wetlands along the river's edge prevents
direct access to the water and serves as a major constraint to
development.

11-52

Few existing areas or land uses within the city's waterfront area are
derel i ct, underutilized or abandoned. There are, however, five
significant development sites within the LWRP boundary. These areas are
discussed below and are show on MAP 11-8 on pages 11-54 through 11-56
along with major land owners within the LWRP.

An area to the north of Seneca Park, along the east bank of the river, is
characterized by steep, wooded slopes and contains significant wetlands.
This area is virtually undevelopable and should be designated as permanent
open space or public parkland. The remaining four development areas
within the LWRP boundary have significant development potential.

B. General description of development parcels within the LVRP

The four development areas within the LWRP boundary include:

(1) A parcel near St. Bernard's Seminary (22 acres). Currently, this
parcel is part of Eastman Kodak's Park facilities and is zoned M-
IPD. Kodak is developing this parcel as a research/office facility.

(2) Boxart Street/Burley Road area (18 acres). Although this area is
located within the waterfront revitalization area, it is an upland
area and is not visible from the river. The parcel i s zoned
residential and has been developed for single-family housing on 12.6
acres. The remaining acreage has been retained as open space.
(3) The River Street area (5 1/2 acres). This area includes the
abandoned Conrail switching yards on the west bank of the river,
near the historic Genesee Lighthouse. This area includes two
parcels: one is owned by the City of Rochester and the other is
owned by New York State.

(4) The port site (22 acres). This area once housed a large blast
furnace and later supported commercial shipping operations. The
site is now vacant, except for a large parking area for Ontario
Beach Park, two warehouses along the river's edge, and a 4-ramp boat
launch owned and operated by Monroe County.

None of the parcels listed above have significant infrastructure
problems. Water and sewer lines and public streets existed or have
been constructed as part of approved development. At the
Boxart-Burley site, main sewer connections existed. Water and sewer
lines were installed in the area as part of the subdivision
development.

C. The Port Site

The port site presents a unique set of development opportunities and
constraints. At one time, a significant part of the site was wetland.
This portion of the site, now filled in, has limited bearing capacity
which restricts the height of buildings which can be built on the site.
This is particularly true in the portion of the site near the river. The
port site is shown on Map 11-9 on page 11-57.

11-53

LOCAL VUTERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Rochester, Now york

MAJOR LAND OWNERS
Legend

CITY of ROCHESTER

MONME COUNTY

NEW YORK STATE

U.S.A.

PRIVATELY OWNED MARINAS

PRIVATELY OWNED LAND

CIS
4@ EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC
L

HOLY SEPULCHRE CEMETERY

CONRAIL

Mar-

..... . . . . . . . . . .

imp-
_J

Department of Cormmwdty Developnent
MatCh Un"
Bureau of Planning and Zoning
1 00(f 0 2, 00(f
MAP 11-8
MAJOR LAND OWNERS WITHIN THE LWRP scale

11-54 from" fte -m qw. vam ftme a vmo am="
-_ ____ ---- t@ --m cwt@ -A Am= sm
ta"@ 8FAW"ml- Mom" ow- we hummmba Am"awaAm.
o@@ o- tm Q@ &.- wAmmm @ t Ws. a mw=IL raft,"
Aw

4 L.
UmW Lad Ownwe

Match Lone A

L- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

fill
A
-,I
OOV

,@el
_-l Lr
%AAL_ t

JL
-3r =71
Lj
it
.771.

:4-7

,row=
MAW

-
A
. -:. I

AV
F
J-1
I !F@_ ",-:
F
Depwtnwd of C4mfflx*Y Deveiopment
Burgau of Planning and Zoning

IF-
it :11r.1, 00(@ o
2,00
MAP 11-8
MAJOR LAND OWNERS WITHIN THE LWRP% scale

."go ftmwwml@ mmm&@ gum 29 1@ wd

-UL-A
55 an at kin. is 4mfts. ftow"

Major Land Owners

".4,9/C)

Ak-@

Iff

rnent of Camwnity Druel"nient
Depart
Planning and Zoning
reau
1, 00e 0 2,000,
MAP 11-8 1 Fmm=ffmmm=mmmmR
MAJOR LAND OWNERS WITHIN THE LWRP scale

"0 a mmm" 9W Im -00 @ am am@ 61 Ram C@"
,.__ --- @ ft@ -
11-56 F-mme @mw @am a Lora. a
Aran lft@.

LOCAL MTERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Rochester, Now York

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Legend

A FLOOD PLAIN

STEEP SLOPES

AREAS OF CRITICAL EROSION
@' ax

HIGH WATER TABLE/
SHALLOW SOILS

WATER QUALITY

Classification

Limiting Segmnts

HISTORIC/ARCHEOLJOGICAL SITE

SERVICE AMA

Public Water SupPlY
j

Public Sewer

4, EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS
17
WK

PORT OF ROCHEST"En

RIVER STREET AREA

Depa
rtment of Conminity Develo
-Wne A Buresi of Planning and Zoning
MAP 11-9 1,000, 0 2, 00(f
THE PORT AND RIVER STREET SITES scale

I @aZaFM fr= U& Off L= 24 'X&W MMA
P'@' @@ ..a ft ftftw-w
ca.@L t@ lvffAw@ ::t 3C '1271. o And. ftdoc"
11-57

The port site's most obvious and overwhelming physical feature is its
proximity to the water. The river and lake, boating activity, the
adjacent beach and the water-related activities in and around the port
area are positive site features and help to enhance its visual and
aesthetic qualities. Other positive site features include the bathhouse
and Dentzel carousel at nearby Ontario Beach Park, the Genesee River pier
and the Port Authority Warehouse. Each of these buildings contribute to
the port's unique waterfront and recreational atmosphere.

Interesting views and vistas are encountered at the Genesee Lighthouse on
the westside of the river as well as at the U.S. Coast Guard Station on
the east side of the river. Both buildings are picturesque and contribute
to the scenic quality of the site. Unfortunately, pedestrian access to
the Lighthouse is difficult from the port site, due to physical barriers
including the Conrail tracks an the north and the sloping terrain to the
south and east. Access to the Coast Guard Station is limited from the
east bank because of security considerations.

Site design constraints include the physical appearance and placement of
the picnic shelters in nearby Ontario Beach Park. They block views and
create a sense of congestion within the park. The unusual design of the
community bandstand located in the park accentuates its location and
appearance and also detracts from views of the lake and river.

A major problem with the port site is the lack of focus or sense of
arrival as one approaches from the south or west. Initial views from the
Lake Avenue Conrail Bridge are disappointing and somewhat obscured by
existing development. Lake Avenue is also quite wide and lacks
appropriate streetscape amenities such as street trees, landscaping,
benches, etc. The port site itself is largely vacant with river views
blocked by two warehouses at the eastern edge of the site.

While the popularity of Ontario Beach Park creates many development
opportunities, it also causes major parking and traffic problems in the
area during periods of peak utilization. During the summer months, the
Lake Avenue/Beach Avenue intersection becomes very congested because of
the many pedestrian/vehicular conflicts occurring in the area.

Another development constraint in the port area is the mix of commercial
and residential uses along Lake Avenue. Because of its lack of major
year-round uses, the area has a somewhat seasonal character. There are,
however, some existing year-round restaurants. Some of the seasonal
facilities are unattractive and show evidence of very little investment.
This is typical of seasonal facilities suffering from inadequate revenues.

Of the two warehouses on the port site, only the northern-most structure
could be considered for significant development. This building has an
interesting character, and its eastern facade and veranda can be opened up
to allow panoramic views of the river. The building could be reused for
a variety of water-related activities including a unique riverfront
restaurant, hotel or boatel.

11-58

The other warehouse has little redevelopment potential and blocks access
and views of the river. The four-ramp boat launch constructed by the
county at the southern end of the.port site provides access to the river
for fishermen and pleasure boaters but creates additional demand for
on-site car and trailer parking. The amount of land area required for
this parking limits other potential development on the site. The boat
launch also contributes to the intense seasonal flavor and atmosphere of
the port site.

The port site must be considered as a single unified area in order to
realize its full development potential. The land immediately adjacent to
the water is extremely valuable and offers considerable potential for many
types of development. The Lake Avenue frontage also has a significant
devel opment potenti al . However, without the development of a strong
relationship between the port site and the water, this area has very
little to distinguish it from any other large vacant parcel of land in the
City of Rochester. The port site has unique physical characteristics and
aesthetic qualities that must be considered, enhanced and carefully woven
into any development scheme. An overall design relationship between
existing and proposed uses and structures must be established on the site,
that will take advantage of the waterfront location and the opportunities
for development of unique water-related activities.

D. The River Street area

The River Street area, located to the south of the port site and
immediately adjacent to the Genesee River, has a unique neighborhood
character that results from its topography, and relative seclusion, its
architecture, and the small bars, restaurants and other commercial uses
that are found there. The River Street site is shown on MAP 11-9 on page
11-57.

Views of the river and port area from the bluff and the Genesee Lighthouse
are exceptional. The lighthouse is a tremendous asset to the area due to
its historic significance and unique architecture. Similarly, the
abandoned railroad station, located between River Street and the Genesee
River, is an interesting building with good reuse potential. Some of the
older buildings in the area are also architecturally significant and offer
unique opportunities for adaptive reuse. Many of the adjacent commercial
uses on Lake Avenue near Latta Road provide services to neighborhood
residents. These uses are a valuable asset for potential new residential
development. Some of these area businesses offer products and services
for fishermen, boaters and tourists.

Despite these positive features, the River Street area has several
development constraints. The RUE substation is unattractive and detracts
from views from the lighthouse grounds. The sewage lift station on River
Street is another unattractive feature that could constrain future
development. Finally, the east-west rail line which crosses the river at
the swing bridge physically separates this area from the port site, while
the north-south rail line limits development, particularly in the area
north of the Tapecon manufacturing facility. Although occasional trains
using these tracks could be a positive site feature by contributing to the

11-59

unique ambience of the area, the railroad right-of-way still restricts
access and movement and hinders full development in this area.

Access to the River Street area is somewhat difficult due to street
widths, grade and direction. River Street is currently one-way, going
north from Stutson Street. Access to the lighthouse is particularly
confusing and it is not easily seen from Lake Avenue. In addition, the
River Street area has very little land available for parking. All of
these factors serve to constrain development in the area.

River Street is a dead-end street and contains few uses which generate
people. The street is too narrow and confined to successfully accommodate
many types of new uses and the pedestrian and vehicular traffic they would
generate. At the same time, the area has virtually no residential uses.
These factors contribute to a uno man's landu quality which constrains
many types of future public and private development.

The area along the river to the south of River Street (the former Conrail
land from Stutson Street to Petten Street) is narrow and has limited
access. Near Petten Street, where the property widens, there is more
development potential, particularly for water-dependent uses. These uses
could include a boat-launching ramp with car-trailer parking, boat slips,
a dry-stack storage facility for boats, or a pedestrian footpath that
connects the area with the River Street area to the north.

11-60

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

APPENDIX

. GENESEE RIVER COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

11-61

COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM

Name of Area: Genesee River

Designated: October 15, 1987

County: Monroe

Town(s): Rochester

7%' Quadrangle(s): Rochester East, NY; Rochester West, NY

Score Criterion

20 Ecosystem Rarity (ER)
One of 4 major New York tributaries of Lake Ontario; unusual in the
Great Lakes Plain ecological region, but rarity is reduced by human
disturbances. Geometric mean: (16 x 25))'

0 Species Vulnerability (SV)
Spotted salamander (SC) and spotted turtle (SC) have been observed but
the extent of use not well documented.

16 Human Use (HU)
A major recreational fishing area on Lake Ontario, attracting anglers
from throughout New York State and beyond. Locally important for
birdwatching and informal nature study.

9 Population Level (PL)
Concentrations of spawning slamonids are among the largest occuring in
New York's Great Lakes tributaries; unusual in the ecological region.

1.2 Replaceability (R)
Irreplaceable

SIGNIFICANCE VALUE 1( ER + SV + HU + PL ) X RI

11-62

DESIGNATED HABITAT: GENESSEE RIVER

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:

The Genesee River is a major tributary of Lake Ontario, located in the City of
Rochester, Monroe County (7.5' Quadrangles: Rochester West, N.Y.; and Rochester
East, N.Y.). The fish and wildlife habitat is an approximate six and one-half
mile segment of the river, extending from Lake Ontario to "Lower Falls" (located
just above Driving Park Avenue), which is a natural impassable barrier to fish.
The Genesee River is a large, warmwater river, with a drainage area of nearly
2,500 square miles, and an average annual discharge of approximately 2,800 cubic
feet per second. Maximum water depths of up to 25 feet occur near the river
mouth, and a navigation channel has been dredged upstream approximately two and
one-half miles. Much of this lower segment is bordered by dense commercial,
industrial, and residential development, accompanied by extensive bulkheading.
Above this area, the Genesee River flows through a relatively undeveloped wooded
gorge, and has a fringe of emergent wetland vegetation along much of its
shoreline. This portion of the river is relatively shallow, with a rocky bottom.
The only significant development within the gorge is an industrial wastewater
treatment facility. However, the river has been subject to considerable water
pollution problems, including discharges of sewage and chemical contaminants.
Above Lower Falls, the Genesee River has been dammed for hydroelectric power
development, resulting in some alteration of river flows downstream.

FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:

The Genesee River is one of 4 major New York tributaries of Lake Ontario. The
large size of this river, and the fact that much of the river corridor is
essentially undisturbed, makes this one of the most important potential fish and
wildlife habitats in the Great Lakes Plain ecological region of New York State.
However. water pollution, and extensive alteration of the lower river channel,
have reduced the environmental quality of this area.
The Genesee River is a highly productive warmwater fisheries habitat, supporting
concentrations of many resident and Lake Ontario based fish species. Among the
more common resident species are smallmouth bass, brown bullhead, northern pike,
channel catfish, walleye, carp, and white sucker. Lake-run species found in the
Genesee River include white bass, yellow perch, white perch, smelt, bowfin,
sheepshead, rock bass, and American eel . These fish populations are supplemented
by seasonal influxes of large numbers of trout and salmon. In the spring (late
February - April), steelhead (lake-run rainbow trout) run up the river, and lake
trout occur at the mouth. In fall (September - November. primarily),
concentrations of coho and chinook salmon, brown trout, and steelhead, are found
throughout the river during their spawning runs. The salmonid concentrations in
the Genesee River are among the largest occurring in tributaries of Lake Ontario,
and are largely the result of an ongoing effort by the NYSDEC to establish a
major salmonid fishery in the Great Lakes through stocking. In 1985
approximately 20,000 steelhead and 300,000 chinook salmon were released in th;
river. The Genesee River provides an important recreational fishery, attracting
anglers from throughout New York State and beyond. Its location within the city
results in very heavy fishing pressure from residents of the Rochester
metropolitan area, concentrated primarily at the river mouth, and between Seth
Green Island and Lower Falls. Although the seasonal salmonid runs attract the
greatest number of fishermen to the area, the river also supports an active
warmwater fishery.

11-63

Wildlife use of the Genesee River is not well documented, but appears to be
limited to those species that can inhabit a relatively narrow riparian corridor
and are somewhat tolerant of human activities in adjacent areas. Possible o@
confirmed breeding bird species include mallard, wood duck, great horned owl,
red-tailed hawk, spotted sandpiper, belted kingfisher, red-winged blackbird
swamp sparrow, and various woodpeckers and woodland passerine birds. Severai
beaver colonies inhabit the lower Genesee in the vicinity of Turning Point Park
and Rattlesnake Point. Spotted salamander (SC) and spotted turtle (SC) have been
observed in the Lower Genesee River Gorge but the extent of use by these species
is not well documented. Other wildlife species occurring in the area probably
include raccoon, muskrat, northern water snake, and painted turtle. The wildlife
resources of the Genessee River and its adjacent woodlands are locally important
for birdwatching, and informal nature study.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

A habitat impairment test must be met for any activity that is subject to
consistency review under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws
contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the
proposed action is subject to consistency review, then the habitat protection
policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the
designated area.

The specific habitat impairment test that must be met is as follows.

In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and
water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions
would:

0 destroy the habitat; or,

0 significantly impair the viability of a habitat.

Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct
physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated area or through
the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction
may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases
in runoff, erosion. sedimentation, or pollutants.
Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food,
shelter, living space) or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature.
substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism.- Indicators of
a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include
but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity. changes in community structure
(food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or
increased incidence of disease and mortality.
The tolerance range of an organism is not defined as the physiological range of
confi ti ons beyond whi ch a sped es wi'l 1 not survi ve at al 1 , but as the ecol ogi cal
range of conditions that supports the species population or has the potential to
support a restored population, where practical . Either the loss of individuals
through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate indicates that the
tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death
rate may occur as an envi ronmental f actor f al 1 s beyond a tol erance I imi t (a range

11-64

has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors, however, do not
have a sharply defined tolerance limit, but produce increasing emigration or
death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the
species.

The range of parameters which should be considered in appplying the habitat
impairment test include but are not limited to the following:

1. physical parameters such as Iiving space, circulation, flushing rates,
tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of
littoral zone), morphology, substrate type, vegetation. structure, erosion
and sedimentation rates;
2. biological parameters such as community structure, food chain
relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population
size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, meristic features, behavioral
patterns and migratory patterns; and,
3. chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity,
dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy
metals, toxics and hazardous materials).

Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which
could destroy or significantly impair the habitat are listed below to assist in
applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity.

Any activity that substantially degrades water quality, increases temperature or
turbidity, reduces flows, or increases water level fluctuations in the Genesee
River, would affect the biological productivity of this area. Important species
of fish and wildlife would be adversely affected by water pollution, such as
chemical contamination (including food chain effects), oil spills, excessive
turbidity, and waste disposal. Continued efforts should be made to improve water
quality in the river, which is primarily dependent upon controlling discharges
from combined sewer overflows, industrial point sources, ships, and agricultural
lands in the watershed.

Barriers to fish migration, whether physical or chemical, would have significant
effects on fish populations within the river, and in adjacent Lake Ontario
waters. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant
impact on fish concentrations, through impingement of juveniles and adults, or
entrainment of eggs and larval stages. Elimination of wetland habitats
(including submergent aquatic beds), and further human encroachment into the
river channel, would severely reduce its value to fish and wildlife. Existing
areas of natural vegetation bordering the river should be maintained for their
value as cover, perching sites. and buffer zones.
0 11-65

KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:

Tom Hart or Greg Capobianco
Division of Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization
NYS Department of State
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-6000

Carl Widmer, Fisheries Manager
or Larry Myers, Wildlife Manager
or Matt Sanderson, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 8
6274 E. Avon-Lima Road
Avon, N.Y., 14414
Phone: (716) 226-2466

NYSDEC - Information Services
700 Troy-Schenectady Road
Latham, NY 12110
Phone: (518) 783-3932

Robert Stevenson, Chairman
Rochester Environmental Commission
City of Rochester
City Hall
30 Church Street
Rochester, NY 14614

11-66

SECTION III: POLICIES

CITY OF ROCHESTEX

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN

SECTION III: HATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN POLICIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

POLICY NtMBER PAGE

POLICY 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-5

POLICY 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-6

POLICY 3 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8

POLICY 4 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8

POLICY 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8

POLICY 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-10

POLICY 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . 111-11

POLICY 8 . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 111-14

POLICY 9 o. . . . . . . . . . . o . . o o . . o. . . . . . . 111-16

POLICY 10 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 111-18

POLICY 11 . . . . . . . . o . . o . . o o . . . . . . . . . . . . o 111-18

POLICY 12 . . . . . o . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . 111-20

POLICY 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . I. . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . 111-21

POLICY 14 . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . o o . . . 111-22

POLICY 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-23

POLICY 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-23

POLICY 17 . . . . . . o . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 111-24

POLICY 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o . . . . . . . . . 111-26

POLICY 19 . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-26

POLICY 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . 111-28

POLICY 21 . . . . . . . . . . . 111-29

111-3

POLICY NtMBER PAGE

POLICY 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-31

POLICY 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-32

POLICY 24 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-34

POLICY 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-34

POLICY 26 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-36

POLICY 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.;-36

POLICY 28 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-37

POLICY 29 (Not Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-38

POLICY 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-38

POLICY 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-38

POLICY 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-39

POLICY 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-39

POLICY 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-40

POLICY 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-40

POLICY 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-41

POLICY 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-42

POLICY 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-42

POLICY 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-43

POLICY 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-44

POLICY 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-44

POLICY 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-44

POLICY 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-45

POLICY 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-45

111-4

POLICY 1 RESTORE, REVITALIZE AND REDEVELOP DETERIORATED AND
UNDERUTILIZED WATERFRONT AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
CULTURAL, RECREATIONAL AND OTHER COMPATIBLE USES.

POLICY IA REDEVELOP VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND AND STRUCTURES LOCATED
AT THE FORMER PORT AUTHORITY SITE AT THE MOUTH OF THE GENESEE
RIVER, TO INCLUDE A NIX OF WATER-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL AND
RECRUTIONAL USES.

POLICY IB REDEVELOP VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND AND STRUCTURES, IN THE
VICINITY OF RIVER STREET, ADJACENT TO THE WEST BANK OF THE
GENESEE RIVER, TO INCLUDE WATER-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL AND
RECREATIONAL USES.

POLICY IC UPGRADE EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE
OF LAKE AVENUE, HEAR THE PORT SITE.

POLICY ID REHABILITATE THE BATHHOUSE AND ADJACENT BEACH AREAS AT DURAND-
EASTMAN PARK TO SUPPORT APPROPRIATE WATER-ORIENTED
RECREATIONAL USES.

POLICY IE PROMOTE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LAND WITHIN SUBARU E
(INDUSTRIAL AREAS) WITH RECREATIONAL USES, FACILITIES AND
ACTIVITIES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN
THESE AREAS.

POLICY IF DEVELOP, IN CONJUNCTION WITH MONROE COUNTY, A PUBLIC BOAT
LAUNCH FACILITY ALONG THE EAST BANK OF THE GENESEE RIVER,
IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE STUTSON STREET BRIDGE.

POLICY IG PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED REDEVELOPMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT OF VARIOUS RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT
DURAND-USTMAN PARK, ONTARIO BEACH PARK, TURNING POINT PARK,
SENECA PARK, MAPLEWOOD PARK, AND LOWER FALLS PARK.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

The waterfront areas along Lake Ontario and the Genesee River are among the most
important recreational , aesthetic and economic resources in the region. Federal ,
state and local agencies intend to restore, revitalize and redevelop deteriorated
and underutilized waterfront areas by encouraging uses or activities appropriate
for the waterfront revitalization area based on their water and
recreation-oriented characteristics.

Several significant development opportunity areas have been identified within the
city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) boundary. These sites
include the Port Authority site at the mouth of the river on Lake Ontario, the
River Street area along the west bank of the river north of Stutson Street, the
Lake Avenue commercial corridor north of Stutson Street, the eastern bank of the
river, just south of Stutson Street, and the various public parks located along

I11_5

the river and lake, including Ontario Beach Park, Durand-Eastman Park, Turning
Point Park, Seneca Park, Maplewood Park and Lower Falls Park.

In addition, there are several sites within the city's LWRP boundary that are
zoned for industrial use. These sites include the Portland Cement Co., located
on the west bank of the river just south of the Turning Basin, R.G.&E.'s Station
5 power plant located in the river gorge near the Lower Falls, and Eastman Kodak
Company's Waste Treatment Plant located on the west bank of the river, just north
of the Veteran's Memorial Bridge. These uses are water-dependent and will
continue for the fore-seeable future. If these uses were to be discontinued,
however, redevelopment options should be encouraged which would result in a more
appropriate water-oriented land use for the area.

When an action is proposed to take place in these opportunity areas, the
following guidelines will be used:

(1) Priority should be given to uses which are dependent on a location
adjacent to the water;

(2) The action should enhance existing and anticipated uses;

(3) The action should serve as a catalyst to private investment in the
area;

(4) The action should improve the deteriorated condition of a site, and
should, at a minimum, not cause further deterioration;

(5) The action must lead to development which is compatible with the
character of the area, with consideration given to scale,
architectural style, density and intensity of use;

(6) The action should have the potential to improve the existing
economic base of the community, and, at a minimum, must not
jeopardize this base;

(7) The action should improve adjacent and upland views of the water,
and, at a minimum, must not affect these views in an insensitive
manner; and

(8) The action should have the potential to improve the potential for
multiple uses of the site.

The standards and guidelines associated with the city's Overlay Harbor Town
Design District will be used to ensure that deteriorated and underutilized areas
are developed appropriately.

POLICY 2 FACILITATE THE SITING OF WATER DEPENDENT USES AND FACILITIES
ON OR ADJACENT TO COASTAL WATERS.

POLICY 2A EXISTING WATER DEPENDENT USES, AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION IV:
USES AND PROJECTS, WILL BE MAINTAINED.

111-6

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Because of the location of sensitive environmental features in the shore zone and
the general competition for waterfront locations of various types of land uses,
there is a limited amount of waterfront land that is actually suitable for
development within the LWRP boundary. The development of waterfront areas has
not always been based upon whether or not the particular land use actually
requires a specific location on the waterfront. Agencies recognize that
water-dependent uses and activities should have priority over non -water -dependent
uses in terms of development within the shore zone. In order to ensure that
water-dependent uses can be located and developed in waterfront locations,
government agencies will avoid undertaking, funding, or approving
non -water -dependent actions or activities when such actions or activities
conflict with the development of water-dependent uses or would pre-empt the
reasonably foreseeable development of water-dependent uses in the same area.

For the purposes of the LWRP, government agencies will consider the following
uses and facilities to be water-dependent:

(a) Uses which involve the transfer of goods (i.e., shipping activities
at the port site and at the Portland Cement site just south of the
turning basin);
(b) Recreational activities requiring access to coastal waters (i.e.,
fishing, boating, and swimming);
(c) Navigational structures (i.e., lighthouses and piers);
(d) Boat and ship service and storage facilities (i.e., marinas and boat
yards);
(e) Flood and erosion control structures (i.e., river bulkheads and
beach groins);
(f) Uses which rely upon transportation of raw materials or products on
water when such transportation would be difficult on land (i.e.,
cement plants);
(g) Uses which require large amounts of cooling or processing water
(i.e., power plants and waste treatment plants);
(h) Scientific and educational activities requiring access to coastal
waters (i.e., maritime museum); and
(i) Facilities that support or enhance water dependent uses.

Existing water dependent uses located within the LWRP boundary include various
commercial, industrial and shipping activities, a waste treatment plant, a
-hydroelectric power plant, marinas and other fishing and boating facilities, as
well as certain miscellaneous recreational uses. These uses and activities are
scattered throughout the waterfront area and are, in some instances, located
adjacent to sensitive environmental areas. Marinas and related fishing and
boating facilities are concentrated at the northern end of the Genesee River,
near Lake Ontario.

Existing municipal zoning district regulations and procedures, the local site
plan review process, as well as the intermunicipal review and coordination of
waterfront activities have determined the location, nature and extent of existing
water-dependent uses in the shore zone. These procedures and regulations were

111-7

developed, in part, to control and promote appropriate water-dependent uses along
the lake and river.

When an action is proposed, the following guidelines will be used:

(a) Water-dependent uses should be matched with compatible sites or
locations in order to reduce conflicts between competing uses, to
protect coastal resources, and to address impacts on the real estate
market;

(b) Water-dependent uses should be sited with consideration to the
availability of public infrastructure including sewers, water,
access and transportation;

(d) Underutilized, shoreline sites should be given special consideration
for water-dependent uses; and

(e) Water-dependent uses should be sited with consideration to
increasing demand, long-term space needs and the possibility of
future expansion.

POLICY 3 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE'S EXISTING MAJOR PORTS
OF ALBANY, BUFFALO, NEW YORK, OGDENSBURG, AND OSWEGO AS
CENTERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, AND ENCOURAGE THE SITING, IN
THESE PORT AREAS, INCLUDING THOSE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF
STATE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS
ESSENTIAL TO OR IN SUPPORT OF WATERBORME TRANSPORTATION OF
CARGO AND PEOPLE.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP because Rochester is not one of
the major ports listed.

POLICY 4 STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMIC BASE OF SMALLER HARBOR AREAS BY
ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THOSE
TRADITIONAL USES AND ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE PROVIDED SUCH AREAS
WITH THEIR UNIQUE MARITIME IDENTITY.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP because Rochester does not have
a small harbor area as defined by the state.

POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC
SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE
ADEQUATE, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS SPECIAL FUNCTIONAL

111-8

REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS WHICH NECESSITATES ITS
LOCATION IN OTHER COASTAL AREAS.

POLICY SA PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE WATER-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
ON THE PORT AUTHORITY SITE.

POLICY 5B PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE WATER-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
ALONG RIVER STREET, NORTH OF THE STUTSON STREET BRIDGE, AND
UPGRADE THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA.

POLICY SC PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE RESIDE]KTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
THE BOXART STREEr-BURLEY ROAD UPLAND AREA.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

New development proposed within the LWRP boundary should be adequately serviced
by existing or upgraded public services and facilities. Almost all major
development areas within the LWRP boundary are currently serviced by adequate
public services and facilities including vehicular access, storm and sanitary
sewers, as well as electric, gas and water lines. If a given area is not
currently serviced by adequate public services and facilities, upgrades,
extensions or connections to existing systems are usually possible. The specific
development proposals outlined in POLICY 1 will involve an analysis of existing
public services and facilities in the areas proposed for development, as well as
possible rehabilitation or upgrading of those services and facilities as a part
of the actual implementation of the development project.

In assessing the adequacy of an area's infrastructure and public services, the
following points shall be considered:

(a) Whether or not streets and highways serving the proposed site can
safely accommodate the peak traffic generated by the proposed
development;

(b) Whether or not the development's water needs can be met by the
existing water system;

(d) Whether or not energy needs of the proposed development can be
accommodated by existing utility systems;

(e) Whether or not stormwater runoff from the proposed site can be
accommodated by on-site and/or off-site facilities; and

(f) Whether or not schools, police and fire protection, and health and
social services are adequate to meet the needs of any expected
increase in population resulting from the proposed development.

The Port Authority site is serviced by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems
maintained by Monroe County. The existing 120 sanitary sewer runs across the
middle of the site and may need to be realigned in order to develop the site as
proposed in the concept plan. The existing sanitary sewer system and the
existing sewer pump station have enough capacity to accommodate the redevelopment
plan proposed for the site. The existing 600-720 storm sewer system for the port
area runs under Estes Street and Beach Avenue. Monroe County has indicated that
this sewer is also adequate to handle redevelopment of the site. The site is
adequately serviced by gas, electric, water and telephone lines. Vehicular
access to the port site from the city is via Lake Avenue. Lake Avenue is a minor
arterial which, in the area of the port site, is in relatively good condition but
could use some physical improvements including intersection widenings and new
streetscape treatments.

The River Street area is also proposed for major redevelopment., This area is
serviced by a sanitary sewer system with a pump station located at the northern
end of River Street. This system is adequate to accommodate the proposed
development plan. Because there is no storm sewer system within the River Street
area, any redevelopment would require significant storm sewer improvements.
While this site is also serviced by existing gas, electric, water and telephone
lines, redevelopment would probably require the installation of underground
telephone and electric systems. Because the pavement condition of River Street
is fair to poor, significant street reconstruction and/or rehabilitation would
be required as a part of any redevelopment plan for the area.

POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE SITING
OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Government agencies recognize the need for efficient and uncomplicated permit
approval procedures for development activities proposed within the LWRP boundary.
The local permit review and approval process should not be designed to restrict
or impede development applications or proposals. The city has developed a permit
review and approval system which includes coordination with other local and state
agencies and eliminates unnecessary or duplicative levels of review.

Site plan review is coordinated by the City Bureau of Zoning as are requests for
zoning variances, rezonings and subdivision approval. Environmental impacts and
other areas of special concern for proposed development are considered early in
the review process and are investigated in conjunction with the City Office of
Planning as well as the City's Environmental Commission. The entire process is
characterized by reasonable timetables and deadlines, relatively simple paper
work, and specific but uncomplicated development review standards. A
"one-stop-shopu approach has been developed by the city which allows developers
to become aware of permit procedures and requirements and obtain all necessary
paper work at one location and at one time. Where necessary and appropriate,
special considerations for development activities proposed within the LWRP
boundary will be included in the city permit review and approval procedures in
order to further simplify those requirements.

III-10

State agencies and local governments should make every effort to coordinate their
permit procedures and regulatory programs for waterfront development, as long as
the integrity of the regulations' objectives is not jeopardized. Also, efforts
should be made to ensure that each agency's procedures are synchronized with
those of other agencies within a given level of government. Legislative and/or
programmatic changes should be made, if necessary, to accomplish this.

POLICY 7 SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS IDENTIFIED
ON THE COASTAL AREA KAP, SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND,
WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO NAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS
HABITATS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Habitat protection is recognized as fundamental to assuring the survival of fish
and wildlife populations. Certain habitats are critical to the maintenance of
a given population and, therefore, merit special protection. Such habitats
exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: (1) are essential to the
survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population (e.g.
feeding grounds, nursery areas); (2) support populations of rare and endangered
species; (3) are found at a very low frequency within a coastal region; (4)
support fish and wildlife populations having significant commercial and/or
recreational value; and (5) would be difficult or impossible to replace.

A habitat impairment test must be met for any activity that is subject to
consistency review under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws
contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If that
proposed action is subject to consistency review, then the habitat protection
policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the
designated area.

The specific habitat impairment test that must be met is as follows:

In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water
uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions would:

--destroy the habitat; or

--significantly impair the viability of a habitat.

Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct
alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated area, or through the
indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction may
be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases in
runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants.

Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food,
shelter, living space) or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature,
substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators of
a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include,
but are not limited to, reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure

(food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or
increased incidence of disease and mortality.

The tolerance range of an organism is not defined-as the physiological range of
conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all, but as the ecological
range of conditions that supports the species' population or has the potential
to support a restored population, where practical. Either the loss of
individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate
indicates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt
increase in death rate may occur as an environmental factor falls beyond a
tolerance limit ( a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental
factors, however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit, but produce
increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions
that are optimal for the species.

The range of parameters which should be considered in applying the habitat
impairment test include:

1. Physical parameters, such as living space circulation, flushing
rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth
(including loss of littoral zone), morphology, substrate type,
vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rates;

2. Biological parameters, such as community structure, food chain
relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships,
population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, meristic
features, behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and
3. Chemical parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide,
acidity, dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, and
pollutants (heavy metals, toxics and hazardous materials).

Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats are evaluated, designated and
mapped pursuant to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
(Executive Law of New York, Article 42). The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) evaluates the significance of coastal fish and
wildlife habitats, and following a recommendation from the DEC, the Department
of State designates and maps specific areas.

POLICY 7A PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE GENESEE RIVER IN ORDER TO
NAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

NYSDOS has designated the Genesee River as a significant coastal fish and
wildlife habitat area of state-wide significance within the LWRP boundary. (See
the Appendix to the Inventory and Analysis for a detailed description of this
habitat). The Genesee River habitat is a major tributary of Lake Ontario,
located in the city. The habitat includes a six and one-half mile long segment
of the river, extending from Lake Ontario to the Lower Falls, which is a natural
impassable barrier to fish.

111-12

The large size of this river and the fact that much of the river corridor is
essentially undisturbed, makes this one of the most important potential fish and
wildlife habitats in the Great Lakes Plain ecological region. Resident species
such as small mouth bass, brown bullhead and northern pike, and lake run species
such as white bass and yellow perch are supplemented by seasonal influxes of
large numbers of trout and salmon. The river provides throughout New York State
and beyond. Although the seasonal salmonid runs attract the greatest number of
fishermen to the area, the river also supports an active warmwater fishery.
Wildlife use of the river appears to be limited to those species that can inhabit
a relatively narrow riparian corridor, and are somewhat tolerant of human
activities in adjacent areas.

Any activity that substantially degrades water quality, increases temperature or
turbidity, reduces flows, or increases water level fluctuations in the Genesee
River would affect the biological productivity of this area. Important species
of fish and wildlife would be adversely affected by water pollution, such as
chemical contamination (including food chain effects), oil spills, excessive
turbidity, and waste disposal . Continued efforts should be made to improve water
quality in the river, which is primarily dependent upon controlling discharges
from combined sewer overflows, industrial point sources, ships, and agricultural
lands in the watershed.

The existing navigation channel should be dredged between mid-May and mid-August
or between mid-November and early April in order to avoid impacts on the habitat
use by migrating salmonids. Activities that would affect the habitat above the
navigation channel should not be conducted during the period from March through
July in order to protect warmwater fish habitat values. New dredging (outside
the existing navigation channel) would likely result in the direct removal of
warmwater fish habitat values and should not be permitted. Contaminated dredge
spoils should be deposited in upland containment areas. Barriers to fish
migration, whether physical or chemical, would have significant effects on fish
populations within the river, and in adjacent Lake Ontario waters. Installation
and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on fish
concentrations, through impingement of juveniles and adults, or entrainment of
eggs and larval stages. Elimination of wetland habitats (including submergent
aquatic beds), and further human encroachment into the river channel, would
severely reduce its value to fish and wildlife. Existing areas of natural
vegetation bordering the river should be maintained for their value as cover,
perching sites, and buffer zones.
The water quality of the river and lake has continued to improve over the past
several years. Both currently support a significant variety of fish species.
Among the fish found within the LWRP boundary are American Eel, Northern Pike,
Goldfish, Carp, White Channel Catfish, White Perch, White Bass, Rock Bass, Small
Mouth Bass, Blackeye Crappie and Walleye. Additionally, the river is the site
of significant spawning runs for a variety of fish including the Chinook and Coho
Salmon, as well as the Brown and Steelhead Trout. Preservation of lake and river
wetland areas is an important element of the city's program to preserve and
protect fish habitats within the LWRP boundary.

111-13

POLICY 7B PROTECT AND PRESERVE DURAND-EASTNAN PARK, TURNING POINT PARK,
SENECA PARK AND NAPLEWOOD PARK AS LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT FISH AND
WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS.

POLICY 7C PROTECT AND PRESERVE FORMERLY OWNED CONRAIL PROPE]tTY, ALONG
THE EAST BANK OF THE GENESEE RIVER, OPPOSITE THE TUNING
BASIN, AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Durand-Eastman Park, Turning Point Park, Seneca Park, Maplewood Park, as well as
most of the river gorge, function as a natural wildlife habitat area. Durand-
Eastman Park contains a significant wild deer population as well as wetland areas
that provide habitats for several fish and wildlife species. Bullock's Woods in
Turni ng Poi nt Park i s a I arge, heavi I y wooded area that al so provi des habi tat for
several species of wildlife. Government agencies will continue to promote and
encourage various redevelopment activities within these parks which will preserve
and protect their significance as wildlife habitats.

The standards and guidelines in the city's environmental review procedures will
be used to ensure that locally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within
the LWRP boundary are protected. Development actions within 100 feet of the
river and lake, within areas zoned as open space, in heavily wooded areas, and
within state-designated freshwater wetlands are Type I actions under the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, since these locations have been
designated as critical environmental areas. Type I actions require a complete
environmental impact review. As part of this review, a project's impacts on fish
and wildlife habitat areas would be determined and addressed, and mitigation
measures could be proposed, if required, to protect those areas from adverse
impacts.

Activities most likely to affect significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats
include the draining of ponds and wetlands, the filling of wetlands or shallow
areas of streams, lakes and bays, grading of land, clear cutting, dredging and
excavation, dredge spoil disposal, physical alteration of shore areas, and the
introduction, storage or disposal of pollutants in upland areas or landfills.

POLICY 8 PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA FRON
THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS
WHICH BIOACCUNULATE IN THE FOOD CHAIN OR WHICH CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT SUBLETHAL OR LETHAL EFFECTS ON THOSE RESOURCES.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes and are
generally characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. More
specifically, hazardous waste is defined in Environmental Conservation Law [�27-
0901.3] as ma waste or combination of wastes which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may: (a)
cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a

111-14

substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise managed. A list
of hazardous wastes has been adopted by DEC (6 NYCRR Part 371).

The handling, storage, transport, treatment and disposal of the materials
included on the hazardous waste list adopted by NYSDEC and USEPA are strictly
regulated in New York State to prevent their entry or introduction into the
environment, particularly into the state's air, land and waters. Such controls
should minimize possible contamination and bio-accumulation of these wastes in
the state's coastal fish and wildlife resources at levels that would cause
mortality or create physiological and behavioral disorders.

"Other pollutantsu are those conventional wastes, generated from point and non-
point sources, and not identified as hazardous wastes but controlled through
other state laws.

The following state laws enforce this policy:

(a) Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27, Title 9)

(b) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17, Title 8)

(d) Toxic Substances Monitoring Program.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17)

(e) Substances Hazardous to the Environment.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 37)

(f) Solid Waste Management.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27, Title 7)

(g) Control of Pollution Injurious to Fish and Shellfish.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 13-0345 and Article 17-0503)

(h) Stream Pollution Prohibited.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 11-0503)

(i) Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensation.
Navigation Law (Article 12)

(j) Siting of Major Steam/Electric Generating Facilities.
Public Service Law (Article VIII)

(k) Sanitary Code.
Public Health Law (Article 3)

111-15

The city and Monroe County are participating in a Combined Sewer Overflow
Abatement Program (CSOAP) which will eliminate combined storm and sanitary sewers
in many areas of the city. This project involves the construction of several
large underground holding tunnels which will discharge sewage and storm water,
collected after major rainfalls, to the Frank E. VanLare Treatment Plant located
in Durand-Eastman Park. Prior to the construction of these tunnels, large
volumes of combined sewage and storm water that occurred after major rainfalls
in the area flowed directly into the river and lake without being treated. This
sewage contributed to pollution problems in the river and lake and the
destruction of fish and wildlife species. The completion of the underground
holding tunnels will eliminate a major source of pollution discharge into the
river and lake that will help improve aquatic habitat for the area.

Eastman Kodak Company operates a large industrial waste treatment facility on the
western bank of the river, opposite Seneca Park. This treatment plant handles
industrial sewage and waste from Kodak Park manufacturing facilities located on
Lake Avenue and Ridge Road West. This treatment plant also helps to preserve
existing fish species in the river and lake by eliminating the dumping of
otherwise harmful or toxic substances into the water.

The city is participating, along with other governmental agencies, in the
development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Rochester Embayment. A RAP
is an agreement among federal, state, and I ocal governments, with the support of
area citizens, on a plan to restore the water quality and beneficial uses of the
waters of the Area of Concern. The goal of the Rochester Embayment RAP is to
develop an implementation plan that will improve the water quality of Lake
Ontario and all of the waterways that flow into it, including the Genesee River.
The implementation of the RAP for the Rochester Embayment will help to protect
fish and wildlife resources from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other
pollutants.

POLICY 9 EXPAND RECREATIONAL USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN
COASTAL AREAS BY INCREASING ACCESS TO EXISTING RESOURCES,
SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING STOCKS AND DEVELOPING NEW RESOURCES.
SUCH EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE IN A KANNER WHICH ENSURES THE
PROTECTION OF RENEWABLE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND
CONSIDERS OTHER ACTIVITIES DEPENDENT ON THEM.

POLICY 9A EXPAND RECREATIONAL FISHING OPPORTUNITIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO
OTHER WILDLIFE RESOURCES WITHIN DURAKD-EASTMAN PARK, TURNING
POINT PARK, SENECA PARK, MAPLEWOOD PARK AND LAKE ONTARIO, BY
PROVIDING OR IMPROVING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE
WATERFRONT.

POLICY 9B DEVELOP, IN CONJUNCTION WITH MONROE COUNTY. A PUBLIC BOAT
LAUNCH FACILITY IN THE AREA ALONG THE EAST BANK OF THE GENESEE
RIVER, IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE STUTSON STREET BRIDGE.

111-16

0 EXPLANATION OF POLICIES
Increasing public access to existing fish and wildlife resources located within
the LWRP boundary is an important objective of the city's LWRP. As the water
quality of the river and lake has improved over the past several years, sport
fishing has become a significant local recreational activity in the Rochester
metropolitan area. The river is a major fall fishery for Chinook Salmon and
serves as a focus for salmon fishing. Late in the summer, the Eastern -Southern
Lake Ontario (ESLO) Sport Fishing Derby is held on Lake Ontario. This event also
generates substantial local interest and participation.

There are few well-developed public access points along the river for fishermen.
The primary access points for fishing along the river include the base of the
Lower Falls, which can be accessed by a RGH service road on the east bank, the
east and west piers located on Lake Ontario at the mouth of the river, as well
as waterfront areas within Turning Point Park. In addition, fishermen also
access the Lower Falls area from steep and unsafe trails along the west bank of
the river. The use of these trails by the public is not condoned or promoted.

Government agencies, including the city and Monroe County, will promote and
encourage the development and expansion of recreational fishing opportunities and
public access to other wildlife resources at several public parks located within
the LWRP boundary. These parks include Durand-Eastman Park and Ontario Beach
Park which are located on Lake Ontario, and Turning Point Park, Seneca Park, and
Maplewood Park which are located along the river. Expansion of recreational
fishing opportunities should involve provision of direct public access to the
shoreline for fishermen as well as boaters. Improvements will include the
development of parking areas, access trails, fishing piers, wharves and boating
facilities in appropriate areas within the parks. Provisions for increased
public access to other wildlife resources located within these parks would
include the rehabilitation or construction of hiking trails, pedestrian paths,
overlooks and shelters.

Government agencies will promote and encourage the development of a public boat
launch facility along the eastern bank of the Genesee River, just south of the
Stutson Street Bridge, to improve and expand recreational fishing opportunities
for boaters an the Genesee River and Lake Ontario. The area proposed for the
boat launch is largely vacant with the exception of deteriorated boat slips and
mi scel I aneous mari na-rel ated uses and acti vi ti es. The f aci I i ty wi 11 be devel oped
in conjunction with Monroe County.

POLICY 9 suggests that state and local actions within the LWRP boundary should
balance the continued maintenance and protection of fish and wildlife resources
with increased public access to and recreational use of those resources. The
control of fish stocking within the river or lake is coordinated by the NYSDEC.
When appropriate, the state is encouraged to continue and expand its fish
stocking program and the completion of studies concerning habitat maintenance and
improvement. Stocking programs should be directed towards areas where known
habitats will support and enhance increased fish populations.

111-17

The following additional guidelines should be considered by local, state and
federal agencies as they determine the consistency of their proposed action with
the above policy:

(1) Consideration should be made as to whether an action will impede
existing or future utilization of the state's recreational fish and
wildlife resources;

(2) Efforts to increase access to recreational fish and wildlife
resources should not lead to overutilization of that resource or
cause impairment of the habitat;

(3) The impacts of increasing access to recreational fish and wildlife
resources should be determined on a case-by-case basis, consulting
the significant habitat narrative (see POLICY 7 and the Appendix to
the Inventory and Analysis) and/or conferring with a trained fish
and wildlife biologist; and

(4) Any public or private sector initiatives to supplement existing
stocks or develop new resources must be done in accordance with
existing state law.

POLICY 10 FURTHER DEVELOP COMMERCIAL FINFISH, SHELLFISH AND CRUSTACEAN
RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL AREA BY: (1) ENCOURAGING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING ON SHORE
COMMERCIAL FISHING FACILITIES; (2) INCREASING MARKETING OF THE
STATE'S SEAFOOD PRODUCTS; AND (3) MAINTAINING ADEQUATE STOCKS
AND EXPANDING AQUACULTURE FACILITIES. SUCH EFFORTS SHALL BE
MADE IN A KANNER WHICH ENSURES THE PROTECTION OF SUCH
RENEWABLE FISH RESOURCES AND CONSIDERS OTHER ACTIVITIES
DEPENDENT ON THEM.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP because there are no commercial
finfish, shellfish and crustacean resources located within Rochester's LWRP
boundary.

POLICY 11 BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES WILL BE SITED IN THE COASTAL
AREA SO AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND THE ENDANGERING
OF HUMAN LIVES CAUSED BY FLOODING AND EROSION.

POLICY 11A DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TOP OF THE RIVERBANK, ON THE
STEEP SLOPES WITHIN THE RIVER GORGE, WITHIN DESIGNATED COASTAL
EROSION HAZARD AREAS, OR IN ANY OTHER AREAS EXPERIENCING OR
SUSCEPTIBLE TO EROSION.

POLICY 11B BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES WITHIN DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
WILL BE SITED IN THE COASTAL AREA TO COMPLY WITH CONSTRUCTION
AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

111-18

AGENCY (FEKA) AND THE U.S. DEPARTNENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Government agencies recognize the importance of regulating development in
critical environmental areas such as erosion hazard areas and floodplains within
the local waterfront revitalization boundary. Erosion hazard areas which have
been identified by New York State include the share zones along Beach Avenue and
within Ontario Beach Park and a major portion of Durand-Eastman Park. The beach
areas contained within these parks are considered natural protective features
(see Policy 12). Floodplain areas are those areas identified as flood hazards
on the Flood Insurance Maps filed with the City of Rochester. All of these areas
contain physical features or conditions that naturally limit development and that
may also enhance aesthetic or wildlife resources within the shore zone.
Unregulated development in these areas could cause severe erosion and flooding
problems, loss of property and other valuable resources, as well as potential
loss of life.

Much of the land within the LWRP boundary that is designated as a floodplain or
an erosion hazard area, or that contains steep slopes in excess of 15%, is in
public ownership and is zoned as open space. The city's Open Space District
regulates development in these critical environmental areas by limiting the types
of uses and activities permitted. Lands zoned for open space within the LWRP
boundary will remain in their natural state and will contribute to the
enhancement and protection of other features in the waterfront area.

City Zoning Code regulations require a special permit for development located
within a designated floodplain. This permit is reviewed and approved by the City
Planning Commission following a public hearing. The special permit can only be
approved if the applicant demonstrates, among other items, that the proposed
development will be constructed above the base flood elevation at the particular
location and that the development will not cause or increase flooding in the area
or within the floodway in general. The standards and guidelines which all
government agencies will use to evaluate development in flood hazard areas are
included in Section 115.29 of the Rochester Zoning Code. These standards and
guidelines deal with such items as anchoring of structures, appropriate
construction materials, provision of utility service, etc.
In addition to the zoning regulations cited above, the city's site plan review
procedures will be followed to help ensure that proposed development activities
do not cause or contribute to erosion and/or flooding problems within the LWRP
boundary. Setback, lot size, and construction considerations, as well as the
need for erosion control measures on site, can be identified and evaluated during
this review process.
Existing environmental review procedures and regulations will also be utilized
to ensure that steep slopes and other areas prone to erosion as well as
floodplain areas are protected within the LWRP boundary. Development proposed
within 100 feet of the river and lake, within areas zoned as open space, in
heavi I y wooded areas, wi thi n state-desi gnated freshwater wetl ands, and areas wi th

111-19

a slope of 15% or greater are Type I actions under the City's Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, because these locations have been designated as
critical environmental areas. Actions in these areas will require a complete
environmental impact review. As a part of this review, a project's potential
impacts on erosion, drainage and flooding problems would be determined and
addressed, and mitigating measures, if required, could be proposed in order to
protect those areas from adverse development impacts.

POLICY 12 ACTIVITIES OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO AS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AM EROSION BY PROTECTING NATURAL
PROTECTIVE FEATURES INCLUDING BEACHES, DUNES, BARRIER ISLANDS
AND BLUFFS. PRIMARY DUNES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALL
ENCROACHMENTS THAT COULD IMPAIR THEIR NATURAL PROTECTIVE
CAPACITY.

POLICY 12A PROTECT, AS NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES, THE BEACH AREAS
IDENTIFIED ON THE NEW YORK STATE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD NAP
AND LOCATED ALONG BEACH AVENUE AND WITHIN ONTARIO BEACH PARK
AND A MAJOR PORTION OF DURAND-EASTMAN PARK.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

The natural beach areas located along the shoreline of Lake Ontario and included
within the LWRP boundary are considered to be critical environmental areas that
need to be preserved and protected. These beach areas have been identified as
natural protective features on the State Coastal Erosion Hazard Map. This policy
will apply to these specific areas. . Portions of the city's inland coastal areas,
including residential development located along Beach Avenue and recreational
facilities located in Ontario Beach Park and Durand-Eastman Park, are protected
from flooding and serious erosion by this sensitive beach area. Excavation and
certain other development activities conducted on these fragile natural features
could lead to their weakening or destruction and, consequently, to a loss of
their protection of other coastal areas.

The need to review and regulate development on or near the beach areas, and in
nearshore areas and on underwater lands, to the extent they are within the city's
municipal boundaries, is recognized, in order to minimize damage to property and
other resources from lake flooding and erosion from high wave action.

The standards and guidelines in the city's environmental review procedures will
be used to ensure that beach areas prone to erosion and flooding are protected
within the LWRP boundary. Development actions proposed within 100 feet of Lake
Ontario are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, since these areas have been designated as critical environmental
areas. Such actions will require a complete environmental impact review. As a
part of this review, a project's potential impacts on erosion, drainage and
flooding problems would be determined and addressed, and mitigating measures, if
required, could be proposed in order to protect those areas and surrounding
development from adverse environmental impacts.

111-20

0 POLICY 13 THE CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION
STRUCTURES SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ONLY IF THEY HAVE A REASONABLE
PROBABILITY OF CONTROLLING EROSION FOR AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS
AS DEMONSTRATED IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND/OR
ASSURED NAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS.

Policy 13A PROMOTE THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EAST AND VEST PIERS LOCATED ON
LAKE ONTARIO AT THE MOUTH OF THE GENESEE RIVER, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL EROSION PROTECTION STRUCTURE
WITHIN THE RIVER. AT THE OUTLET TO THE LAKE.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Government agencies recognize the importance of constructing and maintaining
erosion protection structures within the LWRP boundary that are designed to
eliminate or reduce erosion problems along the river and lake and are based on
accepted design and engineering standards and practices. This policy shall apply
to structures designed to reduce or prevent erosion such as a groin, jetty,
seawall, revetment, breakwater, artificial beach nourishment project, pier
extensions or other similar types of erosion protection or control structures.
The possibility of permitting the development of such structures that fail to
provide adequate protection due to improper design, construction and/or
maintenance, or that are otherwise inadequate to do the job they were intended
to do should be avoided. Such a situation would only cause erosion.problems to
continue or worsen.

The standards and guidelines in the city's environmental and site plan review
procedures should be used to ensure that erosion protection structures
constructed within the LWRP boundary will have a reasonable probability of
controlling erosion for at least thirty years and will be properly designed and
maintained. Construction of such structures will require site plan review and
approval by the city as well as an environmental impact review because it will
be located within 100 feet of the lake. Such activities are Type I actions under
the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, since the 100 foot "buffer"
area has been identified as a critical environmental area. As a part of the
environmental review, a project's potential impacts on erosion would be
determined and addressed, and the ability of the structure to control erosion for
the thirty year period, based on design and maintenance standards, could be
evaluated.

As a part of the review of the development of erosion control structures, all
government agencies, including the city, will ensure that:

(a) Long-term maintenance programs developed for the structure will
include specifications for normal maintenance of degradable
materials and the periodic replacement of removable materials;
(b) All material used in the structure will be durable and capable of
withstanding inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects
0 of storm conditions; and
111-21

(c) The construction, modification or restoration of the structure will
not have adverse impacts on natural protective features or other
natural resources.

The maintenance of the east and west piers located on the lake and river is
promoted and encouraged. The west pier provides some erosion protection from
high wind and wave action for beach areas to the west and has probably
contributed to the deposition of additional material and the creation of a larger
beach area for Ontario Beach Park. In addition, the USACE should investigate a
significant surge problem near the outlet of the Genesee River and evaluate the
need for and design of an erosion control structure to be built within the river
to eliminate this problem (see LWRP Section VI, Part 3).

The construction of groins in the area of Durand-Eastman Park to control erosion
of the beach in that area is also a possibility. As noted in earlier LWRP
policies, waterfront recreational facilities located within Durand-Eastman Park
are proposed for significant redevelopment and/or rehabilitation. The
development of such erosion protection features will be evaluated in terms of
their overall costs and benefits as well as environmental impacts.

POLICY 14 ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION STRUCTURES, SHALL BE
UND ERTAKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO MEASURABLE INCREASE IN
EROSION OR FLOODING AT THE SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OR
DEVELOPMENT, OR AT OTHER LOCATIONS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Erosion and flooding are processes which occur naturally along almost all areas
of the shoreline. However, there are many types of development activity that can
increase the amount or severity of coastal flooding and/or erosion. These
activities include:

(1) the construction of such things as groins and impermeable docks which
block off-shore currents and sediment transport to adjacent shorelands,
thus increasing their rate of recession;

(2) improper shoreline development;

(3) improper construction and/or maintenance of erosion protection
structures; and

(4) the failure to maintain good drainage or to restore land after
construction which would increase run-off and contribute to the erosion
and weakening of nearby shorelands.

Such activities must be properly reviewed and regulated so that they do not
contribute to erosion or flooding problems within the site or at other locations.

111-22

The standards and guidelines in the city's environmental and site plan review
procedures will be used to ensure that development proposed within the LWRP
boundary, including the construction of erosion protection structures, will not
cause or contribute to erosion or flooding problems. Development actions
proposed within 100 feet of the lake are Type I actions under the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, since these areas have been designated
as critical environmental areas. Actions in these areas will require a complete
environmental impact review. As a part of this review and the site plan review
process, a project's potential impacts on erosion, drainage and flooding problems
would be identified and addressed, and necessary mitigating measures could be
implemented in order to protect those areas and surrounding development from
adverse environmental impacts.

POLICY 15 MINING, EXCAVATION OR DREDGING IN COASTAL WATERS SHALL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH THE NATURAL COASTAL PROCESSES
WHICH SUPPLY BEACH MATERIALS TO LAND ADJACENT TO SUCH WATERS
AND SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER WHICH VILL NOT CAUSE AN
INCREASE IN EROSION OF SUCH LAND.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Coastal processes, including the movement of beach materials by water, and any
mining, excavation or dredging in nearshore or offshore waters which changes the
supply and net flow of such materials, can deprive shorelands of their natural
regenerative powers. Such mining, excavation and dredging should be accomplished
in a manner so as not to cause a reduction of supply, and thus an increase of
erosion, to such shorelands.

The NYSDEC regulates dredging, mining and excavation activities in shoreline and
wetland areas. These regulations are comprehensive in design and intent and
address actions according to their potential to interfere with the natural
coastal processes which supply beach materials, as well as the potential for
increasing erosion.

POLICY 16 PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR EROSION PROTECTIVE
STRUCTURES WHERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE. AND NEW
DEVELOPMENT WHICH REQUIRES A LOCATION WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO
AN EROSION HAZARD AREA TO BE ABLE TO FUNCTION, OR EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT; AND ONLY WHERE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE
LONG TERN MONETARY AND OTHER COSTS INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL
FOR INCREASING EROSION AND ADVERSE EFFECTS ON NATURAL
PROTECTIVE FUTURES.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Public funds are used for a variety of purposes along the city's shorelines.
This policy recognizes the need for the protection of human life and the need for
investment in existing or new development which requires a location near the
coastal area or in adjacent waters in order to function. However, it also
recognizes the adverse impacts of such activities and development on the rates

111-23

of erosion and on natural protective features and requires that careful analysis
be made of such benefits and long term costs prior to expending public funds.

Public funds should not be invested in the construction, rehabilitation,
modification or maintenance of erosion protection structures for new or proposed
development which is strictly "privateu in nature. The need for and the
construction of an erosion protection structure designed to eliminate river surge
problems within the Genesee River will continue to be investigated. The
construction of such a structure would reduce erosion problems and protect and
enhance existing and proposed marinas, boat launching ramps, and other commercial
and recreational facilities which could be public or private, located along the
river, near the outlet to Lake Ontario.

POLICY 17 WHENEVER POSSIBLE, USE NONSTRUCTURAL NEASURES TO NININIZE
DANAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FRON FLOODING AND
EROSION. SUCH NEASURES SHALL INCLUDE:

(1) THE SET BACK OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES;

(2) THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF
SAND FENCING AND DRAINING;

(3) THE RESHAPING OF BLUFFS; AND

(4) THE FLOOD-PROOFING OF BUILDINGS OR THEIR ELEVATION
ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD LEVEL.

POLICY 17A DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TOP OF THE RIVERBANK, ON THE
STEEP SLOPES WITHIN THE GORGE ADJACE)ff TO THE GENESEE RIVER,
WITHIN DESIGNATED COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS, OR IN MY
OTHER AREAS EXPERIENCING OR SUSCEPTIBLE TO EROSION.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

This LWRP policy promotes the use of non-structural techniques and/or management
measures to prevent damage to natural resources and property from flooding and
erosion. The policy suggests that such measures as structure siting,
floodproofing and elevation of buildings, the reshaping and vegetation of slopes,
the provision of drainage systems to reduce run-off that may weaken slopes, and
the retention of existing vegetation should be incorporated into the early
planning and review of any project. Such measures over other ustructuralm and
more complicated techniques are to be encouraged, and the existing site plan and
environmental review processes are the best means of doing this.

This policy recognizes both the potential adverse impacts of flooding and erosion
upon development and upon natural protective features in the coastal area as well
as the costs of protection against those hazards which structural measures
entail.

Non-structural measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following
measures:

111-24

(1) Within identified coastal erosion hazard areas:

(a) use of minimum setbacks;

(b) strengthening of coastal landforms by such means as:

(1) planting appropriate vegetation on dunes and bluffs;

(2) reshaping bluffs to achieve an appropriate angle of repose
so as to reduce the potential for slumping and to permit the
planting of stabilizing vegetation; and

(3) installing drainage systems on bluffs to reduce runoff and
internal seepage of waters which erode or weaken the
landforms.

(2) Within identified flood hazard areas:

(a) avoidance of risk or damage from flooding by the siting of
buildings outside the hazard area; and

(b) flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above the base flood
level.

This policy shall apply to the planning, siting and design of proposed activities
and development, including measures to protect existing activities and
devel opment. To ascertai n cons i stency wi th the pol i cy, i t must be determi ned i f
any one, or a combination of non-structural measures would afford the degree of
protection appropriate both to the character and purpose of the activity or
development and to the hazard. If non-structural measures are determined to
offer sufficient protection, then consistency with the policy would require the
use of such measures, when possible.

In determining whether or not non-structural measures to protect against erosion
or flooding will afford the degree of protection appropriate, an analysis, and,
if necessary, other materials such as plans and sketches of the activity or
development, the site and the alternative protection measures should be prepared
to allow an assessment to be made.

Much of the area within the LWRP boundary, that has been identified as being
within the Genesee River or Lake Ontario floodplain or that contains steep slopes
in excess of 15% and thus subject to serious erosion problems, is in public
ownership and is zoned for open space use. Development activities in these
critical environmental areas are regulated by limiting the types of uses and
activities permitted. The extensive use of this regulation within the LWRP
boundary helps assure that damage to natural resources and property resulting
from flooding and erosion will be minimized.

The standards and guidelines found in the city's environmental, special permit,
and site plan review procedures will be applied in evaluating and promoting
non-structural erosion and flood protection measures for development proposed
within the LWRP boundary. Development proposed within areas zoned as open space

111-25

or within 100 feet of the lake or river are Type I actions under the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Such actions will require a complete
environmental impact review in which the need for and use of non-structural means
of erosion and flood protection proposed for the project will be evaluated. The
special permit review process used to review and approve applications for
development within designated floodplain areas should also be used to ensure that
structures are floodproofed, located above the base flood elevation, or setback
an appropriate distance from the floodplain boundary. The site plan review
process considers erosion, drainage, and flood control/protection measures and
should also be used to promote planting of vegetation to control drainage and
erosion problems.

POLICY 18 TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND OF ITS CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR
ACTIONS IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO
THOSE INTERESTS, AND TO THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS
ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Government agencies recognize that valuable coastal resource areas contained
within the city's LWRP boundary should be developed and protected for all the
citizens of the state. Proposed major actions undertaken within the LWRP
boundary are appropriate only if they do not significantly impair or diminish
valuable coastal features and resources and do not conflict with the vital
economic, social and environmental interests of the state and its citizens. All
government agencies recognize and will continue to ensure that proposed major
actions undertaken by the city, county, state or federal government that would
affect natural resources, water levels and flows, hydroelectric power generation,
shoreline damage or recreational facilities, take into account the social,
economic and environmental interests of the state and all its citizens.

POLICY 19 PROTECT, MAINTAIN AND INCREASE THE LEVELS AND TYPES OF ACCESS
TO PUBLIC WATER-RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES
SO THAT THESE RESOURCES AND FACILITIES MAY BE FULLY UTILIZED
BY ALL THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED
PUBLIC RECREATION NEEDS AND THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND
NATURAL RESOURCES. IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS, PRIORITY SHALL
BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC BEACHES, BOATING FACILITIES, FISHING AREAS
AND WATERFRONT PARKS.

POLICY 19A MAINTAIN, FACILITATE OR IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS TO WATERFRONT
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AND FACILITIES THROUGH EXISTING PUBLIC
PARKS ALONG THE GENESEE RIVER AND LAKE ONTARIO.

POLICY 19B PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPROVED PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO AND THROUGH DURAND EASTMAN PARK.

POLICY 19C DEVELOP, IN CONJUNCTION WITH MONROE COUNTY, A PUBLIC BOAT
LAUNCH FACILITY ALONG THE EAST BANK OF THE GENESEE RIVER,
IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE STUTSON STREET BRIDGE.

111-26

0 POLICY 19D PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE INCREASED PUBLIC ACCESS FOR FISHING
THROUGH THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF THE EAST AND WEST PIERS
ON LAKE ONTARIO, AT THE MOUTH OF THE GENESEE RIVER.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Government agencies recognize the need to increase public access to waterfront
resources and facilities while considering the impacts of such access and
ensuring the protection of sensitive environmental features, historic areas, and
fragile fish and wildlife habitats. Priority will be given to improving physical
access to existing coastal recreational sites as well as those under development
and to improving the ability of residents to get to those areas via the public
transportation system.

Improved public access to the shore zone and to recreational resources and
facilities that are part of the six public parks located within the LWRP boundary
will be promoted and, possibly, further developed.

The development of a public transportation system to Durand-Eastman Park, in
cooperation with the Rochester/Genessee Regional Transportation Authority, will
be investigated. Government agencies will encourage the establishment of a
special bus route to and through the park, particularly during periods of peak
park use.

The development of a public boat launch facility along the eastern bank of the
river, just south of the Stutson Street Bridge, will be promoted and encouraged.
The facility will be developed in conjunction with Monroe County and will help
redevelop and revitalize a severely underutilized area of riverfront. The boat
launch will provide increased public access to the river for boating, sailing and
fishing.

The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of a
proposed action with this policy:

(1) The existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities
to public water-related recreation resources and facilities shall not be
reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access in the future
from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to public
water-related recreational resources and facilities be eliminated, unless
in the latter case, estimates of future use of these resources and
facilities are too low to justify maintaining or providing increased
public access or unless such actions are found to be necessary or
beneficial by the public body having jurisdiction over such access as the
result of a reasonable justification of the need to meet systematic
objectives.

(2) Proposed projects to increase public access to public water-related
recreation resources and facilities shall be analyzed according to the
following factors:

111-27

(a) The level of access to be provided should be in accordance with
estimated public use. If not, the proposed level of access to be
provided shall be deemed inconsistent with this policy.

(b) The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use
which would exceed the physical capacity of the resource or
facility. If this were determined to be the case, then the
proposed level of access shall be deemed inconsistent with this
policy.

(3) The state will not undertake or fund any project which increases access
to a water-related resource or facility that is not open to all members
of the public.

POLICY 20 ACCESS TO THE PUBLICLY OWNED FORESHORE AND TO LANDS
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE FORESHORE OR THE WATER'S EDGE
THAT ARE PUBLICLY OWNED SHALL BE PROVIDED, AND IT SHOULD BE
PROVIDED IN A MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH ADJOINING USES. SUCH
LANDS SHALL BE RETAINED IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.

POLICY 20A PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-ORIENTED MIXED-USE FACILITIES AT THE
PORT AUTHORITY SITE.

POLICY 20B INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT AND TO RECREATIONAL
RESOURCES AND FACILITIES AT THE RIVER STREET SITE THROUGH
IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER-ORIENTED, NIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.

POLICY 20C DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WILL
PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE RIVER, ALONG PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST AND WEST BANKS OF THE RIVER, SOUTH OF THE STUTSON
STREET BRIDGE, IN THE VICINITY OF TURNING POINT PARK.

POLICY 200 INCREASE ACCESS TO THE GENESEE RIVER GORGE AREA THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM OF FORMAL RIVER OVERLOOKS, HIKING AND
BIKING TRAILS, AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS.

POLICY 20E NEGOTIATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE RIVERFRONT
THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE FEASIBLE.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Government agencies will provide access to publicly owned areas of the shore zone
-where the provision of such access is feasible and would require only minimal
facilities and where it will not endanger sensitive environmental features
historic areas, and fish and wildlife habitats or be incompatible with adjaceni

111-28

land uses. Guidelines I through 3 under Policy 19 will be used in determining
the consistency of a proposed government action or private development with this
policy.

As part of the development of a mixed-use, water-oriented facility at the Port
Authority and River Street sites, government agencies will ensure that public
access to the waterfront is maintained and enhanced. Agencies will ensure that
the provision of this access will be compatible with adjacent land and water uses
proposed for the sites. This access will take the form of a major riverfront
promenade or pedestrian trail, marinas, boat docks, riverfront restaurants and
a riverfront park that are coordinated with other development proposed for the
area. Continued maintenance of the east and west piers and facilities within
Ontario Beach Park is also included in the plans.

Public access to and through the river gorge is, in most places, dangerous, not
well defined and of limited use. Existing trails are difficult to follow and not
always walkable. With the exception of the existing county boat launch at the
Port Authority site, and the existing canoe launch in Turning Point Park, very
little formal, guaranteed public access is available.

Projects which increase public access to the gorge should be encouraged where
feasible. A pedestrian trail system could be developed within the gorge, that
would link major waterfront resources and facilities. While much of the land
within the river gorge is publicly owned, most of the areas that offer the best
access to the river shoreline are in private ownership. Government agencies
will, therefore, continue to investigate and promote the establishment of public
access to recreational facilities through private development, where feasible.
The development of this access would be completed in a manner which ensures
preservation of sensitive environmental features and wildlife habitats and does
not exceed the carrying capacity of the area.

It is important to remember that traditional sales of easements on lands
underwater to adjacent onshore property owners are consistent with this policy,
provided such easements do not substantially interfere with continued public use
of the public lands on which the easement is granted. Public use of such
publicly-owned underwater lands and lands immediately adjacent to the shore shall
be discouraged where such use would be inappropriate for reasons of public
safety, military security, or the protection of fragile coastal resources.

POLICY 21 VATER DEPENDENT AND WATER ENHANCED RECREATION SHALL BE
ENCOURAGED AND FACILITATED AND SHALL BE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER
NON-MATER- RELATED USES ALONG THE COAST, PROVIDED IT IS
CONSISTENT VITH THE PRESERVATION AND EMMEMENT OF OTHER
COASTAL RESOURCES AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT DEKAND FOR SUCH
FACILITIES. IN FACILITATING SUCH ACTIVITIES, PRIORITY SHALL
BE GIVEN TO AREAS WHERE ACCESS TO THE RECREATION
OPPORTUNITIES OF THE COAST CAN BE PROVIDED BY NEW OR EXISTING
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND TO THOSE AREAS WHERE THE
USE OF THE SHORE IS SEVERELY RESTRICTED BY EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT.

111-29

POLICY 21A FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OFMARIMAS, BOAT DOCKS APO LAUNCHING
RAMPS, FISHING ACCESS AND OTHER WATER-DEPENDENT AND
WATER-ENHANCED RECREATIONAL USES IN RIVER-HARBOR ZONING
DISTRICTS, PARTICULARLY AT THE PORT AUTHORITY SITE AM THE
RIVER STREET SITE.

POLICY 21B DEVELOP NEW AND EXPANDED WATER-DEPENDENT OR WATE]t-ENHANCED
RECREATIONAL USES AT TURNING POINT PARK.

POLICY 21C PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT, RECONSTRUCTION OR
REHABILITATION OF WATER-DEPENDENT AND WATER-ENHANCED
RECREATIONAL USES AT ONTARIO BEACH PARK, DURAND-EASTMAN PARK,
SENECA PARK, AND MAPLEWOOD PARK.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

The development of water-dependent and water-enhanced recreational uses in
appropriate locations along the lake and river is the main focus of the city's
LWRP. Because of the limited availability of.coastal lands and resources in the
region, government agencies recognize the need to give priority to development
of recreational uses within the shore zone which are water -dependent, are
enhanced by a coastal location and which increase public access to the
waterfront.

Water-related recreation includes such things as boating and fishing facilities
pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passiv
recreational areas that take advantage of coastal scenery. These water-dependent
uses should be promoted and encouraged within both public and private development
projects. In each case, government agencies will ensure that such development
only occurs where water-related recreational uses are consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of important coastal resources and within the
carrying capacity of the resource to accommodate the particular activity or use.
Boating facilities should, where appropriate, include parking, park-like
surroundings, and restroom and pump-out facilities.

Redevelopment plans for the port site and River Street area, which encourage
development of water-dependent and water-related recreational facilities, have
been prepared and will be promoted. Priority to such uses will be given within
the context of any development plan which is finally implemented for these areas.

Government agencies recognize the unique opportunities that exist within the six
public parks located along the lake and the river to promote and provide
water-oriented recreational uses as well as public access to the shore zone.
Development of water-oriented recreational facilities that are part of these
parks will be promoted, encouraged and supported. Public access to the
waterfront will be improved, and appropriate water-oriented recreational uses
will be located in the waterfront areas in each park. These uses could include
pedestrian trails, fishing access, boat docking facilities, boat launching ramps
and cartop boat launch facilities, and swimming.

111-30

Opportunities for "linkage" of areas along the lake and river through development
of linear pedestrian trails will be investigated. Such opportunities exist along
the east and west banks of the river gorge, near Turning Point Park. The siting
or design of new public or private development which would result in a barrier
to the recreational use of the shore zone or which would damage sensitive
environmental areas or conflict with anticipated public demand for such
developmentwill bediscouraged. Public transportation service towater-oriented
recreational facilities will be a major priority.

Information regarding estimated demand for water-dependent and water-enhanced
recreational uses such as boat slips, launching facilities, etc. is provided in
Section 11, Inventory and Analysis. This information can provide the basis for
determining the need for and potential locations of water-related recreational
facilities. Higher priority should be given to locating and developing
water-dependent recreational development over those which are only enhanced by
or do not require a coastal location.

POLICY 22 DEVELOPMENT, WHEN LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SHORE, SHALL
PROVIDE FOR WATER-RELATEO RECREATION, AS A MULTIPLE USE,
WHENEVER SUCH RECREATIONAL USE IS APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF
REASONABLY ANTICIPATED DEMAND FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES AND THE
PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

POLICY 22A FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIX OF WATER-RELATEO RECREATIONAL
USES AT THE PORT AUTHORITY SITE AND RIVER STREET SITE.

POLICY 22B NEGOTIATE, WHERE FEASIBLE. WITH VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
TO DEVELOP OR IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT AND TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN TYPES OF PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USES WITHIN THE
SHORE ZONE.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

There are several areas within the city's LWRP boundary that could accommodate
water-related recreational uses, in conjunction with mixed-use or multiple-use
facilities. Most of these areas are underutilized sites that should be
encouraged to develop as mixed-use facilities which include water-oriented
recreation. Government agencies recognize the following types of development
which can generally provide water-related recreation as a multiple-use:

(a) Parks
(b) Highways
(c) Power plants-
(d) Sewage treatment facilities
(e) Mental health facilities
(f) Hospitals
(g) Schools and universities
(h) Nature preserves
(i) Large residential subdivisions containing 50 units or more
(j) Shopping centers

111-31

(k) Office buildings

Whenever development proposals involve shore zone areas or areas adjacent to the
shore, government agencies will evaluate whether or not they should be considered
for or required to incorporate recreational uses within them. Whenever a
proposed development is consistent with other LWRP policies and would, through
the provision of water-oriented recreation and other multiple-uses, significantly
increase public use and enjoyment of the shore zone, government agencies will
encourage such development to locate adjacent to the shore. In general, some
form of recreational use should be accommodated, unless there are compelling
reasons why such recreation would not be compatible with the development, or a
reasonable demand for public use cannot be foreseen.
Appropriate recreation uses which do not require any substantial additional
construction shall be provided at the expense of the project sponsor provided the
cost does not exceed 2% of the total project cost.

In determining whether compelling reasons exist which would make recreation
inadvisable as a multiple use, safety considerations should reflect a recognition
that some risk is acceptable in the use of recreational facilities.
There are several opportunities for development of water-related recreational
uses and improvement of public access to the shore zone that are located within
existing industrial facilities. An example of such an opportunity would be the
improvement of public vehicular and pedestrian access, down Seth Green Drive, to
the RG&E Station 5 Power Plant on the west bank of the river, just north of the
Driving Park Bridge. Improvement of public access in this location would greatly
enhance the area's use by fishermen. Development of a fish-cleaning station
could also be considered.

There are several other areas within the LWRP boundary that provide significant
vistas of the river gorge. These areas are also within privately-owned
industrial facilities. Negotiating public access and development of such
facilities as overlooks and rest areas within these areas is considered to be a
major priority with the city.

POLICY 23 PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR
SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES OR THE
NATION.

POLICY 23A IDENT IFY, PROTECT AND RESTORE SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC STRUCTURES
LOCATED WITHIN THE LWRP BOUNDARY, TO INCLUDE THE GENESEE
LIGHTHOUSE AND OTHER BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE OF NATIONAL OR
LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE.

POLICY 23B REDEVELOP THE PORT AUTHORITY SITE AND THE RIVER STREET SITE
IN A MANNER WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTS THE
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES
IN THE AREA.

111-32

POLICY 23C IDENTIFY AND PROTECT ARCHAEOLOGIC ALLY AND HISTORICALLY
SIGNIFICANT SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE LWRP BOUNDARY, THROUGH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS MASTER PLANS AND DESIGNS FOR THE
SIX PUBLIC PARKS LOCATED ALONG THE LAKE AND RIVER.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Government agencies recognize the need for and place a high priority on the
identification and preservation of structures, sites and districts within the
LWRP boundary that are significant in terms of the history, architecture,
archaeology or culture of the state or the nation. Extensive historic surveys
have been conducted of the LWRP study area by the Landmark Society of Western New
York and the Rochester Museum and Science Center. The surveys have identified
and located structures which are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, which are potential nominations to the national register, or which may
have local historic significance and should be classified as local landmarks.
After completion of these surveys, the city will prepare a list of LWRP
structures to be nominated to the National Historic Register, will identify
structures to be designated as local landmarks, will evaluate the possibility of
extending or creating new preservation districts, and will identify sites that
should be preserved as a part of redevelopment plans for public parks.

Structures, facilities, sites or other areas within the LWRP boundary that have
already been identified as being locally or nationally significant in terms of
their architecture or history include:

(a) The Genesee Lighthouse (National Register Listing)
(b) The Ontario Beach Park Carousel
(c) St. Bernard's Seminary
(d) Eastman Kodak Hawkeye Plant
(e) RG&E Station 5 Power Plant and Middle Falls Dam
M Railway Station on River Street
(g) Carthage Landing
(h) Kelsey's Landing and Glenn House
(i) Seneca Park
(j) Rochester School For The Deaf
(k) An area on the east and west river banks, between the Middle and Lower
Falls, that contains archaeological ly significant sites and remains of
historic mill races.

Redevelopment plans proposed for the Port Authority site and the River Street
site will consider architecturally and historically significant structures and
facilities in the area and will be designed to protect and enhance these
resources. A major element of the River Street concept plan is the enhancement
of the area's existing uneighborhoodu and unauticalO character and ambience. New
development will be compatible with existing architecturally and historically
significant buildings in terms of appearance, design and construction.

Government agencies also consider the preservation of several archaeologically
significant sites located within public parks and other areas along the river
gorge to be a major priority. These sites include Carthage Landing, located on

111-33

the east bank of the Genesee River, just south of the Veteran's Memorial Bridge
Kelsey's Landing, located on the west bank of the river, below Maplewood Park:
and an area near the proposed Lower Falls Park, just south of the Driving Park
Bridge. These areas contain historic remains of buildings and other facilities
that date back to the early 18001s. The identification, classification and
protection of these areas through park redevelopment plans will be promoted and
encouraged.

Developers in areas which have been identified within the river gorge as
significant archeological sites shall contact the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation to determine appropriate protective
construction measures. All practicable means to protect structures, districts,
areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology
or culture of the state or nation shall include any techniques, measures, or
controls required to prevent a significant adverse change to such structures,
districts, areas or sites.

This policy should not be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction,
alteration, or demolition of any building, structure, earthwork, or component
thereof of a recognized historic, cultural or archeological resource which has
been officially certified as being imminently dangerous to the public health,
safety or welfare.

POLICY 24 PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF SCENIC RESOURCES OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE, AS IDENTIFIED ON THE COASTAL AREA NAP.
IMPAIRMENT SHALL INCLUDE:

(1) THE IRREVERSIBLE MODIFICATION OF GEOLOGICAL FORKS, THE
DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF VEGETATION, THE DESTRUCTION
OR REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES, WHEREVER THE GEOLOGIC FORKS,
VEGETATION OR STRUCTURES ARE SIGNIFICANT TO THE SCENIC
QUALITY OF AN IDENTIFIED RESOURCE; AND

(2) THE ADDITION OF STRUCTURES WHICH BECAUSE OF SITING OR
SCALE WILL REDUCE IDENTIFIED VIEWS OR WHICH BECAUSE OF
SCALE, FORM, OR MATERIALS WILL DIMINISH THE SCENIC
QUALITY OF AN IDENTIFIED RESOURCE.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the City's LWRP because there are no scenic
resources of state-wide significance within Rochester's LWRP boundary.

POLICY 25 PROTECT, RESTORE AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND KAN-NADE RESOURCES
WHICH ARE NOT IDENT IFIED AS BEING OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE,
BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL
AREA.

111-34

POLICY 25A PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE GENESEE
RIVER SORGE, AS A NATURAL RESOURCE OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE,
THROUGH GENERAL CLEAN-UP OF THE RIVER BANKS AND RENOVAL OF
DEBRIS.

POLICY 25B PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE LOWER AND NIDDLE FALLS AREA AS VELL
AS VISTAS OF THE FALLS FRON ADJACENT LANDS.

POLICY 25C ENHANCE SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS WITHIN THE GENESEE RIVER
GORGE AND ALONG LAKE ONTARIO, THROUGH THE DEVELOPNENT OF
SCENIC OVERLOOKS, VIEWING AREAS, AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS, AND
THROUGH THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATURAL AESTHETIC QUALITIES
OF THESE AREAS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Government agencies recognize the importance of restoring and preserving natural
and man-made resources within the LWRP boundary that contribute to the scenic
quality of the river and lake. Activities which could degrade scenic qualities
of these areas include modification of natural features and the removal of
vegetation.

The standards and guidelines associated with the city's site plan review, Overlay
Harbor Town Design District and environmental review procedures will be used to
ensure that proposed private development does not interfere with, but rather
enhances, existing natural or man-made resources that contribute to the scenic
quality of the lake and river.

Much of the area within the river gorge contains steep slopes in excess of 15%,
is in public ownership and is zoned for open space uses. The city's Open Space
Zoning District limits and regulates development activities in this critical
environmental area. Lands zoned for open space within the LWRP boundary will
remain in their natural state and will contribute to enhancement and preservation
of the scenic qualities of the gorge.
Maintenance plans and measures to clean-up the riverfront area and steep slopes
within the gorge, in order to enhance their visual qualities, will be promoted
and encouraged. The development of trails, overlooks and viewing areas, in and
around the public parks located on the river, will be promoted and encouraged in
order to provide increased viewing opportunities of the gorge area for park
visitors.

The following siting and facility-related guidelines are to be used to achieve
this policy, recognizing that each development situation is unique and that the
guidelines will have to be applied accordingly. Guidelines include:
(1) Siting structures and other development such as highways, power lines and
signs back from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to

111-35

maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline and to retain views to
and from the shore;

(2) Clustering or orienting structures to retain views, save open space and
provide visual organization within a development;

(3) Incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic buildings)
into the overall development scheme;

(4) Removing deteriorated or degraded elements;

(5) Maintaining or restoring the original land form, except when changes
screen unattractive elements or add appropriate interest;

(6) Maintaining or adding vegetation to provide interest, encourage the
presence of wildlife, blend structures into the site, and obscure
unattractive elements, except when selective clearing removes unsightly,
diseased or hazardous vegetation and when selective clearing creates
views of coastal areas;

(7) Using appropriate materials, in addition to vegetation, to screen
unattractive elements; and

(8) Using appropriate scales, forms and materials to ensure that buildings
and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the
landscape.

POLICY 26 TO CONSERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE STATE'S
COASTAL AREA, AN ACTION SHALL NOT RESULT IN A LOSS, NOR
IMPAIR THE PRODUCTIVITY OF IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AS
IDENTIFIED ON THE COASTAL AREA NAP, IF THAT LOSS OR
IMPAIRMENT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VIABILITY OF
AGRICULTURE IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT OR IF THERE 15 NO
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, IN THE AREA SURROUNDING SUCH LANDS.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP because there are no
agriculturally zoned lands within Rochester's LWRP boundary.

POLICY 27 DECISIONS ON THE SITING AND CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR ENERGY
FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL AREA WILL BE BASED ON PUBLIC ENERGY
NEEDS, COMPATIBILITY OF SUCH FACILITIES WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND THE FACILITY'S NEED FOR A SHOREFRONT LOCATION.

POLICY 27A EVALUATE EXISTING ENERGY FACILITY SITES FOR OTHER USES, IF
AND WHEN SUCH SITES ARE ABANDONED, IN CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC
ENERGY NEEDS, THE SITE'S COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES,
AND THE NEED FOR A SHOREFRONT LOCATION.

111-36

EXPLANATION OF POLICIES

Demand for energy in New York will increase, although at a rate slower than
previously predicted. The state expects to meet these energy demands through a
combination of conservation measures, traditional and alternative technologies,
and use of various fuels, including coal, in greater proportion.
A determination of public need for energy is the first step in the process for
siting new facilities. The directives for determining this need are set forth
in the New York State Energy Law. With respect to transmission lines, Article
VII of the State's Public Service Law requires additional forecasts and
establishes the basis for determining the compatibility of these facilities with
the environment and the necessity for a shorefront location. With respect to
electric generating facilities, environmental impacts associated with siting and
construction will be considered by one or more State agencies or, if in
existence, an energy siting board. The policies derived from these proceedings
are entirely consistent with the general coastal policies derived from other
laws, particularly the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Waterfront
Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act. The Act is used for
the purposes of ensuring consistency with the State Coastal Management Program
and this Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.

in consultation with the city, the HYSDOS will comment on State Energy Office
policies and planning reports as may exist; present testimony for the record
during relevant proceedings under State law; and use the SEQR law and NYSDOS
regulations to ensure that decisions on other proposed energy facilities (other
than those certified under the Public Service Law) which would impact the
waterfront area are made consistent with the policies and purposes of this LWRP.
The only major energy facility site that currently exists within the LWRP
boundary is the RG&E Station 5 Power Plant and the adjacent Middle Falls Dam.
Although it is anticipated that this facility and use will continue at its
present location for the foreseeable future, if RUE ever does abandon the site,
an evaluation of the best reuse for the site will be made which acknowledges the
need for compatibility with the surrounding environment and the need for a
shorefront location.

POLICY 28 ICE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SHALL NOT DAMAGE SIGNIFICANT FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS, INCREASE SHORELINE EROSION
OR FLOODING, OR INTERFERE WITH THE PRODUCTION OF
HYDROELECTRIC POWER.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP because ice management practices
are not currently undertaken within Rochester's LWRP boundary. Should such
practices be undertaken in the future in order to maintain navigation, an
assessment shall be made of their impacts upon fish and wildlife habitats, flood
levels and damage, rates of shoreline erosion damage, and upon natural protective
features. Following such an examination, adequate methods of avoidance or

111-37

mitigation of such potential effects must be utilized if the proposed action is
to be implemented.

POLICY 29 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF, IN LAKE ERIE AND IN OTHER WATER BODIES,
AND ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP. Activities existing or
contemplated within the city's LWRP boundary or within the metropolitan region
will have no known impact on any energy resources which have been or may be
identified on the lake or river.

POLICY 30 MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND COMMERCIAL DISCHARGE OF
POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES, INTO COASTAL WATERS WILL CONFORM TO STATE AND
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Municipal, industrial and commercial discharges include mend-of-pipeu discharges
into surface and groundwater as well as plant site runoff, leaching, spillages,
sludge and other waste disposal, and drainage from raw materials storage sites
Regulated industrial discharges include those that directly empty into receivin;
coastal waters and those which pass through municipal treatment systems before
reaching the State's waterways.

The Monroe County Health Department currently monitors the water quality of
discharges of less than 1,000 gallons per day into the river and lake. The
NYSDEC currently monitors discharges of more than 1,000 gallons per day into the
river and lake. These monitoring activities will be supported and encouraged to
ensure that discharges into the lake and river comply with State and federal
water quality standards.

The entire shoreline of Lake Ontario as well as the Genesee River is considered
to be a critical environmental area under the city's existing site plan and
environmental review procedures. Because of this, the impacts on water quality
of stormwater runoff and/or effluent discharge from development sites is
evaluated and mitigating measures can be required if adverse environmental
impacts such as serious degradation of water quality should occur.

POLICY 31 STATE COASTAL AREA POLICIES AND PURPOSES OF APPROVED LOCAL
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS WILL BE CONSIDERED WHILE
REVIEWING COASTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS AND WHILE MODIFYING
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; HOWEVER, THOSE WATERS ALREADY
OVERBURDENED WITH CONTAMINANTS WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING
A DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINT.

111-38

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), New York State has
classified its coastal and other waters in accordance with the consideration of
best usage i n the i nterest of the publ i c, and has adopted water qual i ty standards
for each class of waters. These classifications and standards are reviewable at
least every three years for possible revision or amendment, and will be reviewed
by the State in light of the adopted LWRP.

The Genesee River has been classified as having uBN water quality. No bodies of
water within the city's LWRP boundary are currently classified as ulimiting
segmentsu.

As noted in POLICY 30, the shorelines of the lake and river are considered to be
critical environmental areas under the city's site plan and environmental review
procedures. Because of this, the impacts on water quality of stormwater runoff
and/or effluent discharge from development sites is evaluated and mitigating
measures can be required if adverse environmental impacts such as the serious
degradation of water quality should occur. Government agencies consider the
achievement and maintenance of a water quality level in the Genesee River and
Lake Ontario, which enables the widest possible recreational use while protecting
important wildlife habitats, to be a major priority. The intent of the city's
LWRP is to maintain the water quality of the lake and river by controlling
stormwater runoff and effluent discharge from development sites as well as from
vessels.

POLICY 32 ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE OR INNOVATIVE SANITARY WASTE
SYSTEMS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES WHERE THE COSTS OF CONVENT IONAL
FACILITIES ARE UNREASONABLY HIGH GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE
EXISTING TAX BASE OF THESE COMMUNITIES.

EXPLANATION OF WHY POLICY IS NOT APPLICABLE

This policy is not applicable to the city's LWRP because innovative sanitary
waste systems are not considered to be economically feasible or desirable, from
an engineering standpoint, within the LWRP boundary. Proposed development will
be required to be placed on existing public sanitary waste systems or be required
to provide for extensions of existing systems in order to service the development
site.

POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE C09MOL
OF STORKWATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING
INTO COASTAL WATERS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

111-39

collected after major rainfalls, to the Frank E. VanLare Treatment Plant located
in Durand-Eastman Park. Prior to the construction of these tunnels, large
volumes of combined sewage and storm water that occurred after major rainfalls
in the area flowed directly into the river and lake without being treated. This
sewage contributed to pollution problems in the river and lake and the
destruction of fish and other wildlife species. The completion of the
underground holding tunnels will eliminate a major source of pollution discharge
into the river and lake and will help preserve existing stocks of fish in the
area. Government agencies will continue to investigate and promote improvements
to other portions of the city storm and sanitary sewer systems in order to
maintain and enhance the existing water quality in the river and lake. The
improvements will be based on accepted best management practices (BMP's) for
stormwater runoff and drainage control.

POLICY 34 DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIALS FROM VESSELS INTO COASTAL WATERS
VILL BE LIMITED SO AS TO PROTECT SIGNIFICANT FISH AND
WILDLIFE HABITATS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND WATER SUPPLY AREAS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Government agencies will promote and encourage the control or prohibition of
discharges of waste materials from vessels into coastal waters, in order to
protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational resources and water
supply areas. Counties in New York State may regulate such activity under
Section 46 of New York State Navigation Law. The possibility of establishing
no-discharge zones within the City's river and lake may be explored. In
addition, all relevant building, sanitary and health codes that apply to the
discharge of sewage, waste and other pollutants in local waters will be enforced.
The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish and other solid and liquid materials
from watercraft and marinas into the State's waters is regulated. Priority will
be given to the enforcement of this law in areas such as shellfish beds and other
significant habitats, beaches and public water supply intakes, which need
protection from contamination by vessel wastes. Also, specific effluent
standards for marine toilets have been promulgated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. To that end, the provision of adequate pump-out facilities for
existing and proposed marina facilities will be required in the City of
Rochester.

POLICY 35 DREDGING AND DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL IN COASTAL WATERS WILL BE
UNDERTAKEN IN A MANNER THAT MEETS EXISTING STATE DREDGING
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, AND PROTECTS SIGNIFICANT FISH AND

111-40

WILDLIFE HABITATS, SCENIC RESOURCES, NATURAL PROTECTIVE
FEATURES, IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AND WETLANDS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Dredging is often essential for waterfront revitalization and development,
maintenance of navigation channels at sufficient depths, pollutant removal as
well as addressing other coastal management needs. Such dredging projects may,
however, adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands and
other important coastal resources. Often these adverse effects can be minimized
through careful design and timing of the dredging operation and proper siting of
the dredge spoil disposal site.

The NYSDEC will issue dredging permits if it has been demonstrated that the
anticipated adverse effects of such operations have been reduced to levels which
satisfy State dredging permit standards set forth in regulations developed
pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law (Articles 15, 24, 25 and 34), and
are consistent with policies pertaining to the protection of coastal resources.

POLICY 36 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SHIPMENT AND STORAGE OF PETROLEUM
AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A KANNER
THAT WILL PREVENT OR AT LEAST MINIMIZE SPILLS INTO COASTAL
WATERS; ALL PRACTICABLE EFFORTS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO
EXPEDITE THE CLEANUP OF SUCH DISCHARGES; AND RESTITUTION FOR
DAMAGES VILL BE REQUIRED WHEN THESE SPILLS OCCUR.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

See policy 39 for definition of hazardous materials.

The following implement and address this policy:

(a) Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensation.
Navigation Law (Article 12)

(b) Penalties and Liabilities for Spills of Bulk Liquids.
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 71-1941)

These measures are adequate for the city because no activities related to the
shipment or substantial storage of petroleum or other hazardous materials occur
within the local waterfront revitalization boundary, or will occur within the
boundary in the foreseeable future. All activities within the LWRP boundary
which are subject to this policy shall also comply with state and federal
regulations.

111-41

POLICY 37 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE
NONPOINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED
SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Government agencies recognize the need to control the nonpoint discharge of
excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into local coastal waters. However,
a major portion of the area contained within the LWRP boundary is serviced by
storm and sanitary sewers which do not outfall to the river or lake without
adequate sewage treatment. Remaining areas of natural forest and woodland do not
contribute significantly to nonpoint discharge of excess nutrients, organics or
eroded soils into the river and lake.

As noted in POLICY 30, the shorelines of the lake and river are considered to be
critical environmental areas under the city's site plan and environmental review
procedures. Because of this, the impacts on water quality of stormwater runoff,
erosion, and/or effluent discharge from development sites is evaluated and
mitigating measures can be required if adverse environmental impacts such as the
serious degradation of water quality should result. Soil erosion control
practices and surface drainage control techniques will be evaluated or may be
required based on accepted best management practices (BMP's), and as a result of
the site plan and environmental review processes. Standards to be used in this
evaluation are contained in Section 108 of the Administrative Procedures for the
Issuance of Site Preparation Permits (see LWRP APPENDIX), and are based on two
documents: Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas of New York
State, and Best Management Practices for Stormwater Runoff Management.

Government agencies consider, as a major priority, the achievement and
maintenance of a water quality level in the river and lake that enables the
widest possible recreational use while protecting important wildlife habitats.

POLICY 38 THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
SUPPLIES WILL BE CONSERVED AND PROTECTED, PARTICULARLY WHERE
SUCH WATERS CONSTITUTE THE PRIMARY OR SOLE SOURCE OF WATER
SUPPLY.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

The city consumes between 40 and 49 million gallons of water each day. The
city's primary source of water is through the Upland Watershed which includes
Hemlock and Canadice Lakes in Ontario, Livingston and Steuben Counties. The city
also gets some of its water supply from Lake Ontario through the Monroe County
Water Authority (MCWA). The majority of the area within the city's LWRP boundary
receives its water from Lake Ontario and the MCWA.

The Upland Watershed encompasses approximately 66 square miles. Twenty-two
percent of the watershed or 7,200 acres are directly controlled by the city,
including the entire shoreline of both lakes. Water quality problems have
occurred within the watershed in recent years. In order to help resolve
controversy surrounding the use of the upl and I akes as a water supply, an Upl and

111-42

Watershed Advisory Committee was formed by the city in. 1985. Six management
objectives, developed by the committee, are used to ensure water quality in the
Upland Watershed:

(1) Maintain city-owned property around the lakes as undeveloped;
(2) Enforce rules and regulations to protect the watershed from environmental
hazards;
(3) Maintain recreational activities around the lakes that are compatible
with conservation and water quality;
(4) Plan forest management to enhance forest quality and to control erosion;
(5) Manage water levels, wetlands, fish stocking and the use of local roads;
and
(6) Support an investment sufficient to practice good husbandry.

In addition, a water filtration plant for the upland watershed will be
constructed.

The ci ty rel i es on the MCWA to moni tor and mai ntai n the qual i ty of water recei ved
from Lake Ontario. Standards to achieve this policy goal will be enforced.

POLICY 39 THE TRANSPORT, STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID
WASTES, PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS WASTES, WITHIN COASTAL AREAS
WILL BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH A KAMMER SO AS TO PROTECT
GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES, SIGNIFICANT FISH AND
WILDLIFE HABITATS, RECREATION AREAS, IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL
LAND AND SCENIC RESOURCES.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Solid wastes include sludges from air or water pollution control facilities,
demolition and construction debris, and industrial and commercial wastes. Solid
waste management facilities include resource recovery facilities, sanitary
landfills, and solid waste reduction facilities. These definitions are based on
the New York State Solid Waste Management Act (Environmental Conservation Law,
Article 27).

Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes generally
characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. More
specifically, hazardous waste is defined in the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law (Section 27-0901 (3)) as uwaste or combination of wastes which
.because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
characteristics, may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality, or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible
illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed or
otherwise managed." A list of hazardous wastes has been adopted by the HYSOEC
(6 NYCRR Part 371).

There is currently no active transport, storage, treatment or disposal of
hazardous wastes within the city's LWRP boundary. In addition, no activity is
proposed or will occur within the waterfront revitalization area that will
produce such hazardous or solid wastes, as defined in the Environmental

111-43

Conservation Law, Article 27. Government standards regarding disposal of such
wastes, when required, will be met.

POLICY 40 EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FROM MAJOR STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING AND
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES INTO COASTAL WATERS WILL NOT BE UNDULY
INJURIOUS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE AND SHALL CONFORM TO STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

A number of factors must be considered when reviewing a proposed site for
facility construction. One of these factors is that the facility not discharge
any effluent that will be unduly injurious to the propagation and protection of
fish and wildlife, the industrial development of the state, the public health and
public enjoyment of the receiving waters. The effects of thermal discharges on
water quality and aquatic organisms will be considered by State agencies or, if
applicable, a siting board when evaluating an applicant's request to construct
a new electric generating facility.

The RG&E Station 5 Power Plant located on the east bank of the river near the
Driving Park Bridge, and the Eastman Kodak Company Industrial Waste Treatment
Plant located on the west bank of the river, just north of the Veteran's Memorial
Bridge, are the only facilities within the LWRP boundary that are the types of
uses described in this policy. All activities within the city's waterfront which
are subject to this policy shall comply with appropriate local, state and federal
regulations to ensure that existing water quality standards are met and that
appropriate disposal methods are used.

POLICY 41 LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA VILL NOT CAUSE
NATIONAL OR STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS TO BE VIOLATED.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

The city's LWRP incorporates the air quality policies of and programs for the
State prepared by the NYSDEC, pursuant to the Clean Air Act and State laws
regulating air quality. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are the minimum
air quality control standards applicable within the coastal area.

Existing and proposed land uses within the city's LWRP boundary will be
restricted to residential, recreational and marine-related and/or supporting
commercial facilities. None of these uses are likely to produce significant
degradation of air quality in the area. The NYSDEC has jurisdiction over the
monitoring of air quality to ensure that the provisions of the Federal Clean Air
Act are being met. Monitoring activities will continue.

POLICY 42 COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES WILL BE CONSIDERED IF THE STATE
RECLASSIFIES LAND AREAS PURSUANT TO THE OPREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION REGULATIONSO OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN
AIR ACT.

111-44

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

The policies of the State Coastal Management Program and Rochester LWRP
concerning proposed land and water uses and the protection and preservation of
special management areas will be taken into account prior to any action to change
prevention of significant deterioration land classifications in coastal regions
or adjacent areas. In addition, the NYSDOS will provide the NYSDEC with
recommendations for proposed prevention of significant deterioration land
classification designations, based upon State Coastal Management and Rochester
LWRP policies.

POLICY 43 LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST NOT CAUSE
THE GENERATION OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF ACID RAIN
PRECURSORS: NITRATES AND SULFATES.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

The New York State Coastal Management Program incorporates the State's policies
on acid rain. Therefore, the Coastal Management Program will assist in the
State's efforts to control acid rain. These efforts to control acid rain will
enhance the continued viability of coastal fisheries, wildlife, agricultural,
scenic and water resources.

POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WET-LANDS AND
PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.

EXPLANATION OF POLICY

Government agencies recognize the need to preserve and protect freshwater
wetlands located within the LWRP boundary and consider this to be a major
priority within the context of other LWRP policies. For the purposes of this
policy, freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs and flats that support
aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation, as well as other wetlands as defined in the
New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act and the New York State Protection of
Waters Act. Government agencies recognize that the benefits derived from the
protection of such wetland areas include maintenance of fish and wildlife
habitats, control of erosion and drainage, protection of groundwater supplies,
and provision of recreational opportunities.

Over the past several years, many existing wetland areas within the LWRP boundary
have been transferred to public ownership through historic donations, as well as
through actual acquisition and purchase by the city. Additional purchases of
wetland areas along the river are being investigated; these would, if completed,
result in all such areas being in public ownership and controlled by the city or
Monroe County, as well as the NYSDEC.

The standards and guidelines contained in the city's environmental review
procedures and regulations will be used to ensure that wetlands as well as
surrounding areas are preserved and protected within the LWRP boundary.
Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the river and lake and within
areas zoned as open space, which include all significant wetland areas along the

111-45

river and lake, are Type I actions under the city's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, since these locations have been designated as critical environmental
areas. Actions in these areas will require a complete environmental impact
review. As a part of this review, a project's potential impacts on existing fish
and wildlife habitat areas and other wetland features would be determined and
addressed and mitigating measures, if required, could be proposed in order to
protect these areas from adverse development impacts.

111-46

SECTION IV: PROPOSED LAND AND WATER USES AND PROPOSED PROJECTS

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL MATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN

SECTION IV: PROPOSED LAND AND WATER USES AND PROPOSED PROJECTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION IV -5

2. IDENTIFICATION OF LWRP SUBAREAS IV -5

3. DESCRIPTION OF LWRP SUBAREAS IV -6
A. Subarea A - Durand Eastman Park IV -6
B. Subarea B - Open space/critical environmental areas IV -9
C. Subarea C1 - Developed portion of the upland area IV-12
D. Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the upland area IV-12
E. Subarea D - River harbor zone and lakefront area IV-14
F. Subarea E - Industrial areas IV-16

4. RECOMMENDED LAND USES FOR EACH'SUBAREA IV-18
A. Introduction IV-18
B. Subarea A - Durand Eastman Park IV-24
C. Subarea B - Open space/critical environmental areas IV-25
D. Subarea C1 - Developed portion of the upland area IV-26
E. Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the upland area IV-27
F. Subarea D - River harbor zone and lakefront area IV-28
G. Subarea E - Industrial areas IV-31

5. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS WITHIN THE LWRP IV-32
A. Introduction IV-32
B. Development of the Port Authority site IV-33
C. Summary of Ontario Beach Park/Port Authority
site concept plan components IV-37
D. Development of the River Street site IV-42
E. Summary of River Harbor Area concept plan
components IV-45
F. Development of Genesee River boat launch facility IV-50
G. Development of various improvements to the
LWRP parks IV-50

SUMMARY OF SECTION IV-52

IV-3

INTRODUCTION

The policies of the City of Rochester's Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP) were developed into a cohesive, physical plan for the
city's waterfront area through the identification of appropriate land uses
and projects for the various subareas within the LWRP boundary. These
land uses and projects, in turn, reflect and implement the city's policy
goals and statements for the waterfront area as outlined in SECTION III:
POLICIES. The process of developing appropriate land uses and projects
included the identification of general land use subareas, assessment of
the city's land use needs, and consideration of the development potential
and constraints of major waterfront sites within the LWRP boundary. In
addition, the city evaluated the proposed land uses and projects against
the applicable policy goals and statements, in order to ensure that the
land use plan was consistent with those policy objectives. A citizen's
advisory committee (CAC) was formed to aid city staff in the preparation
of development objectives and specific recommendations of the land use
plan.

2. IDEKTIFICATION OF LVRP SUBAREAS

In order to determine the types of land uses and projects which repre-
sented the most appropriate use of the city's waterfront resources, the
area within the LWRP boundary was divided into 6 subareas. These subareas
include:
is Subarea A - Durand-Eastman Park
Subarea B - Open Space / Critical Environmental Areas
Subarea C1 - Developed portion of the Upland Area
Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the Upland Area
Subarea D - River Harbor Zone and Lakefront Area
Subarea E - Industrial Areas

Each subarea was further divided into subzones which are shown on HAP IV-1
on page IV-7.

Each subarea was analyzed according to its development potential and
existing land use characteristics, based on the following general
classifications:

Areas of existing stable uses where significant changes in the
patterns of development were unlikely to occur.

Large areas of open space or environmentally sensitive land, or
undeveloped or inappropriately developed land suitable for a variety
of land uses, or suitable for land banking and/or protection.

Areas of particular concern, which typically included specific sites
where important natural or manmade resources were found, that
offered unique development opportunities, and/or contained
incompatible uses or blighting conditions that needed to be removed.

IV-5

3. DESCRIPTION OF LWRP SUBAREAS

A. Subarea A - Durand-Eastman Park

LWRP Subarea A is the 965 acre Durand-Eastman Park, which is located
on the shore of Lake Ontario, in the northeastern-most section of
the city. The park is surrounded by the Town of Irondequoit on the
west, south and east. The park is located west of Irondequoit Bay
and east of the Genesee River. It can be entered from Lakeshore
Boulevard, Kings Highway and St. Paul Boulevard. Durand-Eastman
Park is leased to Monroe County which is responsible for its
operation and maintenance. The park is zoned as an Open Space (OS)
District.

Recreational facilities within Durand-Eastman Park include hiking,
bridle and cross-country ski trails, picnic shelters, playground
areas, a riding stable and an 18-hole golf course with clubhouse.
The park also contains approximately 10,000 linear feet of lake
frontage and an abandoned beach area.

The park is characterized by various unique and sensitive environ-
mental features including several ponds and wetland areas, steep
wooded slopes and valleys, small lakes, as well as a portion of the
Monroe County Arboretum. Spring flowering trees and spectacular
fall foliage colors make this park an area of exceptional beauty
with many scenic views and vistas. Unique topography and soils
permit many species of plants to grow within the park that are not
normally native to this area. Ponds within the park are heavily
utilized by fishermen during the spring and summer months. The park
is invaluable as a nature area and contains a significant deer
population of between 200 and 300 animals, as well as several
wetland areas that act as natural fish and wildlife habitats.. The
park also contains the Frank E. VanLare Treatment Plant which
processes sanitary and storm sewage collected from a major portion
of Monroe County via a series of underground tunnels.

Monroe County has prepared, in cooperation with the city, a master
plan for the future development of Durand-Eastman Park. The master
plan recommends that:

The beach area of the park should be redeveloped and increased
in size through the construction of a seawall and/or groins
supplemented by a phased program of beach nourishment;

A bathhouse should be constructed in the beach area along with
various safety facilities including lifeguard tower stations
and buoys, lines and markers;

Additional parking should be provided along Lake Shore
Boulevard along with suitable safe crossings between the beach
area and the remainder of the park;

IV-6

L-All
SUMMS WVU908d 110111MIMA38 lNOdjH3lVm Ivoul
t-Al dvw

7?i

A i 'I I
rir I I

....... ...

N. k

j
if

oil
lit

z ;I ......

IF
to

!.1t
IF
it

% V

A nature center and outdoor ampl i theatre should be constructed
within the park, along with sufficient accessory parking and
support facilities;

A system of hiking trails should be developed within the park
that connect the proposed nature center, satellite nature
study areas and wildlife study areas.

The City of Rochester considers Subarea A to be an area which
requires special attention and protection because of the many unique
and important natural resources and recreational opportunities found
there. The presence of sensitive natural features such as steep
wooded slopes, wetlands and wildlife habitat areas requires that
Subarea A continue to remain in its present undeveloped state as
public parkland and open space. Monroe County currently has
approxi 'mately $5.1 million worth of capital improvements programed
for the park through 1996. The city agrees with the major
recommendations contained in the Durand-Eastman Park Master Plan
developed by Monroe County and will promote and encourage several
specific park plan improvements through its LWRP.
Subarea A contains two geographic 'subzones that will be utilized
later to delineate specific land use recommendations. These
subzones include:

(Al) The Durand-Eastman Park shoreline;

(A2) The remainder of Durand-Eastman Park.

B. Subarea B - Open Space L Critical Environmental Areas

LWRP Subarea B includes open space and critical environmental areas
within the LWRP boundary such as steep slopes, wetlands,
floodplains, fish and wildlife habitats, and scenic views and
vistas. Subarea B comprises the entire Genesee River gorge, from
the Lower Fal I s on the south to the northern edge of the
state- des i gnated wetland area on the west bank of the river near
Denise Road. Subarea B includes Turning Point Park, Riverside
Cemetery, Seneca Park, Maplewood Park and Lower Falls Park.
Virtually all lands contained within Subarea 2, including the public
parks, are zoned as Open Space (OS) Districts.

Turning Point Park is located on the west bank of the Genesee River,
just south of the Turning Basin. The park can be entered from Lake
Avenue via Boxart Street. The southern boundary of the park borders
Riverside Cemetery. Turning Point Park is designed as a natural
area and contains passive recreational facilities such as hiking
trails and picnic areas. The park provides access to the river's
edge for fishing and canoeing and is noted for its spectacular views
of the river gorge and the turning basin. Turning Point Park is
owned, operated and maintained by the city.

IV-9

The city has proposed various minor physical improvements to Turning
Point Park. These improvements include the development of cartop
boat access to the river and the enhancement of a pedestrian trail
to the south and west, along an abandoned railroad bed. This trail
could be potentially linked up with a larger trail system which
would run along the length of the river, from the port area south to
the Barge Canal.

Seneca Park contains 297 acres and is located on the east bank of
the Genesee River, north and south of the Veteran's Memorial Bridge.
The park can be entered from St. Paul Boulevard, just north of Route
104. Recreational facilities within Seneca Park include an outdoor
swimming pool with bathhouse, a zoo, playgrounds and softball
fields, two picnic shelters, as well as hiking, nature and jogging
trails. In addition, the park contains steep wooded slopes along
the river bank, wetlands, and spectacular scenic views of the
Genesee River Gorge. The park was originally designed by Frederick
Law Olmstead. The park is leased to Monroe County which is
responsible for its operation and maintenance.

Monroe County, in cooperation with the city, is in the process of
developing a master plan for Seneca Park. The city supports the
maintenance, protection and enhancement of the original Olmstead
plan and design for the park. The city supports the development of
new pedestrian trails and overlooks within the park, a general
upgrading and expansion of the park zoo, as well as an investigation
of expanding the park to the north, along the Genesee River. Such
an expansion could be used to protect sensitive wetland areas and
steep, wooded slopes along the river bank, as well as to provide
additional hiking trails for potential nature studies or similar
activities.

Maplewood Park contains 14 acres and is located along the west side
of the Genesee River, between the Driving Park Bridge and the
Veteran's Memorial Bridge. The park can be entered from Hanford
Landing, Driving Park Avenue as well as from various pedestrian
trails. The park contains passive recreational areas that include
informal picnicking and strolling areas. In addition, the park
contains one of the largest rose gardens in the country. Several
overlooks within the park provide spectacular views of the river
gorge. Maplewood Park is owned by the city which maintains the
middle and northern portions of the park. Monroe County maintains
the southern end of the park.

Monroe County is also preparing, in cooperation with the city, a
master plan for the development of Maplewood Park. The city would
like to see additional pedestrian trails and paths developed within
the park, along with improvements to and expansions of existing
parking facilities. The city also supports the connection of the
park to an existing pedestrian trail along Bridgeway Drive, and the
development of safe, controlled fishing access to the river, in
appropriate locations along the park's riverfront.

IV-10

Lower Falls Park is currently undeveloped and is located along the
west bank of the Genesee River near the Maplewood YMCA, just south
of the Driving Park Bridge. The park can be accessed from Driving

Park Avenue via Hastings Street. The park contains 3 acres and
provides spectacular views of the Lower Falls and the surrounding
river gorge. The park is leased to Monroe County and is being
evaluated as a part of the master plan effort that includes
Maplewood and Seneca Parks.

The city supports development of Lower Falls Park as an archaeologic
and/or interpretive site, focusing on the remains and ruins of
former mill structures and other buildings in the area that date
back to the early 1800's. Several building foundations can be seen
in the park, while other remains are buried and would have to be
unearthed and partially restored. The city also supports the
construction of river overlooks within the park to enhance scenic
views of the gorge and falls.

The remainder of Subarea B includes Riverside and Holy Sepulchre
Cemeteries, which occupy a large open space area on the west bank of
the river, just south of Turning Point Park and east of Lake Avenue,
and the steep wooded slopes, wetlands and wildlife habitat areas
within the river gorge.

The city considers Subarea B to be another significant area within
the LWRP boundary that requires special attention and protection
because of the many unique and important natural resources and
recreational opportunities found there. The public parks and
undeveloped open space within Subarea B are protected through the
use of the restrictive Open Space (OS) zoning district which
regulates or prohibits land uses and development activity. In
additon, all parkland within this Subarea is publicly owned. The
presence of sensitive natural features such as steep wooded slopes,
wetlands, wildlife habitat areas and spectacular scenic views
requires that Subarea B be maintained in its present undeveloped
state as public parkland and open space.

The city does not forsee any type of significant development taking
place within the open space areas of the river gorge in Subarea B.
The city does support, however, various improvements to the public
parks located in this area as a way to enhance water-related
recreational opportunites along the river. The city will continue
to work with Monroe County to implement those improvements.

Subarea 6 contains seven geographic subzones that will be utilized
later to delineate specific land use recommendations. These
subzones include:

(Bl) Turning Point Park;

(82) Seneca Park;

IV-11

(B3) Maplewood Park;

(B4) Lower Falls Park;

(B5) Seth Green area;

(B6) Rattlesnake Point area;

(B7) Riverside Cemetery.

C. Subarea CI - Developed portion of the Upland Area

LWRP Subarea C1 includes upland areas that contain existing
residential, commercial and industrial development. This upland
area extends through an extensive residential zone along Beach
Avenue and Lake Avenue, from the city line on the north, to
Riverside Cemetery on the south. Another large portion of Subarea
C1 includes residential areas around Kodak Park as well as between
Lake Avenue and Maplewood Park, from Ridge Road West to Driving Park
Avenue. Subarea C1 includes portions of residential neighborhoods
such as Charlotte and Maplewood, small strip commercial areas, and
the industrial facilities of Kodak Park. There is relatively little
undeveloped or underutilized land within LWRP Subarea C1. Zoning
classifications contained within the Subarea include large sections
of residential ly-zoned land (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5), areas
zoned for commercial use (C-1, C-2 and C-3) and areas zoned for
industrial use (M-2). All portions of Subarea C1 are adequately
served by public utilities including storm and sanitary sewers, gas
and water lines and streets and highways.

Because Subarea C1 is an upland area, land use and development
activities within it do not have an immediate or significant impact
on the shorezone. The subarea has a definite urban character and
provides little if any physical or visual access to the river. The
city considers Subarea C1 to be stable in terms of its present land
uses and does not anticipate any significant changes in the area's
development patterns. The city does not anticipate rezoning any
areas within Subarea C1 as a result of the adoption of the LWRP.

Subarea C1 contains two geographic subzones that will be utilized
later to delineate specific land use recommendations. These
subzones include:

(C-1-A) Lake Avenue/Stutson Street area;

(C-1-B) Remainder of the upland area.

D. Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the Upland Area

LWRP Subarea C2 includes the buildable or undeveloped portion of the
upland area within the LWRP boundary. This subarea includes two
sites where new development is currently underway. The first site
is located just north of Riverside Cemetery and west of Turning

IV-12

Point Park, within an existing residential area that extends from
Boxart Street to Burley Road. The new development in this area
includes 56 single-family residential units constructed within three
new cul-de-sacs and on infill lots. In addition, small areas within
the subdivision were retained and zoned as permanent open space.
The developers are currently completing phase III of the plan. This
subdivision is adjacent to a new pedestrian trail which will provide
access into Turning Point Park from the south.

The second developable site within Subarea C2 is the former St.
Bernard's Seminary located on the east side of Lake Avenue, between
Riverside Cemetery and the Kodak Research Laboratories. Eastman
Kodak Company has purchased this land which has been rezoned to a
Manufacturing-Industrial Planned Development District (M-IPD). This
zoning district permits the development of typical manufacturing or
industrial facilities and allows flexible planning and design
standards. Eastman Kodak will develop the existing Seminary
building into a industrial research facility that preserves the
architectural and historic integrity of the structure and grounds.
Kodak may also construct new buildings on the site, to be located to
the north and/or south of the Seminary building, in existing open
space areas. The city will ensure, through existing site -plan and
environmental review procedures, that redevelopment of the building
and grounds and construction of new buildings on the site are
undertaken in a manner which preserves and enhances the aesthetic
and historic qualities of the area.

The city recognizes that Subarea C2 contains developable or
underutilized land. Development activities proposed for this area,
however, have been clearly defined and will be reviewed and
regulated using existing zoning and environmental controls. It is
not anticipated that these land uses will have a direct or
significant impact on the waterfront area. When the proposed
development activities outlined above are completed, the city will
consider Subarea C1 to be stable in terms of its existing land uses
and would not anticipate any significant changes in the area's
development patterns in the foreseeable future. The city does not
anticipate rezoning any additional areas within Subarea C2 as a
result of thd adoption of the LWRP.

Subarea C2 contains two geographic subzones that will be utilized
later to delineate specific land use recommendations. These
subzones include:

(C-2-A) Boxart Street Burley Road Area;

(C-2-B) Eastman Kodak St. Bernard's Seminary.

IV-13

E. Subarea D - River Harbor Zone and Lakefront Area

LWRP Subarea D contains the river harbor zone at the mouth of the
river, and lakefront areas adjacent to Ontario Beach Park and along
Beach Avenue. This subarea is characterized by extensive
water-related recreational and commercial activity and includes two
major undeveloped or underutilized sites that together form the
focus of the city's diverse waterfront areas.

The river harbor zone within Subarea D extends from the mouth of the
Genesee River on Lake Ontario, to the southern end of existing
marina development on the river, near Denise Road. Thi s zone
includes: the Summerville area and U.S. Coast Guard Station on the
east bank of the river near Lake Ontario; extensive private marina
development also located on the east bank of the river, north of
Stutson Street; the Port Authority site and River Street site
located on the west bank of the river, north of Stutson Street; and,
additional private marina development located on the west bank of
the river, south of Stutson Street in the vicinity of Petten Street.
The vast majority of this area is zoned as a River-Harbor (R-H)
District. The River Street site contains a small amount of land
zoned as a manufacturing (M-1) district.

The 22 acre Port Authority site includes 2 abandoned warehouse
structures, a 4-ramp boat launch facility constructed and operated
by Monroe County, and a large parking area. The port site is owned
by the city with the exception of the existing boat launch facility
which is owned by the County. The entire area is zoned as a
River-Harbor (R-H) District. Access to the port site is obtained
via Lake Avenue and Beach Avenue. Development constraints on the
site include the possible need to realign the sanitary sewers in the
area, soil types with bearing capacities that limit the height of
buildings that can be constructed on the site, and the existing
warehouses which limit views of the river.

The River Street site, located to the south of the port site and
immediately adjacent to the river, has a unique neighborhood
character that results from its topography and relative seclusion,
its architecture, as well as the many small bars, restaurants 'and
commercial establishments found in the area. The site also includes
an abandoned railroad station that has significant development
potential. In addition, the site is located adjacent to the Genesee
Lighthouse which is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. The city owns the land immediately adjacent to the west
bank of the river, from an area near the Pelican Bay Marina on the
north, to an area just south of the Stutson Street Bridge. These
land holdings include the abandoned railroad station. Development
constraints on the River Street site include the location of a sewer
pumping station and RG&E substation in the area, the disection of
the site by the Conrail tracks, the lack of adequate parking, and
the design and condition of River Street itself.

IV-14

The lakefront zone within Subarea D extends from the river west
along Lake Ontario to the city line near Greeenleaf Road. This zone
includes Ontario Beach Park which is located on the lake at the
mouth of the river, as well as existing lakefront residential
development located on the north side of Beach Avenue, to the west
of the park.

Ontario Beach Park contains 39 acres and is currently undergoing
extensive redevelopment and reconstruction. The park features one
of the best natural sand beaches on Lake Ontario. The park is
accessed from Lake Avenue and Beach Avenue. Recreational uses in
the park include the beach and bathhouse, supervised swimming, a
soccer field, 2 softball fields, an outdoor ice-skating rink, 6
picnic pavilions, an outdoor, performance pavilion and various
concession stands. An antique Dentzel carousel which has been
designated as a Rochester Historic Landmark is located at the
eastern end of the park. The park is zoned as an Open Space (OS)
District and is leased to Monroe County which is responsible for its
operation and maintenance.

Monroe County, in cooperation with the city, has developed a master
plan for the redevelopment of Ontario Beach Park. The master plan
proposes the rehabilitation of the bathhouse and several existing
picnic pavilions, construction of a new performance pavilion and
beach boardwalk, as well as new. landscaping, parking areas and
pedestrian circulation paths. The city supports the recommendations
contained in the plan and, through the plan review process, has
ensured that redevelopment of the park is coordinated with the
development of the port site to the south.

The city has prepared a comprehensive development plan for the port
site that proposes the establishment of a marina, festival area,
aquarium, or waterfront discovery center/museum adjacent to the
river. The plan utilizes the two existing warehouses on the site.
The plan maintains the county boat launch facility in its present
location and expands its parking area. The city has also prepared
a plan for the redevelopment of the river harbor area which includes
River Street, the Lake Avenue corridor north of the Lake Ontario
Parkway, and the area between Lake Avenue and River Street, north of
Stutson Street. This plan includes construction of boat slips and
a pedestrian walkway along the river, development of open space
areas and picnic shelters along the river, redevelopment of the
railroad station into a riverside restaurant, construction of
additional parking areas, and development of new housing in two
specific areas.

The city recognizes that LWRP Subarea D, which includes the Port
Authority site and the River Street site, represents a significant
opportunity to develop or enhance water-related recreational and
commercial uses adjacent to the lake and river. These uses could
include boating, fishing, passive recreation activities such as
walking, hiking and biking, as well as marine-related stores, shops,
bars and restaurants. Major special events such as fishing derbies,

IV-15

water sports activities and concerts could also be included in the
development program. Subarea D is the only area within the city's
LWRP where greater public access to and use of the river and lake
could be provided, and where the local economy could be stimulated
through the development of uses which must be located on or near the
water in order to prosper. The city considers Subarea D to be its
prime opportunity site and the one which requires the most city
involvement to ensure that appropriate redevelopment occurs in a
manner which will realize the area's full potential.

Subarea D contains eleven geographic subzones that will be utilized
later to delineate specific land use recommendations. These
subzones include:

(DI) Beach Avenue residential area;

(D2) Ontario Beach Park;

(0) Lake Avenue / Estes Street area;

(N) Port Authority Site;

(D5) River Street Site;

(D6) Lake Avenue commercial area;

(W) Petten Street area;

(D8) Marina area;

(D9) Summerville area;

(DIO) Railroad to Stutson Street (east bank of river);

(D11) Stutson Street to Rattlesnake Point (east bank of river).

F. Subarea E - Industrial Areas

LWRP Subarea E contains three sites that are zoned and used for
industrial activities. The first site is located at the end of
Boxart Street, adjacent to Turning Point Park. The site is utilized
by the Portland Cement Company. The company receives shipments of
cement from special cargo ships which sail up the Genesee River from
Lake Ontario, to a small docking area located along the east bank of
the river, within Turning Point Park. The cement is then piped to
a processing facility located a short distance away, within an M-1
Manufacturing District. The land which is used for the docking area
and the pipe system for the cement is in Turning Point Park and is
owned by the city. This use is water-dependent although the site is
not located immediately adjacent to the river. Access to the river
for the site is controlled by the city.

IV-16

The second site is located on the east bank of the river, just north
of Maplewood Park. The site is owned by Eastman Kodak Company and
is used for an industrial waste treatment facility that services
manufacturing operations located in Kodak Park to the west. The
site is zoned as an M-1 Manufacturing District and is accessed via
Hanford Landing and Maplewood Drive. The treatment pl ant is a
water-dependent use which is located adjacent to the river, within
the gorge. In addition to the treatment facility, this portion of
Subarea E includes the Kodak Park manufacturing facility located
west of Lake Avenue and north of Ridge Road West. This area
includes an array of buildings and facilities where Kodak manufac-
tures such products as photographic film, paper, chemicals and other
supplies. Kodak's Research Laboratories are also located in this
general area. Kodak Park is zoned as an M-2 Manufacturing District.

The third site within LWRP Subarea E is located on the west bank of
the river, just south of the Driving Park Bridge. The site is owned
by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) and is used for the
Station 5 hydroelectric power plant. This plant generates electri-
city using hydropower produced by the Middle Falls Dam. Water is
diverted from the dam and piped via a tunnel to the power plant.
Access to the plant is from Seth Green Drive to the north. The area
around the plant, adjacent to the river, provides exceptional
fishing opportunities. Public access to this area, however, is not
well-developed and is controlled by RUE. The site is zoned as an
M-1 Manufacturing District.

An additional site zoned for manufacturing use contained in Subarea
E is located at the top of the west bank of the Genesee River, at
the end of Glenwood Avenue. This site is currently being used for
a mechanic's laundry.

Two smaller manufacturing facilities are located within the LWRP
boundary but outside of the three sites outlined above. These
facilities include the Tape-Con Company, located on River Street at
Latta Road, and Weyerhauser, located on Boxart Street. The
Weyerhauser facility includes several other smaller manufacturing
companies.

The city considers Subarea E to be stable in terms of its present
land uses and does not anticipate any significant changes in the
area's development patterns. The city does not anticipate rezoning
any areas within Subarea E as a result of the adoption of the LWRP.
The water-dependent, industrial uses which are currently located in
this subarea are expected to remain for the forseeable future.
Should expansions or modifications to the existing industrial land
uses be proposed, the city will review those proposals in terms of
the policy goals and statements contained in the LWRP, using
existing site plan and environmental review procedures. Should
changes in land use be proposed for these areas at some point in the
future, the city will ensure that such uses take advantage of their
waterfront locations and are appropriate in terms of overall
shorezone development priorities.

IV-17

Subarea E contains five geographic subzones that will be utilized
later to delineate specific land use recommendations. These
subzones include:

(EI) Portland Cement Company;

(E2) Kodak Park;

(B) RGH Station 5 Power Plant;

(R) Tape-Con;

(E5) Weyerhauser.

4. RECOMMENDED LAW USES FOR EACH LVRP SUBAREA

A. Introduction

In order to aid city staff in the preparation of development
objectives for the waterfront area, as well as to help develop the
specific recommendations of the land use plan, an LWRP Citizen's
Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed. This group met on a regular
basis with city staff over a period of several years. The group
analyzed the LWRP subareas in terms of the appropriate LWRP policy
goals and statements outlined in SECTION 111, in order to develop
appropriate land use recommendations for each of those areas. These
recommenda-tions included both water-dependent and water-enhanced
recreation, commercial and open space uses.

The CAC developed generalized land use needs and objectives for the
various subareas within the city's LWRP. These land use objectives
were based on a review and analysis of the city's LWRP policies and
included the following:

Environmentally-sensitive or unique areas of special concern
within the LWRP boundary should be preserved and enhanced.
These areas included such natural features as steep wooded
slopes, watercourses, floodplains, erosion-hazard areas,
beaches, bluffs, scenic views and vistas, fish and wildlife
habitats, and architecturally or historically significant
sites.

Appropriate water-dependent uses and activities should be
developed in the shorezone that take advantage of their
waterfront location, enhance the visual and aesthetic
qualities of the waterfront, and contribute to the economic
development of the city.

Appropriate water-enhanced or water-dependent recreational
uses and activities should be developed along the lake and
river that take advantage of their waterfront location
enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the waterfront: 40

IV-18

and increase the type and variety of recreational
opportunities available. These uses or activities included
marinas, boat-docks and slips, boat launching ramps, public
walkways, picnic and other open space areas, fishing and
swimming areas, other more passive recreational activities,
and marine-related commercial uses.

Existing and stable residential, commercial and industrial
areas should be protected and enhanced.

The Port Authority site and the River Street site should be
recognized and treated as unique development opportunities
within the waterfront area.

A mixed-use, water-oriented maritime/waterfront center should
be developed on the port site, that takes maximum advantage of
its waterfront location, enhances the ambience of the
shorezone, provides public access to the waterfront, and
increases public recreational opportuntities.

A mix of water-oriented uses' and activities should be
developed on the River Street site and within the river harbor
area in general, that takes maximum advantage of their
waterfront location, enhances the unique neighborhood and
maritime ambience and history of the area, provides public
access to the river, increases public recreational
opportuntities, and rehabilitates existing structures as much
as possible.

Having developed a generalized set of land use goals or objectives
to be implemented within the LWRP boundary through specific land use
recommendations for each subarea, the CAC reviewed the specific LWRP
policies in terms of their relevancy to each subarea. The LWRP
policies were grouped into three broad categories and were
then evaluated against each subarea to determine whether and how
each policy should be considered when determining specific land use
recommendations for the six subareas. The results of this
evaluation process are contained in TABLE IV-1 on pages IV-21 and
IV-22. In developing the land use recommendations for the six LWRP
Subareas, the committee also reviewed and considered the existing
land use controls that are in place within the City of Rochester's
LWRP boundary.

The LWRP policy evaluation for each subarea indicated those policy
goals and statements that the committee considered important and
relevant for the various geographical areas within the LWRP
boundary. This evaluation also led to discussions regarding how
each policy should be implemented or addressed in the proposed land
use plan. Specific land use recommendations were then developed for
each subarea from a wide range of potential uses or activities.

IV-19

TABLE IV-1

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF LWRP POLICY EVALUATIONS BY SUBAREA
(key on page IV-22)

LV*1RP SUBAREAS
LViRP POLJCIES BY GE3111311AL CATEGORY (see text for subarea description)

PRON110TE COASTAL USES C2 D

IRevitalize waterfront areas x x

2Facilitate dependent us" x x x x

4Redevelop existing built environment x x

5Encourage development near public services

23 Protect historic structures

9Expand access/recreational use x x x

19 Protect public access to water-oriented recreation x x x

20 Provide public access to shore x x x x

21 Encourage water-oriented recreation

22 Develop recreation as multl-use

27 Develop energy resources + + +

6Expedite permit procedures

PROTECT COASTAL RESOURCES A 8 C11 C2 D E

7Protect fish/wIldiffe habitats

8Control hazardous wastes

4Promote traditional character of harbor areas x x

24 Protect scenic areas

12 Protect dunes and natural protective features

44 Protect wetland areas x x

27 Site energy facilities In appropriate locations + + + + +

31 Consider coastal policies In reviewing water
classifications

33 Use best management practices to control runoff

40 Control effluent discharge

41 Maintain air quality standards + + + +

42 Reclassify land based on Clean Air Act + 4 +

43 Prevent acid rain generators + + +

2S Protect scenic resources x x x x x

IV-20

TABLE IV-1

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF LWRP POLICY EVALUATIONS BY SUBAREA
(continued)

LWRP SUBAREAS
LURP POLICIES BY GENERAL CATEGORY (see text for subarea description)

REGULATE MAJOR CORSTAL ACTIVITIES A E

39 Manage solid wastes * *

15 Control dredging, mining and excavations 4:

11 Control construction in erosion hazard areas

13 Regulate erosion protection structures

14 Prevent erosion and flooding

16 Use of pubtic funds for erosion control

17 Use non-structural flood and erosion protection

18 Review major coastal activities X X X

KEY: X = very relevant poti@y; relevant poLicy; + less relevant potic

Blank: = not a relevant s)oLicv

Based on the LWRP policy evaluations, as well as general land
characteristics and development constraints found within the LWRP
boundary, a range of potential land uses or activities that was
considered appropriate within the subareas was developed by the
committee and included:

Marinas;

Public walkways, promenades, pedestrian paths,
hiking and biking trails, bridal paths;

Swimming areas and beaches;

Boat launches and boat ramps;

Boat docks and slips, finger piers, T-piers;

Fishing areas;.

Water-rel ated retai I support f aci 1 i ti es (bai t and
tackle shops, fishing/boating supply stores,
etc.);

Hotels, boatels, bed and breakfast operations;

Industrial or municipal waste treatment
facilities;

IV-21

Power generating facilities;

Shipping facilities;

Museums (waterfront-related museum facilities,
interpretive centers, historic displays, historic
landmarks, etc.);

Picnicking areas and open space areas;

Parking;

General retail facilities including stores and
restaurants;

Office research facilities and laboratories;

Manufacturing facilities;

Housing at various densities;

Field sports (softball, soccer, etc.);

Waterfront access for cartop boats and canoes;

Zoo;

Outdoor entertainment facilities (gazebos,
bandshells, performance pavilions, etc.);

Festival site (water-oriented, mixed-use
entertainment area with associated commercial
uses);

Spectator site for off-shore events or
activities.

In addition to an identification of the range of appropriate land
uses to be considered for the LWRP Subareas, the CAC established
whether or not each potential use was water -dependent, water-
enhanced or unrelated to the water, in each subarea and subzone.

In order to determine which specific land uses from the above list
were appropriate for each subarea, a rating sheet and rating
criteria were developed by city staff and distributed to committee
members. The rating sheet listed all potential uses for each
subarea and subzone, noted the type of relationship the use had with
the water, and listed the rating categories and scores to be used.
Committee members were asked to evaluate and score each subzone
within the six LWRP subareas in terms of how well a particular use
located in that area would satisfy the following criteria:

IV-22

The particular use in the proposed location
PROMOTED COASTAL USES (addressed the applicable
LWRP Policies as determined by the committee).

The particular use in the proposed location
PROTECTED COASTAL RESOURCES (addressed the
applicable LWRP Policies as determined by the
committee).

The particular use in the proposed location
'SUPPORTED ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (addressed
economic costs and benefits as determined by the
committee).

The particular use in the proposed location
SUPPORTED EXISTING OR PROPOSED WATERFRONT
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES (addressed other applicable
policies contained within existing or proposed
master plans, comprehensive development plans,
etc., as determined by the committee).

The rating process consisted of an evaluation, by each committee
member, of the appropriateness of a particular use in a given
subzone,'based on how well that use satisfied each of the criteria
I i sted above. For exampl e, commi ttee members were asked to eval uate
the appropriateness of a marina located at the Durand-Eastman Park
shorel i ne, based on how wel I that use i n that 1 ocati on woul d promote
coastal uses, protect coastal resources, support economic
considerations and support existing or proposed waterfront policy.
Committee ratings were based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 equalled
a superior score.

Using a computerized statistical analysis program, committee ratings
for each use in each subzone were analyzed to determine average
committee scores, as well as the high and low score given for each
criteria. Results from the computer analysis were then reviewed to
determine which of the uses that were ranked the highest by the
committee were actually appropriate and desirable for each subzone.
This review was based on the following additional considerations:

Was the proposed use realistic in terms of
current land use patterns, development trends and
projected needs in the proposed location?;

Was the proposed use appropriate in terms of its
relationship to the physical features, environmental
constraints, and other determinants of the suitability of land
for development at the proposed location?;

Did the proposed use concentrate development in a
location that includes adequate public
infrastructure and services?;

IV-23

Did the proposed use in the proposed location
allocate adequate space for existing and future
water-dependent uses and reduce or avoid
conflicts between water-dependent and
non-water-dependent uses?;

Did the proposed use in the proposed location
help maintain or increase public access to the
shoreline?;

Did the proposed use in the proposed location
minimize, reduce or eliminate the potential for
I oss of human 1 i fe and property damage as a
result of erosion and flooding?;

Did the proposed use in the proposed location
help to protect or enhance important natural,
historic, cultural or scenic resources?

Based on a comprehensive review of the rating scores and further
discussions of the criteria and other considerations mentioned above
for each use in each location, the committee developed a list of
proposed land uses for each of the 29 subzones within the LWRP
subareas. This list represents the basic elements of the proposed
land use plan for the city's LWRP. It shoul d be noted that the
I i sts of recommended I and uses for the LWRP subareas do not
represent a priority ranking of those land uses for that particular
zone, but merely a generalized listing of appropriate types of
development for the area, as determined by the committee.

B. Subarea A - Durand-Eastman Park

Within LWRP Subarea A (Durand-Eastman Park), the following land uses
are recommended to be promoted, encouraged and developed:

LWRP SUBAREA A: DUIRAND-EASTNAN PARK
RECOMMENDED LAND USES

GEOGRAPHIC SUBZONE RECOMMENDED LAND USES

(Al) Durand-Eastman Park Shoreline Public walkway
Swimming areas
Fishing areas
Picnicking areas
Parking
Cartop boat access
Spectator site for off-shore events

(A2) Remainder of Durand-Eastman Park Public walkway
IV-24 Fishing areas

Treatment facilities
Picnicking areas
Parking
Field sports
Outdoor entertainment
Bridal paths

The land uses recommended for LWRP Subarea A (Durand-Eastman Park)
promote waterfront recreational opportunities, promote public access
to the shorezone, preserve or enhance sensitive environmental areas
and natural features, and do not conflict with existing land uses,
development patterns or zoning classifications. These land uses can
be encouraged and developed through the implementation of the
Durand-Eastman Park Master Plan, currently being prepared by Monroe
County, in cooperation with the city. Treatment facilities are
listed as an appropriate use within the major portion of Durand-
Eastman Park because of the presence of the existing VanLare
Treatment Plant in the park and the realization that this land use
will remain in this location for the forseeable future.

C. Subarea B - Open Space / Critical Environmental Areas

Within LWRP Subarea B (Open Space / Critical Environmental Areas),
the following land uses are recommended to be promoted, encouraged
and developed:

LWRP SUBAREA 8: OPEN SPACE / CRITICAL ENVIRONNE)ITAL AREAS
RECOMMENDED LAND USES

GEOGRAPHIC SUBZONE RECOMMENDED LAND USES

(Bl) Turning Point Park Public walkway
Fishing areas
Picnicking areas
Parking
Cartop boat access

(B2) Seneca Park Public walkway
Swimming areas
Fishing areas
Picnicking areas
Parking
Zoo
Outdoor entertainment

(B3) Maplewood Park Public walkway
Fishing areas
Picnicking areas
Parking
Outdoor entertainment

IV-25

(B4) Lower Falls Park Public walkway
Museum (historic/interpretive center)
Picnicking areas

(B5) Seth Green area Public walkway
Fishing areas
Parking
Cartop boat access

(B6) Rattlesnake Point area Public walkway
Fishing areas
Picnicking areas
Parking

(B7) Riverside and Holy Sepulchre Public walkway
Cemeteries Parking

Land uses recommended for LWRP Subarea B (Open Space Critical
Environmental Areas) recognize that this area should remain
undeveloped, but that public access to and through the area should
be improved. The recommended land uses promote waterfront recrea-
tion, preserve or enhance sensitive environmental areas and natural
features, do not conflict with existing land uses patterns, and
promote public access to the shorezone. These uses can be developed
through implementation of the park master plans being prepared by
Monroe County and the city. Development proposed within Turning
Point and Lower Falls Park will be undertaken by the city. The
proposed land uses for this subarea are permitted and regulated by
the Open Space (OS) Zoning District which covers most of this area.

The proposed land uses recommended for Subarea B also address
several of the goals and objectives of the Lower Genesee River Land
Use Plan which was reviewed and adopted by the Rochester City
Council in 1979. These goals and objectives include the development
of public physical and visual access to the river gorge, development
of passive recreational opportunities on the river, and preservation
of sensitive environmental features.

D. Subarea C1 - Developed portion of the Upland Area

Within LWRP Subarea C1 (developed portion of the Upland Area), the
following land uses are recommended to be promoted, encouraged and
developed:

LWRP SUBAREA Cl: DEVELOPED PORTION OF THE UPLAND AREA
RECOMMENDED LAND USES

GEOGRAPHIC SUBZONE RECOMMENDED LAND USES

(C-1-A) Lake Avenue/Stutson Street Area Public walkway

IV-26

Marine-related retail support
facilities
Hotel
Parking
General retail facilities, including
restaurants.
Office research facilities
Housing

(C-1-B) Remainder of the Upland Area Public walkway
Hotel
Parking
General retail facilities, including
restaurants
Housing

Committee recommendations for LWRP Subarea C1 (developed portion of
the Upland Area) promote land uses that are compatible with and
enhance well-established development patterns in the upland area of
the LWRP boundary. The recommended land uses are also compatible
with existing zoning classifications. Although specific sites or
locations for each of the recommended uses for this subarea have not
been established or identified, they can be accommodated by existing
city zoning regulations and site plan and environmental review
procedures. Proposed water-related commercial support facilities,
such as bait and tackle shops or boating and fishing supply stores,
along with retail establishments, were recommended within the Lake
Avenue/Stutson Street Subzone to help restore the economic viability
of that area, and link it to the multi-use waterfront development
projects proposed for the Port Authority and River Street sites.

E. Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the Upland Area

Within LWRP Subarea C2 (buildable portion of the Upland Area), the
following land uses are recommended to be promoted, encouraged and
developed:

LWRP SUBAREA C2: BUILDABLE PORTION OF THE UPLAND AREA
RECOMMENDED LAND USES

GEOGRAPHIC SUBZONE RECOMMENDED LAND USES

(C-2-A) Boxart Street/Burley Road Area Public walkway
Housing

(C-2-B) Eastman Kodak/St. Bernard's Parking
Seminary Office research facilities
Manufacturing facilities

Committee recommendations for LWRP Subarea C2 (buildable portion of
the Upland Area) promote land uses and facilities that are

IV-27

compatible with and enhance existing, well-established development
patterns in this area. The recommended land uses are also
compatible with existing zoning classifications. Any proposals to
construct new facilities or rehabilitate existing buildings at the
Eastman Kodak Company research laboratories at St. Bernard's
Semi nary wi 11 be revi ewed under exi sti ng s i te pl an and envi ronmental
review procedures and will conform with existing zoning regulations
and historic preservation requirements.

F. Subarea D - River Harbor Zone and Lakefront Area

Within LWRP Subarea D (River Harbor Zone and Lakefront Area), the
following land uses are recommended to be promoted, encouraged and
developed:

LWRP SUBAREA D: RIVER HARBOR ZONE AND LAKEFRONT AREA
RECOMMENDED LAND USES

GEOGRAPHIC SUBZONE RECOMMENDED LAND USES

(DI) Beach Avenue residential area Public walkway
Housing

(D2) Ontario Beach Park Public walkway
Swimming areas
Fishing areas
Water-related retail support
facilities
Museum
Picnicking areas
Outdoor entertainment
Festival site

(D3) Lake Avenue Estes Street area Public walkway
Water-related retail support
facilities
Parking
General retail facilities, including
restaurants
Housing
Field sports

(D4) Port Authority site Marina
Public walkway
Boat docks
Boat launch
Fishing areas
Museum/Aquarium (Waterfront
Discovery Center)
Water-related retail support
facilities
IV-28 Picnicking areas

Parki ng
Outdoor entertainment
Festival Site
Boatel

(D5) River Street site Marina
Public walkway
Boat docks
Fishing areas
Water-related retail support
facilities
Hotel
Parking
Housing
Outdoor entertainment

(N) Lake Avenue commercial area Public walkway
Water-related retail support
facilities
Hotel
Museum (Genesee Lighthouse)
Parking
General retail facilities, including
restaurants
Outdoor entertainment
Housing

(D7) Petten Street area Marina
Public walkway
Boat docks
Fishing areas
Water-related retail support
facilities
Parking
Housing

(N) Marina area Marina
Public walkway
Boat docks
Fishing areas
Parking
Cartop boat access

(09) Summerville area Public walkway
Swimming areas
Fishing areas
Water-related retail support
facilities
Parking
Outdoor entertainment
Marina
Boat docks

IV-29

Housing

(DIO) Railroad to Stutson Street Marina
(east bank of river) Public walkway
Boat docks
Water-related retail support
facilities
Hotel/Boatel
Parking
Boat launch
Housing

(D11) Stutson Street to Rattlesnake Point
(east bank of river) Marina
Public walkway
Boat launch
Boat docks
Fishing areas
Parking
Water-related retail support
facilities
Housing

The land uses recommended for LWRP Subarea 0 (River Harbor Zone
and Lakefront Area) promote waterfront recreation, preserve or
enhance scenic views and vistas and other sensitive or unique
environmental areas, increase public access to the waterfront, and
do not conflict with existing land uses or development patterns.
The recommended land uses also help create a focus for waterfront
development and activity within the city's LWRP boundary. Many of
the uses can be developed through implementation of the Ontario
Beach Park Master Plan prepared by Monroe County, and the
comprehensive development plans prepared by the city for the Port
Authority and River Street sites. The land uses recommended by
the committee for this subarea take advantage of the unique
development potential and recreational opportunities within the
shorezone on the lake and at the mouth of the river.

The vast majority of land uses proposed for this subarea do not
conflict with and are permitted and regulated by the existing
River Harbor (R-H) and Open Space (OS) Zoning Districts which
cover most of this area. The city undertook, however, as a part
of the completion of LWRP SECTION V: IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES, an
analysis of the existing River-Harbor Zoning District regulations
and site plan review procedures to determine if they were adequate
to address all of the land use, site plan, design and
environmental considera-tions of the committee's land use
recommendations. The results of that analysis are contained in
SECTION V.

The land uses recommended for Subarea D also address several of
the goals and objectives of the Lower Genesee River Land Use Plan

IV-30

which was adopted by the Rochester City Council in 1979. These
goals and objectives include the development of public physical
and visual access to the river gorge, development of passive
recreational opportunities on the river, and preservation of
sensitive environmental features.

G. Subarea E - Industrial Areas

Within LWRP Subarea E (Industrial Areas), the following land uses
are recommended to be promoted, encouraged and developed:

LWRP SUBAREA E: INDUSTRIAL AREAS
RECOMMENDED LAND USES

GEOGRAPHIC SUBZONE RECOMMENDED LAND USES

(EI) Portland Cement Company Public walkway
Fishing areas
Shipping
Parking
Manufacturing facilities

(E2) Kodak Park Public walkway
Treatment facilities
Parking
Office research facilities
Manufacturing facilities

(E3) RG&E Station 5 Power Plant Public walkway
Fishing areas
Power generating facilities
Parking

(E4) Tape-Con Site Water related retail support
facilities
Hotel/Bed and Breakfast Inn
Parking
Manufacturing facilities
Housing

(E5) Weyerhauser Parking
Manufacturing facilities

Committee recommendations for LWRP Subarea E (Industrial Areas)
promote land uses and certain waterfront recreational activities
that are compatible with and enhance well-established development
in this portion of the LWRP boundary. The recommended land uses
are also compatible with existing zoning classifications. Much of
Subarea E is zoned for manufacturing or industrial use which
permits virtually all of the land uses listed above for this area.

IV-31

Although specific sites or locations for several of the recommended
uses for this subarea have not been established or identified, they
can be accommodated by existing city zoning regulations as well as
site plan and environmental review procedures. Devel opment of
fishing areas and passive recreational opportunities along the river
will be promoted and encouraged by the city and could be implemented
through negotiations with various private industries or land owners.
Potential future redevelopment of the Tape-Con Site would proceed
based on the recommendations for this area contained in the River
Harbor Plan outlined later in this Section. The city considers the
development of improved fishing access and facilities at the RUE
Station 5 Power Plant and at the Portland Cement Company to be
particularly important. Expansions of, or modifications to,
existing industrial facilities or changes in use proposed for these
areas will be reviewed by the city based on the LWRP policy
statements and land use recommendations outlined in this Section.

5. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS WITHIN THE LWRP

A. Introduction

As noted earlier, the city has developed and proposed several major
projects within the LWRP boundary which are designed to address and
implement many of the LWRP policies outlined in SECTION 111, as well
as the specific land use recommendations contained in this Section.
These project proposals represent a significant amount of
investigation, research, evaluation and planning on the part of city
staff and the CAC. The projects which are proposed as part of the
city's LWRP include:

Development of a mixed-use, waterfront center
festival site at the Port Authority site, along
with enhancement of existing water-oriented
recreational activities, commercial facilities
and public access along the river and within
Ontario Beach Park.

Development of a mixed-use waterfront district
within the River Street site, to include
enhancement of water-oriented recreational
activities and public access along the river,
development of new housing, and rehabilitation of
existing commercial facilities in the area.

Development, in cooperation with Monroe County,
of a boat launch facility, as well as adjacent
public access and water-related recreational
activities along the east bank of the river, just
south of the Stutson Street Bridge.

IV-32

Implementation, in cooperation with Monroe
County, of improvements in Durand-Eastman Park,
Ontario Beach Park, Turning Point, Park, Seneca
Park, Maplewood Park, and Lower Falls Park.
Specific projects will include improvements in
public access to the shorezone, enhancement of
existing water-oriented recreational facilities,
and development of new water-oriented
recreational facilities.

B. Development of the Port Authority Site

The city, in conjunction with a team of planning consultants,
investigated the land use potential and development constraints of
the Port Authority site located along the west bank of the Genesee
River, near Lake Ontario. The city recognized that this site
offered a unique opportunity to develop a focus for the city's
waterfront areas that could attract visitors and tourists from
Rochester as well as from outside the metropolitan area. The site
could provide increased public access to the waterfront along with
a wide variety of water-oriented recreational activities and uses if
developed properly.

Existing uses on the site include 2 abandoned warehouses, a large
parking area, and a boat launch facility with 4 ramps located on
land owned by Monroe County at the southern end of the site. The
port site is immediately adjacent to a strip-commercial area along
Lake Avenue, to the west.

An extensive housing and boating market analysis was conducted as
part of the original planning process. This information was
included in the consultant's final report entitled Rochester Port
and River Street Area Land/Use Marketability Study. The study
revealed that:

There was significant unmet demand for boat slips
in the Rochester Harbor area, and for visitor
boat slips in all

areas along the south shore of Lake Ontario from Oak Orchard
to Fair Haven;

There was sufficient demand for upper-income
housing within the Rochester area to support
development of up to 100 new housing units on the
port site; and

There was sufficient market demand within the
Rochester metropolitan area to support the
development of a festival retail center
containing up to 75,000 square feet of space on
the port site.

IV-33

An initial plan for the Port Authority site was prepared based on
this information as well as a detailed inventory and analysis of
land use characteristics and development constraints in the area.
This plan proposed the development of a public marina containing
180-200 boat slips, 100 units of for-sale housing, and a 60,000 -
75,000 square foot festival retail center on the port site, as well
as relocation of the County boat launch to another area, and
construction of 2000 parking spaces on land located west of Lake
Avenue.

The development plan was reviewed by city staff, the CAC and members
of the public. After a careful analysis of the information and
statistics used to develop the plan, and consideration of comments
from the committee, a panel of developers, and several citizens
concerning the various aspects of the proposal, several key issues
or concerns surfaced including:

Almost unanimous public opposition to the
construction of housing on the port site because
of a desire to maintain a public and not a
private waterfront area;

Questions regarding whether or not local retail
market conditions could actually generate enough
year-round sales volume to support a 75,000
square foot festival retail center on the site;

Concerns regarding the environmental and
neighborhood impacts- of relocating a large
parking area for the proposed port site and beach
facilities to an open area to the west of Ruggles
Street, which is currently used as recreational
open space; and

Concerns regarding the cost and desireability of
relocating the existing county boat launch to
another site, and the inability to identify an
acceptable relocation site.

In an effort to address these problems and concerns, city staff
prepared three additional development scenarios for the port site.
City staff and the CAC agreed that the objectives that were to be
achieved in any new port plan should include:

Promotion of tourism through the development of
facilities focused on water-oriented recreation
and water-enhanced special events, rather than
through the creation of a major new festival
retail marketplace;

IV-34

Elimination of Potential environmental and
neighborhood impacts on residential areas located
to the west of the port site by greatly reducing
the number of parking spaces to be relocated from
the site to the baseball fields;

Development of increased public access to and use
of the waterfront and promotion of water-enhanced
recreation through the maintenance of the
existing county boat launch on the port site,
expansion of launch parking facilities, and
location of any new housing units off of the
site;

Preservation and enhancement of scenic views and
vistas of Lake Ontario and the Genesee River;

Restoration and utilization of significant
historical structures located in the port area
including the carousel, bathhouse and Port
Authority warehouse;

Development of a dramatic entranceway or focal
point at the Lake Avenue and Beach Avenue
intersection, in order to- create a sense of
arrival at a significant waterfront destination;
and

Incorporation of access for public transportation
to and through the development site.

After an evaluation of the additional development options prepared
for the port site, city staff and members of the CAC agreed on a new
conceptual design plan for the area. It was al so agreed that
planning for and development of the Port Authority site should be
coordinated and integrated with similar activities underway for the
River Street site to the south and Ontario Beach Park to the north.
This approach would encourag'e the development of the beach and
riverfront area as a single, unified waterfront facility and major
recreational destination, and would help link many activities and
uses within the harbor area.

The new concept plan for the Port Authority site envisions
facilities that are focused around various water-related events and
activities. The plan includes the development of a small 75-slip
marina on the site that would provide accommodation for visitors
from other ports on Lake Ontario, dock space for tour and charter
boats, and would serve as the focal point for water-related events
such as the annual Trout and Salmon Derby and boat races.

The concept plan proposes that the existing 4-lane public boat
launch remain on property owned by Monroe County in the southern

IV-35

portion of the site, and that the boat launch parking area be
upgraded to provide spaces for 47 cars and 107 cars with trailers.
In addition, the plan proposes that the Port Authority (northern)
warehouse on the site be redeveloped for such potential uses as a
maritime museum, fishery center or aquarium, that could 'include a
restaurant or food service facility.

The concept plan includes a large, landscaped parking area within
the port site for visitors to Ontario Beach Park and the other site
facilities. Permanent parking spaces would be maintained in the
area south of Beach Avenue, west of Lake Avenue and east of Estes
Street. As facilities and activities are developed at Ontario Beach
Park and the port site, the parking supply and demand situation
would be closely monitored by the city.

If additional parking became necessary, the city would investigate
various alternatives for either reducing demand or increasing the
supply of spaces. These alternatives could include the development
of off-site parking lots and the use of a bus shuttle system to
bring people into the area, new signage to direct vehicles, to
existing, underutilized parking areas, the use of parking fees, the
development of temporary, overflow parking, or the construction of
a parking garage on the port site.

The concept plan identified the area between Estes Street and
Ruggles Street, which is currently used as open space and a soccer
field, as one location where temporary, overflow parking will be
provided during special events or periods of peak park usage. The
use of this area for permanent parking in support of recreational
activities would be considered only if none of the alternatives
listed above proved to be feasible and if a detailed plan was
developed with neighborhood input. Such a pl an would have to
consider adequate screening from adjacent residential uses,
management of the lot to limit negative impacts on surrounding uses,
and i denti f i cati on of how di spl aced recreati onal uses and open space
would be replaced or accommodated.

Vehicular and pedestrian conflicts that now occur at the Lake Avenue
and Beach Avenue intersection would be reduced or minimized in the
concept plan by rerouting beach-bound traffic off of Lake Avenue
into the port site at the Hincher Street intersection. Vehicles
would be directed by signage to use the appropriate routes and
i ntersecti ons. A traf f i c ci rcul ati on study woul d be compl eted pri or
to the development of any changes to the existing circulation
patterns on public streets in the area.

As a result of the implementation of the concept plan outlined
above, the Port Authority site would be transformed into the "Lake
Ontario Maritime Centeru. The proposed schematic plan meets many of
the LWRP policy goals and statements contained in SECTION III as
well as the objectives agreed upon by city staff, CAC members and
citizens. The plan would also implement the specific land use

IV-36

recommendations for the port site and Ontario Beach Park that are
contained in this Section. The plan promotes tourism, enhances the
city's image-as a recreation and waterfront attraction, strengthens
the economic base of the region, promotes public access to the
shorezone, increases the amount and type of water-related
recreational activities and opportunities, enhances beach
accessibility and use for large numbers of people, and improves
overall pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area.

A summary of the elements of the proposed Ontario Beach Park / Port
Authority Site Concept Plan is provided below. KAP IV-4 on page
IV-39 illustrates the concept plan. This is a schematic plan that
represents development ideas in a conceptual manner only. Specific
elements and impacts of actual projects would be determined only
after detailed design, engineering and environmental studies were
completed.

C. Summary of Ontario Beach Park / Port Authority Site Concept Plan
Components

Ontario Beach Park (beach area, boardwalk, picnic
pavilions, playground areas, Carousel, pedestrian
access, open space and landscaping):

Ontario Beach Park will be redeveloped to include a variety of
new features as well as enhancement of existing facilities
such as the historic Dentzel Carousel. A new boardwalk will
be constructed to run east-west across the length of the park
and to separate the park area from the sand beach. Existing
picnic pavilions will be upgraded and several new pavilions
will be built. New pedestrian paths, playgrounds and
landscaping will also be provided.

Bathhouse:

The existing bathhouse located adjacent to the sand beach at
the western end of the park will be rehabilitated and
developed for new uses. Although the specific program for
this facility has not been completely developed, new uses
might include a small cafe-type restaurant or food concession
area, water quality testing lab, changing rooms and restrooms,
court games, and possibly a neighborhood recreation center
and/or small community theatre.

Performance pavilion:

The existing performance pavilion will be removed and a new
f aci I i ty wi 11 be constructed near the center of the park. The
facility will provide grass seating and appropriate acoustics
for performances by the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra and
smaller musical ensembles.

IV-37

Marina (boat slips, marina support facility,
display boat, pedestrian promenade, observation
area) : 0

A new marina will be constructed within the existing Port
Authority site, just north of the center warehouse. The new
marina is designed to include approximately 75 slips which
would be designated.for use by transient boaters. A limited
number of permanent or semi-permanent slips may also be
provided. Forty slips within the marina would accommodate
boats up to 25 feet in length. Twenty-seven slips would
accommodate boats from 26 to 39 feet in length. Eight slips
would accommodate boats from 40 to 60 feet in length. The
marina will also be designed to accommodate a large display
boat to function as a tourist attraction and as an enhancement
to the ambience of the waterfront area. A small support
facility will be constructed near the marina, or as part of
the reuse of the northern warehouse on the port site, as
described below.

Commercial develoDment along east side of Lake
Avenue:

The concept plan provides for the potential development of a
limited amount of new commercial space along the eastern edge
of Lake Avenue, north of Hincher Street. This commercial
development might include two new buildings that could provide
from 13,000 to 25,000 square feet of commercial space. Access
could be provided from Lake Avenue as well as from the port
area to the east.

Before development of this new commercial space could.take
place, several potential impacts would be evaluated including
general market conditions in the area, the aesthetic aspects
of interrupting views to the river across the port site, and
the general condition and viability of existing commercial
development along the west side of the Lake Avenue corridor.

Rehabilitation of existing warehouses:

The existing northern warehouse on the Port Authority site is
immediately adjacent to the Genesee River and will be
rehabilitated as part of the concept plan. Al though the
specific program for this facility has not been developed, new
uses could include such things as water-related information
and educational display space,

IV-38

-#x IL W 17

tiak
IM.9 L@ I
OVERFLOW PARKIN@

TAW
m

d.-At

ki-

074

VIC
,us"

7-v

14:

Au &

flz.o.rl ohm, mKm r
gig

6mor wtt. Mot r
io-w rl
lww

oorP

17'

"c-s

@.IAIJ Iv

-Put" f t

MAP IV-2

ONTU10 BEACH-PARK, PORT AUTHORITY NITE AnDAIVER STREET-REDEVELOPMERT
M-M-COMERT PLAN

a riverfront bar and restaurant, retail space, restrooms, a
marina office, a boatel containing guest rooms for marina
visitors, or even a local species aquarium. An area adjacent
to this warehouse is proposed as a charter and tour boat
boarding and landing area.

A specific use for the existing southern warehouse on the Port
Authority site has not yet been developed. However, retention
of this structure for future activities is proposed in the
concept plan. This structure, which is also adjacent to the
river, could provide additional recreational space to
accommodate small concerts and ethnic festivals, special
waterfront events such as fishing derbies, boat shows, etc.,
and other water-related activities. A portion of the
structure could be enclosed to accommodate winter festivals
and activities and to reduce ambient noise levels. The actual
design, environment and ambience of this future facility will
complement the activities taking place- within the center
warehouse structure as well as the entire waterfront area.

Monroe County Boat Launch:

The existing 4-ramp County boat launch facility located at the
southeastern corner of the port site will remain as part of
the new concept plan. Parking for the facility would be
upgraded and increased to provide spaces for 47 cars and 107
cars with trailers. A new river surge control structure and
park gazebo are proposed immediately adjacent to the boat
launch.

Pier and riverfront promenade:

The existing pier along the western edge of the river is
adjacent to the port site and beach area and has undergone
extensive rehabilitation by the Army Corps of Engineers. In
addition, a landscaped riverfront promenade is proposed as
part of the overall concept plan for this area. The promenade
would run north-south along the river, connecting the pier and
beach area with the marina, the northern and southern
warehouse structures, and the County boat launch. The
promenade will also be connected to the Genesee Lighthouse and
the River Street development area further to the south.

Parking areas and vehicular circulation:

Parking for the facilities in the port area and Ontario Beach
Park will be provided in four major parking lots.
Approximately 1560 spaces would be provided as part of the
concept pl an. Up to 650 cars coul d be accommodated i n parki ng
areas south of Beach Avenue and west of Lake Avenue, including
temporary overflow parking on the existing soccer field. Up
to 890 cars could be accommodated in parking areas within the

IV-41

port site, east of Lake Avenue, based on a perpendicular
parking space layout. An additional 24 spaces could be
provided adjacent to the bathhouse. As noted earlier,
proposed parking at the County boat launch would accommodate
47 cars and 107 cars with trailers. The final location, size
and design of the parking facilities at Ontario Beach Park and
the port site will depend on the nature of the facilities and
events that are actually developed there over time.

Vehicular circulation within the port site will connect all of
the major facilities and parking areas. Ingress to the port
site from Lake Avenue will be provided via the existing boat
launch entry and an upgraded access road at the intersection
of Hincher Street and Lake Avenue. Egress from the port site
is provided via a one-way westbound portion of Beach Avenue.
Specific traffic circulation patterns for the parking areas
west of Lake Avenue will be determined as those faci.lities are
developed and only after a traffic study has been completed to
determine the extent of neighborhood impacts.

Landscaping and open space:

Landscaping and major open space areas are provided throughout
Ontario Beach Park, around the marina, and immediately to the
south of the existing warehouses, adjacent to the river and
the county boat launch. The concept plan places particular
emphasis on landscaping of parking areas to minimize the
visual impact of large expanses of pavement and to screen
adjoining residential land uses. Landscaped pedestrian plazas
and sitting areas are provided at the intersections of Lake
and Beach Avenues as well as Hincher Street and Lake Avenue.
An entry arch or gateway is proposed at the major access -point
into the port site. The arch would be designed to recall a
similar structure that was constructed at the beach in the
early 1900's.

D. Development of the River Street site

Initial planning and design work for the River Street site was
undertaken in conjunction with the preparation of the redevelopment
plans for the Port Authority site and Ontario Beach Park. The city,
assisted by a planning consultant and the CAC, investigated the land
use potential and development constraints of the River Street site
which is located along the west bank of the Genesee River, just
north of the Stutson Street Bridge.

The city recognized that this site, when combined with former
Conrail right-of-way property recently purchased by the city and
located along the river, also offered a unique opportunity to
develop a focus for the city's waterfront. This area could attract
visitors and tourists from Rochester as well as from outside the
metropolitan area. In addition, the site provided an opportunity to

IV-42

create a waterfront area with a unique neighborhood flavor or
ambience due to its relative seclusion and the nature of existing
land uses in this part of the shorezone. The site could also
increase public access to the waterfront and could provide several
water-oriented recreational uses if developed properly.

As noted above, the railroad right-of-way which runs from Petten
Street north along the river to the existing Pelican Bay Marina is
now owned by the city and New York State and contains approximately
5 acres of land. Two smaller properties located at the northern end
of this right-of-way are also owned by the city. The remaining
portion of River Street site is in private ownership. Existing uses
on the site include an historic railroad station, the Genesee
Lighthouse which is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, several small bars, restaurants and commercial
establishments, small manufacturing facilities, as well as various
vacant structures.

The city developed an initial proposal to rehabilitate the River
street site and the five acre railroad right-of-way property
acquired from Conrail. This development plan enhanced the
facilities and activities proposed for the Port Authority site and
created a unique and distinctive area along River Street that took
advantage of the riverfront location, existing buildings and reuse
opportunities.

The plan recommended that local demand for boat slips be addressed
through the development of about 200 new slips along the river, in
an area that.extends from the existing railroad swing bridge south
to the Petten Street extension. In addition, the plan proposed the
construction of a promenade or pedestrian path along the river that
would link the site with the port area to the north. The pedestrian
walkway would also provide access to new open space and picnicking
areas to be developed along the river. These areas would include
new picnic shelters and river overlooks. Enhancements to the
Genesee Lighthouse and surrounding area that involve creation of
additional open space, a pedestrian connection to the river, and
additional parking areas, were included in the plan. Rehabilitation
of the existing railroad station into a unique riverside restaurant
was also proposed. Finally, adaptive reuse of existing vacant
commercial structures in the area was envisioned as a major part of
the overall redevelopment of the River Street site.

This initial city plan for the redevelopment of the River Street
area was reviewed and analyzed by a consultant team that included
the landscape architects who prepared the Ontario Beach Park and
Port of Rochester Concept Plans described above. This review was
undertaken as part of a study which produced a report entitled the
Ri ver Harbor Redevel opment Area Desi qn/Feasi bi 1 i ty Stud . The study
had as its overall objective, the preparation of a concept plan for
redevelopment of the large waterfront and upland area which runs

IV-43

from just south of the Port Authority site to Petten Street, between
Lake Avenue and the River.

As part of the River Harbor Redevelopment Project, the consultants
reviewed and analyzed historic data and existing development
characteristics and conditions within the study area, which included
the River Street site. They also identified significant development
issues affecting the study area (such as the proposed replacement of
the Stutson Street Bridge) and prepared a series of development
goals and objectives. From this information, the consultants
developed a unified, thematic concept for the study area which
focused on the historic, turn -of -the- century Charlotte village.
Specific design standards and guidelines for building facades,
streetscapes, signage and site development were also prepared by the
consultants and were incorporated into the city's Zoning Ordinance
as described in 'SECTION V: IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES. Finally,
schematic site plans for five redevelopment sites within the study
area were prepared that incorporated the land use recommendations of
the CAC for this area, as well as other data collected or developed
as part of the project. Portions of the River Harbor Redevelopment
Area Design/Feasibility Stud final report, prepared by the
Reimann-Buechner Partnership, are included in the Appendices to the
city's LWRP.

The five redevelopment sites that were examined as part of the River
Harbor Redevelopment Area DesignIFeasibility Stud included the
Pelican Bay Marina at the northern end of River Street along with
the ci ty-owned waterfront area between Pel i can Bay and Petten Street
(which includes the existing historic railroad station), the Genesee
Lighthouse site, the Tape-Con property at the northwest corner of
River Street and Latta Road, an infill site on River Street between
Stutson Street and Latta Road, and an infill site along the Lake
Avenue corridor.

The proposed redevelopment plan for the River Harbor Redevelopment
Area addresses many of the LWRP policy goals and statements
contained in SECTION III, as well as additional objectives that were
developed by city staff, CAC members and citizens. The plan also
implements the specific land use recommendations for the River
Street site that are contained in this Section. The plan promotes
tourism, enhances the city's image as a waterfront recreational area
and major waterfront attraction, strengthens the economic base of
the region, promotes public access to the shorezone, and increases
the amount and type of water-related recreational activities.

A summary of the elements of the proposed River Harbor Redevelopment
Area Concept Plan is provided below. MAP IV-2 on page IV-39
illustrates the proposed concept plan. This is a schematic plan
that represents development ideas in a conceptual manner only.
Specific elements and impacts of actual projects would be determined
only after detailed design, engineering and environmental studies
were completed. IV-44

E. Summary of River Harbor Area Concept Plan Components

Boat slips, T-Piers, dry-storage facility and
river wall/rip-rap:

All of the area immediately adjacent to the river, from
Pelican Bay Marina south to Petten Street, will be developed
for approximately 215 boat slips. This would include finger
piers along the river north of the Stutson Street Bridge, and
T-piers along the river south of the bridge, near Petten
Street. Rip-rap will be emplaced or a new river wall will be
constructed along the length of the river in this area and in
conjunction with development of the boat slips, to prevent
shore erosion and to protect the dock -areas and on-shore
public facilities. Dry-storage facilities for up to 35 boats
will be provided at the Pelican Bay Marina site and within a
new structure located at the southern end of the study area
along the river.

River promenade and riverfront park:

A river promenade or pedestrian walkway will be constructed
along the river that will connect or link the River Street
area with the port site and Ontario Beach Park to the north,
as well as with potential future riverfront recreational
trails to the south. The walkway will provide a variety of
routes for pedestrians to follow through the area and will
include river overlooks, a fishing pier, gazebos, as well as
shelters and restrooms at several points along its length. A
small riverfront park will be constructed adjacent to the
river promenade at the northern end of the site that will
include picnic pavilions, landscaping, open space areas and
overlooks.

Railroad station:

The existing vacant railroad station located adjacent to the
river, just north of Stutson Street, will be rehabilitated for
use as a unique riverfront restaurant and/or bar. Landscaped
open space, a river overlook and an outdoor cafe or veranda
could also be developed as part of the restaurant.

Parking areas and vehicular circulation.-

An access road and several linear parking areas will be
.developed along the length of the riverfront portion of
the site to provide adequate vehicular circulation and
access to the boat slips, railroad station and other
public facilities in the area. The access road would
connect with River Street, Latta Road and Petten Street.
Approximately 490 new parking spaces will be provided
throughout the concept plan. Some of the new parking

IV-45

spaces will be provided as part of the development of
new housing units and mixed-use buildings in the study
area.

Adaptive use of commercial structures and vacant
Tand infill: Several existing unique commercial
structures along the west side of River Street
will be developed for adaptive reuse. New uses
for these structures could include marina
services, marine-related commercial
establishments, restaurants, a hotel, bed and
breakfast operations, and housing. New housing
is proposed as infill development on vacant land
in the River Street/Stutson Street/Latta Road
area, and as part of the overall redevelopment of
the Tape-Con site. A total of 44 Townhomes and
20 apartments are proposed for development in the
study area as part of the River Harbor concept
plan.

Genesee Lighthouse:

The area around the historic Genesee Lighthouse will be
upgraded through the enhancement of scenic views and
vistas in the area. This area will be upgraded through
the development of improved access, additional
landscaped open space adjacent to the river, a
pedestrian connection across existing railroad tracks to
the river and to the port site, and a new parking and
turn-around area at the end of Lighthouse Street.

Replacement and relocation of Stutson Street
iridge:

The Lake Ontario State Parkway (LOSP) is recommended to be
extended eastward through existing residential areas, across
Ri ver Street and over the Genesee Ri ver by means of a new I i ft
bridge to replace the existing Stutson Street Bridge. To
minimize the impact on this residential area, it is
recommended that the center median be removed prior to
crossing Lake Avenue.

The recommended bridge replacement option involves
construction of a 54-foot vertical clearance lift bridge which
would cross Lake Avenue at a signalized, at-grade
intersection. The four-lane road, with sidewalks and bike
paths for both east and westbound traffic would cross River
Street with an 8-foot vertical clearance. A pedestrian ramp
or stair should be provided to allow bridge users to access
River Street directly. The new bridge should tie-in on the
west shore of the river to the existing bridge interface at
Pattonwood Drive. River Street should be severed at the Map

IV-46

IV-3 bridge interface and a cul-de-sac should be developed at
each end of the street.
The abutment of the old Stutson Street Bridge should be used
as a major river overlook with access provided from Stutson
Street and River Street, and from the westbank riverfront
trail system via a stairway or ramp system.

This recommended bridge replacement project will allow for the
development of the River Harbor Area, Ontario Beach Park and
Port Authority site in a manner consistent with the plans
outlined in this Section, by reducing or eliminating major
existing traffic congestion and circulation problems at the
Lake Avenue and Stutson Street intersections. The recommended
project will also permit development of appropriate land uses
in the vicinity of Stutson Street and River Street as outlined
in this Section.

Construction of Genesee River surge protection
structure:

The River Harbor Redevelopment Concept Plan requires that a
surge protection or surge control structure be constructed at
the mouth of the Genesee River, in order to eliminate the
significant wave surge problem in the river during northeast
storm events. This surge problem causes extensive damage to
boats and boat slips, undermines and erodes the existing
county boat launch area, and prohibits charter and pleasure
boat activity, fishing and water-sport events during many
storm or rough water periods throughout the year. Some of the
proposed boat slips and finger piers along the west bank of
the Genesee River, as well as the 75-slip transient marina
proposed as part of the Port of Rochester Redevelopment Plan,
may not be able to be constructed without such a surge
protection structure in the river.

The recommended project alternative for a river surge control
structure involves construction of a permanent Odog-legm
extension at the northern end of the west pier. This
alternative would be constructed in a northeasterly direction
and would require additional river dredging to accommodate the
larger commercial river traffic. The city, County of Monroe
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should work cooperatively
together to fund, undertake and complete a surge control
project that will eliminate or significantly reduce the surge
problem in the river.

Implementation of design standards / guidelines
Tor River Harbor area:

The River Harbor Area Redevelopment Concept Plan identified
two design themes that are to be implemented through design

IV-47

standards and guidelines within the study area. A
0 turn -of -the-century village" theme wi 11 be devel oped
primarily along the Lake Avenue corridor, north of the Lake
Ontario State Parkway, and a uturn-of-the-century maritime
centerm theme will be developed primarily along River Street,
north of the Stutson Street Bridge.

Private development within the study area that meets certain
threshol ds or cri teri a del i neated i n the Ci ty Zoni ng Ordi nance
will be required to meet design standards and guidelines that
implement these thematic concepts. City public projects
within the study area such as street reconstruction or
development of new public recreation facilities will be
required to meet the same design standards and guidelines
through the city's capital improvement program review and
funding process.

F. Development of the Genesee River boat launch facilit

The city, in cooperation with Monroe County, and as part of the
preparation of its LWRP, investigated the development of a 4-ramp
boat launch and associated support facilities, to be located on the
east bank of the Genesee River, just south of Stutson Street. The
city supports the development of this water-dependent activity and
would provide leased access across city property as well as river
frontage to the County in order to construct the facility. Access
to the site could be obtained via Thomas Avenue, within the Town of
Irondequoit. The city will continue to work with Monroe County and
the Town of Irondequoit to evaluate specific site characteristics
and development constraints along the east bank of the river and in
other appropriate areas, in order to identify the most appropriate
site for this facility. Support facilities that could be part of
the boat launch could include pedestrian walkways and river
overlooks, picnic areas and open space, as well as accessory
parking.

The development of a boat launch facility along the east bank of the
river would help implement the specific land use recommendations for
this area that are contained in this Section. Such a facility could
promote tourism, strengthen the economic base of the river harbor
area, promote public access to the shorezone, and increase water-
related recreational activities along the river. Appropriate
provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access to this proposed
facility should also be incorporated into any designs developed for
the Stutson Street Bridge replacement project.

G. Development of various improvements to the LWRP public parks

The city, as part of the preparation of its LWRP, reviewed
comprehensive master plans prepared by Monroe County for the
,redevelopment of five of the public parks located along Lake Ontario
or the Genesee River. These parks include Durand-Eastman Park,

IV-48

Turning Point Park, Seneca Park, Maplewood Park, and Lower Falls
0 Park. All of these parks are owned by the city. Durand-Eastman,
Lower Falls, Seneca and portions of Maplewood Park are leased to
Monroe County which is responsible for their operation and main-
tenance. Turning Point Park is under the direct control of the
city.

The city supports the major recommendations contained in the master
plans for the redevelopment of existing park facilities or the
construction of new park facilities within the LWRP boundary.
Specifically, the city supports the following park improvement
activities as a means of addressing or implementing appropriate LWRP
waterfront policies or specific land use recommendations:

Within Durand-Eastman Park:

Redevelopment and enlargement of the beach area of the
park through the construction of a seawall and/or
groins, supplemented by a phased program of beach
nourishment;

Construction of a bathhouse in the beach area along with
various safety facilities including lifeguard tower
stations and buoys, lines and markers;

Provision of additional, defined parking along Lake
Shore Boulevard and suitable safe crossings between the
beach area and the remainder of the park;

Construction of a nature center and outdoor amphitheater
within the park, along with sufficient accessory parking
and support facilities; and

Development of a system of hiking trails within the park
that connect the proposed nature center, satellite
nature study areas and wildlife study areas.

Within Turning Point Park:

Development of cartop boat access to the river; and

Enhancement of a pedestrian trail to the south and west,
along an abandoned railroad bed (this pedestrian trail
provides pedestrian access to the park from the south,
at Lake Avenue).

Within Seneca Park:

Maintenance, protection and enhancement of the original
Olmstead plan and design for the park; development of

IV-49

new pedestrian trails and overlooks within the park, and
a general upgrading and expansion of the park zoo; and

Acquisition of property located along the east bank of
the Genesee River, opposite Turning Point Park, in an
area of the river known as Rattlesnake Point (this
acquisition could enlarge the land area of the park,
increase passive recreational opportunities within the
park, and protect extremely sensitive wetland areas and
steep, wooded slopes along the river bank; this
additional park area could be developed with hiking
trails for potential nature studies or similar
activities).

Within Maplewood Park:

- Construction of additional pedestrian trails and paths
within the park;

- Provision of adequate parking facilities to support the
various recreational activities in the park;

- Development of a connection between Lower Maplewood Park
and an existing pedestrian trail along Bridgeview Drive;
and

- Development of safe, controlled fishing access to the
Genesee River, in appropriate locations along the park's
riverfront.

Within Lower Falls Park:

Development of the park as an archaeol ogi c
interpretive site, focusing on the remains and ruins of
former mill structures and other buildings in the area
that date back to the early 18001s;

Construction of several river overlooks within the park
to enhance the scenic views and vistas of the gorge and
falls area; and

Construction of trail connections to Maplewood Park
under the new Driving Park Bridge.

SUMNARY OF SECTION IV: USES AND PROJECTS

IV-50

Subarea A - Durand-Eastman Park
0 Subarea B - Open Space / Critical Environmental Areas
Subarea C1 - Developed portion of the Upland Area
Subarea C2 - Buildable portion of the Upland Area
Subarea D - River Harbor Zone and Lakefront Area
Subarea E - Industrial Areas

The following generalized land uses are recommended for each LWRP subarea:

SUBAREA RECOMMEMDED LAND USES

(A) DURAMD-EASTMAM PARK Public walkways, fishing areas, swimming areas,
picnicking areas, parking, cartop boat access,
spectator site for off-shore events, treatment
facilities, field sports, and outdoor
entertainment.

(B) OPEM SPACE L CRITICAL Public walkways, fishing areas, picknicking
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS areas, parking areas, cartop boat access,
swimming, outdoor entertainment, museum, and zoo.

(CI) DEVELOPED PORTION Public walkways, marine-related support
OF THE UPLAND AREA facilities, hotel, general retail facilities
including restaurants, office research
facilities, parking, and housing.

(C2) BUILDABLE PORTION Public walkway, housing, parking,
OF THE UPLAND AREA office research facilities, and manufacturing
facilities.

(D) RIVER HARBOR ZONE Public walkways, swimming areas, fishing
AND LAKEFRONT AREA areas, picnicking areas, outdoor entertainment,
festival sites, field sports, marinas,
marina-related support facilities, parking areas,
cartop boat access, retail facilities including
restaurants, hotel/boatel or bed & breakfast inn,
and housing.

(E) INDUSTRIAL AREAS Public walkways, fishing areas, parking,
manufacturing facilities, power generating
facilities, office research facilities, water
treatment facilities, shipping, water-related
retail support facilities, hotel or bed &
breakfast inn, and housing.

IV-51

SECTION V: TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAN

0 CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

SECTION V: TECHNIQUES FOR LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS

POLICY NUMBER PAGE

NAP V-1 ZONING IN THE LWRP V-5 to V-8

POLICY 1 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-9

POLICY 2 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-11

POLICY 3 (not applicable) V-12

POLICY 4 (not applicable) V-12

POLICY 5 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-12

POLICY 6 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-13

POLICY 7 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-13

POLICY 8 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-15

POLICY 9 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-16

POLICY 10 (not applicable) V-18

POLICY 11 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-18

POLICY 12 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-19

POLICY 13 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-20

POLICY 14 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-21

POLICY 15 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-22

POLICY 16 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-22

POLICY 17 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-23

POLICY 18 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-24

POLICY 19 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-24

POLICY 20 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-25

POLICY 21 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-26

POLICY 22 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-27

V-3

SECTION V: TECHNIQUES FOR LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)

POLICY NUMBER PAGE

POLICY 23 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-28

POLICY 24 (not applicable) V-29

POLICY 25 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-29

POLICY 26 (not applicable) V-30

POLICY 27 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-31

POLICY 28 (not applicable) V-31

POLICY 29 (not applicable) V-31

POLICY 30 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-31

POLICY 31 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-32

POLICY 32 (not applicable) V-32

POLICY 33 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-33

POLICY 34 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-34

POLICY 35 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-34

POLICY 36 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-35

POLICY 37 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-35

POLICY 38 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-35

POLICY 39 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-36

POLICY 40 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-36

POLICY 41 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-36

POLICY 42 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-37

POLICY 43 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-37

POLICY 44 IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-37

TABLE V-1 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTING TECHNIQUES V-39

SUMMARY OF TASK V-40

V-4

R-1
3

&L.

Map V-1
Zoning in the LWRP

V-5

N
-J&

0-5
M-1

O-S)

O-S

'T
I

0-
O-S

T-P M-2

+
W2
R-1 -2 R-1
T-P

R-3 do

R-3

pq m 1
2%;;@jn

Map V-1
Zoning in the LWRP

V- 6

SCmOOL
3 R-1

-77.

ARE
R
--HL
Rq

Mi -mw--
-F@6+-

M-1
-2
C-2
RmA
R 2
2 .......
1;q
;
-7-

ALM
R-4@2
RgV- IR-2- 7
.1 -1- - - -
s 7"- f
C-f
2.

E R Tj�N
T.7
'r- rr
------- O-S
N :,Z:--
R
A U

OPER
R-3
UMAN JZENEWAL
f

TV-
*+

4W M.1
m IF-B 0- 'RN

C' 4-\

map V- I
Zoninq in the LWPP

v..: 7

zz@
IV O-s

0 u q A N 0 EAST MAN

O-S

as tvmwmm@

77'

-4.

----------

will..

Map V-1
Zonina in the LWRP

V- 8

Map V-1, pages V-5 to V-8, depicts the zoning within the City of Rochester's
waterfront revitalization area.

The following material describes the legislation and additional actions
implementing applicable LWRP policies.

POLICIES (1). 0A), (IB), (IC), (101, (IE), (IF). (IG):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city considers its waterfront areas along Lake Ontario and the Genesee
River to be among its most important recreational, aesthetic and economic
resources. The city intends to revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and
underutilized waterfront areas by encouraging uses or activities deemed
appropriate for the waterfront revitalization area based on their water
and recreation-oriented characteristics.

Several city ordinances and legislation will help to implement the LWRP
policies listed above. Much of the area within the LWRP boundary and
adjacent to the lake or river is zoned as an Open Space (OS) District.
This district will help to control and promote appropriate water-dependent
and water-enhanced uses within the shorezone by permitting parks, outdoor
recreational facilities, and natural wildlife areas. In addition, such
uses as public and community recreation buildings, athletic fields, zoos,
.and small concessionaire shops incidental to the operation of public
recreational uses, are permitted subject to a special permit. The purpose
statement contained within the OS District includes references to the
preservation and enhancement of major open spaces and recreational areas
through protection of natural amenities and the encouragement of
development that is consistent with those natural amenities.

In addition, the City Zoning Ordinance contains comprehensive site plan
review procedures and requirements that will help to address development.
These requirements deal with aesthetic considerations, relationships to
surrounding land uses and environmental features, landscaping and
screening, as well as pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The city will
continue to utilize these zoning ordinance provisions to encourage and
promote the development of appropriate commercial, industrial and
recreational uses within the LWRP boundary. The City Zoning Ordinance's
site plan review procedures are required for all development proposed on
sites located adjacent to the river and other types of development
activity. These procedures include the consideration of adequate
circulation, screening and landscaping, preservation of open space and
critical environmental areas, as well as the relationship of the proposed
development to surrounding land uses and natural features.

The following changes made to the City's Zoning Ordinance as a result of
the LWRP implement the above policies:

(1) The City's River Harbor (RH) District was modified to permit such
uses as housing, hotels, motels and boatels, and multiple or
mixed-uses, and to allow certain uses subject to special permit.

V-9

(2) An Overlay Harbor Town Design (OHTD) District was adopted which
requires a certificate of design compliance, granted after a review
process based on design guidelines for landscaping, signage, visual
compatibility, site development, etc., for certain types of
development in the shorezone.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city prepared and will promote, in cooperation with other
governmental agencies, a redevelopment plan for the port site which
embraces the development policies of the LWRP. The proposed plan
includes construction of a marina for approximately 75 boats, a
public walkway adjacent to the river, redevelopment of two existing
warehouses for such uses as a restaurant, boatel, museum/ inter-
pretive center, related marine services, or a small festival site
which could be used for public events and performances or marina-
related commercial establishments. The goal of the proposed plan is
to encourage water7oriented and water-dependent uses on the site
that are compatible with existing land uses, to encourage private
investment on the site, and to improve the area's economic
stability.

(2) The city prepared and will promote, with other governmental
agencies, a redevelopment plan for the River Street site which
embraces the development policies of the LWRP. The-proposed plan
takes advantage of the proximity of the site to the historic Genesee
Lighthouse, as well as the river and nearby marinas. The plan
promotes water-related commercial and recreational uses@ in the area.
The plan includes redevelopment of the railroad station into a
unique waterfront restaurant, construction of boat slips and a
public walkway along the river, development of direct public access
to the Lighthouse, construction of picnic facilities and open space
areas along the river, and provisions for additional parking and
more efficient vehicular circulation in the area. The plan also
identifies several buildings and structures in the area that could
be redeveloped or rehabilitated for appropriate water-related
commercial uses, and identifies new housing development sites.

(3) The city will encourage and promote the development of commercial
and recreational uses along the Lake Avenue corridor, that will
support and enhance the land uses and development activities on the
port site and at Ontario Beach Park. In addition to the
rehabilitation of major buildings, the city will promote the
provision of off-street parking areas and streetscape amenities such
as tree plantings, landscaping, street furniture and pavement
treatments as a part of public infrastructure projects in the area.

(4) The city will promote and encourage, in cooperation with other
governmental agencies, the redevelopment of Durand-Eastman Park's
public beach area, located on Lake Ontario, immediately north of
Lakeshore Boulevard. The city will continue to encourage Monroe
County to open the beach area to the public, and redevelop the

V-10

bathhouse and the adjacent beach in order to provide a suitable
recreational facility. This would provide city residents with a
second major publ i c beach area al ong the I ake. Support uses such as
small concession areas and public walkways should also be developed
by the county.

(5) The city will promote and encourage, in cooperation with other
governmental agencies, the development of a public boat launch
facility along the eastern bank of the river, just south of the
Stutson Street Bridge. This area is largely vacant with the
exception of deteriorated boat slips and miscellaneous
marina-related uses and activities. The facility will be developed
in conjunction with Monroe County and will help redevelop a severely
underutilized area of riverfront. The boat launch will provide
increased public access to the river for boating, sailing and
fishing and will enhance other water-dependent and water-enhanced
uses in the area.

(6) The city, in cooperation with Monroe County, will promote, encourage
and support the redevelopment of several recreational facilities
that are part of the six public parks located within the LWRP
boundary. These parks include Durand-Eastman Park and Ontario Beach
Park, which are located on Lake Ontario, and Turning Point Park,
Seneca Park, Maplewood Park and Lower Falls Park, which are located
on the river. Many of the parks' recreational facilities are in a
deteriorated condition and could be improved or enhanced through
construction of additional facilities such as pedestrian paths,
trails, river landings, parking areas and overlooks. The city will
ensure that public access to the waterfront is improved, and that
appropriate water-enhanced recreational uses are located in the
waterfront areas in each park.

POLICY (2). (2A):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The city recognizes that, because of the location of sensitive
environmental features in the shorezone and the general competition for
waterfront locations of various types of land uses, there is a limited
amount of waterfront land that is actually suitable for development within
the LWRP boundary. The city also recognizes that water-dependent uses and
activities should have priority over non-water-dependent uses in terms of
development within the shorezone of the waterfront revitalization
boundary. In order to ensure that water-dependent uses can be located and
devel oped i n waterf ront I ocati ons, the ci ty wi I I uti I i ze the OS Open Space
zoning district within the LWRP boundary. The city will also avoid
undertaking, funding, or approving non -water -dependent actions or
activities when such actions or activities conflict with the development
of water-dependent uses or would preempt the reasonably foreseeable
development of water-dependent uses in the same area.

V-11

The OS Open Space District within the LWRP boundary includes areas along
the river south of Denise Road, as well as Ontario Beach Park and
Durand-Eastman Park. This district consists almost entirely of publicly-
owned land and only permits open space uses such as parks, playgrounds,
outdoor recreational facilities and some specially permitted uses. The
Open Space District basically restricts development in sensitive
environmental areas within the LWRP boundary. The open space uses that
are water-dependent and located in the shorezone are expected to remain
that way for the foreseeable future.

One change made to the City's Zoning Ordinance as a result of the LWRP
implements the above policies:

(1) The River Harbor (RH) District was modified to include all areas
adjacent to the river, from Denise Road north to Lake Ontario, as
well as the Port and River Street sites. This zoning district
promotes water-dependent uses through its list of permitted uses and
requirements for special permits for some of those uses. The
district permits marinas, public boardwalks, boat launches, boating
and fishing docks, as well as harbor-related retail and consumer
service establishments. Most of the existing uses within the LWRP's
River Harbor District are expected to be maintained as
water-dependent facilities within the foreseeable future.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THIS POLICY:

(1) See (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) under (B) on pages V-10 and V-11.

POLICIES (3). (4): NOT APPLICABLE.

POLICIES (5). (SA), (5B), (50:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes that new development proposed within the LWRP boundary
should be adequately serviced by existing or upgraded public services and
facilities. Virtually all major development areas within the LWRP
boundary are serviced by adequate public services and facilities such as
vehicular access, storm and sanitary sewers, as well as electric, gas and
water lines. If an area is not adequately serviced by existing public
services and facilities, then upgrades, improvements, or_extensions to
existing systems are usually possible.

The site plan review process contained in the City Zoning Ordinance
includes development review criteria which consider the adequacy of
service to development sites by such public services as storm and sanitary
sewers and access roads. The city intends to continue using this process
and these criteria to ensure that new development proposed within the LWRP
boundary is adequately serviced by public facilities.

V-12

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) See (1) under (8) on page V-1 0. The port site is adequately
serviced with the public services and infrastructure that are
essential to the development of the proposed plan as outlined above.

(2) See (2) under (B) on page V-10. The River Street site is adequately
serviced with the public services and infrastructure that are
essential to the development of the proposed plan as outlined above.

(3) See (4) under (B) on page V-10.
(4) As a part of the redevelopment of various county parks within the
LWRP boundary, the City will promote and encourage the improvement
of vehicular and pedestrian access to the parks and to the shorezone
itself.

POLICY (61:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The city recognizes the importance of efficient and uncomplicated permit
approval procedures for development activities proposed within the LWRP
boundary. The city has a permit review and approval system which includes
coordination with other local and state agencies and eliminates
unnecessary or duplicative levels of review.

Site plan review is coordinated by the City Bureau of Zoning as are
requests for zoning variances, rezonings and subdivision approval.
Environmental impacts and other areas of special concern for proposed
development activities are considered early in the review process and are
investigated in conjunction with the City Office of Planning as well as
the City Environmental Commission. The entire development review process
is characterized by reasonable timetables and deadlines, relatively simple
and easy to understand paper work, and specific, but uncomplicated
development review standards. A None-stop-shop" approach has been
developed by the city which allows applicants and/or developers to become
aware of permit procedures and requirements and obtain all necessary paper
work at one location at one time.

POLICIES (7). (7A), (7B), (70:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the need to preserve and protect significant fish and
wildlife habitat areas located within the LWRP boundary. The New York
State Department of State (NYSDOS) has designated approximately six and
one-half miles of the Genesee River, from the river mouth to the Lower
Falls, as a Hfish and wildlife habitat of statewide significanceu. The
city will pursue a policy which preserves, protects and enhances this
habitat area.

V-13

The ci ty wi 11 conti nue to uti 1 i ze exi sti ng zoni ng di stri ct regul ati ons, as
well as site plan and environmental review procedures to ensure that
statewide and local ly-significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within
the LWRP boundary are preserved and protected.

As noted in SECTION IV: USES AND PROJECTS, a large amount of the city's
waterfront area is publicly-owned parkland zoned as OS Open Space
Districts. Uses permitted within the OS District include parks, outdoor
recreational facilities, and natural wildlife areas. In addition, the
purpose statement contained within the district includes references to the
preservation and enhancement of Rochester's major open spaces and
recreational areas through protection of natural amenities and the
encouragement of development which respects and is consistent with those
natural amenities. The restrictive nature of the Open Space District, in
terms of the types of land uses permitted and the development controls
that are included within it, will be utilized by the city to ensure that
development activities are undertaken in these areas in a manner
consistent with the maintenance and protection of wildlife habitat areas.

The City Zoning Ordinance's site plan review procedures are required for
all development proposed on sites located adjacent to the river as well as
for numerous other types or classifications of development activity. In
addition, development actions proposed within 100 feet of the Genesee
River and Lake Ontario, within areas zoned as open space, in heavily
wooded areas, and within state-designated freshwater wetlands are Type I
actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, since
these locations have been identified as critical environmental areas.
Such actions require a complete environmental review. As a part of the
site plan and environmental reviews, the city would determine and address
the project's potential impacts on existing fish and wildlife habitat
areas, and require mitigating measures, if necessary, in order to protect
those areas from adverse development impacts. City environmental review
procedures will be utilized to ensure that development activities that
have been determined to be Type I actions under this legislation will be
consistent with LWRP goals, policies and objectives including the
protection of significant fish and wildlife habitats, etc.

One change made to the City's Zoning Ordinance as a result of the LWRP
implements the above policies:

(1) A Waterfront Consistency Ordinance was adopted, which mandates the
consideration of a project's consistency with LWRP goals, policies
and objectives as a criteria for review of projects within the LWRP
boundary.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city, in cooperation with Monroe County, will promote, encourage
and support the redevelopment of several recreational facilities
that are part of the six public parks located within the LWRP
boundary. These parks include Durand-Eastman Park and Ontario Beach
Park which are located on Lake Ontario, and Turning Point Park,

V-14

Seneca Park, Maplewood Park and Lower Falls Park which are located
on the river. Several of the proposed improvements will help
enhance the stability of existing fish and wildlife habitat areas
within the parks.

POLICY (8):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The city recognizes and will carry out the applicable local provisions of
the following state laws in order to implement this policy:

(a) Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27, Title 9)
(b) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17, Title 8)
(c) State Certification,
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Section 401)
(d) Toxic Substances Monitoring Program,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 17)
(e) Substances Hazardous to the Environment,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 37)
(f) Solid Waste Management,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 27, Title 7)
(g) Control of Pollution Injurious to Fish and Shellfish,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 13-0345 and Article 17-0503)
(h) Stream Pollution Prohibited,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 11-0503)
(i) Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensation,
Navigation Law (Article 12)
U) Siting of Major Steam/Electric Generating Facilities,
Public Service Law (Article VIII)
(k) Sanitary Code, Public Health Law (Article 3)

In addition, the city will utilize comprehensive site plan and
environmental review procedures in order to implement this LWRP policy.
These regulations are sufficient to deal with potential erosion,
sedimentation or other pollution problems which could adversely affect
fish and wildlife habitat areas within the LWRP boundary.

The City's site plan review procedures are required for all development
proposed on sites located adjacent to the Genesee River as well as for
numerous other types or classifications of development activity. These
site plan review procedures include the consideration of such items as
preser-vation of open space and critical environmental areas, as well as
the relationship of the proposed development to surrounding land uses and
natural features including fish and wildlife habitat areas.

Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the Genesee River and Lake
Ontario, within areas zoned as open space, in heavily wooded areas, and
within state-designated freshwater wetlands are Type I actions under the
City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, since these locations have

V-15

been identified as critical environmental areas. City environmental
review procedures will be utilized to ensure that development activities
that have been determi ned to be Type I acti ons under thi s I egi sl ati on wi 11
be consistent with LWRP goals, policies and objectives including the
protection of significant fish and wildlife habitats, etc.

A Waterfront Consistency Ordinance was adopted which mandates the consi-
deration of a project's consistency with LWRP goals, policies and
objectives as a criteria for review of projects within the LWRP boundary.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The city, in cooperation with Monroe County, will continue to
support and participate in a Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Project (CSOAP) which will eliminate combined storm and sanitary
sewers in many areas of the city. This project involves the
construction of several large underground holding tunnels which will
discharge sewage and storm water, collected after major rainfalls,
to the Frank E. VanLare Treatment Plant located in Durand-Eastman
Park. Prior to the construction of these tunnels, large volumes of
combined sewage and storm water that occurred after major rainfalls
in the area flowed directly into the Genesee River and Lake Ontario
without being treated. This sewage contributed to pollution
problems in the river and lake and the elimination or destruction of
fish and other wildlife species. The completion of the underground
holding tunnels will eliminate a major source of pollution discharge
into the river and lake and will help preserve existing stocks of
fish in the area. In addition, the city will continue to
investigate and promote improvements to other portions of the city
storm and sanitary sewer systems in order to maintain and enhance
the existing water quality in the river and lake.

(2) The city is participating, along with other governmental agencies,
in the development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Rochester
Embayment. A RAP is an agreement among federal, state, and local
governments, with the support of area citizens, on a plan to restore
the water quality and beneficial uses of the waters of the Area of
Concern. The specific goal of the Rochester Embayment RAP is to
prepare an implementation plan that will improve the water quality
of Lake Ontario and all of the waterways that flow into it,
including the Genesee River. The implementation of the RAP for the
Rochester Embayment will help to protect fish and wildlife resources
from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants.

POLICIES (9). OA), (gB):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

Much of the area located within the LWRP boundary and adjacent to Lake
Ontario or the river is currently zoned for open space use (OS District)
or river-harbor use (RH District). The OS district regulations will be
utilized by the city to expand the recreational use of fish and wildlife

V-16

resources within the LWRP boundary by increasing access to existing
resources and by developing new resources.

Uses permitted within the OS Open Space District include parks, outdoor
recreational facilities, and natural wildlife areas. Development of these
types of uses will facilitate and promote the expansion of the
recreational use of existing fish and wildlife habitat areas by increasing
public access to these areas. In addition, the purpose statement
contained within the OS Open Space District includes references to the
preservation and enhancement of Rochester's major open spaces and
recreational areas through protection of natural amenities and the
encouragement of development which respects and is consistent with those
natural amenities. This statement is important and will be used to
interpret the intent of the district and help ensure that any proposed
development is consistent with the City's goals and objectives for
waterfront areas, including the expansion of recreational use of existing
fish and wildlife habitat areas.

One change made to the City's Zoning Ordinance as a result of the LWRP
implements the above policies:

(1) The RH River Harbor District was modified to include a purpose
statement which includes references to the preservation and
enhancement of the recreational character of the harbor area at the
mouth of the Genesee Ri ver, the i mprovement of the vi sual qual i ty of
the harbor area, the preservation and promotion of public access to
the shoreline, and a new use list which permits such facilities as
marinas, boat launches and docks, and public walkways.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) See (6) under (B) on page V-11. Expansion of recreational fishing
opportunities will involve provision of direct public access to the
shoreline for fisherman as well as boaters. Improvements wi 11
include the development of parking areas, access trails, fishing
piers and wharves and boating facilities in appropriate areas within
the parks. Provisions for increased public access to other wildlife
resources located within these parks will include the rehabilitation
or construction of hiking trails, pedestrian paths, overlooks and
shelters.

(2) See (5) under (8) on page V-11.

(3) The city will complete the acquisition of properties formerly owned
by Conrail and located along the east bank of the Genesee River,
opposite the Turning Basin. These properties, which are located
within the Genesee River Gorge, contain areas of steep, wooded
slopes, and provide habitats for a wide variety of wildlife species,
including bird and deer populations, which should be preserved and
protected. The city will investigate the use of these properties
for development of a linear, passive recreational trail system along

V-17

the river that would increase public access to wildlife resources
within the river gorge.

(4) The city will, when appropriate, encourage the state to continue and
expand its fish stocking program and will promote the completion of
studies by NYSDEC concerning habitat maintenance and improvement.
The city will insist that stocking programs are directed towards
areas where known habitats will support and enhance increased fish
populations.

POLICY (10): NOT APPLICABLE.

POLICIES (11). (IIA), (IIB):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the importance of controlling or prohibiting
development in critical environmental areas such as erosion hazard areas
and floodplains within the LWRP boundary. Zoning regulations and other
land use controls are the primary means of dealing with these types of
problems.

Much of the area within the LWRP boundary that has been identified as
being within the Genesee River or Lake Ontario floodplain or that contains
steep slopes in excess of 15% is in public ownership and is zoned for open
space use. As noted earlier, the city's Open Space District effectively
prohibits development in these critical environmental areas by severely
limiting the types of uses and activities permitted. Lands zoned for open
space within the LWRP boundary will remain in their natural state and will
contribute to the enhancement, preservation and protection of other
features and characteristics in the waterfront area.

The city's rigorous site plan review procedures will also be utilized to
ensure that development activities will not cause or contribute to erosion
and/or flooding problems within the LWRP boundary. The City's site plan
review process is required for all development proposed on sites located
adjacent to the Genesee River as well as for numerous other types or
classifications of development activity. The site plan review procedures
include the considera-tion of such things as setbacks, lot sizes, erosion
control measures, impacts on existing drainage systems, as well as the
relationship of the proposed development to surrounding land uses and
natural features. Site plans that do not adequately address erosion,
drainage or flooding problems will be denied or will be required to
include mitigating measures that will eliminate such problems.

If a development site is located in a designated floodplain, a special
permit is required which is reviewed and approved by the City Planning
Commission following a public hearing. The special permit can only be
approved if the applicant demonstrates, among other items, that the
proposed development will be constructed above the base flood elevation at

V-18

@he particular location, and that the development will not cause or
increase flooding in the area or within the floodway in general.

The city will utilize existing environmental review procedures to ensure
that steep slopes and other areas prone to erosion as well as floodplain
areas within the LWRP boundary are protected. Development actions
proposed within 100 feet of the Genesee River and Lake Ontario, in areas
zoned as open space, in heavily wooded areas, in state-designated
freshwater wetlands, and in areas with a slope of 15% or greater are Type
I actions under the City's Environ-mental Quality Review Ordinance. These
locations have been designated as critical environmental areas. Such
actions will require a complete environmental impact review. This review
will be utilized to ensure that development activities that have been
determined to be Type I actions will be consistent with LWRP goals,
policies and objectives including the protection of steep slope areas and
erosion or floodprone areas. As a part of this review, the city will
address the project's potential impacts on erosion, drainage and flooding
problems, and propose mitigating measures, if required, in order to
protect those areas from adverse environmental impacts.

Lands within the LWRP boundary that have been identified as coastal
erosion hazard areas by New York State include the shorezone along Beach
Avenue and Ontario Beach Park and a major portion of Durand-Eastman Park.
The beach areas contained within these shorezones have been identified as
natural protective features. The City recognizes the need to regulate
development in these areas in order to protect existing resources from
lake flooding and erosion.

A Waterfront Consistency Ordinance was adopted which mandates the
consideration of a project's consistency with LWRP goals, policies and
objectives as a criteria for review of projects within the LWRP boundary.

POLICIES (12). (12A):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLEME)(TS THESE POLICIES:

The city will ensure that beach areas identified as natural protective
features on the State Coastal Erosion Hazard Map are preserved and
protected. The city considers these features to be critical i environmental
areas that help protect certain inland coastal areas from flooding as well
as serious erosion problems. Most of these areas are contained within
existing OS Open Space Zoning Districts.

The city will utilize existing environmental review procedures to ensure
that beach areas identified as natural protective features on the State
Coastal Erosion Nap are protected. Development actions proposed within
100 feet of Lake Ontario as well as in areas zoned as open space are Type
I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. These
locations have been designated as critical environmental areas. Such
actions will require a complete environmental impact review. In
coordination with this review, the city will address the project's overall
consistency with LWRP goals, policies and objectives as well as its

V-19

potential impacts on beach areas as well as erosion, drainage and/or
flooding problems. Mitigating measures, if required, will be proposed in
order to protect those areas from adverse environmental impacts.

As noted above, most of the beach areas identified as natural protective
features on the State Coastal Erosion Hazard Map are located within
existing OS Open Space Zoning Districts. It is anticipated that lands
zoned for open space wi thi n the LWRP boundary wi 11 remai n i n thei r natural
state and will, therefore, contribute to the enhancement, preservation and
protection of existing beach areas. Additionally, most development
activity that is permitted in Open Space Districts requires site plan
review and approval and/or City Planning Commission special permit review
and approval . These review procedures will help ensure that proposed
development will have minimal adverse impacts on beach areas within the
LWRP boundary.

POLICY (13). (13A):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the importance of constructing and maintaining erosion
protection structures within the LWRP boundary which are designed to
reduce or eliminate erosion problems along the Genesee River and Lake
Ontario. The city will utilize existing review procedures to ensure that
such structures provide adequate protection and are properly designed,
constructed and maintained.

The city will utilize existing environmental and site plan review
procedures to ensure that erosion protection structures constructed within
the LWRP boundary have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for
at least thirty years and will be properly designed and maintained.
Construction of such structures will require an environmental impact
review by the city because they will be located within 100 feet of the
Genesee River or Lake Ontario. Such activities are Type I actions under
the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, since the 100 foot
"bufferm area has been identified as a critical environmental area. As a
part of this review, the city would be able to address the project's
potential impacts on erosion, and evaluate the ability of the structure to
control erosion for the thirty year period.

Additionally, construction of such structures along the river will require
site plan review and approval. This process will also be utilized by the
city to ensure that such structures are adequately designed, constructed
and maintained and will provide the necessary erosion control for the
desired thirty year period.

V-20

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city will work with Monroe County and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to encourage the maintenance of the east and west
piers located on Lake Ontario at the mouth of the Genesee River.
The west pier provides some erosion protection from high wind and
wave action for beach areas to the west and has probably contributed
to the deposition of additional material and the creation of a
larger beach area for Ontario Beach Park. In addition, the city
will request, in cooperation with Monroe County, that the USACE
investigate a significant surge problem near the outl et of the
Genesee River and determine the need for and design of a potential
erosion control structure to be built within the river to eliminate
this problem.

(2) The City will discuss with Monroe County the possibility of
constructing groins in the area of Durand-Eastman Park to control
erosion of the beach in that area. As noted in the discussion of
the various LWRP policies, waterfront recreational facilities
located within Durand-Eastman Park are proposed for significant
redevelopment and/or rehabilitation. The development of such
erosion protection features will be evaluated in terms of their
overall costs and benefits as well as environmental impacts.

POLICY (14):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The city will utilize existing zoning procedures and land use regulations
to ensure that development within the LWRP boundary does not contribute to
erosion, flooding or drainage problems, either on-site or in other
locations.

The city will utilize existing environmental review procedures to ensure
that development proposed within the LWRP boundary, including the
construction of erosion protection structures, will not cause or
contribute to erosion or flooding problems. Development actions proposed
within 100 feet of the river and lake are Type I actions under the City's
Environmental quality Review Ordinance, since these areas have been
designated as critical environmental areas. Actions in these areas will
require a complete environmental impact review. As a part of this review,
the 'city would be able to address the project's potential impact on
erosion, drainage and flooding problems. The city could then require any
necessary mitigating measures in order to protect those areas and
surrounding development from adverse environmental impacts.

V-21

The city's rigorous site plan review procedures will also be utilized to
ensure that proposed development activities, as well as the construction
of erosion protection structures, will not cause or contribute to erosion
and/or flooding problems within the LWRP boundary. The City's site plan
review process is required for all development proposed on sites located
adjacent to the Genesee River as well as for numerous other types or
classifications of development activity. The site plan review procedures
include the consideration of such things as setbacks, lot sizes, erosion
control measures, impacts on existing drainage systems, as well as the
relationship of the proposed development to surrounding land uses and
natural features. Site plans that do not ade-quately address erosion,
drainage or flooding problems will be denied or will be required to
include mitigating measures that will eliminate such problems.

POLICY (15):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
regulates dredging, mining and excavation activities in shoreline and
wetland areas. These regulations are comprehensive in design and intent
and address actions according to their potential to interfere with the
natural coastal processes which supply beach materials, as well as the
potential for increasing erosion.

POLICY (16):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THIS POLICY:

None required or identified.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THIS POLICY:

Although the city recognizes that public funds are often used for a
variety of purposes along the state's shoreline, it is the policy of the
city not to invest city funds in the construction, rehabilitation,
modification or maintenance of erosion protection structures for new or
proposed private development. The city will continue to cooperate with
other county, State and federal agencies to investigate the need for and
the possible construction of an erosion protection structure designed to
eliminate river surge problems within the Genesee River, using funds from
sources other than the city. The construction of such a structure would
reduce erosion damage and protect and enhance existing and proposed
marinas, boat launching ramps, and other commercial and recreational
facilities located along the river, near the outlet to Lake Ontario.

V-22

POLICY (17). (17A):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes that such measures as structure siting, floodproofing
and elevation of buildings, the reshaping and vegetation of slopes, the
provision of drainage systems to reduce run-off that may weaken slopes,
and the retention of existing vegetation should be incorporated into the
early planning and review of projects within the LWRP boundary. In
addition, other more complicated Nstructuralm techniques can be used to
minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and
erosion. The city will utilize existing site plan and environmental
review procedures to ensure that these techniques are implemented where
necessary and appropriate within the LWRP boundary.

Much of the area within the LWRP boundary that is located along the top of
the riverbank, within a floodplain, or that contains steep slopes in
excess of 15% is in public ownership and is zoned for open space use.
Uncontrolled development in these areas has the potential for creating
serious erosion and/or flooding problems. As noted earlier, however, the
city's Open Space District prohibits development in these critical
environmental areas by severely limiting the types of uses and activities
permitted. Lands zoned for open space within the LWRP boundary will
remain in their natural state and will contribute to the preservation and
protection of other features and characteristics in the waterfront area.

The city's site plan.review procedures will be utilized to ensure that
proposed development activities will not cause or contribute to erosion
and/or flooding problems within the LWRP boundary. The City's site plan
review process is required for all development proposed on sites located
adjacent to the Genesee River as well as for numerous other types or
classifications of development activity. The site plan review procedures
require the consideration of such things as setbacks, lot sizes, erosion
control measures, impacts on existing drainage systems, landscaping, as
well as the relationship of the proposed development to surrounding
natural features. Non-structural methods of controlling erosion and
flooding problems can be investigated and/or required as a part of the
site plan review process. Site plans that do not adequately address
erosion or flooding problems will be denied or will be required to include
mitigating measures that will eliminate such problems.

Development proposed within areas zoned as open space or within 100 feet
of Lake Ontario or the Genesee River are Type I actions under the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Such actions will require a
complete environmental impact review. In coordination with this review,
the city would evaluate the general consistency of the proposed action
with the goals, policies and objectives of the LWRP, as well as the need
for and the adequacy of structural as well as non-structural means of
erosion and flood protection within the project.

V-23

In addition, if a development site is located in a designated floodplain,
a special permit is required which is reviewed and approved by the City
Planning Commission following a public hearing. The special permit can
only be approved if the applicant demonstrates, among other items, that
the proposed development will be constructed above the base flood
elevation at the particular location and that the development will not
cause or increase flooding in the area or within the floodway in general.
Non-structural methods of minimizing damage to natural resources and
property from flooding could also be considered and/or required as a part
of this review process.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city will continue acquisition of properties formerly owned by
Conrail located along the east bank of the Genesee River, opposite
the Turning Basin. These properties are located within the Genesee
River Gorge, contain areas of steep, wooded slopes, and also provide
habitats for a wide variety of wildlife species, including bird and
deer populations. Acquisition of this land by the city will help
ensure that development within certain areas of steep slopes or
within certain areas of the Genesee River floodplain, that may be
POLICY (18): susceptible to erosion and/or flooding, will be prohibited.

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The city recognizes that proposed major actions undertaken by the city,
county, state or federal government, which would affect natural resources,
water levels and flows, hydroelectric power generation, recreational
facilities or that would cause significant shoreline damage, should be
reviewed and considered in terms of the overall social, economic and
environmental interests of the state and all its citizens.

POLICIES (19). (19A), (19B), (19C), (190):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the importance of increasing public access to
waterfront resources while considering the impacts that such access may
have on sensitive environmental features and wildlife habitats within the
shorezone. Although much of the land within the river gorge is in public
ownership, most of the areas that offer direct access to the river
shoreline and to existing recreational facilities are in private
ownership. The city will utilize site plan and environmental review
procedures to ensure that public access to shore-zone recreational
resources is provided where appropriate and feasible within private
development projects.

V-24

The city's site plan review procedures and requirements will be utilized
to consider and review the feasibility of providing public access to
waterfront recreational areas through private development projects. These
procedures are required for all development proposed on sites located
adjacent to the river as well as for other types of development activity.
The type and amount of public access to the shorezone which is provided
within individual private development projects will be reviewed to ensure
that the physical use capacity of the recreational resource or facility is
not exceeded and that this access will accommodate the anticipated levels
of public use of the facility.

The city's environmental review procedures and requirements will also be
utilized to consider and review the feasibility of providing public access
to waterfront recreational areas through private development projects.
Development proposed within areas zoned as open space or within 100 feet
of Lake Ontario or the Genesee River are Type I actions under the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Such actions require a complete
environmental impact review. As a part of this review, the city would
consider the feasibility and/or desirability of providing public access to
existing or proposed water-related recreational facilities or resources
such as beaches, marinas, fishing areas and waterfront parks. This access
would be evaluated in terms of type and adequacy during the review
process.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) See (4), (5),, and (6) under (B) on pages V-10 and V-11.

(2) See (3) under (B) on page V-17.

(3) The city will work with Monroe County and the USACE to properly
maintain the east and west piers located on Lake Ontario at the
mouth of the Genesee River. This will ensure adequate public access
to the river and the lake for fishing and other passive recreational
activities.

POLICIES (201, (20A), (20B), (20C). (20D). (20EI:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENEKTS THESE POLICIES:

The city will attempt to facilitate access to publicly-owned areas of the
shorezone where the provision of such access is feasible and where it will
not endanger sensitive environmental features and wildlife habitats nor be
incompatible with adjacent land uses. Guidelines for the provision or
development of such access which will be utilized by the city are
contained within the discussion of POLICY 20, in SECTION III: POLICIES.

V-25

The purpose statement of the city's River Harbor (RH) Zoning District
contains references to the provision of public access to the shorezone in
site development. The city's site plan review procedures contain
standards or criteria for the adequate provision of pedestrian circulation
and access in site development. The city's special permit procedures
contain standards which require site development to be in conformance with
the City Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, with the policies of the LWRP
that specifically relate to waterfront public access.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) See (1), (2), (4), and (5) under (B) on pages V-10 and V-11.

(2) See (3) under (B) on page V-17

POLICIES (21). (21A), (21B), (210:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the importance of facilitating the development of
water-dependent and water-enhanced recreational uses in appropriate
locations along the shoreline of the river and lake. Such water-enhanced
and water-dependent uses should be promoted within the context of both
public and private development projects.

Much of the area located within the LWRP boundary and immediately adjacent
to the lake or river is currently zoned for open space use (OS District).
The OS district regulations will help control and promote appropriate
water-dependent and water-enhanced recreational uses within the shorezone
of the LWRP boundary.

Uses permitted within the OS District include parks, outdoor recreational
facilities, and natural wildlife areas. In addition, such uses as public
and community recreation buildings, athletic fields, zoos, and small
concessionaire shops incidental to the operation of public recreational
uses are permitted subject to a special permit. The purpose statement for
the district includes references to the preservation and enhancement of
the city's major recrea-tional areas through protection of natural
amenities and the encouragement of development which respects and is
consistent with those natural amenities.

The River Harbor (RH) District, modified as a result of the LWRP, permits
such uses as housing, hotels, motels and boatels, multiple uses and
mixed-uses and certain other uses subject to special permit.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) See (1), (2), and (6) under (B) on pages V-10 and V-11.

V-26

POLICIES (22). (22A), (226):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the need to promote and encourage, as a multiple use,
water-related recreational facilities within the LWRP, whenever such
recreational uses are compatible with existing demand and the primary
purpose of the overall development. Whenever actions or proposals involve
shorezone areas, the city will utilize site plan and environmental review
procedures to evaluate whether or not they should be considered for, and
required to incorporate appropriate recreational uses.

The city's site plan review procedures will be used to consider and review
the feasibility of providing water-related recreation, as a multiple use,
within public and private development projects. As noted earlier, site
plan review procedures are required for all development proposed on sites
located adjacent to the river as well as for numerous other types or
classifications of development activity. During the review process, the
city will evaluate whether or not the development of water-related
recreational facilities as multiple uses on particular sites adjacent to
the shore are appropriate and feasible

The R-H River Harbor District, modified as a result of the LWRP,
specifically permits certain multiple uses that include water-oriented
recreational facilities within the shorezone, subject to permit and to
appropriate conditions and standards.

(B) ADDITIONAL KIBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city prepared and will promote, in cooperation with other
governmental agencies, a redevelopment plan for the port and River
Street sites which provides for water-related recreation, as part of
a multiple-use which is compatible with other land uses and
activities within the areas. The proposed plan includes
construction of a small marina, development of a public walkway
immediately adjacent to the river, redevelopment of two warehouses
for use as a restaurant, boatel/motel, waterfront discovery center,
festival site or related marine services, rehabilitation of a
railroad station into a restaurant, and construction of picnic and
outdoor seating and viewing areas. The proposed water-related
recreational uses are based on reasonably anticipated demand levels
for such activities determined during a lengthy inventory, planning
and analysis process undertaken by the city and outside consultants.

(2) The city identified and will promote the development of several
water-related recreational uses and the improvement of public access
to the shorezone, that are located within existing industrial
facilities. An example of such an opportunity would be the
improvement of public vehicular and pedestrian access, down Seth
Green Drive, to the RUE Station 5 Power Plant on the west bank of
the river, just north of the Driving Park Bridge. Improvement of
public access in this location would greatly enhance the area's use

V-27

by fishermen. Development of a fish-cleaning station could also be
considered. There are several other areas within the LWRP boundary
that provide significant vistas of the river gorge. These areas are
wi thi n pri vatel y-owned i ndustri al f aci 1 i ti es. The ci ty wi 11 attempt
to negotiate with private landowners the provision of public access
and the development of overlooks and rest areas within these areas.

POLICIES (23). (23A), (23B), (230:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city recognizes the need for and places a high priority on the
identification and preservation of structures, sites,and districts within
the LWRP boundary that are significant in terms of the history,
architecture, archaeology or culture of the state or nation.

The city will utilize the site plan review and approval process to ensure
that full consideration is given to how development proposed within the
LWRP boundary "fitsm into existing historic areas. Adverse impacts on
existing historic districts and structures, as well as on the historic
"characterm of many areas, will be minimized through the consideration of
the overall appearance and specific design and construction details of new
development during the site plan review process.

The city will utilize zoning overlay district regulations for historic
preservation to protect areas that may be designated as new preservation
districts or enlargements to existing districts within the LWRP boundary.
These designations would be the result of completion of historic surveys
by the Landmark Society of Western New York and the Rochester Museum and
Science Center. The districts may include buildings or structures that
have been identified for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places and/or for consideration as locally-significant historic places.

Two changes made to the Cityl.s Zoning Ordinance as a result of the LWRP
implement the above policies:

(1) The City's historic preservation regulations were modified to
include new, more specific standards for the designation of
landmarks and landmark sites.

(2) An Overlay Harbor Town Design (OHTD) District was adopted, which
requires a certificate of design compliance, granted- after a review
process based on design guidelines for landscaping, signage, visual
and historic compatibility, site development, etc., for certain
types of new development in the shorezone.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city prepared and will promote, in cooperation with other
governmental agencies, a redevelopment plan for the port and River
Street sites that preserves many architecturally and historically
significant structures in the area. The plans are specifically

V-28

0 designed to protect and enhance these resources. A major element of
the proposed River Street concept plan is the enhancement of the
existing Ivillagem and unauticall character or ambience present in
the area.

(2) The city will promote and encourage the preservation of several
archaeologically significant sites located in various public parks
and other areas along the river gorge. These sites include Carthage
Landing, located on the east bank of the Genesee River, just south
of the Veteran's Memorial Bridge, Kelsey's Landing, located on the
west bank of the river, below Maplewood Parki and an area near the
proposed Lower Falls Park, just south of the Driving Park Bridge
These areas contain historic remains of buildings and othe;
facilities that date back to the early 1800's. The city will
promote and encourage, in cooperation with Monroe County, the
identification and protection of these areas as a part of
redevelopment plans prepared for each park.

(3) As a result of the completion of historic surveys by the Landmark
Society of Western New York and the Rochester Museum and Science
Center, the city will prepare a list of structures within the LWRP
boundary that have the potential to be nominated to the National
Historic Register of Historic Places, will identify those structures
and facilities that have the potential for being designated as local
landmarks, and will evaluate the possibility of extending or
creating new preservation districts within the LWRP boundary.

POLICY_C U4: NOT APPLICABLE.

POLICY (25). (25A), (25B), (250:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The city will utilize zoning, site plan and environmental review
procedures to protect natural and man-made resources which enhance scenic
views and vistas within the LWRP boundary. These regulations will ensure
that proposed private development will not interfere with or destroy
existing natural or man-made features that contribute to the scenic
quality of the lake and the river.

As noted in previous LWRP policies, much of the area located within the
city's LWRP boundary and immediately adjacent to the lake or river is
currently zoned for open space use (OS District). The district
regulations are adequate to prohibit or control most types of development
which would have a detrimental effect on significant scenic views and
vistas and other scenic resources within the LWRP boundary. The purpose
statement contained within the OS District includes references to the
preservation and enhancement of the city's major open spaces and
recreational areas through protection of natural amenities and the
encouragement of development which respects and is consistent with those
amenities.

V-29

Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the river and lake, within
areas zoned as open space, in heavily wooded areas, and within steep slope
areas are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, since these locations have been identified as critical
environmental areas. A complete environmental review, including a visual
resource inventory and analysis, would be required for projects proposed
in such areas. City environmental review procedures will be utilized to
ensure that development activities that have been determined to be Type I
actions under this legislation will not adversely affect significant
scenic views and vistas or other scenic resources within the LWRP
boundary.

The City's site plan review procedures are required for all development
proposed on sites located adjacent to the river as well as for other types
of development activity. These procedures include such items as
preservation of open space and critical environmental areas, as well as
the relationship of the proposed development to surrounding land uses and
natural features including scenic views and vistas. These procedures will
ensure that significant scenic resources within the river gorge will be
identified and protected as a part of the review of development activity
within the LWRP boundary.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES:

(1) The city will promote and encourage, in cooperation with Monroe
County and other governmental agencies, the development of
maintenance plans and measures to clean-up the riverfront area and
steep slopes within the gorge, in order to enhance visual quality.

(2) The city, in cooperation with Monroe County, will encourage and
support the redevelopment of various recreational facilities that
are part of the six public parks located within the LWRP boundary.
These parks include Durand-Eastman Park and Ontario Beach Park which
are located on Lake Ontario, and Turning Point Park, Seneca Park,
Mapl ewood Park and Lower Fal I s Park whi ch are I ocated on the Genesee
River. The city will promote the development of trails, overlooks
and viewing areas in and around these public parks, in order to
provide increased viewing opportunities for park visitors of scenic
resources within the gorge area.

POLICY (26): NOT APPLICABLE.

V-30

POLICIES (271, (27A):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THESE POLICIES:

The only major energy facility that exists within the LWRP boundary is the
RUE Station 5 Power Plant and the adjacent Middle Falls Dam. This
facility and use will continue at its present location for the foreseeable
future. However, if RUE ever does abandon the site, the city will use
site plan and environmental review procedures to ensure that an evaluation
of the best reuse for the site is completed. This evaluation will
acknowledge the need to consider the compatibility of the new use with the
surrounding environment as well as the facility's potential need for a
shorefront location.

Site plan review and approval would be required for development proposed
within sites adjacent to the. river as well as for other types of
development activity. These procedures address preservation of open space
and critical environmental areas, as well as the relationship of the
proposed development to surrounding land uses and natural features. The
procedures will ensure compatibility of the proposed development with the
site's waterfront location.

Additionally, development actions proposed within 100 feet of the river
and lake, within areas zoned as open space. in heavily wooded areas, and
within steep slope areas are Type I actions under the City's Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance. A complete environmental review would be
required for such projects. This review will ensure that such facilities
are developed in a manner that does not adversely affect the environment.

POLICY (28): NOT APPLICABLE.

POLICY JU9 : NOT APPLICABLE.

POLICY (30):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:
Site plan review and approval is required for development proposed within
sites adjacent to the river, as well as for other types of development
activity including manufacturing or industrial facilities that might
discharge materials or pollutants into the river or lake. These
procedures address preservation of critical environmental areas, potential
creation of erosion or drainage problems, as well as the relationship of
the proposed development to surrounding land uses and natural features.

V-31

The procedures will ensure that the project does not adversely impact
water quality due to the discharge of pollutants or other materials.
Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the river and lake, within
areas zoned as open space, in heavily wooded areas, and within steep slope
areas are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, since these locations have been identified as critical
environmental areas. A complete environmental review would be required
for such projects. City environmental review procedures will ensure that
development activities that are Type I actions under this legislation will
not adversely impact water quality in the river or lake due to the
discharge of pollutants or other materials.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The city will continue to assist in and support the water quality
monitoring activities of the Monroe County Health Department and the
NYSDEC, to ensure that discharges into Lake Ontario and the Genesee
River comply with state and federal water quality standards.

POLICY (31):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the Genesee River and Lake
Ontario are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, because this area has been identified as a critical
envi ronmental area. A compl ete envi ronmental revi ew woul d be requi red for
such projects. The city will use the environmental review procedures to
ensure that water quality impacts of stormwater runoff and -effluent
discharge from Type I development activities, as well as overall water
quality and pollution levels adjacent to such sites are considered and
evaluated prior to any project approval. The environmental review process
will also ensure that mitigating measures or project alternatives will be
required if adverse environmental impacts such as further degradation of
water quality should result. City environmental review procedures will
ensure that development activities that have been determined to be Type I
actions will not adversely impact water quality in the river or lake due
to the discharge of pollutants or other materials.

POLICY (32): NOT APPLICABLE.

V-32

POLICY (33):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the Genesee River and Lake
Ontario are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, because these areas have been identified as critical
environmental areas. A complete environmental review would be required
for projects in these areas. The city will use the environmental review
process to ensure that best management practices (BNP1s) will be used to
control stormwater runoff and other effluent discharge from Type I
development activities. The environ-mental review process will also
ensure that mitigating measures or project alternatives will be required
if adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of water quality
should result.

The following changes made to the City's Zoning Ordinance as a result of
the LWRP implement the above policies:

(1) A Waterfront Consistency Ordinance was adopted which mandates the
consideration of a project's consistency with LWRP goals, policies
and objectives as a criteria for review of projects within the LWRP
boundary.

(2) Administrative procedures were adopted which will control site
development activities such as grading, filling, excavations,
stripping and removal of topsoil in coordination with a permit
review and approval process. The procedures will include standards
for permit approvals and will also mandate soil erosion and sediment
control measures for development activity, based on accepted
engineering standards as well as best management practices (B"Pls)
for stormwater runoff management.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The city, in cooperation with Monroe County, is participating in the
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program (CSOAP) which will
eliminate combined storm and sanitary sewers in many areas of the
city. This project involves the construction of several large
underground holding tunnels which will discharge sewage and storm
water, collected after major rainfalls, to the Frank E. VanLare
Treatment Plant located in Durand-Eastman Park. Prior to the
construction of these tunnels, large volumes of combined sewage and
storm water that occurred after major rainfalls in the area flowed
directly into the river and lake without being treated. This sewage
contributed to pollution problems in the river and lake and the
elimination or destruction of fish and other wildlife species. The
completion of the underground holding tunnels will eliminate a major
source of pollution discharge into the river and lake and will help
preserve existing stocks of fish in the area.

V-33

(2) The city will continue to investigate and promote improvements to
other portions of the city storm and sanitary sewer systems in order
to maintain and enhance the existing water quality in the river and
lake. The improvements will be based on accepted best management
practices (BNP's) for stormwater runoff and drainage control.

POLICY (3 ):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THIS POLICY:

The city will enforce all existing and relevant building, sanitary and
health codes that apply to the discharge of sewage, waste and other
pollutants into local waters.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLENENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The city will promote and encourage, in cooperation with Monroe
County, the control and/or prohibition of discharges of waste
materials from vessels into coastal waters, in order to protect
significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational resources and
water supply areas (counties in New York State may regulate such
activity under Section 46 of New York State Navigation Law).

(2) The city will explore with Monroe County the possibility of
establishing no-discharge zones within the Genesee River and Lake
POLICY (35): Ontario.

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THIS POLICY:

The NYSDEC issues dredging permits when it has been demonstrated that the
anticipated adverse effects of such operations have been reduced to levels
which satisfy state dredging permit standards as set forth in regulations
developed pursuant to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law.

Development activities proposed within 100 feet of the Genesee River and
Lake Ontario are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, because this area has been identified as a critical
environmental area. A complete environmental review would be required for
such projects. The city will use the environmental review process to
ensure that the deposition of any dredge spoil materials within the LWRP
boundary is conducted in a manner which protects and preserves significant
fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features
or wetl ands. The environmental review process will also ensure that
mitigating measures or project alternatives will be required if adverse
environmental impacts such as destruction of significant habitat areas or
other existing natural resources should result.

V-34

POLICY (36):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLEKENTS THIS POLICY:

The city will utilize the following State legislation as a means of
implementing this policy:

(a) Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Compensation,
Navigation Law (Article 12) 1
(b) Penalties and Liabilities for Spills of Bulk Liquids,
Environmental Conservation Law (Article 71-1941))
(c) Transportation Law (Article 2, Section 14-F)

These measures are considered adequate for the city because no activities
related to the shipment or substantial storage of petroleum or other
hazardous materials currently occur within the LWRP boundary, or will be
approved within the boundary in the foreseeable future.

POLICY 1171:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THIS POLICY:

Development actions proposed within 100 feet of the river and lake are
Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
because these areas have been identified as critical environmental areas.
A complete environmental review would be required for projects in these
areas. The city will utilize the environmental review process to ensure
that best management practices (BMP's) will be used to control the
non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils from
Type I development activities. The environmental review process will also
ensure that mitigating measures or project alternatives will be required
if adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of water quality
should result.

See (1) and (2) under (A) on page V-33 for a description of changes made
to the City's Zoning Ordinance, which are a result of the LWRP, and which
implement the above policy.

POLICY (38):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT INPLENENTS THIS POLICY:

None required or identified.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLEKENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The city's primary source of water is its Upland Watershed at
Hemlock and Canadice Lakes, and the Monroe County Water Authority
which uses Lake Ontario as its major water source. The ci ty
recognizes and endorses the policy of the Monroe County Water

V-35

Authority, and will work with the appropriate regional monitoring
agencies to ensure that appropriate standards to implement this
policy are enforced.

POLICY (39):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

None required or identified.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

(1) There is currently no active transport, storage, treatment and/or
disposal of hazardous wastes within the city's LWRP boundary. In
addition, no land use or activity will occur within the waterfront
revitalization area that will produce such hazardous or solid
wastes, as defined in the Environmental Conservation Law, Article
27. However, the city will continue to work with the appropriate
monitoring and permit agencies to ensure that government standards
regarding disposal of such wastes are met.

POLICY (40):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

None required or identified.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The RG&E Station 5 power plant located on the east bank of the
river, near the Driving Park Bridge, and the Eastman Kodak Company
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant, located on the west bank of the
river, just north of the Veteran's Memorial -Bridge, are the only two
facilities within the LWRP boundary that are the types of uses
described in this policy. The city will continue to work with the
appropriate local, state and federal monitoring and permit agencies
to ensure that the water quality standards are being met and that
appropriate disposal methods are used.

POLICY (41):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

Existing and proposed land uses within the city's LWRP boundary will be
restricted to residential, recreational and marine-related or supported
commercial facilities. None of these uses are likely to produce
significant degradation of air quality in the area. The NYSDEC has
jurisdiction over the monitoring of air quality to ensure that the
provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act are being met.

V-36

POLICY (42):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

None required or identified.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

The policies of the State Coastal Management Program and Rochester LWRP
concerning proposed land and water uses and the protection and
preservation of special management areas will be taken into account prior
to any action to change prevention of significant deterioration land
classifications in coastal regions or adjacent areas. In addition, the
NYSDOS will provide the NYSDEC with recommendations for proposed
prevention of significant deterioration land classification designations,
based upon State Coastal Management and Rochester LWRP policies.

POLICY (43):

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEM ENT S THIS POLICY:

None required or identified.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

The New York State Coastal Management Program incorporates the State's
policies on acid rain. Therefore, the Coastal Management Program will
assist in the State's efforts to control acid rain. These efforts to
control acid rain will enhance the continued viability of coastal
fisheries, wildlife, agricultural, scenic and water resources.

There are currently no generators of significant amounts of acid rain
precursors located with the LWRP boundary and no opportunities exist for
new development which would include these generators.

POLICY Lill:

(A) LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS THIS POLICY:

The city will utilize environmental review procedures and regulations to
ensure that wetlands as well as surrounding nbufferm areas are preserved
and protected within the LWRP boundary. Development actions proposed
within 100 feet of the river and lake and within areas zoned as open
space, both of which include all significant wetland areas along the river
and lake, are Type I actions under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, because these locations have been designated as critical
environmental areas. Such actions will require a complete environmental
impact review. As a part of this review, the city would be able to
determine and address the project's potential impacts on existing fish and
wildlife habitat areas and other wetland features, and would propose

V-37

mitigating measures, if required, in order to protect those areas from
adverse development impacts.

(B) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE ACTIONS THAT INPLEMENT THIS POLICY:

(1) The city will continue acquisition of properties formerly owned by
Conrail along the east bank of the river, opposite the Turning
Basin. These properties are located within or adjacent to the river
gorge, contain wetland areas and steep, wooded slopes and provide
habitats for a wide variety of wildlife species, including fish and
bird populations that should be preserved and protected. The city
will acquire these properties to preserve and protect existing
freshwater wetland areas as well as the scenic and aesthetic quality
of the river gorge in general.

V-38

0 TABLE V-1
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION AND ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
WHICH IMPLEMENT LWRP POLICIES

LEGISLATION WILL IMPLEMENT THESE LWRP POLICIES

City Zoning Ordinance Open Space District 1, 2, 7, 9,11, 12,17, 21, 25
City Zoning Ordinance Site Plan Review 1, 5, 7,8,11,12,13,14,17,
Procedures 18,19,22,23,25,27,30
City Code Chapter 48, Environmental 8,11,12,13,14,17,18,19,
Review Process 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 44
City 'one-stop-shop* permit procedures 6
City floodplain/speciai permit regulations 11,17
City Zoning Ordinance River Harbor
District 1,2,9,20,21,22
City historic preservation regulations 23
City Zoning Ordinance Oveday-Harbor
Town Design District 1,23
City Code Consistency Ordinance 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19,
25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 44
Administrative procedures with best 33.37
Management practices (BMP's) for
runoff control

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS WILL IMPLEMENT THESE LWRP POLICIES

Implement port site concept plan 1, 2,5,20,21, 22,23
Implement River Street concept plan 1, 2,5, 20, 21, 22, 23
Redevelop Lake Avenue corridor 1
Redevelop Durand-Eastman Park 1, 2,5,19,20
Develop boat launch on Genesee River 1, 2, 9,19, 20
Improve various county parks 1, 2. 5, 7, 9, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25
Participate in CSOAP 8.33
Participate in Remedial Action Plan (RAP) 8
Acquire east bank riverfront land 9,17,19, 20, 44
Encourage expanded fish stocking
programs 9
Maintain east and west river piers 13, 19
investigate groins at Durand Beach 13
Improve public access in industrial areas 22
Develop list of historic register properties 23
Develop riverfront cleanup programs 25
Support water quality monitoring activities 30
Investigate storm/sanitary sewer
improvements 33
Investigate non-discharge zones in river 34

V-39

SUMMARY OF SECTION V: IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES

Changes to the City of Rochester Municipal Code and Charter were made in order
to i mpl ement many of the state coastal pol i ci es appl i cabl e to the LWRP. Some of
the major changes are listed below.

(1) Modification of the city's River Harbor (RH) Zoning District to
permit such uses as housing, hotels, motels and boatels, multiple
uses, and to allow certain uses subject to special permit.

Modification of the RH Zoning District purpose statement to include
references to the preservation and enhancement of the recreational
character and visual quality of the river harbor area, the
preservation and promotion of the public access to the shoreline and
the encouragement of tourism in the area.

(2) Adoption of the Harbor Town Design Overlay District which requires
a certificate of design compliance for certain types of new
development in the shorezone, to be granted after a review process
based on design guidelines for landscaping, signage, visual
compatibility, site development, etc.

(3) Adoption of administrative procedures which will control site
development activities such as grading, filling, excavations,
stripping and removal of topsoil in coordination with a permit
review and approval process. The procedures include standards for
permit approvals and also mandate soil erosion and sediment control
measures for development activity, based on accepted engineering
standards as well as best management practices (BMP's) for
stormwater runoff management.

(4) Modification of a section of the City Zoning Ordinance to include
specific standards for the designation of landmark sites.

(5) Amendment to the Code of the City of Rochester to include a new
Waterfront Consistency Review Ordinance, which allows the city to
implement and administer the consistency requirements of the New
York State Coastal Management Program.

Additionally, the city will undertake projects at the Port Authority site and the
River Street site within the LWRP boundary, which will improve public access to
the shorezone and to the water i tsel f , promote water-dependent and water-enhanced
uses along Lake Ontario and the Genesee River, promote tourism and economic
development, and contribute to the revitalization of the city's important
waterfront areas.

V-40

SECTION VI: STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIONS AND PROGRAMS LIKELY TO AFFECT
IMPLEMENTATION

INMODUCTION

State and federal actions will affect and be affected by implementation of
the City of Rochester's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)
Under State law and the U.S Coastal Zone Management Act, certain State ani
federal actions within or affecting the local waterfront area must be
"consistentu or "consistent to the maximum extent practicableu with the
enforceable policies and purposes of the LWRP. This consistency
requirement makes the LWRP a unique, intergovernmental mechanism for
setting policy and making decisions, and helps to prevent detrimental
actions from occurring and future options from being needlessly
foreclosed. At the same time, the active participation of state and
federal agencies will also be required in order to implement specific
provisions of the LWRP.

Subsection 2 of this Section identifies the actions and programs of State
and federal agencies which should be undertaken in a manner consistent
with the LWRP. This is a generic list of actions and programs, as
identified by the HYS Department of State; therefore, some of the actions
and programs listed may not be relevant to the city's LWRP. Pursuant to
the State Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Executive
Law, Article 42), the Secretary of State individually and separately
notifies affected State agencies of those agency actions and programs
which are to be undertaken in a manner consistent with approved LWRPs.
Similarly, federal agency actions and programs subject to consistency
requirements are identified in the manner prescribed by the U.S. Coastal
Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations. The lists of State
and federal actions and programs included herein Are informational only
and do not represent or substitute for the required identification and
notification procedures. The current official lists of actions subject to
State and federal consistency requirements may be obtained from the NYS
Department of State.

Subsection 3 of this Section is a more focused and descriptive list of
State and federal agency actions which are necessary to further
implementation of the LWRP. It is recognized that a State or federal
agency's ability to undertake such actions is subject to a variety of
factors and considerations; that the consistency provisions referred to
above may not apply; and that the consistency requirements can not be used
to require a State or federal agency to undertake an action it could not
undertake pursuant to other provisions of law. SECTION IV and SECTION V
also discuss, in general terms, State and federal assistance needed to
implement the LWRP.

VI-3

STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIONS AND PROGRANS WHICH SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN A
KANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP

A. State Agencies

OFFICE FOR THE AGING

1.00 Funding. and/or approval programs for the establishment of new or
expanded facilities providing various services for the elderly.

DEPARTNENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NARKETS

1.00 Agricultural Districts Program
2.00 Rural Development Program
3.00 Farm Worker Services Programs.
4.00 Permit and approval programs:

4.01 Custom Slaughters/Processor Permit
4.02 Processing Plant License
4.03 Refrigerated Warehouse and/or Locker Plant License

ALBANY PORT DISTRICT CONNISSION (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Commission.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL/STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY

1.00 Permit and Approval Programs:

1.01 Ball Park - Stadium License
1.02 Bottle Club License
1.03 Bottling Permits
1.04 Brewer's Licenses and Permits
1.05 Brewer's Retail Beer License
1.06 Catering Establishment Liquor License
1.07 Cider Producer's and Wholesaler's Licenses
1.08 Club Beer, Liquor, and Wine Licenses
1.09 Distiller's Licenses
1.10 Drug Store, Eating Place, and Grocery Store Beer Licenses
1.11 Farm Winery and Winery Licenses
1.12 Hotel Beer, Wine, and Liquor Licenses
1.13 Industrial Alcohol Manufacturer's Permits
1.14 Liquor Store License
1.15 On-Premises Liquor Licenses
1.16 Plenary Permit (Miscellaneous-Annual)
1.17 Summer Beer and Liquor Licenses
1.18 Tavern/Restaurant and Restaurant Wine Licenses
1.19 Vessel Beer and Liquor Licenses

VI-4

1.20 Warehouse Permit
1.21 Wine Store License
1.22 Winter Beer and Liquor Licenses
1.23 Wholesale Beer, Wine, and Liquor Licenses

DIVISION OF ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOL ABUSE

1.00 Facilities, construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition
or the funding of such activities.

2.00 Permit and approval programs:

2.01 Letter Approval for Certificate of Need
2.02 Operating Certificate (Alcoholism Facility)
2.03 Operating Certificate (Community Residence)
2.04 Operating Certificate (Outpatient Facility)
2.05 Operating Certificate (Sobering-Up Station)

COUNCIL ON THE ARTS

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Architecture and environmental arts program.

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING

1.00 Permit and approval programs:

1.01 Authorization Certificate (Bank Branch)
1.02 Authorization Certificate (Bank Change of Location)
1.03 Authorization Certificate (Bank Charter)
1.04 Authorization Certificate (Credit Union Change of Location)
1.05 Authorization Certificate (Credit Union Charter)
1.06 Authorization Certificate (Credit Union Station)
1.07 Authorization Certificate (Foreign Banking Corporation Change
of Location)
1.08 Authorization Certificate (Foreign Banking Corporation Public
Accommodations Office
1.09 Authorization Certificate (Investment Company Branch)
1.10 Authorization Certificate (Investment Company Change of
Location)
1.11 Authorization Certificate (Investment Company Charter)
1.12 Authorization Certificate (Licensed Lender Change of Location)
1.13 Authorization Certificate (Mutual Trust Company Charter)
1.14 Authorization Certificate (Private Banker Charter)
1.15 Authorization Certificate (Public Accommodation Office -
Banks)
1.16 Authorization Certificate (Safe Deposit Company Branch)
1.17 Authorization Certificate (Safe Deposit Company Change of
Location)
1.18 Authorization Certificate (Safe Deposit Company Charter)

VI-5

1.19 Authorization Certificate (Savings Bank Charter)
1.20 Authorization Certificate (Savings Bank De Novo Branch Office)
1.21 Authorization Certificate (Savings Bank Public Accommodations
Office)
1.22 Authorization Certificate (Savings and Loan Association
Branch)
1.23 Authorization Certificate (Savings and Loan Association Change
of Location)
1.24 Authorization Certificate (Savings and Loan Association
Charter)
1.25 Authorization Certificate (Subsidiary Trust Company Charter)
1.26 Authorization Certificate (Trust Company Branch)
1.27 Authorization Certificate (Trust Company-Change of Location)
1.28 Authorization Certificate (Trust Company Charter)
1.29 Authorization Certificate (Trust Company Public Accommodations
Office)
1.30 Authorization to Establish a Life Insurance Agency
1.31 License as a Licensed Lender
1.32 License for a Foreign Banking Corporation Branch

NEW YORK STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

BUFFALO AND FORT ERIE PUBLIC BRIDGE AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

3.00 Increases in special fares for transportation services to public
water-related recreation resources.

VI-6

CENTRAL NEW YORK REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction,.rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

3.00 Increases in special fares for transportation services to public
water-related recreation resources.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

1.00 Preparation or revision of statewide or specific plans to address
State economic development needs.

2.00 Allocation of the state tax-free bonding reserve.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

1.00 Financing of higher education and health care facilities.

2.00 Planning and design services assistance program.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, demolition or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Permit and approval programs:

2.01 Certification of Incorporation (Regents Charter)
2.02 Private Business School Registration
2.03 Private School License
2.04 Registered Manufacturer of Drugs and/or Devices
2.05 Registered Pharmacy Certificate
2.06 Registered Wholesale of Drugs and/or Devices
2.07 Registered Wholesaler-Repacker of Drugs and/or Devices
2.08 Storekeeper's Certificate

ENERGY PLANNING BOARD AND ENERGY OFFICE

1.00 Preparation and revision of the State Energy Master Plan.

VI-7

NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1.00 Issuance of revenue bonds to finance pollution abatement modifica-
tions in power-generation facilities and various energy projects.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of lands under the jurisdic-
tion of the Department.

2.00 Classification of Waters Program; classification of land areas under
the Cl ean Ai r Act.

3.00 Faci 1 i ti es constructi on, rehabi 1 i tati on, expansi on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

4.00 Financial assistance/grant programs:

4.01 Capital projects for limiting air pollution
4.02 Cleanup of toxic waste dumps
4.03 Flood control, beach eros ion and other water resource projects
4.04 Operating aid to municipal wastewater treatment facilities
4.05 Resource recovery and solid-waste management capital projects
4.06 Wastewater treatment facilities

5.00 Funding assistance for issuance of permits and other regulatory
activities (New York City only).

6.00 Implementation of the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972,
including:

(a) Water Quality Improvement Projects
(b) Land Preservation and Improvement Projects including Wetland
Preservation and Restoration Projects, Unique Area
Preservation Projects, Metropolitan Parks Projects, Open Space
Preservation Projects and Waterways Projects.

7.00 Marine Finfish and Shellfish Programs.

8.00 New York Harbor Drift Removal Project.

9.00 Permit and approval programs:

Air Resources

9.01 Certificate of Approval for Air Pollution Episode Action Plan
9.02 Certificate of Compliance for Tax Relief - Air Pollution
Control Facility
9.03 Certificate to Operate: Stationary Combustion Installation;
Incinerator; Process, Exhaust or Ventilation System
9.04 Permit for Burial of Radioactive Material

VI-8

9.05 Permit for Discharge of Radioactive Material to Sanitary Sewer
9.06 Permit for Restricted Burning
9.07 Permit to Construct: a Stationary Combustion Installation;
Incinerator; Indirect Source of Air Contamination; Process,
Exhaust or Ventilation System

Construction Management

9.08 Approval of Plans and Specifications for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities

Fish and Wildlife

9.09 Certificate to Possess and Sell Hatchery Trout in New York
State
9.10 Commercial Inland Fisheries Licenses
9.11 Fishing Preserve License
9.12 Fur Breeder's License
9.13 Game Dealer's License
9.14 Licenses to Breed Domestic Game Animals
9.15 License to Possess and Sell Live Game
9.16 Permit to Import, Transport and/or Export under Section 184.1
11-0511)
9.17 Permit to Raise and Sell Trout
9.18 Private Bass Hatchery Permit
9.19 Shooting Preserve Licenses
9.20 Taxidermy License

Lands and Forest

9.21 Certificate of Environmental Safety (Liquid Natural Gas and
Liquid Petroleum Gas)
9.22 Floating Object Permit
9.23 Marine Regatta Permit
9.24 Mining Permit
9.25 Navigation Aid Permit
9.26 Permit to Plug and Abandon (a non-commercial, oil, gas or
solution mining well)
9.27 Permit to Use Chemicals for the Control or Elimination of
Aquatic Insects
9.28 Permit to Use Chemicals for the Control or Elimination of
Aquatic Vegetation
9.29 Permit to Use Chemicals for the Control or Extermination of
Undesirable Fish
9.30 Underground Storage Permit (Gas)
9.31 Well Drilling Permit (Oil, Gas, and Solution Salt Mining)

Marine Resources

9.32 Digger's Permit (Shellfish)
9.33 License of Menhaden Fishing Vessel
9.34 License for Non-Resident Food Fishing Vessel

VI-9

9.35 Non-Resident Lobster Permit
9.36 Marine Hatchery and/or Off-Bottom Culture Shellfish Permits
9.37 Permits to Take Blue-Claw Crabs
9.38 Permit to Use Pond or Trap Net
9.39 Resident Commercial Lobster Permit
9.40 Shellfish Bed Permit
9.41 Shellfish Shipper's Permits
9.42 Special Permit to Take Surf Clams from Waters other than the
Atlantic Ocean

Regulatory Affairs

9.43 Approval - Drainage Improvement District
9.44 Approval - Water (Diversions for) Power
9.45 Approval of Well System and Permit to Operate
9.46 Permit - Article 15, (Protection of Water) - Dam
9.47 Permit - Article 15, (Protection of Water) - Dock, Pier or
Wharf
9.48 Permit - Article 15, (Protection of Water) - Dredge or Deposit
Material in a Waterway
9.49 Permit - Article 15, (Protection of Water) - Stream Bed or
Bank Disturbances
9.50 Permit - Article 15, Title 15 (Water Supply)
9.51 Permit - Article 24, (Freshwater Wetlands)
9.52 Permit - Article 25, (Tidal Wetlands)
9.53 River Improvement District Approvals
9.54 River Regulatory District Approvals
9.55 Well Drilling Certificate of Registration

Solid Wastes

9.56 Permit to Construct and/or Operate a Solid Waste Management
Facility
9.57 Septic Tank Cleaner and Industrial Waste Collector Permit

Water Resources

9.58 Approval of Plans for Wastewater Disposal Systems
9.59 Certificate of Approval of Realty Subdivision Plans
9.60 Certificate of Compliance (Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Facility)
9.61 Letters of Certification for Major Onshore Petroleum Facility
Oil Spill Prevention and Control Plan
9.62 Permit - Article 36, (Construction in Flood Hazard Areas)
9.63 Permit for State Agency Activities for Development in Coastal
Erosion Hazards Areas
9.64 Permit for State Agency Activities for Development in Coastal
Erosion Hazards Areas
9.65 State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit
9.66 401 Water Quality Certification

10.00 Preparation and revision of Air Pollution State Implementation Plan.

VI-10

11.00 Preparation and revision of Continuous Executive Program Plan.

12.00 Preparation and revision of Statewide Environmental Plan.

13.00 Protection of Natural and Man-made Beauty Program.

14.00 Urban Fisheries Program.

15.00 Urban Forestry Program.

16.00 Urban Wildlife Program.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES CORPORATION

1.00 Financing program for pollution control facilities for industrial
firms and small businesses.

FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES

1.00 Administration of the Public Lands Law for acquisition and
disposition of lands, grants of land and grants of easement of land
under water, issuance of licenses for removal of materials from
lands under water, and oil and gas leases for exploration and
development.

2.00 Administration of Article 4-B, Public Buildings Law, in regard to
the protection and management of State historic and cultural
properties and State uses of buildings of historic, architectural or
cultural significance.

3.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Permit and approval programs:

2.01 Approval of Completed Works for Public Water Supply
Improvements
2.02 Approval of Plans for Public Water Supply Improvements.
2.03 Certificate of Need (Health Related Facility - except
Hospitals)
2.04 Certificate of Need (Hospitals)
2.05 Operating Certificate (Diagnostic and Treatment Center)
2.06 Operating Certificate (Health Related Facility)

VI-11

2.07 Operating Certificate (Hospice)
2.08 Operating Certificate (Hospital)
2.09 Operating Certificate (Nursing Home)
2.10 Permit to operate a Children's Overnight or Day Camp
1.11 Permit to Operate a Migrant Labor Camp
2.12 Permit to Operate as a Retail Frozen Dessert Manufacturer
2.13 Permit to Operate a Service Food Establishment
2.14 Permit to Operate a Temporary Residence/Mass Gathering
2.15 Permit to Operate or Maintain a Swimming Pool or Public
Bathing Beach
2.16 Permit to Operate Sanitary Facilities for Realty Subdivisions
2.17 Shared Health Facility Registration Certificate

DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL and its subsidiaries and
affiliates

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

2.00 Financial assistance/grant programs:

2.01 Federal Housing Assistance Payments Programs (Section 8
Programs)
2.02 Housing Development Fund Programs
2.03 Neighborhood Preservation Companies Program
2.04 Public Housing Programs
2.05 Rural Initiatives Grant Program
2.06 Rural Preservation Companies Program
2.07 Rural Rental Assistance Program
2.08 Special Needs Demonstration Projects
2.09 Urban Initiatives Grant Program
2.10 Urban Renewal Programs

3.00 Preparation and implementation of plans to address housing and
community renewal needs.

HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

1.00 Funding programs for the construction, rehabilitation, or expansion
of facilities.

2.00 Affordable Housing Corporation

INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION (regional agency)

1.00 Adoption and enforcement of air and water pollution standards within
the Interstate Sanitation District.

JOB DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

VI-12

1.00 Financing assistance programs for commercial and industrial
facilities.

MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES FINANCING AGENCY

1.00 Financing of medical care facilities.

OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Permit and approval programs:

2.01 Operating Certificate (Community Residence)
2.02 Operating Certificate (Family Care Homes)
2.03 Operating Certificate (Inpatient Facility)
2.04 Operating Certificate (Outpatient Facility)

OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Permit and approval programs:

2.01 Establishment and Construction Prior Approval
2.02 Operating Certificate Community Residence
2.03 Outpatient Facility Operating Certificate

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
thefunding of such activities.

2.00 Increases in special fares for transportation services to public
water-related recreation resources.

DIVISION OF MILITARY AND NAVAL AFFAIRS

1.00 Preparation and implementation of the State Disaster Preparedness
Plan.

NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST

1.00 Funding program for natural heritage institutions.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (regional agency)

VI-13

1 - 00 Faci I i ti es constructi on, rehabi I i tati on, expans i on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Increases in special fares for transportation services to public
water-related recreation resources.

NIAGARA FALLS BRIDGE COMMISSION (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Commission.

2. 00 , Faci 1 i ti es constructi on, rehabi I i tati on, expans i on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

3.00 Increases in special fares for transportation services to public
water-related recreation resources.

OGDENSBURG BRIDGE AND PORT AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Commission.

2.00 Faci I i ti es constructi on, rehabi 1 i tati on, expans i on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION (including Regional
State Park Commission)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement or other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Office.

2.00 Faci 1 i ti es constructi on, rehabi I i tati on, expans i on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

3.00 Funding program for recreational boating, safety and enforcement.

4.00 Funding program for State and local historic preservation projects.

5.00 Land and Water Conservation Fund programs.

VI-14

6.00 Nomination of properties to the, Federal and/or State Register of
Historic Places.

7.00 Permit and approval programs:

7.01 Floating Objects Permit
7.02 Marine Regatta Permit
7.03 Navigation Aide Permit
7.04 Posting of Signs Outside State Parks

8.00 Preparation and revision of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan and the Statewide Comprehensive Historic
Preservation Plan and other plans for public access, recreation,
historic preservation or related purposes.

9.00 Recreation services program.

10.00 Urban Cultural Parks Program.

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities. related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Commission.

2.00 Faci 1 i ti es constructi on, rehabi I i tati on, expans i on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

3.00 Waterfront development project activities.

PORT OF OSWEGO AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Commission.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

ROCHESTER-GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (regional agency)

VI-15

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, ordemolitionor
the funding of such activities.

3.00 Increases in special fares for transportation services to public
water-related recreation resources.

NEW YORK STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION

1.00 Corporation for Innovation Development Program.

2.00 Center for Advanced Technology Program.

DEPARTNEW OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1.00 Faci I i ti es constructi on, rehabi I i tati on, expansi on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Homeless Housing and Assistance Program.

3.00 Permit and approval programs:

3.01 Certificate of Incorporation (Adult Residential Care
Facilities)
3.02 Operating Certificate (Children's Services)
3.03 Operating Certificate (Enriched Housing Program)
3.04 Operating Certificate (Home for Adults)
3.05 Operating Certificate (Proprietary Home)
3.06 Operating Certificate (Public Home)
3.07 Operating Certificate (Special Care Home)
3.08 Permit to Operate a Day Care Center

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

1.00 Appalachian Regional Development Program.

2.00 Coastal Management Program.

3.00 Community Services Block Grant Program.

4.00 Permit and approval programs:

4.01 Billiard Room License
4.02 Cemetery Operator
4.03 Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code

STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND

VI-16

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the University.

2.00 Faci 1 i ti es constructi on, rehabi 1 i tati on, expans i on, or demol i ti on or
the funding of such activities.

DIVISION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding of such activities.

2.00 Permit and approval programs:

2.01 Certificate of Approval (Substance Abuse Services Program)

THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (regional agency)

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Authority.

2.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition.

3.00 Permit and approval programs:

3.01 Advertising Device Permit
3.02 Approval to Transport Radioactive Waste
3.03 Occupancy Permit

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement and other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Department.

2.00 Construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition of
facilities, including but not limited to:

VI-17

(a) Highways and parkways
(b) Bridges on the State highways system
(c) Highway and parkway maintenance facilities
(d) Barge Canal
(e) Rail facilities

3.00 Financial assistance/grant programs:

3.01 Funding programs for construction/reconstruction and
reconditioning/preservation of municipal streets and highways
(excluding routine maintenance and minor rehabilitation)

3.02 Funding programs for development of the ports of Albany,
Buffalo, Oswego, Ogdensburg and New York

3.03 Funding programs for rehabilitation and replacement of
municipal bridges

3.04 Subsidies program for marginal branchlines abandoned by
Conrail

3.05 Subsidies program for passenger rail service

4.00 Permits and approval programs:

4.01 Approval of applications for airport improvements
(construction projects)

4.02 Approval of municipal applications for Section 18 Rural and
Small Urban Transit Assistance Grants (construction projects)

4.03 Approval of municipal or regional transportation authority
applications for funds for design, construction and
rehabilitation of omnibus maintenance and storage facilities

4.04 Approval of municipal or regional transportation authority
applications for funds for design and construction of rapid
transit facilities

4.05 Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Operate a Railroad

4.06 Highway Work Permits

4.07 License to Operate Major Petroleum Facilities

4.08 Outdoor Advertising Permit (for off-premises advertising signs
adjacent to interstate and primary highway)

4.09 Permits for Use and Occupancy of N.Y. State Canal Lands
(except Regional Permits [Snow Dumping])

4.10 Real Property Division Permit for Use of State-Owned Property

VI-18

5.00 Preparation or revision of the Statewide Master Plan for
Transportation and sub-area or special plans and studies related to
the transportation needs of the State.

6.00 Water Operation and Maintenance Program--Activities related to the
containment of petroleum spills and development of an emergency oil-
spill control network.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and its subsidiaries and affiliates

1.00 Acquisition, disposition, lease, grant of easement or other
activities related to the management of land under the jurisdiction
of the Corporation.

2.00 Planning, development, financing, construction, major renovation or
expansion of commercial, industrial, and civic facilities and the
provision of technical assistance or financing for such activities,
including, but not limited to, actions under its discretionary
economic development programs such as the 'following:

(a) Tax-Exempt Financing Program
(b) Lease Collateral Program
(c) Lease Financial Program
(d) Targeted Investment Program
(e) Industrial Buildings Recycling Program

3.00 Administration of special projects.

4.00 Administration of State-funded capital grant programs.

DIVISION FOR YOUTH

1.00 Facilities construction, rehabilitation, expansion, or demolition or
the funding or approval of such activities.

B. federal Agencies

DIRECT FEDERAL ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

DEPARTMENT OF C014MERCE

National Marine Fisheries Services

1.00 Fisheries Management Plans

DEPARTNENT OF DEFENSE

Army Corps of Engineers

VI-19

1.00 Proposed authorizations for dredging, channel improvements, break-
waters, other navigational works, or erosion control structures,
beach replenishment, dams or flood control works, ice management
practices and activities, and other projects with potential to
impact coastal lands and waters.

2.00 Land acquisition for spoil disposal or other purposes.

3.00 Selection of open water disposal sites.

Army, Navy and Air Force

4.00 Location, design, and acquisition of new or expanded defense
installations (active or reserve status, including associated
housing, transportation or other facilities).

5.00 Plans, procedures and facilities for landing or storage use zones.

6.00 Establishment of impact, compatibility or restricted use zones.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

1.00 Prohibition orders.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

1.00 Acquisition, location and design of proposed Federal Government
property or buildings, whether leased or owned by the Federal
Government.

2.00 Disposition of Federal surplus lands and structures.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

1.00 Management of National WIldlife refuges and proposed acquisitions.

Mineral Management Service

2.00 OCS lease sale activities including tract selection, lease sale
stipulations, etc.

National Park Service

3.00 National Park and Seashore management and proposed acquisitions.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Amtrak, Conrail 40
VI-20

1.00 Expansions, curtailments, new construction, upgrading or
abandonments or railroad facilities or services, in or affecting the
State's coastal area.

Coast Guard

2.00 Location and design, construction or enlargement of Coast Guard
stations, bases, and lighthouses.

3.00 Location, placement or removal of navigation devices which are not
part of the routine operations under the Aids to Navigation Program
(ATON).

4.00 Expansion, abandonment, designation or anchorages, lightening areas
or shipping lanes and ice management practices and activities.

Federal Aviation Administration

5.00 Location and design, construction, maintenance, and demolition of
Federal aids to air navigation.

Federal Highway.Administration

6.00 Highway construction.

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

7.00 Acquisition, location, design, improvement and construction of new
and existing facilities for the operation of the Seaway, including
traffic safety, traffic control and length of navigation season.

FEDERAL LICENSES AND PERMITS

DEPARTNENT OF DEFENSE

Army Corps of Engineers

1.00 Construction of dams, dikes or ditche's across navigable waters, or
obstruction or alteration of navigable waters required under
Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
401, 403).

2.00 Establishment of harbor lines pursuant to Section 11 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 404, 405).

3.00 Occupation of seawall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, pier, or
other work built by the U.S. pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408).

4.00 Approval of plans for improvements made at private expense under
USACE supervision pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1902 (33
U.S.C. 565).

VI-21

5.00 Disposal of dredged spoils into the waters of the U.S., pursuant to
the Clean Water Act, Section 404, (33 U.S.C. 1344).

6.00 All actions for which permits are required pursuant to Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1413).

7.00 Construction of artificial islands and fixed structures in Long
Island Sound pursuant to Section 4(f) of the River and Harbors Act
of 1912 (33 U.S.C.).

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Economic Regulatory Commission

1.00 Regulation of gas pipelines, and licensing of import or export of
natural gas pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717) and the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

2.00 Exemptions from prohibition orders.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

3.00 Licenses for non-Federal hydroelectric projects and primary
transmission lines under Sections 3(11), 4(e) and 15 of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(11) ' 797(11) and 808).

4.00 Orders for interconnection of electric transmission facilities under
Section 202(b) of the Federal Power Act (15 U.S.C. 824a(b)).

5.00 Certificates for the construction and operation of interstate
natural gas pipeline facilities, including both pipelines and
terminal facilities under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15
U.S.C. 717f(c)).

6.00 Permission and approval for the abandonment of natural gas pipeline
facilities under Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C.
717f(b)).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1.00 NPDES permits and other permits for Federal - installations,
discharges in contiguous zones and ocean waters, sludge runoff and
aquaculture permits pursuant to Section 401, 402, 403, 405, and 318
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1341,
1342, 1343, and 1328).

2.00 Permits pursuant to the Resources Recovery and Conservation Act of
1976.

VI-22

3.00 Permits pursuant to the underground injection control program under
Section 1424 of the Safe Water Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-
c).

4.00 Permits pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1857).

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Services

1.00 Endangered species permits pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 153(a)).

Mineral Management Service

2.00 Permits to drill, rights of use and easements for construction and
maintenance of pipelines, gathering and flow lines and associated
structures pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1334, exploration and development
plans, and any other permits or authorizations granted for
activities described in detail in OCS exploration, development, and
production plans.

3.00 Permits required for pipelines crossing federal lands, including OCS
lands, and associated activities pursuant to the OCS Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1334) and 43 U.S.C. 931 (c) and 20 U.S.C. 185.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

1.00 Authority to abandon railway lines (to the extent that the
abandonment involves removal of trackage and disposition of right-
of-way); authority to construct railroads; authority to construct
coal slurry pipelines.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1.00 Licensing and certification of the siting, construction and
operation of nuclear power plans pursuant to Atomic Energy Act of
1954, Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

1.00 Construction or modification of bridges, causeways or pipelines over
navigable waters pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1455.

2.00 Permits for Deepwater Ports pursuant to the Deepwater Ports Act of
1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501).

Federal Aviation Administration

VI-23

3.00 Permits and licenses for construction, operation or alteration of
airports.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE*

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

10.068 Rural Clean Water Program
10.409 Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil and Water Conservation
Loans
10.410 Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
10.411 Rural Housing Site Loans
10.413 Recreation Facility Loans
10.414 Resource Conservation and Development Loans
10.415 Rural Renting Housing Loans
10.416 Soil and Water Loans
10.418 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
10.422 Business and Industrial Loans
10.424 Industrial Development Grants
10.426 Area Development Assistance Planning Grants
10.429 Above Moderate Income Housing Loans
10.430 Energy Impacted Area Development Assistance Program
10.901 Resource Conservation and Development
10.902 Soil and Water Conservation
10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

11.300 Economic Development - Grants and Loans for Public Works and
Development Facilities
11.301 Economic Development - Business Development Assistance
11.302 Economic Development - Support for Planning Organizations
11.304 Economic Development - State and Local Economic Development
Planning
11.305 Economic Development - State and Local Economic Development
Planning
11.307 Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program
- Long Term Economic Deterioration
11.308 Grants to States for Supplemental and Basic Funding of Titles
1, 11, 111, IV, and V Activities
11.405 Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation
11.407 Commercial Fisheries Research and Development
11.417 Sea Grant Support
11.427 Fisheries Development and Utilization - Research and
Demonstration Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program
11.501 Development and Promotion of Ports and Intermodel
Transportation
11.509 Development and Promotion of Domestic Waterborne Transport
Systems

DEPARTMEPff OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

VI-24

0 14.112 Mortgage Insurance Construction or Substantial
Rehabilitation of Condominium Projects
14.115 Mortgage Insurance Development of Sales Type Cooperative
Projects
Mortgage Insurance Homes
14.124 Mortgage Insurance Investor Sponsored Cooperative Housing
14.125 Mortgage Insurance Land Development and Mew Communities
14.126 Mortgage Insurance Management Type Cooperative Projects
14.127 Mortgage Insurance Mobile Home Parks
14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
14.219 Community Development Block Grants/Small Cities Program
14.221 Urban Development Action Grants
14.223 Indian Community Development Block Grant Program

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

15.400 Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development and Planning
15.402 Outdoor Recreation - Technical Assistance
15.403 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property for Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Monuments
15.411 Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid
15.417 Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
15.600 Anadromous Fish Conservation
15.605 Fish Restoration
15.611 Wildlife Restoration
15.613 Marine Mammal Grant Program
15.802 Minerals Discovery Loan Program
15.950 National Water Research and Development Program
15.951 Water Resources Research and Technology - Assistance to State
Institutes
15.952 Water Research and Technology - Matching Funds to State
Institutes

DEPARTNUff OF TRANSPORTATION

20.102 Airport Development Aid Program
20.103 Airport Planning Grant Program
20.205 Highway Research, Planning, and Construction
20.309 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement - Guarantee of
Obligations
20.310 Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement - Redeemable
Preference Shares
20.506 Urban Mass Transportation Demonstration Grants
20.509 Public Transportation for Rural and Small Urban Areas

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

39.002 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property

CONNUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

VI-25

49.002 Community Action
49.011 Community Economic Development
49.013 State Economic Opportunity Offices
49.017 Rural Development Loan Fund
49.018 Housing and Community Development (Rural Housing)

SHALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

59.012 Small Business Loans
59.013 State and Local Development Company Loans
59.024 Water Pollution Control Loans
59.025 Air Pollution Control Loans
59.031 Small Business Pollution Control Financing Guarantee

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

66.001 Air Pollution Control Program Grants
66.418 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works
66.426 Water Pollution Control - State and Areawide Water Quality
Management Planning Agency
66.451 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program Support Grants
66.452 Solid Waste Management Demonstration Grants
66.600 Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants Program Support
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability (Super Fund)

Numbers refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs, 1980 and its two
subsequent updates.

C. Federal and State actions and programs necessary to further the City of
Rochester's LWRP

(1) Introduction

The majority of the uses and projects proposed in the city's LWRP can be
implemented through local actions as described in SECTION V: IMPLEMENTING
TECHNIQUES. The primary local action required for imple-mentation of the
LWRP is adoption of various amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance and
Zoning Map, in order to encourage appropriate waterfront development and
to protect sensitive environmental areas in the shorezone. This action
requires City Council review and approval following a public hearing.

There are, however, several projects proposed in the plan which will
require federal and State assistance and coordination. The various
federal and State agencies which will be involved in this assistance and
coordination are listed below, along with a description of the type of
assistance required.

VI-26

(2) Federal Actions:

(a) Department 9f Defense, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE):

(1) The USACE should coordinate with and assist the city in the
design, funding and completion of a surge protection and
control project at the outlet of the Genesee River with Lake
Ontario that eliminates or significantly reduces the surge
problem in the river.

(2) The USACE should investigate and discuss with the U.S. Coast
Guard navigational problems in the Genesee River in order to
determine how they may affect federally owned land at and
adjacent to the Coast Guard Station.

(3) The USACE should coordinate and cooperate with the city in the
review and approval of the design / engineering of new boat
docks, slips and riverbank stabilization along the west bank
of the river, near the Stutson Street Bridge.

(b) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):

(1) The FHWA should coordinate and cooperate with the city in the
funding, design and construction of a replacement bridge for
the Stutson Street Bridge, over the Genesee River. The FHWA
should provide appropriate funding for this project.

(2) The FHWA should coordinate and cooperate with the city in the
funding, design and reconstruction of Lake Avenue from Ridge
Road West to Beach Avenue. The FHWA should provide
appropriate funding for this project.

(3) State Actions:

(a) New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT):

(1) The NYSDOT should coordinate and cooperate with the city in
the funding, design and construction of a replacement bridge
for the Stutson Street Bridge, over the Genesee River. The
NYSDOT should provide appropriate funding for this project.

(2) The NYSDOT should coordinate and cooperate with the city in
the funding, design and reconstruction of Lake Avenue from
Ridge Road West to Beach Avenue.

(b) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC):

(1) The NYSDEC should implement and administer Article 24 of the
New York State Environmental Conservation Law regarding
wetland areas in Rochester.

VI-27

(2) The NYSDEC should coordinate with and assist the city in the
mapping, adoption and implementation of New York State's
Section 505 Coastal Erosion Control legislation, and the
city's local coastal erosion ordinance.

(3) The NYSDEC should coordinate with and assist the city in the
funding of the purchase of 40 acres of environmentally
sensitive land along the east bank of the Genesee River, and
31 acres of land along the west bank of the river north of
Turning Point Park, to be preserved as park land.

(1) The NYSOPRHP should coordinate with and assist the city in the
design, planning, development, construction and funding of a
75-slip transient marina at the Port of Rochester site. The
NYSOPRHP should provide appropriate funding for this project.

(2) The NYSOPRHP should coordinate and cooperate with the city
regarding the potential designation of the redeveloped port
site and new marina as a state park.

(3) The NYSOPRHP should coordinate with and assist the city in the
funding of the purchase of 40 acres of environmentally
sensitive land along the east bank of the Genesee River, and
31 acres of land along the west bank of the river north of
Turning Point Park, to be preserved as park land.

(4) The NYSOPRHP should coordinate and cooperate with the city
regarding the renegotiation of the operation and maintenance
agreement for State-owned property along River Street, south
of the Stutson Street Bridge.

(d) New York State Department of State (NYSDOS):

(1) The NYSDOS should coordinate with and assist the city in the
provision of funding to implement portions of its LWRP
including, but not limited to, the potential development and
adoption of water surface use regulations and the planning,
engineering and construction of future waterfront development
projects and infrastructure improvements.

(2) The NYSDOS should coordinate with and assist the city in the
provision of funding, along with local labor unions, for the
preservation of the historic Genesee Lighthouse.

(e) New York State Office of General Services:

(1) Prior to any development occurring in the water or on the
immediate waterfront, the Office of General Services should be
consulted for a determination of the state's interest in

VI-28

underwater or formerly underwater lands and for authorization
to use and occupy these lands.

2. FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS AND PROGRAMS WHICH SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE LWRP

(A) Federal Actions and Programs (Source: "Catalogue of Federal Programs -
1984"):

(1) Department of Commerce:
(a) Economic Development Administration:
Economic Development - Grants for Public Works and
Development Facilities.
Economic Development - Business Development Assistance.
Economic Development - Support for Planning
Organizations.
Economic Development - Technical Assistance.
Economic Development - Public Works Impact Projects.
Economic Development - State and Local Economic
Development Planning.
Economic Development - District Operational Services.
Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance
Program - Sudden and Severe or Long-Term Economic
Deterioration.
(b) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Geodetic Surveys and Services.
Nautical Charts and Related Data.
Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation.
Commercial'Fisheries Research and Development.
Sea Grant Support.
Coastal Zone Management Program Administration.
Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Sanctuaries.
Coastal Energy Impact Program - Planning Grants.
Financial Assistance for Marine Pollution Research.
Fisheries Development and Utilization @Research and
Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program.
(2) Department of Defense:
(a) Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers:
Aquatic Plant Control.
Beach Erosion Control Projects.
Flood Control Works and Federally Authorized Coastal
Protection Works, Rehabilitation.
Flood Plain Management Services.
Flood Control Projects.
Navigation Projects.
Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control.
Protection, Clearing and Straightening Channels.
Planning Assistance to States.
Section 404 Permit Requirements and Permit Program.
(3) Department of Housing and Urban Development:
(a) Community Planning and Development:
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants.
Section 312 Rehabilitation Loans.

VI-29

(b) Office of Policy Development and Research:
General Research and Technology Activity.

(4) Department of the Interior:
(a) Bureau of Reclamation:
National Water Research and Development Program.
(b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Anadromous Fish Conservation
Fishery Research - Information.
Fish Restoration.
Sport Fish Technical Assistance.
Wildlife Restoration.
(c) Geological Survey:
Water Resources Investigation.
(d) National Park Service:
Historic Preservation Grants-In-Aid.
Historic American Buildings Survey / Historic American
Engineering Record.
National Historic Landmark Program.
National Register of Historic Places.
National Natural Landmarks Program.
Technical Preservation Services.
Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development and
Planning (Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants).
Surplus Property Program.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.
(e) Office of Water Policy:
Water Research Institute Program.
(5) Department of Transportation:
(a) United States Coast Guard:
Boating Safety.
Coast Guard Cooperative Marine Sciences Program.
(b) Federal Highway Administration:
Highway Planning and Construction.
Highway Beautification.
(c) Maritime Administration:
Development and Promotion of Domestic Waterborne
Transport Systems.
Maritime Research and Development.
(6) General Services Administration:
Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property.
Donation of Federal Surplus Real Property.
(7) Small Business Administration:
Small Business Loans.
Small Business Investment Companies.
State and Local Development Company Loans.
Small Business Energy Loans.
Small Business Pollution Control Financing Guarantee.
(8) Environmental Protection Agency:
(a) Office of Air, Noise and Radiation:
Air Pollution Control Program Grants.

VI-30

(b) Office of Water:
Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works.
Water Pollution Control - State and Interstate Program
Grants.
Construction Management Assistance Grants.
Water Quality Management Planning.
(c) Office of Research and Development:
Environmental Protection - Consolidated Research Grants.
Air Pollution Control Research Grants.
Solid Waste Disposal Research Grants.
Water Pollution Control - Research, Development and
Demonstration Grants.
Safe Drinking Water Research and Demonstration Grants.
Toxic Substances Research Grants.
(d) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Hazardous Waste Management Financial Assistance to
States.
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund.
(9) Federal Emergency Management Agency:
(a) Federal Insurance Administration:
Flood Insurance.
(b) State and Local Programs and Support:
State Assistance Program (Flood Hazard).
Acquisition of Flood-Damaged Structures.
Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grants.

(B) State Actions and Programs (Source: NYSDEC, NYSDOS):

(1) Council on the Arts:
(a) Provision of funding under the architecture and environmental
arts program.
(2) Dormitory Authority of the State of New York:
(a) Provision of construction management, planning and design
services for capital projects.
(3) Department of Environmental Conservation:
(a) Planning, development, construction, major rennovation or
expansion of facilities.
(b) Division of Construction Management
Review and approval of federal grant application plans
and specifications for wastewater treatment facilities.
Mining Permit.
Permit to Plug and Abandon Non-Commercial Wells.
Permit to Use Chemicals to Control Aquatic Insects.
Permit to Use Chemicals to Control Undesirable Fish.
Underground Gas Storage Permit.
Well Drilling Permit.
(c) Division of Regulatory Affairs
Actions relating to provisions of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Approval of Well System and Permit to Operate.
Issuance of Protection of Waters Permits for dams, fill,
docks, piers, wharves, excavations in navigable waters,
disturbances of the bed or bank of mprotected streamsm.

VI-31

Water Supply Permits.
Freshwater Wetlands Permits.

(d) Division of Air Resources
Certificate of approval for Air Pollution Episode Action
Plan.
Certificate to Operate: Stationary Combustion;
Installation; incinerator; Process, Exhaust or
Ventilation System.
Permit for Burial of Radioactive Material.
Permit for Restricted Burning.
Permit to Construct: Stationary Combustion;
Installation; Incinerator; Indirect Source of Air
Contamination; Process, Exhaust or Ventilation System.
Administration of other air resource rules and
regulations.
(e) Division of Solid Waste
Permit to Construct and/or Operate a Solid Waste
Management Facility.
Septic Tank Cleaner and Industrial Waste Collector
Permit.

VI-32

SECTION VII: CONSULTATION VITH OTHER AFFECTED FEDERAL,
STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
0

INTRODtICTION

The city consulted and coordinated with various governmental agencies
regarding preparation of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP). In addition, the city consulted with the adjacent towns of Greece
and Irondequoit to ensure a coordinated approach to waterfront development
in certain areas. The result of these consultations was a waterfront plan
with greater public and agency acceptance, as well as greater potential
for actual implementation.

2. STATE AGENCY CONSULTATION

The city had the following consultations with state agencies during
development of its LWRP:

(a) New York State Department of State (NYSOOS), dealing with:

(1) procedures for applying for a grant to prepare a Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program;
(2) requirements for preparation of a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program, with particular attention to
State policy interpretation and consistency
requirements;
(3) procedures for selecting consultants to work on the
program;
(4) procedures for local participation in the program;
(5) establishment of a public participation process; and
(6) application for program implementation grants.

(b) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(HYSDEC), dealing with:

(1) implementation and impacts of a Coastal Erosion
Management Plan;
(2) coordination of proposed local environmental standards
with existing county, State and federal standards;
(3) specific material contained in the LWRP inventory and
analysis, including designation of the lower Genesee
River as a Osignificant fish and wildlife habitatm; and
(4) preliminary review of the city's LWRP Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement.
(c) New York State Department of Transportation (HYSDOT), dealing
with:

(1) the review of city recommendations for the design and
replacement of the Stutson Street Bridge; and
(2) the review of city plans for reconstruction of Lake
Avenue.

V11-3

3. COUNTY AGENCY CONSULTATION

The city had the following consultations with county agencies during
development of its LWRP:

(a) Monroe County Departments of Planning and Parks, dealing with:

(1) coordination of proposed LWRP uses and projects with
those proposed by adjoining communities and with the
recommendations of the master plan being prepared for
county parks.

(b) Monroe County Water Quality Management Agency, dealing with:

(1) review of proposals dealing with control of urban runoff
and water quality in the Rochester embayment.

4. NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITY CONSULTATION

The city had the following consultations with neighboring municipalities
during development of its LWRP:
(a) Town of 1rondequoit, dealing with:

(1) determination of the appropriate boundary location for
the city LWRP along the eastern bank of the Genesee
River;
(2) review of the overall LWRP development program;
(3) recommendations for the design of a replacement for the
Stutson Street Bridge; and
(3) potential for future coordination of specific design
plans for waterfront development along the east bank of
the Genesee River, near the Stutson Street Bridge.

W Town of Greece, dealing with:

(1) review of the overall LWRP development program; and
(2) potential for future coordination of specific design
plans for waterfront development projects including
replacement of the Stutson Street Bridge.

VII-4

SECTION VIII: LOCAL CONNITNENT
.m ..0.. M@ -- -

LOCAL COMITNOIT

The city recognized the complexities of implementing a comprehensive land use
plan for the City of Rochester's coastal areas, and the importance of direct
public participation in that effort. It therefore established, early in the
planning process, a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) as a means of encouraging
public interest in and developing public support and commitment for the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program.

Initially, public and private agencies with potential interest in waterfront
revitalization were identified. These agencies included neighborhood and
business groups within and adjacent to the LWRP study area, the Monroe County
Planning Department and Parks Department, the City Environmental Commission and
Planning Commission, and groups with maritime interests such as Sea Grant, the
Monroe County Fishery Advisory Board, yacht clubs, marina operators, and real
estate brokerage firms.

Each of the interested organizations was contacted in writing and requested to
designate a person to represent the organization on the LWRP CAC. Eighteen
individuals were designated as members of the city's CAC. The Chairperson of the
City Planning Commission was designated as the Chairperson of the CAC.

In the six years from the date of its initial meeting on November 8, 1984, the
CAC met routinely to:

(a) discuss and review the LWRP inventory and analysis;
(b) establish coastal management policies;
(c) establish land use zones and subzones within the LWRP boundary and
agree on appropriate uses and projects for those areas;
(d) review concept design plans for Ontario Beach Park, the Port
Authority site and the River Street site;
(e) establish implementation techniques for the LWRP policies;
(f) review proposed city charter changes, and zoning ordinance map and
text amendments for the waterfront revitalization area;
(9) oversee the preparation of a concept design plan for the River
Harbor Redevelopment Area; and
(h) review and comment on the Draft LWRP and Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (DGEIS) documents.

Communication to groups with a direct interest in the city's waterfront was also
accomplished through the LWRP CAC. Each CAC member functioned as a conduit for
the exchange of information and ideas about the plan between the committee and
his or her respective constituencies.

in addition to meetings generated by the CAC, City staff held numerous meetings
with the Charlotte Community Association and the Charlotte Businessmen's
Association regarding the Draft LWRP and the River Harbor Redevelopment Area
Design/Feasibility Study. Meetings were also held with governmental entities,
which could be affected by the implementation of the city's LWRP. These included
the adjacent towns of Greece and Irondequoit, who were also preparing LWRPs.

VIII-3

In summary, nearly 80 public meetings or presentations were conducted during
development of the program to encourage public comment and participation.

A combined public hearing with the Rochester Environmental Commission (REC) and
informational meeting with the City Planning Commission was held on March 5,
1990, regarding the city's Draft LWRP and DGEIS. At this meeting, citizens had
an opportunity to comment on the specifics of the Draft LWRP document and
environmental impact statement, as well as on the proposed zoning ordinancetext
and map amendments. Comments and testimony touched on various aspects of the
Draft LWRP including environmental concerns, land use issues, traffic and parking
management, zoning controls, business and neighborhood impacts, and the overall
planning and public input process.

A final public hearing on the approval of the city's LWRP, Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, proposed city charter changes, and zoning
ordinance text and map amendments was held with the Rochester City Council on
August 14, 1990. Interested citizens, associations and organizations spoke at
that meeting regarding their comments and concerns about the plan. The Final
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement were adopted by the Rochester City Council and approved for transmittal
to the New York State Department of State on September 11, 1990.

V111-4

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

Rochester River Harbor Redevelopment Design and Feasibility Study
(pertinent sections of draft report)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Executive Sumnary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3

Introduction . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Task III Issue Identification and Sumary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Task IV Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Task.V - Thematic Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Task IX - Policy Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Task X - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

MEMORANDUM

TO: Larry Stid, Plannina Commission Director
Department of Community Development, City of Rochester

FROM: Stephen Buechner, R-eimann.Buechner Partnership

DATE: February 8, 1989

RE: Rochester River Harbor Redevelopment Feasibility Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose

This report is intended as a comprehensive study with the purpose
of developing a unified, cohesive redevelopment plan for the River
Harbor Redevelopment Area. The City of Rochester will use this
plan as a basis for making appropriate land use, zoning and deve-
lopment decisions, and as a general guide for redevelopment activ-
ities within the study area. In addition, the redevelopment plan
will help to implement several policies of the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program (LWRP).

Method

The analysis of the River Harbor Redevelopment Area was organized
into nine tasks. In the first three tasks, the consulting team
collected and analyzed background information on the River Harbor
Study Area. The consultants, working closely with City Planning
staff and Charlotte community groups, produced guiding concepts
during the next three tasks. The final three tasks presented the
consultants' recommendations for the study area.

Tasks I-III

The first three tasks provided essential background information.
Task I summarized the 1984 Ontario Beach Park plan prepared by
Reimann.Buechner Partnership and the 1987-88 City Planning Office
plan for River Harbor. The goal of these plans was to maximize
public waterfront access and water-related recreational opportuni-

ies. Task II summarized the history of settlement and waterfront
development in the study area. The broader context, Includi
ing
Ontario Beach Park and the Village of Charlotte, was considered in
the historic summary. Task II also summarized the existing condi-
tions in the following categories: Topography, Vegetation, Hydrol-
ogy, Views, Vehicular Circulation, Parking, Pedestrian Circula-
tion, Utilities, Streetscape, Buildings, Zoning, and Land Use.
Task III completed the process of gathering background informa-
tion by presenting issues and concerns identified in the first two
tasks, as well as in the Contract: Scope of Services (see Appendix
C). Four development issues from previous tasks includea 1) pedes-
trian connections, 2) inter-relationships for historically sensi-
tive sites, 3) natural topographic features, and 4) low density
housing location. Six development issues from the Scope of Ser-
vices were elaborated: 1) options for the replacement of the
Stutson Street Bridge, 2) intersection and streetscape improve-
ments, 3) surge control, 4) market demand for major new recreation-
al and tourist facilities, 5) east bank concerns, and 6) prev-
iously prepared plans.

Tasks IV-V1

The fourth throuch sixth tasks developed concepts to guide the
design development phases. Task IV specified eight goals and
related objectives. The goals and objectives were identified as
consultant recommendations, City staff concerns, or local citizen
concerns. Task V specified a development theme for the redevelop-
ment area. The theme was prepared in conjunction with City staff
and local community groups. It was decided-that the theme shall
be a Turn-* f -the-Century Time Theme, with River Street exhibiting
a Nautical Time Theme and all other areas exhibiting a Village
Time Theme. Task VI specified design guidelines and standards.
These examined details in four categories: I). Street Corridor
details, II) Architectural details,- III) Site details, and IV)
Signage details. Tasks IV, V and VI provided the guiding concepts
for the redevelopment plans and recommendations produced in the
last three tasks.

Tasks VII-IX
The last three tasks provided final recommendations on which to
base planning decisions. In Task VII, conceptual plans were drawn.
These included site-related diagrammatic presentations of develop-
ment potentials, circulation, and waterfront opportunities. In
Task VIII, schematic plans at preliminary stages of design deve-
lopment were produced and analyzed to identify the relationship of
the plans to the City of Rochester LWRP. Task IX matrixed the
schematic plans with the LWRP policies to illustrate areas of
appl icabi I I ty.
The basic organization for this project is outlined below. The
diagram illustrates that the tasks were grouped into three main
categories, and that each task built on information generated by
previous tasks. More detail on the project organization, Including
a flow chart that illustrates the role of community participation

in meetings with City staff and consultants, is provided in the
Introduction to the River Harbor Redevelopment Design/Feasibility
Study.

PROJECT ORGANIZATION

MR,

E
Task I Previous Studies
Ira Task II Hi sto ry/Exi sti ng Conditions
I t
C '..
Task III Issues

i IN' Ila I

lei, ------
Task IV Goals and Objectives
Iwo Task V Theme
Task VI Guidelines and Standards

Task VII Concepts
Task VIII Schematic Plan
ask IX Relationship to LWRP/Draft Report

Conclusions
The River Harbor Redevelopment Design/Feasibility Study resulted
in recommendations at a preliminary level of detail for pedestrian
and vehicular circulation, boating and waterfront recreation
facilities for the Genesee River, new-housing and retail facili-
ties, the re-use of existing historic buildings, and the provision
of parking for waterfront visitors and residents. The majority of
new facilities were planned for River Street and the immediate
shore zone. Streetscape improvements were suggested for the shore
zone access street, River Street, all adjacent cross-streets, and
0. Lake Avenue.
C
M3

qT a n ts
sk VII CIO p
Ta Sch tic
T sk VIII I@t:ions@pi
Task IX Re

ROCHESTER RIVER HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this study is to initiate a unified, cohesive
redevelopment plan for the project study area. This plan will be
used by the City of Rochester Department of Ccmmunity Development
to guide redevelopment activity in the River Harbor Area. It is
intended to provide a basis for planning decisions and policy
implementation. The products of this study were prepared at a
level of detail sufficient to organize effective and appropriate
revitalization of the waterfront and adjacent lands. Preliminary
land use, engineering, and design solutions were explored for the
purpose of directing the outcome of future design development
projects. These solutions were coordinated by the directives of
the City of Rochester Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP). The schematic redevelopment plan and policies proposed in
this study were intended to ensure that redevelopment is under-
taken in a manner consistent with the policies and objectives of
the LWRP.

CONTEXT

The River Harbor Redevelopment Area has been studied in the con-
text of other City LWRP projects. Previous projects as detailed in
Task I have resulted in a coordinated conceptual design plan for
the redevelopment of the River Harbor Study Area, the Port Site,
and Ontario Beach Park. The City of Rochester has incorporated the
coordinated plan into its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP). A Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) is a
comprehensive, realistic program for the beneficial use, revitali-
zation, and protection of a community's waterfront resources. The
City of Rochester has received a grant from the New York State
Department of State for the preparation of a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program pursuant to Article 42, Section 915 of the
New York State Executive Law, the Waterfront Revitalization and
Coastal Resources Act. The LWRP is designed to give the community
the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review and analysis
of its waterfront, establish clear policies, propose specific
uses, and implement these specific uses and projects. Rochester's
local waterfront area is defined as those portions of the City
bordering Lake Ontario and the Genesee River and their inland
extensions. As part of the City's LWRP, the current River Harbor
project extends*the design process south from Ontario Beach Park
to the River Street area and Lake Avenue commercial strip from

Beach Avenue to Lake Ontario State Parkway (refer to Task II Map
A: Study Area Context for the specific location of the River
Harbor Study Area).

STUDY METIHOD

The River 'Harbor Redevelopment Design/Feasibility Study was oroan-
ized into nine tasks as specified by City Planning staff *. n the
Request for Proposals (RFP) for this project. The consultina tean.,
headed by the Reimann.Buechner Partnership Landscape Archttects
and Planners, and Handler-Grosso Architects, D.J. Parrone & Assoc-
iates, P.C., Engineers, and Phoenix Associates, MarketIng Ana-
lysts, responded to the RFP. The consulting team (see Appendix 8:
Consulting Team; Page 61, Team Qualifications), headed by Reimann-
Buechner Partnership, fine-tuned the RFP to reach an agreement
with City staff as to the project format (see Appendix C: Project
Scope). The project format is presented in the following outline.

TASK I: REVIEW AND ANALYZE ONTARIO BEACH PARKPORT OF ROCHESTER
COORDIRATED UESiGN PUNW.

The Consultant team revievied and analyzed the proposed Ontario
Beach Park/Port of Rochester coordinated design plan prepared
by the Reimann.Buechner Partnership, with an emphasis on identi-
fying design and thematic relationships and connections to the
remaining portions of the River Harbor Redevelopment Area.

INTERIM PRODUCTS: None.

TASK II: COMPILE HISTORICAL DATA AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Consultant team compiled historical information along with
other data on existing land use, zoning, traffic, and develop-
ment characteristics for the study irea from existing documenta-
tion contained in the City of Rochester Local Waterfront Revit-
alization Program and from other sources. Some on-site field
investigations were required in order to complete this task.
This information was analyzed to produce a sumary of develop-
ment conditions which currently existed within the study area
and their relationships to potential future development oppor-
tunities. Data collected included:

-historical overview of area;
-land use and zoning patterns;
-utility service information;
-existing traffic volumes, intersection turning
,movements and levels of service;
-pedestrian circulation patterns;
-existing parking supply/parking demand informatim
-topographic and other environmental features;
-scenic views and vistas;
-type and condition of building facades;
-inventory of historic sites; and
-previous design or development study recommendations.

INTERIM PRODUCTS: * Interim memorandum #1 summarizing date
collectea ana reiationships to future
development potential. 40
* Conceot mao series #1 depicting the data
coilectea ana relati ships identified.

TASK III: IDENTIFY AND SUMMARIZE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
AFFECTIRG THE SiUUY AREA.

The Consultant team, in coordination with City staff and after
consultation with appropriate neighborhood groups, analyzed the
following development issues and concerns to determine their
collective impacts on and inter-relationships to the River
Harbor Study Area.

Issue 1 Pedestrian connections between the proposed Port of
Rochester entry plaza and the north end of the River
Harbor Redevelopment Area.

Issue 2 Inter-relationships for histo rically sensitive sites
in the River Harbor Area.

Issue 3 Potential for emphasizing natural topographic fea-
tures as assets in redevelopment plans.
Issue 4 Low density housing location. Considerations for
River Street housing should include public access to
the water for recreation.

Issue 5 Options under consideration for replacement of the
Stutson Street Bridge.
Issue 6 Plans for improvements to intersections and street-
scapes in the study area.*
Issue 7 Surge problems in the Genesee River that may affect
waterfront user safety or construction of new water-
front facilities.

Issue 8 Market demand for major new recreational or.tourist
facilities.

Issue 9 Development issues, plans and concerns along the east
bank of the Genesee River.
Issue 10 Previously prepared schematic or conceptual develop-
ment plans for specific portions of the redevelopment
area.
The consultant prepared the above "inventory" of development
issues and concerns for the study area as a whole, and for the
individual subareas.

INTERIM PRODUCTS: * Interim memorandum #2 summarizing find-
ings, of-task.
* Concept mao series #2 showing development
issues ana concerns for the study area.

TASK IY: PREPARE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES STATEMENT FOR STUDY AREA.

The Consultant team, in coordination with City staff, prepared
a statement or list of specific desian and develorment goals
and objectives for the River Harbor R-edevelopment 1". -aa based on
the summary of development issues and concerns precIred in Task
III.

INTERIM PRODUCT: Interim memorandum #3 su=zrizing develop-
ment goals ana F'Siectives for study
area.

TASK V: DEVELOP A UNIFIED. THE14ATIC CONCEPT FOR THE RIVER HARBOR
REDEVELUPMENT AREA AND SPECiFIC @UBARLA

The Consultant team, in coordination with City staff and using
the information, issues and concerns, and goals and objectives
statement developed in the four previous tasks, prepared a
unified, thematic design concept for the River Harbor Redevelop-
ment Area. The Consultant also prepared thematic design con-
cepts for specific subareas such as the River Street neighbor-
hood, as directed by City staff. The thematic design concepts
included a description of appropriate land uses, building/fa-
cade design themes, landscape and streetscape design themes,
etc., and served as a guide for reviewing site plans and for
developing design standards.

INTERIM PRODUCT: Interim menorandum #4 outlining thematic
design Mcepts foe study area and sub-
areas.

TASK VI: DEVELOP SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
BULLUING FACAULS, INFILL ULVELOPMENT AND STREEMM
WITHIN STUDY AKLA.

Based on the goals and objectives statement and themati@ desion
concept developed for the Redevelopment Area in previous tasks,
the Consultant team, in coordination with City staff, prepared
specific design standards for building facades, building restor-
ations, infill development, streetscapes and landscape features
within the study area.
Design guidelines and standards developed in this task included
the following:

I. Street Corridor

A. Buildina setbacks and lot coverage
a. Building- widths and frontage
C. Off-street and on-street parking
0. Levels of service

II. Architectural

A. Fenestration
B. Color and materials
C. Restoration
D. Building exterior

01. Height and mass
D2. Roofline, roof forms
03. Infill schemes

III. Site-

A. Public planting
B. Paving - pedestrian spaces and corridors
C. Lighting and furniture
D. Private green zones
E. Parking - screen wall and planting

IV. Exterior Sionace

A. Sign type

Al. Function
A2. Ouration - permanent/temporary

B. Safety

81. Obstruction
82. Maintenance
83. Illumination

INTERIM PRODUCT: Interim memorandum #5 detailing specific
design stanaaras and guidelines for study
area,

TASK VII: PREPARE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR RIVER HARBOR SUBAREAS.

The Consultant team prepared conceptual redevelopment plans for
combined River Harbor Redevelopment Subareas. Major elements of
the plan were shown on a composite study area map. The redeve-
lopment area plan included the following concept maps:

1. Oevelopment Potentials: Proposals for infill sites, build-
ing reuse, redevelopment sites, and land use programs.
2. Circulation: Proposals for major vehicular routes, minor
vehicular routes, pedestrian routes, and parking areas.
3. Waterfront Opportunities: Boardwalk/fishing, boating, and
special use.

FINAL PRODUCT: * Concept plan series #1 for combined subareas
showing oeveiopment -opportunities, public
access, proposed waterfront uses, parking and
landscape improvements, etc.
* Interim memorandum #6 detailing alternative
design sojutions.

TASK VIII: PREPARE SCHEMATIC SITE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC SITES WITHIN
THE RiVER HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT

The Consultant team prepared schematic site plans and illustra-
tive renderings for five specific sites within -cne River Harbor
Redevelopment Area. This work included:

Preparation of a schematic site plan for parking, landscape
work, and public access/circulation improvements around the
Genesee/Charlotte Lighthouse;

Preparation of a schematic site plan for the adaptive reuse
of the River Street Railroad Station, showing landscape and
parking improvements, etc.;

Preparation of a schematic site plan for the redevelopment of
the Tape-Con site and Pelican Bay Marina, showing proposed
use, landscape and parking improvements, building facade
treatments, etc.;

Preparation of a schematic site plan for the River Street
streetscape, riverfront linear park, pedestrian walkway, and
boat slips from Pelican Bay south to Petten Street;

Preparation of a schematic site plan for a representative
Lake Avenue infill or redevelopment site including -building
facades, proposed use, landscape and streetscape treatments,
access and parking improvements, etc.

FINAL PRODUCT: * Concept design sketch series #1 and concept
plan series #3 showing representative ren er-
Ings and sitrplans for specific areas listed
above, to include design layouts, public
access, proposed uses-, site improvements,
facade treatments, etc.

TASK IX: IDENTIFY RELATIONSHIP OF FINAL PLANS TO POLICIES OF THE
CITY'S LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAT-7M
PREPARE FiNAL REPORT.

The Consultant identified how and to what extent the various
redevelopment plans, design standards and schematic site plans
prepared for the River Harbor Redevelopment Area will address
or implement applicable policies of the City's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program. A matrix chart was produced showing
such relationships. The Consultant compiled all material,
plans, drawings, analyses and recommendations into a draft
final report including an executive summary and appropriate

appendices. The draft final report was reviewed by City staff
and the LWRP Citizen's Advisory Committee. The Consultant
prepared a final report based on that review.

INTERIM PRODUCT: * Interim memorandum #7 summarizing, in
matrix format, the-FeTationships of each
major project recommendation or proposal
to the appropriate LWRP policies.

.FINAL PRODUCT: * Draft Final Report to include all data,
ana7y-ses ana recommendations developed as
part of the project. Final report shall
include all maps, figures, drawings, and
plans in an appropriate scale, prepared
as part of the Study.
* Final Report based on review of draft
report E=yity staff and the LWRP Citi-
zenis Advisory Committee.
The project method also included many meetings between the consul-
tants and the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) for the City LWRP
and. the Charlotte Community Association. The meetino schedules
were coordinated with strategic points in the project organization
such that community input was included in key decisions (see
Appendix C: Project Scope, Page C7). Schedule A-1 charts the
relationship of the community meeting schedule with the project
task timetable.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 17, 1988

RE: Rochester River Harbor Redevelopment Feasibility Study

TASK III: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND SUMMARY

This memorandum analyzes specific development issues raised in
Tasks I and 11. After meeting with City staff and in consultation
with the LWRP Citizen's Advisory Committee, the following issues
are summarized and analyzed for impacts on the River harbor
Redevelopment Area:

Develooment Issues Identified in Task I and Task 11

Issue I Pedestrian connections between the proposed Port of
Rochester entry plaza and the north end of the River
Harbor Redevelopment Area.

Issue 2 Inter-relationships of historically sensitive site$ in
the River Harbor Area.

Issue 3 Potential for emphasizing natural topographic features as
assets in redevelopment plans.

Issue 4 Low density housing locations. Site planning considera-
tion for River Street housing should include public
access to the water for recreation.

DeveloDment Issues Identified In the Contract Scove of Services

Issue 5 Options under consideration for replacement of the
Stutson Street Bridge.

Issue 6 Plans for improvements to intersections and streetscapes
in the study area.
Issue 7 Surge problems in the Genesee River that may affect
waterfront user safety or construction of new waterfront
facilities.

Issue 8 Market demand for major new recreational or tourist
facilities.

Issue 9 Development issues, plans and concerns along the east
bank of the Genesee River.

Issue 10 Previously prepared schematic or conceptual development
plans for specific portions of the redevelopment area.

ISSUE 1 - PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS

As noted in Task 1, logical connections between the Port of
Rochester entry plaza and the River Harbor study area exist at the
Pelican Bay Marina and Charlotte Lighthouse Park. Ideally, the
pedestrian way would extend the waterfront promenade proposed for
the east side of the redeveloped warehouses south along the entire
length of the river bank. Visitors to the Port of Rochester and
River Harbor developments would have the maximum access to the
Genesee River if a continuous pedestrian walk were constructed.
There are, however, several concerns for the safety and welfare of
waterfront users if the scheme were so developed. The main issue
is that the River Harbor waterfront is an active marina; potential
conflicts between pedestrians and marina operations include risks
to boats in dry storage, loss of privacy for owners of docked
boats, and safety risks to pedestrians from heavy lifting equip-
ment during fall boat removal and spring boat launching opera-
tions. Other potential safety risks to visitors that must be
addressed in Subarea 8 are the crossing of the east/west Conrail
tracks between the proposed new waterfront entry plaza and the
Pel ican Bay/Charlotte Lighthouse redevelopments and pedestrian
crossings of the north/south railroad tracks at the Tape-Con/River

Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario Lake Ontario

Diagram 1. Unique features Diagram 2. Pedestrian Routing Diagram 3. Points of conflict

Legend Legend Legend
******* Railroad -- Primary Route *** Boat Launch Crossing
Water-Related Facilities Primary Alternate Route Railroad crossing
Secondary Route Dangerous Intersection scale: NTS

Street Station redevelopments. Additional concerns with increased
use of the river bank include hazardous thin ice in early winter,
high winds and water surge associated with Lake Ontario storms
occurrina from late August through the fall, and rough melt waters
with ice chunks due to erratic freeze/thaw cycles during spring.

Diagram 1, Unique Features, locates some outstanding features
adjacent to the River harbor Redevelopment study area. These
features should be highlighted in the design of pedestrian link-
ages for the study area. Visitors should have either direct access
or visual access for the passive enjoyment of outstanding water-
front features. From the lighthouse, there are currently two
connections between Lake Avenue and River Street. One involves
cutting directly east through the side slope to River Street. The
other takes Lighthouse Street on a gentle gradient to Latta Road.
Due to parking problems at the Lighthouse, Lighthouse Street may
be developed as a main access to Lighthouse Park.

Diagram 2, Pedestrian Routing, shows possible routing for pedes-
trian ways through the redevelopment area. The primary route
maximizes public exposure to the waterfront. Bridging the railroad
and marina is a possibility, although the height required to do so
renders this solution impractical . The alternate route offers
vistas from the Lighthouse Park overlooking the Genesee River from
Stutson Street to Lake Ontario. The alternate route ameliorates
safety risks from the movement of heavy lifting equipment used to
move boats in and out of marina storage by bringing visitors
around the west side of Pelican Say Marina. East/west connections
exist at Latta Road, Stutson Street, and Petten Street.

Diagram 3, Points of Conflict, locates the places where pedestrian
safety and welfare are potentially at risk. The design of new
pedestrian connections and upgrading of existing pedestrian ways
should reinforce the uniqueness of the area by emphasizing the
interrelationships of historic waterfront sites. Concerns for
visitor safety should be addressed by careful consideration of
several options at dangerous crossing places. A coordinated ef-
fort, including upgraded tree plantings, improved road pavement
edges, sidewalk paving, and edge definition on streets in the
River Harbor area would have a positive long term effect on the
character of Charlotte neighborhoods; such improvements would
further reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

ISSUE 2 - HISMRICALLY SENSITTYIE SITES

The railroad swing bridge, the lighthouse, the railroad station,
and several Stutson Street buildings are the outstanding historic
resources in the River Harbor Redevelopment area. As noted above,
the interrelationships between waterfront resources offer opportun-
ities for the enhancement of a pedestrian walk along the Genesee
River. The swing bridge is not accessible to pedestrians, but
while operative, it allows visitors to watch trains crossing the
river. The swing bridge is clearly visible from Lighthouse Park,
the slope behind Harbor View Miniature Golf, the Lake Avenue
vehicle bridge, and the boat launch area north of the railroad.

The Charlotte/Cenesee Lighthouse and Park has potential both as a
focal point and as an overlook (see Issue 3 below). It reiates to
the swing bridge and train station as a point from which to view
these places, but otherwise has no direct relationship to them.
Though it is topographically more closely connected to Lake Avenue
than to River Street, the lighthouse is set back and cut off from
Lake Avenue by the holy Cross Church parking lot. In addition to
this deep setback from Lake Avenue, the lighthouse is also located
too far (2 blocks) north of the other outstanding historic build-
ings at the intersection of Lake Avenue and Stutson Street to have
any direct relationship to them.

The train station on River Street functions as a waterside focal
point and could be a memorable destination for visitors if it were
redeveloped. Approaches from Latta Road and River Street give 3/4
views of the historic station, the most dramatic of which is the
descent traveling north an River Street from Stutson Street. The
station currently relates only spatially to significant buildings
on R'iver Street, now occupied by Sammy's Bar and Tape-Con Manufac-
turing, because the railroad tracks create a barrier between the
station/shorezone and development west of the tracks. It has an
unmistakable identity as a train station, and its location in the
low marginal land along the river has helped to intensify the
autonomy of the station as a focal point and point of reference.
Streetscape design for River Street may draw from the train sta-
tion for historic detailing (e.g. lighting, trackside treatments).

The historic buildings on Stutson Street from the bridge to Lake
Avenue are a mixture of types, including residences, a fire hall,
a police station, commercial buildings and churches. Though near-
by, this cluster of historically significant structures is not
adjacent to the train station, swing bridge or lighthouse.

The. Stutson Street Bridge is not salvageable (see Issue 5), and
therefore should not be considered in redevelopment plans.

ISSUE 3 - NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES

The pronounced separation of riverside development from the rest
of the commercial and residential community is a result of*natural
topography. The steep east-facing slopes and crest can potentially
be exploited for views of the river through the development of
overlooks. Possible locations for these lookouts exist south of
the intersection of Stutson Street and River Street on the east
side of River Street, at the north end of Lighthouse Street, at
the east side of Lighthouse Park, and along the steep slopes
behind the RG & E substation and Riverside Miniature Golf.

The significant change in elevation from the river to Lake Avenue
will separate new waterside tourist activity from existing resi-
dential neighborhoods. The autonomy of the riverside sites may be
a benefit in that it could allow for waterfront development in a
theme which might otherwise seem exaggerated and out of place if
it were directly adjacent to the well -established residential
neighborhoods of Charlotte.

Besides direct access to the river edge, public views to the water
should be enhanced. Overviews and glimpses of the waterfront
destination could establish a sense of anticipation of arrival at
the river bank. Vistas to the waterfront from overlook positions
could enrich the pedestrian's overall experience by providing a
broad view that takes in all of the redevelopment waterfront. This
type of overview might encourage visitors to use the boar6talk
along the river.

Historic views to Lake Ontario and the Genesee River from Light-
house Street and the Charlotte /Genesee Lighthouse grounds should
be restored and enframed by the selective removal of obstructing
trees. A planting scheme for trees on Lighthouse Street that does
not block waterfront views should be prepared.

ISSUE 4 - LOW DENSITY HOUSING

There is an overwhelminq consensus in the Charlotte community that
housing development aiong the Genesee River should not block
public visual access to the water, or preclude the possibility for
the development of water-related and water-dependent recreation.
Small scale, low density housing is preferred to high density,
moderate I y-scal ed or highrise structures. Housing as a mixed use
on River Street is acceptable only if the actual shoreline remains
open to the public. The preferred location for new housing is in
open areas west of Lake Avenue.

ISSUE 5 - ST11TSON STREET BRIDGE REPUCEMENT

The Stutson Street Bridge has been deemed structurally deficient
and has deteriorated beyond feasible rehabilitation according to
Monroe County Engineering Department, P.I.R., 1986, Larsen
Engineers/ Architects.
According to the report prepared by Donald J. Bergman and
Associates, traffic at the Lake, Stutson, and Parkway intersec-
tions should operate with only minor delays. Serious traffic
congestion occurs, however, during summer weekend days when boat
traffic is also very high. This corresponds to the Stutson Street
Bridge being raised once every fifteen minutes. The report also
states thai if the Stutson Street Bridge were aligned with the
Lake Ontario State Parkway, Stutson Street would become a local
residential street forming a neighborhood network with River
Street and Latta Road.

The following are alternatives for the Stutson Street Bridge
replacement:

Alternative #1 involves removing the existing bridge and construc-
ting a nFw-Dridge in the same location. A bridge with a hicher
clearance could be installed, but problems will occur during
construction. The next closest crossing of the Genesee River would
be the Veteran's bridge about four miles to the south, which would
be a hardship for motorists, as well as emergency vehicles. If the
bridge were to remain in the same place, It would not help to

alleviate any traffic problems in the Lake, Stutson, and Parkway
intersection. This alternative would probably also reouire the
widening of Stutson Street between the River and Lake Avenue,
which would be a considerable disruption to that neighborhood,
given the right-af-way width and the setbacks of buildings.

Alternative #2 would involve a new bridoe constructed to the south
OT tne existi7ng bridge. This new bridge would align with tne Lake
Ontario State Parkway on the west side and end at Thomas Avenue on
the east side.

Alignment of the bridge, however, with the existing Parkway would
constitute condemnation of up to 15 parcels, some of which have
potential for State Historic Preservation Office listing.

Since the major contributor to traffic congestion in the area is
the bridge when opened, the following options apply to either of
the previous alternatives:

Ootion I would involve keeping the approximate 24 foot vertical
c7e-arance that the existing bridae has; this does nothing to
alleviate problems for vehicles or boat traffic because of the
high frequencies of bridge openings.

Option II would involve constructing a movable bridge with 54 foot
vertical clearance above mean water level in the closed position.
This would allow passage of approximately 50 to 75 percent of the
sailboat fleet in the closed position.
Option III would involve constructing a movable bridge with 64
foot ver7cal clearance above mean water level in the closed
position. This would allow passage of approximately 100 percent of
the sailboat fleet in the closed position. This height, as well as
Option II, could present some grade problems on the east side of
the River.

Option IV would involve constructing a fixed bridge with 100 foot
vertical clearance above mean water level. This option does not
seem feasible from a financial standpoint, and presents problems
resolving gradient changes from the riverbanks to the river navi-
gati on channel .

ISSUE 6 - IMPROVEMENTS TO IWMRSECTIONS AND STREETSCAPES

Many of the views along commercial areas and older residential
streets in the Redevelopment Area can be improved. Infill struc-
tures developed on vacant lots should respond to the historic
character of the area. Some considerations for the impact of new
structures on existing neighborhoods include fenestration and
facade treatments, building bulk and scale, paving i materials,
signace, and street planting and furnishings. The various historic
and cultural resources of the Redevelopment Area could be coordina-
ted by relating them to an overall development scheme, such as
distinctive signage and lighting plan for neighborhood streets.
The sense of Charlotte as a ilace secluded from the rest of Roches-

ter could be used as a point of beginning for favorable tourist
publicity, and may become the framework for design decisions
concerning the unification of streetscapes.

Establishment of a unique thematic concept for the streetscapes
and intersections in the redevelopment area is essential. This
theme will not only identify the area, but will provide a means of
distinguishing this area from the rest of Rochester. This theme
could relate the historical significance of structures and land-
scapes to the waterfront redevelopment. Existing facades along
with proposed new buildings and landscape treatment could accentu-
ate this theme. The following are examples which could unify this
area into a unique theme:

1. Signace - a symbol or insignia could be placed on the street
identification signs in the redevelopment area. This could also
include differences from other Rochester districts, such as the
overall shape of the signs or specific color combinations.

2. Trees - trees planted within the right-of-ways would help to
d-niquely characterize the area.

3. Sidewalks - either color, finish texture, or some type of plate
or indenture to make them unique.

4. Lighting - unique lighting conveying the theme of the redevelop-
ment area.

S. Benches and Trash Receptacles - color scheme along with redeve-
lopment insignia could be utilized.

ISSUE 7 - RIVER SURGE

The river surge problem is caused by Lake Ontario storms from the
northeast. These storms are infrequent, but are very damaging when
they do occur. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the river
surge is caused by rising lake levels. The highest lake levels
occur in the summer. The most dramatic recent change was a 5.2'
rise in the base elevation of the lake recorded in June of 1952.
Waves generated during a storm are, of course, on top of the
raised water level. The height of waves on the high water depends
on the distance of lake over which they are blown. Waves of up to
10' are not uncommon during such storms. Due to the alignment of
the Genesee River to Lake Ontario, damaging waves can travel
upstream as far as Stutson Street.

The lower Genesee River experiences wave surge primarily caused by
storms from north/northeast, because of the alignment of the River
to the Lake. It Is not uncommon for waves from the Lake to travel
as far south as the Stutson Street Bridge. This wave surge causes
physical damage to recreational and commercial craft, along with
dan-age to docks and boat launch facilities. This situation must be
corrected before any new docks are constructed in this area of the
River, especially north of the Stutson Street Bridge to the lake.

The following are three alternatives for the correction of the
surge problem, along with advantages and disadvantages of each.
The first two.alternatives were outlined in a report issued by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers in May of 1987.
Alternative #1 involves placement of rubble mound facing along
both tne west and east piers for the purpose of wave dissipation.
This, according to the Army Corps' report, would alleviate 75
percent of the wave surge problems.
Alternative #2 involves construction of a permanent "dog-lea"
structure DUIlTat the nort@ern end of the west pier. This alterna-
tive would require additional dredging to accommodate some of the
larger commercial traffic.

Alternative #3 involves construction of a permanent structure
built perpenalcular to the west and east piers. This alternative
would include additional dredging, but may also discourage the
larger commercial vessels from entering the River.

ISSUE 8 - MARKET DEMAND

Information regarding the demand for recreational and tourist
attractions for the River Harbor Redevelopment Study Area is
summarized below. The topics and perspectives presenteO have been
gleaned from the LWRP work, a review of prior River Harborfront
and City-wide studies, as well as from the consultant team's
knowledge of the site and area-wide market conditions.

Water Related Uses

Among the water related uses identified as appropriate for the
River Harbor Area are marinas, boat launch ramps, docks and slips.
The Monroe County demand for such facilities is substantial. The
County is currently preparing a Waterfront Recreation Opportuni-
ties Study. The draft material on Supply Demand Analysis and
Development Opportunities, November 1988, Development Planning
Services, provides the following information:
- From 1977 to 1987, there was a 30% increase in Monroe
County resident boater registrations. As of 1987, 26.202
boats were registered to County residents.

- Fully 58.6% of those boats were 16 feet or over.
- The County's current supply of commercially available boat
slips is limited to 2,525. There are 4,222 available in
facilities stretching frcm Oak Orchard (Orleans County) to
Fair Haven (Wayne County).
- Adjusting for out of county use, boats docked at homes and
cottages and boats not requiring marina slips (cartops,
etc.), demand for slips is currently at 350 and by 1992,
demand will grow to 880.

@he availability of slips for visitors is negligible in the
County and throuahout the region as defined above.

Based upon an assessment of available boat launch ramps,
user patterns and boater registrations, there is a County-
wide demand for up to 17 additional ramp facilities through
1992. The report specifically cites the Harborfront Area as
a potential location for ramp facilities.

In addition to boating related facilities, the draft report pro-
vides some guidance on the demand for recreational facilities
typically provided by the public sector, beaches and swimming
areas and hiking and biking trails. Rochester has the highest use/
capacity ratio for swimning in New York State, excepting New York
City. The figures demonstrate a need for additional swimming
facilities, as well as the heavy use which Ontario Beach Park
already receives. Ontario Beach visitation is estimated at 800,000
annual visits. (Discovery Center Report, Phoenix Associates, May,
1987).

There can be no doubt that recreational facilities, such as walk-
ways, trails, picnic areas, and playing fields, would be heavily
used and would enhance current Ontario Beach Park offerings.

The demand for trails, in particular, is also supported by the New
York Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan, 1983. The Plan
states that Monroe County Design Day Capacity far exceeds the
state average for biking and hiking activities. (Design Day Capac-
ity indicates the degree to which average demand approaches or
will exceed daily capacity on the given number of highest use
days. NYS Camp. Rec. Plan, 1983).

In addition, the Ontario Beac@ Park Program Committee. Inc.
(OBPRC) special events calendar has demonstrated the area's abil-
ity to attract visitors, given a worthwhile special event. The
following provides a brief list of events and visitors.

Event Visitors

Kite Flight Festival - 1 day 2,000
West Bank Theatre - 9 performances 1@500
Rochester Harbor Festival - 7 days 85:000
Concerts by the Shore - 8 performances 12,000
Lake Ontario Winter Festival 5,000

Water Enhanced Uses

The City's 1988 City-wide and Specific Neighborhood Housinc Demand
Forecasts Reoor-t-,7-eal Lstate Research Corporation, staies that
there couid-Fe-a city-wide demand for 572 additional housing units
throug'=95. This projection is made for renter households earn-
ing $20,000 or more and owner households earning $35,000 or more.
It is also premised upon an increase in the regional rate of
growth as well as a substantial increase in the City's capture
rate for new Monroe County households. Nevertheless, the Report
does state:

The emphasis should be more on trying to modify household
trends somewhat by building types of housing that might attract
households that would otherwise move to the suburbs, either
because they are unlikely to be satisfied with the City's
existing housing stock or because the new City housing takes
advantage of unique City strengths unavailable in the suburbs.

The River Harbor Redevelopment Area, because of its potential for
waterfront and boating access, offers the opportunity to meet the
stated criteria. Because of the limitations of the market, how-
ever, and the City's commitment to residential development at
other locations, new unit construction is recommended at no more
than 80 units over a five year period.

The feasibility of a museum/ i nterpreti ve center was documented in
the May, 1987 Discovery Center Report prepared for the City of
Rochester by Phoenix Associates. Report findings indicated that
such facilities have met with varying success through the Great
Lakes Region. The scale and programming of facilities heavily
influenced visitation. Visitation to aquariums and hands-on
science fa*cilities were substantially higher than visitation to
history museums.

Visitation estimates for the Harborfront Discover Center ranged
between 60,000 and 115,000, depending upon scale, offerings and
the seasonality of the facility. T@ese estimates were based upon
visitation at Ontario Beach Park, regional attractions and other
Great Lakes facilities. The Center is a marketable entity as part
of the Harborfront's redevelopment package.

A Dicovery Center could become.a key anchor to the redevelopment
of the Harborfront. It has the potential to provide:

- A destination point for drawing County and regional visi-
tors and a visible statement as to the changing face of the
Beach;

- The foundation for an expanded year-round market for exist-
ing commercial and limited commercial development at appro-
priate in-fill locations throughout the Harborfront Area,
particularly when linked by well-articulated walkways;

- An opportunity for the City to demonstrate to the develop-
ment community its commitment to the Ri'ver Harbor redevelop-
ment through the active promotion of such a facility.

Current River Harbor commercial uses are heavily weighted towards
eating and drinking establishments and convenience goods and
services stores catering to residents and beach clientele. Some of
the restaurants are long-standing Rochester institutions which
maintain a year-round clientele. At the same time, water-related
retail support facilities such as bait and tackle, sporting goods
and fishing/boating supply stores are in short supply as are any
type of specialty-gift related shopping facilities.

The lack of such facilities is indicative of the current seasonal-
ity of the River Harbor Area as a recreational/tourism center.
While the warmer weather months offer many opportunities for
substantial numbers of visitors, there is presently little incen-
tive to visit the area during the off-season. The restaurants
currently provide the only off-season draw.

The ability to attract water-enhanced commercial uses is also
inhibited by the site's remoteness from other centers of activity,
the unattractiveness of some of the existing commercial develop-
ment along Lake Avenue and physical barriers between the Beach and
other potential activity sites, particularly River Street.

With an enhanced waterfront which addresses the issues noted
above, retail and service oriented development becomes a viable
option. Infill, water-related retail, and food service uses would
draw its clientele from the proposed visitor's marina, current
boating operations, and the expanding schedule of special events
occurring at-Ontario Beach Park. The ability to attract such uses
would be substantially enhanced by a year-round attraction sited
within the River Harbor Redevelopment Area.

If the objective is to improve the planning area's appeal as a
seasonal attraction, with little emphasis on year-round destina-
tion-oriented activities, new commercial space should be primarily
oriented toward food service. The visitor's marina, along with
other planned public improvements and the growing numbers of
people using Ontario Beach Park, can provide market support for
additional restaurants which capitalize upon a waterfront loca-
tion.

In order for specialty retailing (including gifts, high end mer-
chandising, as well as marine related sales) to be successful,
sales generation should minimally reach $175 per square foot.
Highly successful specialty centers reach sales levels more than
twice that figure. (Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of
Shopping Centers; Buland Ordway, "Shopping Center Innovations",
Urban Land, June, 1987). Three and one-half million dollars in
sales, or J50,000 people spending $10 each on non-food purchases,
would have to be achieved to support 20,000 square feet of.special-
ty retailing. If the River Harbor Redevelopment Area is to remain
a seasonal attraction, non-food retail space should be programmed
at no more than 10,000 square feet, particularly considering some
of the vacant or marginally used commercial space currently scat-
tered throughout the area.

Were the River Harbor Area to become a center for year-round
activity the potential for additional specialty retail space is
enhanced. A Technical Memorandum prepared by Zucchelli, Hunter and
Associates, May, 1987 for the Brown's Race Area, stated that this
site, adjacent to the Central Business District and to Kodak
Headquarters, could support 35,000 to 40,000 square feet of retail
space, including food service, through 1995 and up to 102,000
square feet through the year 2000. These projections assume a
strong local economy and new sales potential driven by an expand-
ing population and household base at the County level.

The River Harbor Area, while not offering the same iocational
attributes as Brown's Race is, in and of itself, a unique and
excitina location. While unlikely to capture sales at the same
levels as Brown's Race, the addition of a major year-round attrac-
tion, the visitor's marina, additional boating slips, public
imarovements to the streetscape and reinvestment in existing
properties along Lake Avenue and River Street could produce enough
visitors and activity to support up to 30,000 sauare feet of
non-food related retail space over time.

In neither scenario is additional space devoted to convenience
goods shopping recommended. Efforts would be better concentrated
on improving t@e appearance of existing convenience and service
oriented establishments already located within the River Harbor-
front. Convenience goods and services businesses are not consider-
ed a market of "tourism" draw and exist, particularly when located
outside neighborhood shopping centers, to serve the needs of
immediate area residents. While the River Harbor Redevelopment
Area is borcered by Greece, current population estimated at
83,000, that community has ample ooportunities for resident shop-
ping within its boraers. To draw these and otlier visitors, River
Harbor needs to offer somewhat unique goods and services at vis-
ible and accessible locations.

The addition of up to 80 new households to the immediate area
would not substantially increase the market for convenience shopp-
Ing facilities. The Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Department
of Labor, 1985, demonstrates that households with annual before
tax income of S25,000 spend approximately S4,000 annually on food
and beverage, tobacco products, personal care products and ser-
vices and non-prescription drugs and supplies. Assuming that all
new household dollars were spent in River Harborfront, 80 new
households could support only 2,500- square feet of convenience
shopping at a minimal productivity level of $125 per square foot.

The LWRP recommends a hotel/motel facility for the River Harbor
Redevelopment Area. Like expanded retail, a hotel/motel is more
likely to occur under a year-round scenario. For it to be included
in a seasonal scheme, the level of activity at the Visitor's
Marina would have to become more of a known quantity. Addition-
ally, a seasonal facility is more likely to occur in tandem with
another primary use such as a restaurant.

ISSUE 9 - EAST BANK DEVELOPMENT

The development of the east shore of the Genesee River directly
across from the River Harbor site has been devoted to water-
related activity. Oevelopments on the east bank include the east
pier and navigation light, the U.S. Coast Guard station near the
mouth of the Genesee River, finger piers and lagoon dockage for
small pleasure boats, the east side of the swine bridge, Conrail
through tracks and side tracks, Genesee Yacht Club dock space, the 10
east approach to the lift bridge at Stutson Street, and a sewage
disposal plant (not located directly on the waterfront).

The view from the east bank would be favorably improved by any
development on the west bank that increases recreational use of
that river bank. The east side of the Genesee River has been
developed almost entirely for the storage, launching and docking
of sailboats. The development of water-related recreational uses
for the west bank, especially proposals for increasing the number
of boat slips, constitutes the land use most compatible with that
of the east bank.

Surge control measures proposed in conjunction with west bank
developments are likely to have an impact on the east side. Future
modeling/study of the surge condition must deal with both sides of
the river.

ISSUE 10 - PREVIOUS PLANS

Schematic and conceptual design plans for the River Harbor Redeve-
lopment Study were prepared by the City of Rochester Planning
Commission staff in August of 1988. As noted in Task I, the illu-
strative plans emphasized unique areas along the Genesee River
from the swing bridge south to Petten Street. Waterfront develop-
ment included new finger piers, a boardwalk with fishing piers,
front end parking located parallel to River Street, and waterside
picnic shelters. The plan explored two options for moving the
Pelican Bay boat storage south to Petten Street. A boat launch
would remain at Pelican day, however, dry storage for boats would
be severly limited. A building for the stacked storage of small
boats at the proposed Petten Street boat launch would accommodate
up to 80 boats.

The City staff plans involved a good deal of cutting away of the
river bank at the proposed Petten Street boat launch and filling
into the river (as much as 25' from the existing shoreline) at the
freight train station.

The overriding concept in the City plan was the provision of
public access to the river. The entire length of river bank was
rebuilt as a combination of boardwalk and b.oat docking piers.
Small projections of land intended as surge control jettys were
planted with trees and used to bring pedestrians to the-water's
edge. Parki-ng was provided from the Tape-Can site to the southern
terminus of the study area. Infill development in the form of
housing and mixed housing and commercial was proposed for vacant
sites on River Street.

The City of Rochester Office of Planning has summarized its plan
in the Explanation of LWRP Policies, Section III, and in Section
IV, LWRP Land Use Plan as fol-
lows:

.The proposed plan takes advantage of the proximity of the site to
the Historic Charlotte Lighthouse, as well as the Genesee River
and nearby marinas. The plan promotes a variety of water-related
commercial and recreational uses in the area. The programming
includes construction of boat slips and a public walkway along the

Genesee River, develooment of direct Dunlic access to the Licht-
house, construction of picnic facilities and open space areas
along the river, and provisions for additional parking and more
efficient vehicular circulation in the area. The plan also identi-
fies several buildinas and structures in the area that could be
redeveloped or rehabilitated for appropriate water-reiated commer-
cial uses.
The City of Rochester will encourage and promote the develODment
of various commercial and recreational uses within the Lake Avenue
commercial district that will support and enhance the land uses
and development activities on the Port Site and at Ontario Beach
Park. In addition to the rehabilitation of major buildings, the
City will give consideration to providing off-street parking areas
and streetscape amenities such as tree plantings, landscape fea-
tures, street furniture and unique pavement treatments.
The City of Rochester has developed a proposal to rehabilitate the
River Street Site, including the 5 acre railroad riaht-of-way
property recently acouired from Conrail . This development plan
enhances the facilities and activities proposed for the Port
Authority Site while creatina a unioue and distinctive area alona
River Street that takes aavantage of the reuse opportunities for
existing buildings.
The plan recommends that local demand for boat slips be addressed
through the development of up to 200 new slips along the Genesee
River, in an area that extends from the swing bridge south to the
Petten Street extension. In addition, the plan proposes the con-
struction of a riverwalk promenade or pedestrian path along the
river that could potentially connect or link the site with the
Port area to the north. The pedestrian walkway would also provide
access to new open space and picnicking areas to be developed
alono the river. These areas would include new picnic shelters and
river overlooks. Enhancements to the Charlotte Lighthouse and
surrounding area, that involve creation of additional open space,
a pedestrian connection to the river, and additional parking
areas, are included in the plan. Rehabilitation of the existing
railroad station into a unique riverside restaurant is also pro-
posed in the plan. Finally, adaptive reuse of existing vacant
commercial structures in the area is envisioned as a major,part of
the overall redevelopment of the River Street Site.
The proposed redevelopment plan for River Street and the former
Conrail property meets many of the LWRP policy goals and state-
ments contained in Section 111, as well as additional overall
objectives that were developed by City staff, committee members
and citizens. The plan would also implement the specific land use
recommendations for-;the River Street Site that are contained in
LWRP Policies Section'iV. The plan promotes tourism, enhances the
City's image as a recreation center and waterfront attraction,
strengthens the economic base of the region, promotes public
access to the shore zone, and increases the amount and type of
water-related recreational activities and opportunities.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 19, 1988

RE: Rochester River Harbor Redevelopment Feasibility, Study

TASK IY: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This memorandum summarizes goals and objectives for the River
Harbor Redevelopment Area. The goals are a compilation of broad
intentions fo-r the River Harbor Redevelopment Area as identified
by the City of Rochester Planning Commission staff, the LWRF
C i ti ze n' s Advi sory Commi ttee, and consul tants. The objecti ves are
courses of action, consistent with LWRP policies, that will result
in the realization of goals for the Genesee River waterfront. The
goals and objectives provide the conceptual framework for specific
strategies and tactics. The strategies are guidelines for specific
actions. The tactics are treatments detailed to serve particular
needs. In the overall organization of the River Harbor Redevelop-
ment Study, the goals and objectives generally describe the inten-
tions of the 'study.

1. GOAL: Improve public access to the riverfront. (CS/RBP/CAC).*

OBJECTIYES:

a. Maximize pedestrian access along a waterfront boardwalk.
(CAC). LWRP Policy 20A - Comprehensive Trail System.

b. Provide waterfront seating and fishing places. (RBR). LWRP
Policies 22, 22A.

C. Organize and increase the number of existing piers to
accommodate the docking of additional boats. (CS). LWRP
Policies 21, 21A.
d. Improve vehicular access and parking at waterfront. (CS).

*NOTE: CS City Staff, RBP - Reimann.Buechner Partnership,
CAC LWRP Citizens' Advisory Committee.

2. GOAL: Incorporate historic structures into overall community
image. (CS/RBP).

OBJECTIVES:

a. Rehabilitate existing structures, wherever possible.
(CAC). LWRP Policy 1 - Restore, revitalize and r,:@develop
deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas. LWRP
Policy 1B and 1E.

b. Redevelop vacant and underutilized land and structures
adjacent to the west bank of the Genesee River. (CS) LWRP
Policy 1B.

C. Take historic preservation measures where appropriate.
(CS). LWRP Policies 23, 23A, 238, and 23C.

d. Ensure that develo'pment follows guidelines and standards
for each subarea. (CS). (See Goal 6).

3. GOAL: Protect and enhance stable residential and commercial
areas. (CAC).

OBJECTIVES:

a. Upgrade existing structures and develop vacant lots with
compatible land uses. (CS).
b. Develop water-oriented land uses along River Street. (CS).
LWRP Policy 58.

c. Upgrade commercial developmint an west side of Lake
Avenue. (CS). LWRP Policies 1B and 1C.

d. Develop more specific permit-granting criteria for land
uses within the River Harbor Study Area. (CS).
4. GOAL: Protect safety and welfare of waterfront users. (RBP).

OBJECTIVES:

a. Provide surge control against northeast storms. (CAC).

b. Provide safe walkways, piers and boardwalk (sturdy, storm.-
proof.' lighted, etc.). (RBP).

C. Route pedestrians to avoid potential hazards and unneces-
sary safety risks. (RBP).

S. GOAL: Increase public water-enhanced or water-dependent recrea-
tional opportunities. (CAC).

OBJECTIVES:

a. Incorporate recreation as a land use in waterfront develop-
ments. (CS).

b. Provide access for fishing an west bank of Genesee River.
(CS). LWRP Policies 22 and 22A.

C. Develop more boat slips and launch ramps along the Genesee
River. (CS). LWRP Policies 1F; 19, 19C, 19F; Policy 20,
20B and 20C.

6. GOAL: Develop and implement a theme or set of subthemes to
direct the desion concepts for the River Harbor Study Area.

OBJECTIVES:

a. Delineate general design guidelines that clearly articu-
late the thematic goal for Site Development, Architectural
Development, Landscape Development, and Signage. (RSP).
b. Develop design standards that express means of achieving
guideline recommendations. These should be specific for
each subarea. (RBP).
7. GOAL: Enhance maritime ambience an River Street. (CAC).

OBJECTIVES:

a. Develop site details and ameiities with theme that res-
pects the area's historic use in shipping .activity. (CS).
LWRP Policy 23 - especially uthe enhancement of the exist-
ing "neighborhood" and "nautical" character and ambience
already present In the area".
b. Ensure that development follows guidelines and standards
for subareas 8 and E. (CS). (See Goal 6).
8. GOAL: Improve traffic circulation in River Harbor Redevelopment
Area.

OBJECTIVES:

a. Develop specific strategies to improve levels of service
at congested intersections.
b. Resolve parking demands and projected needs resulting from
proposed redevelopment.
c. Resolve traffic volume impacts resulting from proposed
redevelopment.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 11, 1989

RE: Rochester River Harbor Redeveloment Feasibility Study

TASK V: THEMATIC CONCEPT

This memorandum specifies thematic concepts for the River Harbor
Study Area. The concepts coordinate the efforts of the consulting
team, City PTanning staff, the LWRP Citizen's Advisory Committee,
and the Charlotte Cormunity Association (CCA),

The procedure for coordination of thematic concepts involved a
series of meetings between the City staff, consulting team, and
citizens' groups in December of 1988. The CCA developed a consen-
sus during its regular meetings in late 1987. The following thema-
tic concepts result from the process of reviewing project issues
and concerns, goals and objectives, local history, and information
from citizens' meeting discussions.

The overall theme for the River Harbor Redevelopment Area shall be
a Time Theme expressive of the turn-of-the-century heyday, Design
concepts shall recall this era of livoly waterfront activity.

In order to facilitate the design process for thematic concepts,
the Feasibility Study subareas have been Combined from five sub-
areas to two. The new subareas' boundaries (see map) were based on
land use, topography, zoning and thematic distinctions. Subarea A
combined prior Subareas A, C, and 0 from previous tasks. Subarea 8
combined prior Subareas 8 and E from previous tasks. Subarea A
shall be developed with a Village Time Theme; Subarea 8 shall be
developed with a Nautical Time Theme.

On Lake Avenue, the turn -of - the-century Time Theme shall be rea-
lized as a reinforcement of the village-like character present
there. The impression of "village" is conveyed by small-scaled
residences, local shops and services, churches, fire station; post
office, and historic police station. The diversity of land uses
will be retained and augmented in reinforcing this village charac-
ter. Specific recommendations fo@ appropriate scale and materials
for buildings, as well as streetscape detailing, are presented in
Task VI, Guidelines and Standards. Appropriate land uses in Sub-
area A include commercial and residential development, park
areas, pedestrian ways, sitting areas, and parking facilities.

On River -Street, the turn-of-the-century Time Theme shall have a
maritime character. The maritime ambience of the waterfront is
created by t@e presence of sailboats and motor boats, the freight
trains, swing bridge, fire boat, lighthouse, docks, and marina
operation. Waterfront activity will be encouraged through the
development of water-related and water-enhanced uses. Appropriate
land uses in Subarea B include mixed commercial and residential
development, playground spaces, picnic areas, fishing piers, boat
docks, boardwalk/pedestrian trails, parking, marina facilities,
and specialty retail development.

Facade and architectural treatments shall be detailed with ele-
ments appropriate to the overall Time Theme in both subareas.
Landscape and streetscape desion shall also incorporate elements
expressive of the Time Theme. Specific stratecies for accomplish-
ing the Time Theine, along with examples o@ appropriate design
elements are included in Task VI.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 14, 1989

RE: Rochester River Harbor Redevelopment Feasibility Study

TASK IX: POLICY RELATIONSHIPS

The redevelopment design solutions were produced by the consultant
team in close coordination with the City of Rochester Planning
staff and the LWRP Citizen's Advisory Committee. The results of
this effort were schematic plans and concepts which implement
specific LWRP policies. The River Harbor Redevelopment Design.and
Feasibility Study was intended as a tool to provide the means of
carrying out relevant LWRP policies. The LWRP policies and Explana-
tion of Policies are presented in Appendix A.

The guidelines and standards were related to specific LWRP poli-
cies. These relationships, as they pertain to design controls for
the anticipated Street Corridor, Architectural, Site, and Sicnage
developments are summarized In the charts which follow this iext'.
LWRP Policies 1, 2, 5, 9, 20, 21, and 22 were related to all four
categories of development and were therefore universally appli-
cable in this study. Similarly, Policies 1B, 1C, 1E, and 58 ap-
plied to all four categories of design controls (see Appendix A
LWRP Policies for an explanation of the City of Roc@ester LWRP
policies). The relationships between the Design Guidelines and
Standards were identified and summarized in the "Task IX LWRP
Policies Chart". The chart states the River Harbor Gui-deiines and
summarizes tne Standards which apply to each Guideline. Relevant
LWRP Policies are then related to those Guidelines and Standards.
Policies 23, 23A, and 23B related directly to the Architectural
Restoration Standards. Policies 19C and 20C were directly appli-
cable to boardwalk/trail system standards.

The Redevelopment Parcels were matrixed with the LWRP policies to
determine the relationship of policies to proposed developments.
The policies were then arranged in order of applicability, in a
range from the most widely applicable policies on the left to the
least applicable policies on the right. The Redevelopment Parcels
were ranked from the most appropriate form of development at the
bottom of the column (refer to Task IX LWRP Policy Matrix). The
developments most compatible with the LWRP policies were shoreline
or water-reTated development. The Riverfront Park proposal was in
closest aoreement with LWRP policies.

CONCLUSIONS

The following discussion summarizes specific design recommendations and poli-
cies resulting from Task VIII, Schematic Design, of the Design and Feasibility
Study. It is organized into three sections; Program, Design and Policy. The
plans and policies referred to in the discussion of these results can be found
in this section immediately following the text.

PROGRM

Task VIII resulted in the production of a schematic plan for the redevelopment
of the River Harbor Study Area. Prior to drawing up final recommendations, a
program was recommended for each redevelopment parcel. The redevelopment
programs were adjusted after meetings with City Planning staff, the LWRP
Citizen's Advisory Committee, the Charlotte Community Association, and the
City of Rochester Development Committee. The following program resulted from
the process of discussion and revision.

PELICAN BAY - PARCEL A

Sales Showroom and Services 5,200 square feet
Dry Boat Storage 35 boats
Parking - 7 cars

LIGHTHOUSE MUSEUM PARK - PARCEL B

Pedestrian and Bicycld Trail
Picnic Grounds
Handicapped Accessible Routes
Overlook

LIGHTHOUSE STREET - PARCEL C

Parking - 42 parallel spaces + 3 handicapped
Visitor Drop-off

TAPE-CON - PARCEL D

New Retail - 16,800 square feet
Adaptive Reuse Retail - Ust floor Tape-Can office building) 4,200 square
feet
Paiking 103 front end spaces
30 spaces in garaces at townhouses
Housina 15 townhomes at 2,000 square feet
3 flats (2nd floor Tape-Con office building) at 1,400 square
feet

RIVERFRONT PARK - PARCEL E

Boardwalk
Adaptive Reuse - Restaurant at 5,500 square feet
Restaurant Boat Dock
Restaurant Deck
Fishing Pier
Picnic Shelters, Play Sculpture
Parking - 253 front end spaces

RIVER STREET INFILL - PARCEL F

Mixed Use New Retail (on around level) 16,500 square feet
Existing Commercial (1st fioar) 8,025 square feet
Parking - 42 front end spaces
- 36 spaces in garages at townhouses
Adaptive Reuse - 15 flats (2nd floor above existing commercial) at 1,600
square feet
Mixed Use Housina - 11 tcwnhomes (above new retail) at 2,400 souare feet
each
Housing - 10 walkouts at 2,000 square feet each
- 8 townhomes, two story, at 2,000 square feet each

RAIL LANDS - PARCEL G

Stacked Boat Storage - 30 to 40 boats
Parking - 39 front end spaces
Fishing Pier

LAKE AVENUE INFILL - Typical Site

Proposed Retail 5,600 square feet
Proposed Parking 25 offstreet spaces

DESIGN

The proposed program elements are summarized in the redevelopment statistics
chart which follows. The chart indicates retail, housing, parking, and boating
redevelopment recommendations for each redevelopment site (Parcels A-G). The
total proposed redevelopment for each program element is indicated at the
bottom of the chart. In addition to the program for redevelopment, other
redevelopment design solutions were discussed at City staff and community
meetings. The alternatives outlined in Task VII were debated, and the schema-
tic plan reflects the result of this dialogue. The following discussion refers
to the Task VIII schematic plan as it outlines the consultant's design recom-
mendations.

REDEVELDPIalEM PROGRAM ELEME14TS

7
Retail Housing Parkl_nj Boats

Pelfcan Day - Parcel A 5,200 s.f. 7 3S dry storage

Lfghthouse Museum Park Parcel 0 - -

Lighthouse Street - Parcel C - 45

Tape-Con - Parcel n 21,000 s.f. 15 Townhomes 103
5 Apartments

Riverfront Park - Parcel E S.500 S.f. 253 213 at docks

River Street - Parcel F 24,52S s.f. 29 Townhomes 42
15 Apartments

Rail Lands Parcel G 39 35 dry storage

56.225 s.f. 44 Townhomes 489s 283 boats
20 Apartments

REDEVELOPMENT STATISTICS C"AfIT

PEDESTRIAN CIRCUUTION

Pedestrian traffic through the redeveloped waterfront was implemented with two
basic concepts in mind; first, that waterfront visitors should have the maxi-
mum possible access to the riverbank; second, that the pedestrian trail system
should incorporate a series of loops which offer several routing choices to
visitors. The pedestrian circulation routes are comprised of the existing
sidewalk grid and proposed sidewalks and asphalt trails. Wherever possible,
the pedestrian crossina of the Conrail tracks was combined with vehicular
crossings. Of the nine- proposed pedestrian crossings, seven are incorporated
with road crossings. The following narrative highlights key features in tte
proposed pedestrian trail system.

Connection to Ontario Beach Park

Visitors to Ontario Beach Park will have direct access to the River Harbor
Redevelopment Area from the Ontario Beach Park boardwalk or parking lots.
Pedestrians traveling south along the waterfront are directed west at the
picnic area to bring them west of the Monroe County boat launch. Benches
should be provided here to allow views of boat launching activity.

North Parks

The walkway continues south around the boat launch staging area, then west
parallel to the east/west Conrail line. At this point, pedestrians could
choose a lower route offering close-up views of the marina activity or a
higher route featuring an overlook platform equipped with benches positioned
to take advantage of views to the swing bridge or views north to Lake Ontario.
The lower route leads more directly to the proposed fishing pier, boardwalk,
and Riverfront Park picnic area. The upper route accesses the Lighthouse Park
picnic grounds and park proper. Here the visitor is rewarded by sweeping
vistas of the waterfront from the Genesee Yacht Cub to the Summerville Pier on
the east bank, and from the train station to Ontario Beach park an the west
bank. There are five options for pedestrians leavihg the lighthouse. They are
the following connections:

1) West to Lake Avenue through the Holy Cross parking lot.

2) East to Riverfront Park parking lot, on through the proposed stair-
way (Note existing stairway needs replacing).
3) South to River Street by following the slope down past the proposed
Tape-Con redevelopment site.

4) South to Latta Road via Lighthouse Street.

5) North to Ontario Beach parking lots via the routes described above.

Waterfront Park

The Waterfront Park was conceived as a linear green strip with a continuous
boardwalk immediately adjacent to the riverbank. Key features incorporated
into the proposed pedestrian system include the following:

Fishing piers an both ends of the restaurant deck. During the springg
summer and fall seasons, the deck would be utilized for outdoor dining by
patrons, with most of the deck cordoned-off and occupied by tables and
chairs. During the off-season, the deck could be utilized by pedestrians
as part of the boardwalk system.

Proposed reuse of the west abutment of the Stutson Street Bridge. The
existing bridge structure couto-S-epartially dismantled with the west
abutment rebuilt as an overlook. A human-scaled railing and wooden deck-
ing could replace over-sized or inappropriate materials to create a
pedestrian node. This could be developed in conjunction with the closure
of portions of the Stutson Street/River Street intersection, resulting
from the bridge relocation plan.

Also in conjunction with the bridge relocation plan, new walkways/bike-
way. These would allow for non-vehicular traffic across t e river on-79F
W-ew bridge. A switchback ramp and stair is proposed to bring pedestrians
from the upper level at River Street or from the proposed new bridge down
to the lower level near the railroad tracks. This would allow waterfront
access for people crossing the new Parkway bridge without necessitating
a Iona walk to Lake Avenue and back to River Street.

A forty-foot wide fishina pier. The deck-like fishing area would allow
fishermen access tne uenesee Klver that would be sheltered from
weather by the Parkway bridge.

Pedestrian reststop. At the point where the tee docks begin, the board-
walk is wid-enecand a gazebo is provided. This area should be furnished
with benches, a drinking fountain, trash receptacles, an information
kiask, etc.

Proposed sitting area. The boardwalk continues south to the stacked boat
storage f-Milty. A sitting area is proposed for the north end of the
facility to allow onlookers views of the launching procedure. Bays at
either end of the storage tuilding could be left open so visitors can
watch the high-tech launching equipment in operation.

Fishing pier and oazebo. The southern terminus to the waterfront park is
providea with a fisMng pier and landside shelter. The 15 1 open deck of
the pier will allow ample room for snag-free casting. From this.*point,
the boardwalk would continue south along the riverbank past the Spirit of
Rochester mooring to the marina area., An optional asphalt path could
parallel the train tracks, giving bicyclists and pedestrians a connection
south to Turning Point Park.

Lighthouse Street

The west side of Lighthouse Street is provided with a pedestrian walk and
planting strip. The north terminus of Lighthouse Street is a turn-around for
vehicles with a convenient drop-off area that interfaces with Lighthouse Park
via a short walkway. This walkway or the one on the west side of Lighthouse
Street could be integrated with the Holy Cross Church path system, but are
currently planned as an autonomous route operating independently of the
church/school complex. There is also potential for coordinating school bus
drop-off, automobile parking, service access, and playground development with
public improvements on Lighthouse Street and the Lighthouse Park.

River Street Infill Site

Pedestrians are provided with a grid-type sidewalk system that allows for
connections east to Lake Avenue and north/south between Stutson Street and
Latta Road. There is a walk provided in front of all proposed mixed retail
housing units, and landscaoed front yards for all strictly residential tzwn-
homes. The parking lot adjacent to the retail sidewalks could be surfacec with
interlocking pavers to create a pedestrian mall , which could be utiloized
during festival events for uses other than parking. The major east/wes-c con-
nection throuqh the infill site is an sidewalks provided along Whitney r'ice.

YEHICULAR CIRCULATION

The existing road pattern remains unchanged, with the exception of chances to
Stutson Street, Lake Ontario State Parkway (L.O.S.P.) and River Street. Major
changes are proposed for these streets. As noted above, the schematic plan
proposes changes to Lighthouse Street, modifying the north terminus of the
street to a turn-around and passenger drop-off area. Curb cuts would allow
direct wheelchair access to the path system. The following narrative high-
lights major design recommendations for Stutson Street, L.O.S.P. and River
street.

Lake Ontario State Parkway

The Parkway is planned to be extended eastward through existing residential
areas, across River Street and over the Genesee River. To minimize the impact
on this residential area, the consultants recommend that the center median be
removed prior to crossing Lake Avenue. This would substantially reduce the
right-of-way width and thereby minimize the taking of properties. As outlined
in Task 111, Option II is the consultants' preferred bridge replacement op-
tion. It involves the construction of a 54' vertical clearance lift bridge.
The proposed bridge approach crosses Lake Avenue it a signalized, at-grade
intersection. The four-lane road, with sidewalks and bike paths for both east-
bound and westbound traffic crosses River Street with an 8 foot vertical
clearance. As mentioned in the preceding discussion, a pedestrian ramp or
stair would allow bridge users to move directly between the bridge and River
Street. The new bridce would tie-in an the west shore to the existing bridge
interface at Pattonwood Drive.

River Street/Stutson Street

In conjunction with this new bridge, several alternatives for River Street
near the Stutson Street intersection were considered. These are outlined in
Task VII. The option preferred by the neighborhood groups was to cul-de-sac
River Street. The dead end would change the intersection of Stutson Street and
River Street by allowing only one turning option for each street, since both
streets would be dead ends (recall that the Stutson Street Bridge is scheduled
for demolition and removal). Both streets would become accessways for local
traffic only in the proposed plan.

-I, --jj

;41 A
3. 2z i CPO

aL
FG#W

View Looking South Along River Street

River Street

The north terminus for River Street is proposed as a through connection to
Ontario Beach Park parking lots. The new street alignment would parallel the
existing north/south Conrail tracks, then cross the east/west tracks to con-
nect with the parking lots and Hincher Street entrance to the Park. The pro-
posed extension of River Street could be controlled by one way si,-nage. The
schematic plan illustrates an alignment which would prevent vehicles with
trailers from turning left at the intersection of the River Stree!_- extension
and the boat launch parking accessway. This intersection would alsc oe signed
"No Left Turn". The improved access and circulation gained by extending River
Street north to Ontario Beach Park parking lots, when comparen with' dead-
ending River Street at a parking lot (see discussion in Task VII), would
result in a higher degree of safeiy. Police, fire, ambulance, and service
vehicles such as trash trucks and delivery vans, would be aided in providing
emergency service or regularly scheduled services. Pedestrian safety in cross-
ing the east/west Conrail tracks would be increased due to the additional
warning signals for oncoming trains necessitated by a road crossing.

PARKING

A major concern for the redevelopment of the Genesee River waterfront was the
provision of adequate parking. The overall concept which guided the develop-
ment of parking areas was the concept of shared or overlapping use of spaces.
To minimize the paving of land adjacent to the waterfront for parking, some
uses would share the same spaces during different time periods. For example,
mixed-use townhouse parking at two spaces per unit for night parking would be
reduced to one space during business hours. For prime hours of operation, the
retail businesses would utilize these spaces for customer shopping. With the
exception of the mixed-use townhomes, all townhouse development will include
two-car garages with optional driveway parking for the exclusive use of town-
home owners.

Parking, as denoted on the sc@ematic plan, is summarized below:

Pelican Say - Parcel A

Parking AA 7 front end spaces

Lighthouse Street - Parcel B

Parkina FF 42 parallel spaces
3 handicapped spaces

Tape-Con - Parcel D

Parking CC 103 front end spaces
Townhomes 30 garage spaces
30 driveway spaces

Riverfront'Park - Parcel E

Parking Be 28 front end spaces
Parking DD 63 front end spaces
Parking 11 72 front end spaces
Parking JJ 90 front end spaces

Stutson Street 100 parallel spaces

Latta-Road 80 parallel spaces

River Street Infill - Parcel F

Parking GG 42 front end spaces
Townhomes 36 garages spaces
36 driveway spaces
Parking HH 30 parallel spaces

Rail Lands - Parcel G

Parkinc KK 39 front end spaces
Stacked Storage 40 pigeon-hole spaces

PARKING SUMMARY

Lots 444 spaces
On-Street:
Stutson Street 100 spaces
River Street 30 spaces
Latta Road 80 spaces
Lighthouse Street- 45 spaces
River Street Ext. 50 spaces
jut spaces

Stacked Storage 40 spaces
(in racks)

TOTAL 789 spaces provided
Note: Private parking for townhome owners not included in the-above
summary is as follows:

Townhomes (in garages) 66 spaces
Townhomes (in driveways) 66 spaces
132 spacel

BOATING

The proposed schematic plan provides dockage for 214 boats, plus dry storage
for 80 and temporary docking at the restaurant deck for 4-5 boats. Currently,
98 boats are serviced in the study area. The dramatic increase in intensity of
shoreline use will likely increase the demand for parking. As noted above, the
248 waterfront parking spaces proposed in this redevelopment plan will hardly
be adequate for boaters' needs. In calculating the parking demand created by

boaters (at 2 spaces per slip) versus the available spaces, it is apparent
that the demand can be met by sharing spaces provided in parking areas CC, FF,
and GG.

The facilities proposed for boaters include a sales showroom, boat servicing
outfit, launching ramp and dry storage yard at Pelican Bay, finger piers from
this marina south to the proposed new L.O.S.P. bridge, and 10 tee docks south
of the proposed new bridge. The tee docks were planned as permanent struc-
tures, but further study could show that the spring ice break-up flowing from
upstream may necessitate floatina docks or piers with some removable sections.
At the southern end of the study area a stacked boat storage facility is
recommended. This facility would allow boats to be stored in pigeonhole com-
partments during all seasons. This service was proposed for up to 40 boats,
but demand may actually be up to four times this number. Advantages for boat-
ers choosing the dry storage system include less bottom pai.nting, less general
maintenance, longer outdrive life, peace of mind, convenience, and greater
resale value for boats. Of the several available types of rack storage facili-
ties, the consultants recommend an enclosed structure, such as that manufac-
tured by Acco Chain and Liftinc. This facility utilizes electric indoor lift-
inq equipment which is designed to operate along a ceiling-mounted track. The
system will reduce safety risks to bystanders and objectionable noise which
may be present in other types of rack storage facilities, especially where
those facilities depend on lift trucks.

Boat Docking Summary

North of Stutson Street:

Finger Piers 81 boats
Restaurant Deck 4 boats

Subtotal 85 boats

South of Stutson Street:

Finger Piers 10 boats
Tee Docks 118 boats

Subtotal 128 boats

Dry Storage at Pelican Bay 35 boats
Stacked Storage 35 boats

Subtotal 70 boats

Total Number of Boats Accommodated = 283 boats.

LWRP POLICIES
GUIDELINES STANDARDS

LOT COVERAGE: Commercial SCS maximum NOTE: The following policies are generally related t
Define relationship of buildings to Nixed-Use 80% Maximum o all design
public spaces and circulation systems. Residential guidelines and standards. Policy 23A and 23B are s pecfffc
45% Maximum to restoration activity, Policy 19C and 20C a re specific
FRONTAGE: Commercial 90% Maximum for trail development.
0 Promote a continuous blockface. Nixed-Use 901 maximum
93 Residential 80% Maximum POLICY 18 - Redevelop vacant and underutilized land and struc-
EC - tures aiRg River Street a4jacent to the west bank of the Genesee
cc River to include water-oriented commercial and recreational uses.
0 Protect pedestrian corridors from en- SETBACK: Commercial 0-20 feet
L) croachment by buildings. Mixed-Use 0-20 feet
Residential 5-20 feet POLICY IC - Upgrade existing commercial uses located along the
PARKING: Restaurant 16 west side .of Lake Avenue 1himediately adjacent to the Port site.
Provide for off-street parking and Ispaces per Mixed-Use 4 POLICY IE - Promote and encourage appropriate reuse and/or redev-
service requirements. 1,000 square General Retail 4 e'=' options for vacant Industrial land located along the
feet) Boating 2per slip Ge River.
feinforce the overall character of the Residential 2per unit POLICY 5B - Promote and encourage appropriate water-ortented
Redevelopnent Area. ACCESS: One Way 10 feet aeve nt along River Street, north of the Stutson Street
(entry widths) Two Way Bridge, and upgrade the existing infrastructure In the area.
to feet

la. FACADE: 30'.<glass<50%
Protect ti,e existing character in River 14ATERIALS: Wood, brick, stone, cast Iron. Pro- POLICY 18. IC, IE, 56. and 23
Harbor neighborhoods through the appro- hibited materials: tinted glass,
priate use of scale, color, materials. vinyl/aluminum siding. grooved ply-
and detailing for buildinos facing the wood, fake stone. POLICY 19E - Promote and encourage Increased public access to the
street corridors.
_J waterfront and to various recreational resources and facilities
0 at the Port Authority Site ind at the River Street Site through
< EXTERIOR WALLS: 15%<glass<30% the implementation of a water-oriented. mixed-use development
project.

0
11. HEIGHT: Lake Avenue 4-story
a. L) River Street 2-story
Develop in harmony with subarea themes, Mixed-Use 3-story
goals. and objectives.
RES70RATION: Retain or restore original facade. POLICY 23A - Identify, protect and restore significant structures
Appropriate measures: remove un- T-oc-a-t-e-&-wi thin the local waterfront revitalization boundary. to
acceptable materials, uncover transom Include the Charlotte Lighthouse. as well as other buildings
w1ndows. restore doorways, down-scale which may be of local significance.
s gnage, replace lost or damaged
details.
__ @@RD
STANIA @S
Co ercil SCS Maximum
Mi:,
S, 8
d x

Create and reinforce an overall Identity POLICY 238 - Encourage and promote the redevelopnent of the Port
for the River Harbor Redevelopment Area. Authority Site and the River Street Site In a manner which is
NOTE: All restorations shall follow the latest compatible with and complements the architectural character and
revision of the Secretary of the Inter- integrity of existing structures in the area. to Include consid-
lor's standards for rehabilitation and eration of such things as scale, form. density, aesthetics,
guidelines for rehabilitating historic building materials, and use.
buildings.

GUIDELINES STANDARDS LWRP POLICIES

STREET LIGHTING: 18' maximum height post and
luminaire.
POLICY IB,IC,IE and 5B
FURNITURE: Cast iron and wood.
Create a unified and consistent image POLICY 19C - Increase access to the Genesee River and gorge area
for streetscapes in the Redevelopment PLANTING: 3-1/2" caliper trees planted 30' on through the development of a system of formal river overlooks,
Area. center. hiking and biking trails, pedestrian paths, and other similar
projects.
SCREEN WALL: 3' minimum, 6' maximum.
POLICY 2OC - Develop a comprehensive pedestrian trail system that
SCREEN PLANTING: Used with wall; evergreens, will provide direct public access to the river, with property
vines allowable, trees at 15' located along the east and west banks of the Genesee River, south
on center. of the Stutson Street Bridge, in the vicinity of Turning Point
Clarify edge definitions for pedestrian, Park.
planting, and parking zones.
PAVING: Sidewalks: concrete scored in 6'
squares.
Trail System: asphalt 6' wide.
Boardwalk: pressure- treated timber, 10' wide

COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE:

Address sign - 1 per occupant
Home Business sign - 12" x 12" max.
Advertising - lettering 18'
Enhance thematic concepts for River Permanent copy<25% window area POLICY 1B,1C, 1E, 5B, and 23B
Temporary copy 15% window area
Harbor subareas.
Rooftop signage prohibited
Billboards prohibited - 32 s.f. max.
allowed* NOTES:
Sign envelope width - 5 foot max.
Vertical clearance - 8 foot min. Only relevant policies have been considered for applicabil-
Portable signs - 3 ft. x 3 ft. x 4 ft. ity.
Interior-lit or flashing prohibited.
Coordinate informational needs with LWRP Policies 1,2,5,19,20,21 and 22 are addressed by
goals and objectives. Construction sign - 1 per site all four categories and are universally applicable in this
study.
REGULATORY SIGNAGE: Any sign larger than 32 square feet is considered out of
Governmental - MYSOOT Manuel of Uniform scale and is prohibited.
Traffic Control Devices'
Express the character of subareas in Private Traffic Regulation - 5 ft. x 5 ft.
commercial, regulatory, and informa- x 8 ft.
tional signage. INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE:
Political - 45 days before election
7 days after election
Real Estate - For Sale - 24 hours following
sale
Sold By - 14 days following sale

LWRP POUCIES

City of Rochester
RiverHarbor Fledevelopment Area
z
Design / Feasibility Study

...... I..Cb-, poll., .... 0. 0

w.0-4,481.

115.90.4ps

Pa"", 6

9.1g! F,6@4,7

1,0119,111, P.1091
ts
I...3,611table POW
0

reb,"y 28. 1919- JS 3

TASK IX: LWRP policy Matrix A W N
0 n N C4 N
N
Appendix A C-A 94 CIA CIA
R 0 0 0 0
RIVERFRONT PARK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
di RAIL LANDS -
L)
cc o go o o 0 0 0 0 0
4 PELICAN BAY 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
(L 0 0 o 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 0
TAPE-CON REDEVELOPMENT 0 0 0 0
00 o so 0 00 0
LIGHTHOUSE MUSEUM PARK
IL
o 0 000 0000
9 TREET INFILL 9 0 0 0
LL, RIVER S
go 00 0 000 0 - 0
C) LjGjjTtjOUSE STREET - - - -
w 00000.0 000 0
cc 0 40 0 0 0
LAKE AVENUE INFILL
NOTES: Only relevant policies have been considered for applicability.
F
@:RFF170:
R IL L NT
A ANC
@

OU
010-0

it commendations for each RedeveloPme"t Parcel are specified In the Task
Vill Program for RedevelOPment.

CITY OF ROCHESTER
LOCAL VATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAN

Legislation Resulting from the Rochester LWRP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

R-H - River Harbor District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

O-HTD - Overlay Harbor Town Design District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 112 - Vaterfront Consistency Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Administrative Procedures for Runoff Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby certify that the following is a true copy oi an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council of
the City of Rochester on Septmibex 1119 LO and - Appmved - by the
(not disapproved. approved. repassed after disapprovai)
Mayor of the City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on SePternber 13 '19 LO in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law. Ordinance No. 90-364

Amending Chapter 115 Of The Municipal
Code, Zoning Ordinance, With Respect To
Regulations For The R-H River-Harbor
District

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:
Section 1. Section 115-72 of the Municipal Code, R-H River-Harbor District, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Section 115-72. R-H River-Harbor District

A. Purpose. The R-H River Harbor District is intended to preserve and
enhance the recreational character of the harbor area at the mouth of
the Genesee River; improve the visual quality of the harbor
environment; preserve, retain and promotepublic access, both
physically and visually to the shoreline; and encourage tourism in the
area. While the primary uses of the area are boating and
complementary commercial uses which enhance the recre
character of the area andprovide conveniences for water-related and
shoreline recreational activities are permitted. The development of
additional public and private facilities for fishing, boating, swimming,
dining, picnicking, strolling and sightseeig is encouraged.
Residential land use is permissible to help promote a diversity of land
uses and a year round population which will reinforce the village
character of the area. The review of development in this district is
intended to promote the integration, in -mingling and visual and
physical proximity of a variety of activities.

B. Permitted uses.

(1) The following uses are permitted as of right in the R-H River
Harbor District subject, in each case, to site plan approval in
accordance with provisions of Section 115-30 of this chapter:
(a) Public boardwalks, paths and biking trails.

(b) Boating and fishing docks.
(2) The following uses are permitted as of right in the R-H River
Harbor District if located one hundred twenty-five (125) feet or
more from the edge of the Genesee River, subject in each case,
however, to site plan approval in accordance with the provisions
of Section 115-30 of this chapter:

(a) Restaurants and taverns

(b) Private clubs

[11 Clothing sales
[21 Fish, seafood and specialty food stores
[31 Gift shops
[41 Bicycle sales and rental
[51 Sporting goods sales
[61 Fishing supply stores
[71 Boating and sailing equipment and supplies sales and
rental

(e) Tourist information centers

Y) Museum

(g) Studios for artists and craftsmen
(h) Other establishments relating to and supporting harbor
activities.

C. Accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are
pernn*tted in the R-H River Harbor District subject to the provisions of
Section 115-87 of this chapter.

D. Temporary uses. Temporary uses are permitted in the R-H River
Harbor District subject to the provisions of Section 115-89 of this
chapter.
E. Special permit uses

(1) In addition to uses specified in subsection 115-29E(l), the
following uses and structures may be permitted in the R-H River
Harbor District subject to the issuance of a special permit, as
provided in Section 115-29 of this chapter:

(a) Any use permitted in Subsection B(2) above when located
within one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of the edge of the
Genesee River.

(b) Any structure or building over fifteen (15) feet in height.

(c) Private and commercial recreation and amusement
facilities, subject to the additional standards set forth in
subsection 115-54G(2)(a) and (b) of this chapter.
(d) Dwellings, subject to all the provisions and regulations
applicable in the R-3 District.

(e) Fuel sale

(f) Hotels and motels

(g) Marinas

(h) Boat launches

(i) Coast Guard Stations

(j) Water passenger transportation terminals
(k) Boating and sailing instruction schools
(1) Boat, yacht, canoe, and kayak sales, repair and storage

(m) Sales and repair of boat trailers

(n) Boat rental and charter facilities

(2) Standards. In addition to standards specified in subsection
115-29E(2) and (3) of this chapter, the following additional standards
shall be met:

(a) The proposed building, structure or use will not unnecessarily
interfere with the passage of boats nor unnecessarily obstruct
public access to riverside parcels.

(b) The proposed design and arrangement of the building, structure
or use will provide for pedestrian access to riverside parcels and
public views of the river to the maximum extent possible.
(c) The proppsed building, structure or use is subject to the parking
and loamng requirements as set forth in Section 115-90 of this
chapter except that the Planning Commission may, in approving
the special permit for any use listed in subsection EM of this
section waive or modify the standards of 115-90 when it finds
that such action is warranted by reason of unique physical
conditions or by the nature and location of the particular
building, structure, or use proposed.

K Prohibited uses.

(1) All manufacturing uses except for carnivals and circuses as temporary
uses.

(2) Warehousing and distribution centers.

(3) Commercial cargo and shipping terminals.
(4) Railroad storage and freight yards.

(5) Adult bookstores, adult entertainment centers and adult film centers.

(6) Auto repair, rental, sales and storage.

(7) Drive-in establishments.

G. Bulk, space and yard requirements.

(1) The .mum hei lit of structures in the R-H River Harbor District
shall be 15 feet u2ess a Special Permit is issued as provided for in
subsection 115-72E(l)(b).

(2) There shall be no yard requirements in the R-H River Harbor District
except for Residential uses as set forith in Section 115-50 of this
chapter.

H. Parking and loading requirements. Off-street parking and loadmig
requirements applicable in the R-H River Harbor District are set forth in
Section 115-90 of this chapter.

I. Signs. Sign regulations applicable in the R-H River Harbor District are set
forth in Section 115-88 of this chapter.

J. Use limitations.
(1) No specialized retail shopping and consumer service establishment
use permitted in subsection 115-72B(2) shall occupy a floor area
greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet to conduct
its operations and to store its wares, products, inventory and
materials.
(2) No oppn-air outdoor storage of construction materials shall be
permitted. Refuse and trash may be stored outdoors at all times only
if placed in closed containers located in an area screened from view at
all points on any public or private property or street when viewed from
ground level.

Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.

Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, Councilmembers; Childress Brown, Giess, King, Mains,
Muldoon, Norwood, Padilla, Stevenson - 9.

Nays - None - 0.

Attest
53 City Clerk

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM I T MAY CONCERN:
I hereby certify that the following is a true copy oi an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council of
the City of Rochester on SePtembe-r 1119 2-0 and Approved by the
(not disapprovea. approvea. repassed after disapprovai)
Mayor of the City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on SePteMber 13 19 LO in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law. Ordinance No. 90-365

Amending Chapter 115 Of The Municipal
Code, Zoning Ordinance, With Respect To
The Creation Of An 0-HTD Overlay
Harbor Town Design District

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 115 of the Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, as amended, is
hereby further amended by adding thereto the following new Section 115-85-2:
Section 115-85-2. - 0-HTD Overlay Harbor Town Design District.
A. Purpose.

(1) General Purpose.
The Overlay Harbor Town Design (0-HTD) District is intended
through the review and regulation of design characteristics, to
promote and facilitate:
a. a unique village neighborhood theme, character or atmosphere
along the Lake Avenue corridor north of the Lake Ontario State
Parkway, and along Stutson Street and Latta Road, from Lake
Avenue to River Street; and,
b. a unique maritime theme, character or atmosphere along River
Street north of Fetten Street, and on both sides of the Genesee
River; and,

C. the protection of significant natural, topographic and physical
features.

The thematic concepts, design regulations, and procedures contained
in this section are based on, and are in conformance with, the land use
policies and recommendations of the City of Rochester's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).
(2) Thematic Concepts.

a. Village Neighborhood Character.
The village neighborhood theme, character or atmosphere shall
be realized through design elements, amenities or treatments
that recreate, enhance or reinforce the village-like character that
existed within the boundaries of the overlay district during the
latter part of the nineteenth century and early part of the
twentieth century. This village-like atmosphere was
characterized by:
[11 smaU-scale residences, shops and buildings along Lake
Avenue that relate directly to the street;
[21 recreational development along the lakeshore and
riverfront that provides.water-dependent or
water-enhanced recreational opportunities;
(31 a diversity of land us es in the area that provide local
services and that encourage and thrive on recreational
development as well as on lively street activity;
[41 ease of pedestrian movement throughout the area and the
deemphasis of the automobile as a means to experience the
area;

[51 signage which relates to pedestrians;
(61 open space and landscaped areas throughout the area that
provide gathering places and physical breaks from
development;
[71 overaU design continuity that creates a sense of boundaries
to the village, resulting in a unique enclave within the
larger community.

b. Maritime Character.

The maritime or waterfront theme, character or atmosphere
shall be realized through design elements, amenities or
treatments that recreate, enhance or reinforce the
water-oriented land uses, activities and ambience that existed
within certain areas of the overlay district during the latter part
of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth
century. This maritime ambience was characterized by:

[11 boating act@iviit d marina operations, docks, wharves,
.y an
piers and similar uses, the Genesee Lighthouse, and their
associated land use and design amenities;
(21 small-scale residences, shops and buildings in the area
which relate directly to the water or to those streets which
provide access to the water;

[31 a diversity of land uses in the area which provide local
services and which encourage and thrive on a mix of
water-oriented activity as well as on lively street activity;
(4) ease of visual and physical access to the waterfront
throughout the area;

[51 ease of pedestrian movement throughout the area and the
deemphasis of the automobile as a means to experience the
area;

(61 signage which related to pedestrians.
(3) Specific Goals
The purpose of the Overlay Harbor Town Design (0-HTD)
District established in this section includes the following specific
goals:
(a) To encourap and promote outstanding design and
sensitive
CTaIVsA@%^46A._J- use of design and landscape
features and amenities, and appropriate use of building
materials, detailing and textures;
(b) To encourage and promote a sense of design continuity that
appropriately relates the historic past of the district to
on-going revitalization and redevelopment efforts, and that
alpr priately relates proposed development to existing
esil@s' structures and land uses;

ic identity for and sense of neighborhood
(c) To create a un jue 1
place along the Lake Avenue, Stutson Street and Latta
Mad corridors, and along River Street adjacent to the
waterfront, that relates to the history of the area, and
reinforces the relationship to the river and lake, as well as
the water-oriented recreational uses located in the district;

(d) To reestablish or reinforce the visual and physical
relationships between the district and the lakeshore,
riverfront and adjacent harbor areas;

(e) . To retain and enhance significant views and vistas within
the district, as well as the unique aesthetic or visual
qualities of the area;

(f) to encourage and promote direct visual and physical access
to and from the river, lake and shore;
(g) To utilize and enhance significant existing buildings and
structures;

(h) To restore, complement or enhance existing historic
structures;

(i) To encourage and promote lively and vibrant street activity
which relates to and reinforces land uses within the district;

To encourage and promote pedestrian movement, access
and circulation throughout the district;
(k) To utilize a flexible design review process that recognizes
the variety of existing land uses, activities and design
treatments within the district, and provides appropriate
direction and 'dan f )r property rehabilitation or new
development Coughcethce use of the Overlay Harbor Town
Design District Guidelines;
(1) To reqlp*re the issuance of a Certificate of Design
Compliance by the Director of Zoning for certain types of
redevelopment or new construction within the district,
based on the purpose, goals, and guidelines stated or
referenced herein.

B. Overlay District.
The O-HTD District shall not be independently mapped upon the
District Zoning Map, but shall be mapped, pursuant to the procedures
for amending the District Zoning Map established by Section 115-26 of
this chapter, ordv mi com*unction with an underlying Zoning District.
When so mapped, the O--HTD District shall provide regulations in
regard to design of development and redevelopment additional to
those applicable in the underlying districts; provided, however, that
any lot may continue to be used in accordance with the regulations
M
a licable in the underlying district in the same manner as though
ePO-HTD District did not exist except as hereinafter restricted.

C. Permitted Uses.

Uses as permitted in the underlying district.

D. Accessory Uses and Structures.

Accessory uses and structures are permitted in the OHTD District,
subject to the provisions of Section 115-87 of this chapter.
E. Special Permit Uses.
Special permit uses as specified in subsection 115-29E(l) of this
chapter and as specified in the underlying district.
F. Bulk Space and Yard Requirements.

Bulk, space and yard requirements shall be as specified in the
underlying district.
G. Parking and Loading Requirements.
Off-street parking and loading requirements applicable in the O-HTD
District are set forth in Section 115-90 of this chapter.

H. Signs.
Sign regulations applicable in the OHTD District are set forth in
Section 115-88 of this chapter.

I. Use Limitations.

Use limitations shall be as specified in the underlying district.
J. Design Review.
The mechanism used to accomplish design review within the district
shall be the Certificate of Design Compliance. Such certificate shall be
required and utilized pursuant to the provisions and standards set
forth in Section 115-24.1 of this chapter. In reviewing and deciding
upon applications for Certificates of De * C liance, the Director
of Zoning shall be guided by the Overlasylgarboomr Town Design District
Guidelines as referenced in this section.

K Design Guidelines.
The Director of Zoning shall establish Overlay Harbor Town Design
District Guidelines to provide direction and ce in the review of
[gn Con an
a )plications for Certificates of Desi Mphance. These guidelines
s9all be in keeVing with the purpose and goals for the 0-HTD District
as established herein.

Section 2. Section 115-88 of the Mu al Code, relating to signs, as amended, is
hereby further amended by adding thereto e following new subsection Z:
Z. Signs in the 0-HTD Overlay Harbor Town Design District shall be
subject to the regulations of the underlying district with the following
exceptions:

(1) Advertising signs shall not be permitted in the O-HTD Overlay
Harbor Town Design District.
(2) Pole signs shall not be permitted in the 0-HTD Overlay Harbor
Town District.

(3) Signs attached to buildings extending above the roof peak shall
not be permitted in the O-HTD, Overlay Harbor Town District.
(4) A Certificate of Design Compliance shall be required for aU signs
in the O-HTD Overlay Harbor Town Design District pursuant to
subsections 115-85.2D and E of this chapter.

Section 3. Section 115-96 of the Municipal Code, relating to non-conformities, as
amended, is hereby further amended by amending subsection F(3)(f)[11 to read in its
entirety as follows:
(11 Any non conforming sign not terminated pursuant to any other
provision of this chapter except for:
[a] Advertising signs in C-2, C-3, C-4 and M-1 and M-2 Districts,
unless such districts are within an established Preservation
District or the Overlay Harbor Town Design District;
[b] Pole signs and signs attached to buildings extendin above the
roof peak located within the Overlay Harbor Town Sesign
District and legally existing on the effective date of the ordinance
establishing the 0-HTD District.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.

Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, Councilmembers Childress Brown, Giess, King, Mains,
Muldoon, Norwood, Padilla, Stevenson - 9.

Nays - None - 0.

Attest
60 City Clerk

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby certify that the following is a true copy oi an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council of
the City of Rochester on SePte"ber 12 19 Lo and App=med by the
(not disapproved. approved. repassed attar disapproval)
Mayor of the City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on SePtember 13 19 LO in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law. Ordinance No. 90-366

Amending Chapter 115 Of The Municipal
Code, Zoning Ordinance, And Chapter 48,
Environmental Review To Require A
Certificate Of Design Compliance In
Overlay Design Districts

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:
Section 1. There is hereby added to the Municipal Code the following new
Section 115-24.1 to read in its entirety as follows:
Section 115-24.1 Certificate of Design Compliance.
A. Authority.
The Director of Zoning shall, subject to the rocedures, standards and
limitations hereinafter set forth, review anT approve, approve with
conditions, or deny applications for Certificates of Design Compliance.
B. Purpose.
The Certificate of Design Compliance process recognizes that some
desips even though generally suitable for location in a design district,
are, because of their character, buildin materials, details, textures or
other features of probable impact, capalle of adversely affecting the
goals for which a design district is established unless careful
.consideration has been given to critical design elements. The
Certificate of Design Compliance provides a vehicle for review of the
developer's attention to such design elements. It is intended that the
Certificate of Design Compliance shall be utilized only in conjunction
with an Overlay Design District.

C. Certificate of Design Compliance required.
A Certificate of Design Compliance shall be required only in Overlay
Design Districts, as established in this chapter, for the following
activities:

(1) Construction of new buildings or structures;
(2) Exterior alterations to buildings, including alterations to signs,
which are substantially visible from public ogen space, Lake
Ontario, the Genesee River or any public rig t-of-way;

(3) Exterior alterations to existing buildings and structures on any
lot which abuts the Genesee River;

(4) Alterations to structures that change structure volume;
(5) Alterations to buildings which change the shape or height of a
roof line;

(6) Development or redevelopment of a parking lot;
(7) Exterior alterations to existing buildings and structures on any
lot which is imm diately adjacent to any landmark or landmark
site;

(8) Exterior work involved in repairing fire damage when such
damage exceeds fift ercent (50%) of the replacement cost new
of the unit dama rey 97orwIlever, a Certificate of Design
Compliance shalfbe'required when such damage is less "than
fift percent (50%) of the replacement cost new and the
replacement is not in kind.
(9) Street and other improvements in the public right-of-way.

D. Procedure.

(1) Application. Applications for certificates of design compliance
shall be submitted to the Director of Zoning. A nonrefundable
fee, as established from time to time by the City Council to help
defray admini ative costs, shall accompany each application.
Applications shall besubmitted in two (2) duplicate cores and
shall be in such form and contain such information an
documentation as shall be prescribed from time to time by the
Director of Zoning, but shall in all instances contain at least the
following information or documentation unless any such
information or document is expressly waived by the Director of
Zoning as not relevant or necessary to determine that all
provisions of this chapter have been met in a particular case:

(a) The applicant's name, address and interest in the subject
property-
(b) The owner's name and address, if different than the applicant,
and the owner's signed consent to the filing of this application.
(c) The name, residence and the nature and extent of the interest,
as defined by Section 809 of the General Municipal Law of New
York, of any state officer or any officer or employee of the City of
Rochester or the County of Monroe in the owner-applicant or the
subject property if known to the applicant.
(d) The address or location of the subject property.
(e) The present use and zoning classification of the subject property.
(f) The proposed use or uses of the subject property and a
description of the construction, reconstruction, remodeling,
alteration or moving requiring the issuance of a certificate of
design compliance.

(g) The certificate of a registered architect or licensed professional
engineer, or of an owner-designer, that the proposed
construction, reconstruction, remodeling, alteration or moving
complies with all the provisions of this chapter.
(h) If site plan approval is not required in conjunction with the
application for a certificate of design compliance, a site plan
drawn to scale of not less than fifty (50) feet to the inch, on one
(1) or more sheets, illustrating the proposed construction,
reconstruction, remodeling, alteration or moving and including
the following:
[11 Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property
and any significant topographic or physical features of the
property.
[21 The location, size, use and arrangement, including height
in stories and feet; where relevant, floor area ratio, total
floor area and coverage; and number and size of dwelling
units, by number of bedrooms, of proposed buildings and
existing buildings.
[31 Minilm"M yard dimensions and, where relevant, relation of
yard dimensions to the height of any building or structure.

(41 Location, dimensions, number and slope and gradient of all
driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading
spaces and access aisles; total lot coverage of all parking,
loading, driveway and aisle areas; and, where more than
ten (10) parking and loading spaces are required, location of
area for snow storage or indication of alternative disposal
method.

[51 Location, size, arrangement and sketch showing content
and layout of all outdoor signs.
(61 Location and height of fences or screen plantings, and the
type or kind of building materials or plantings to be used
for fencing or screening.

[71 Location, designation and total area of all usable open
space.

[81 Any information necessary to determine that conditions
imposed by any special approval granted pursuant to this
chapter have been complied with.
M Scaled floor plans.

0) Scaled elevations.

(k) Such other and further information and documentation as the
Director of Zonm'g may deem necessary or appropriate to a full
and proper consideration and disposition of the particular
application. The Director ma aive any of the application
t L7 i v@
submission requirements of s su section if in his or her
opinion such andproper consideration and disposition can be
rendered without such information.

2. Action on the application.

(a) Action by Director.

[11 Within twenty-one (21) days following receipt by the
Director of a completed application, or such longer time as
may be alleed to by the applicant, the Director shall cause
such application and the attached plans to be reviewed for
compliance with this section and shall inform the applicant
whether the application has been granted, granted with
conditions or denied. The failure of the Director to act
within said twenty-one (21) days, or such longer time as
may be agreed to by the applicant, shall be deemed to be a
denial

[21 In any case where an application is granted, the Director of
Zoning shall issue a Certificate of Design Compliance which
shall state on its face, in bold type that:

"TIRS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT SIGNIFY BUILDING
CODE REVIEW OR APPROVAL NOR SUBDIVISION
REVIEW OR APPROVAL NOR REVIEW OR APPROVAL
OF ANY OTHER CITY CODE AND IS NOT
AUTHORIZATION TO UNDERTAKE ANY WORK
WITHOUT SUCH REVIEW AND APPROVAL WHERE
THE SAME IS REQUIRED. SEE CHAPTERS 39 AND 128
OF THE ROCHESTER MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
DETAILS.

"BEFORE ANY STRUCTURE TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE IS APPLICABLE MAY BE OCCUPIED OR
USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY MUST BE OBTAINED. SEE SECTION
115-25 OF CHAPTER 115 and CHAPTER 39 OF THE
ROCHESTER MUNICIPAL CODE FOR DETAILS."

(31 In any case where an application is denied, the Director of
Zoning shall state the specific reasons and shall cite the
Specific provisions of this chapter upon which such denial is
based.
[41 Disgosition of copies: the Director of Zoning shall stamp
eac (copy of the application and plans to reflect the action
taken and shall return one (1) copy of each to the applicant
and shall retain one (1) copy of each in City records for such
period as he or she may deem necessary or as may be
required by law.
(b) Action by Preservation Board.
If the Director shall decline to approve the application, or
approve it subject to modification which is not acceptable to the
applicant, or if any person is aggrieved by the action of the
Director, such action shall not be deemed final administrative
action or an action or failure to act pursuant to Section 115-33 of
this chapter, but shall only be authorization for the applicant or
the person aggrieved to refer the application to the Preservation
Board for review and decision. Such referral shall be made by
filing a written request with the Director within thirty (30) days
of the action, specifying the grounds therefor. The Director shall
promptly refer such request to the Preservation Board which
shall review and act upon the application within twenty-one (21)
days of receipt in the same manner and subject to the same
standards and limitations as those made applicable to the
Director by Subsection 5(a) above. The decision of the
Preservation Board shall be final.

E. Standards for denial of a Certificate of Design Compliance.
Applications for Certificates of Design Compliance shall not be
disapproved pursuant to this section except on the basis that the
proposal is not in keeping with the purpose, goals and objectives of a
garticular design district as set forth in this chapter. Such denial shall
e based on specific written findings directed to one (1) or more of the
following standards:
(1) The application is incomplete in specified particulars or contains
or reveals violations of this chapter or other applicable
regulations which the applicant has, after written request, failed
or refused to supply or correct;
(2) The design unnecessarily, and in specified particulars, destroys,
damages, detrimentally modifies or interferes with the
enjoyment of significant natural, topographic or physical
features of the site or the significant design features of the
existing buildings and structures on the site;
(3) The design unnecessarily, and in specified particulars, obstructs
views of or from significant structures or natural features;
(4) The design unnecessarily, and in specified particulars, is lacking
amenity in relation to, or is incompatible with nearby structures
of significance on or off the property;
(5) The roof pitch, fenestration, scale, massing, form, size, texture,
color and materials employed by the design are, unnecessarily
and in specified particulars, lacking in amenity in relation to or
incompatible with nearby structures of significance on or off the
property;
(6) The site design features are deficient in terms of the creation and
preservation of open space; the retention of trees and shrubs to
the extent possible; pedestrian access, automobile access and
parking;
(7) The design of commercial building facades and appurtenances
fails to form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street to ensure
visual compatibility with the buildings, sublic ways and places to
which such elements are visually relate ;
(8) Exterior building appurtenances, such as porches and decks, are
lacking in visual compatibility with the buildings to which they
are attached or other buildings in the area or with the character
encouraged in the design district in so far as materials, texture,
colors and design.

F. Effect of Issuance of Certificate of Design Compliance.

The issuance of a Certificate of Design Compliance shall not authorize
the establishment or extension of any use nor the development,
construction, relocation, alteration or moving of any building or
structure and shall not abrogate the requirements for any additional
permits and approvals which may be required by the codes and
ordinances of the city, including but not limited to a building permit, a
certificate or occupancy and subdivision approval.
G.. Limitation on Certificates.
A Certificate of Design Compliance shall become null and void six (6)
months after the date on which it was issued unless within such period,
a permit is issued, where necessary, and construction, reconstruction,
remodeling, alteration or moving of a structure is commenced.
Section 2. Section 115-17 of the Municipal Code, Preservation Board, as
amended is hereby further amended by amending subsection K thereof by
renumberinf subsections K(7) and (8) as subsections K(8) and (9), and by inserting
L
therein the ollowing new subsection K(7):
(7) Subject to theyrovisions of subsection 115-24.lD2(b) of this chapter, to
hear and decide on applications for Certificates of Design Compliance.
Section 3. Section 115-18 of the Municipal Code, relating to the Director of
Zoning, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending subsection A thereof by
renumberiug subsections AM through (17) as subsections A(10) through (18)
respectively, and by inserting therein the following new subsection A(9):
(9) Certificate of Design Compliance. Subject to the procedures, standards
and limitations set forth in Section 115-24.1 of this chapter, the
Director shall review or cause to be reviewed, applications for
Certificates of Design Compliance and shall. approve, approve with
conditions, or deny such applications.
Section 4. Section 48-5 of the Municipal Code, relating to Type II actions, as
amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following new subsection
B(22):

(22) The granting of Certificates of Design Compliance.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.
Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, Councilmembers Childress Brown, Giess, King, Mains,
Muldoon, Norwood, Padilla, Stevenson -- 9.

Nays - None - 0.

Attest
67 City Clerk

DESIGN GUIDELINES
HARBOR TO99 DESIGN U377M (0-HT0)

The Harbor Town Design District has been designated in order to create a unique
village neighborhood atmosphere in the Lake Avenue corridor north of the Lake
Ontario State Parkway and along Stutson Street and Latta Road; a unique maritime
atmosphere along River Street north of Petten Street an both sides of the Genesee
River and to protect significant physical , historic, topographic and natural
features in the area. These basic guidelines for development in the area are
intended for use in connection with the sections of the Zoning Ordinance which deal
with the Harbor Town Design District (O-HTD).

I. ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Arcnitecturai developim-eMs should be guided by an intent to protect the
existing character in these neighborhoods through the appropriate use of scale,
color, materials, and detailing for buildings facing the street corridors.
Architectural developments should be harmonious with subarea development
themes, goals, and objectives, so as to further create and reinforce an overall
identity for the development area.

The commercial buildings are the areas of greatest concern for facade
renovation. Strategies for restoration include the removal of materials which
obscure the architectural integrity of building facades, the repair or
replacement of deteriorated design details, and the addition of new
architectural details in appropriate materials, as necessary, for the
adaptation of older buildings to contemporary uses.

A. Building Setbacks:
New construction should complement existing conditions. In both residential
and commercial areas the predominant existing setbacks on built up streets
should be maintained. In commercial areas, new infill and additions to
existing buildings should parallel the street, reinforce the street edge at
corner lots and provide continuity along the street corridor.

B. Fenestration:
The proportion of window and door openings to total exterior facade is
crucial to the perception of bulk and scale for individual buildings. The
River Harbor district can utilize the sizing and placement of facade
openings as a unifying treatment for the street wall. Development and
redevelopment in the area should be guided toward a cohesive image.

The relationship of window and doorway openings to exterior walls in
historic buildings should be preserved or restored wherever necessary.
Where new windows or doorways are introduced, they should respect the
existing facade pattern.

Openings on street-facing walls should not be greater than 50%, nor less
than 30% of the total area of the facade. Glass curtain walls or spandrel
glass are inappropriate, as are blank walls without windows.

Display windows are appropriate on the first story in commercial buildings,
but only two-way glass should be used in windows. Mirrored or tinted glass
generally is unacceptable.

Window openings for exterior walls, other than the street facade, should
nat be greater than 30% of the total area of the wall nor less than 15% of
the wall area.

C. Color and Materials:
The predominant ouflding material for commercial structures in the area is
brick in yellow or brown tones. Historically, wood siding has been used
on both commercial and residential buildings. New buildings should take
their "spirit" from historic buildings, so that they are compatible with
the color and materials used in nearby significant buildings.

The use of imitation stone, grooved plywood, galvanized steel, sheet
aluminum, sheet plastic, and vinyl siding materials on commercial
buildings is strongly discouraged . Acceptable materials include wood,
brick, stone or cast iron. Detailing and trim elements, including doors,
should conform to these standards.

Accent colors applied to wood trim, brick, or metal detailing are
acceptable. Fluorescent colors are not appropriate and, in general, not
in keeping with purposes for which the district was established. Original
cast stone, stone or concrete trim should not be painted.

0. Restoration:
All resiora-fions should follow the latest revision of the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for rehabilitating
historic buildings.

Original facade openings should be retained Or restored to original
condition. Ground level windows and entrances should be given priority.
Appropriate measures include the removal of uncceptable materials,
uncovering transom windows, restoration of doorways, down-scaling signage,
and replacement of lost or damaged details. The addition of new elements,
such as lighting. awnings, ornament, hardware or signage is permitted
where such additions do not detract from the historic character of the
building.

E. Scale and Bulk:
Maximum builMng heights are delineated in the Zoning Ordinance; however,
in the areas closest to the river or in other areas, where views to and
from the river are possible, buildings of a height wtich obstructs these
views are unacceptable. Views of historic or architecturally significant
structures should also be carefully considered.

Existing rooflines range from complex gabled and dormered residential
rooflines to steeply sloped church roofs, to flat roofs with orthogonal
rooflines. Due to the variety of roof forms in the area, specific
development proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

II. SITE DEVELOPMENT
Site develo-5-m-eRns should ensure the proper functioning of circulation
systems, the safety of visitors, and a unified and consistent image for
streetscape elements. Edge definitions for pedestrian, planting and parking
zones should be clarified to enhance the overall pedestrian experience.

A . Private Plantino:
V_Privately-own;d and maintained planting zone may exist between the
property line and the building, depending on the building setback. In
residential areas, the setback may be planted with any types of flowering
plants, trees, shrubs, ground covers or lawn. Grass lawn is preferable in
residential areas. Where setback of commercial buildings from the public
right-of-way is permitted or required, this area should be developed in a
manner compatible with the public sidewalk and planting area along the
frontage. Flowers, trees and shrubs are permitted. Trees should meet
planting requirements for public plantings, including tree grates.
Planter boxes and pots are acceptable in these private planting areas.

B. Parking Lots and Areas:
Z-17-e efforts na7e -Been made to encourage pedestrian traffic in the
development area, it is intended that it become a destination for many
visitors. Therefore, adequate plans for parking lots and areas must be
considered.

1. Access and Circulation Elements:
Access to off-street parking by way of secondary streets is
encouraged. For off-street lots with direct access to Lake Avenue,
definition of one exit and one entrance is encouraged. Interior
landscaping with both shrubs and canopy trees is encouraged and should
be considered. The plantings should meet all of the requirements for
public plantings. Aisles and planting strips should be defined with
curbing. Pedestrian walkways should be clearly defined and conflicts
between pedestrian and vehicular traffic,should be minimized.

2. screening:
X11 off-street surface parking adjacent to the street must be screened
from the view of pedestrians. Screen walls 3 to 4 ft. in height are
encouraged. Such walls should be set back 5 ft. with the area between*
the wall and sidewalk planted with trees and other landscape
elements. Tree plantings should conform to the standaHs for public
plantings. The tree planting area may be covered in hard paving with
tree grates or planted with trees, shrubs and ground covers.
Evergreen vines are allowable for screen walls.

III. SIGNAGE

Because of the strong impact of signage on the streetscape, protection must be
afforded from inappropriate signage. Signs should harinonize with the building
they serve and promote the use they serve imaginatively and effectively
While not dominating the surrounding visual enviroment. Signs should ;e of a
scale in keeping with the use and building they serve and the immediate
neighborhood, as well.

A. Sign Materials:
1. Appropriate sign materials include brass, cast iron, steel and carved
and painted wood. Other materials will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis.

2. In general interior lit and plastic signs are considered incompatible
with the goals and purposes for which the district was established.

3. Neon signs on the interior of windows are acceptable; if permanent,
they are treated as wall signs in Section 115-68 of the Zoning
Ordinance.

4. The sign support structure should be durable but should be designed and
colored to reduce its dominance or obtrusiveness.

B. Relationship To The Buildino:
T-.--S-j-jns shouid be integrat9d closely with the architectural features of
the building. The form, design materials, texture and color of the
sign should maintain or complement the style, design and form of the
building.

2. Signs and their support structures should not cover up or damage
decorative features of the facade such as leaded glass transoms, cast
iron or wooden pilasters, etc.

3. Where several businesses are located in/on one property, the signs
should be coordinated, complement or balance one another and not
compete with each other.

C. Relationship To The Area:
7. size or tne signs shoUld be in keeping with the scale of nearby
structures as well as the building they serve.

2. Existing or planned landscaping, on the site and nearby should be
considered in locating the sign.

3. Visual clutter in signage should be avoided by refraining from the use
of large signs, random placement of signs and excessive numbers of
signs.

4. Signage should relate to-pedestrian and low level vehicular traffic.

IV. STREET CORRIDOR

Street corridors should be developed to assist in reinforcing the overall
c@aracter of the area by defining the relationship of buildings to public
spaces and circulation systems. The street corridor developments should
promote continuous street wall development where appropriate, protect street
corridors from encroachment by buildings, and provide for on-street parking
and service requirements. The standards presented in this category deal with
the corridors bounded by lot lines on each side of the street.

A. Parkinq:
U-n-77eet parking should be metered parallel parking, except in
residential areas, where demand does not require metering. Parallel
parking with a narrowed planting zone can be considered.for high demand
areas.

B. Landscaping:
tne area streets, a planting zone should be established for street
trees measuring a minimum of 3 feet from the face of the curb in areas
with on-street parking and 10 feet from the curb in areas without
on-street parking. The purpose of the planting zone is the separation of
pedestrian and vehicular corridors. The planting zone should be grass in
residential areas and "hard scape" paving in commercial areas. The width
of the planting strip should be variable to accommodate the needs of
parking conditions, i.e., the planting zone may narrow for parallel
parking, but should conform to the minimum width.

in conjunction with shoreline redevelopment an the east side of River
Street, a pia.nting zone shoul 4d be established in areas south of the
Stutson Street Bridge where the shore zone is too narrow to allow for
front end parking. This planting zone should be hardscape paving, with
tree grates provided as specified below.

All planting zones should include trees unless otherwise specified.
Street trees shall be chosen from species with the following
cha rac teri s ti c s:

Hardiness (plant zone 3)
Tolerance to street conditions, including salt
A maximum mature height of 40 to 60 feet
A low maintenance schedule
An open, airy growth habit that affords light shade in summer
Seasonal interest

B. Landscaping:
Trees that drop substances harmful to the finish of parked automobiles
should be avoided. Other undesirable characteristics for street trees
include multi-stemmed or suckering trees, species with a low or compact
habit of growth, those which produce an abundance of fleshy fruits, and
species prone to disease or insect predation.

Examples of suitable choices include:
Oaks (Red or White)
Honeylocust
Littleleaf Linden
London Plane Tree

Poor choices are exemplified by:
Norway Maple
Pin Oak
Conifers
Crabapple

At the time of planting, young trees should be 3-1/2" caliper, with the
lower side of the crown a minimum of 6' above grade to avoid hazards to
pedestrians. Trees should be placed every 30 feet in the planting strip.

In commercial areas where the planting strip is hard pavement, trees
should be provided with grates. Trees requiring grates are planted with
the top of the root ball 5" below the pavement surface to allow for grate
installation.

All new trees should be staked and guy-wired for a period of one year
after planting.

C. Pavin
;Mkewalk paving should be concrete scored in 6 foot squares, with tree
pits at 30' on center. The use of asphalt sidewalks is unacceptable.
Concrete walks should be dominant where driveways cross pedestrian paths.

Scoring or imprinting concrete, in coordination with subarea themes, is
allowable. Specific emblems or insignia symbolizing the unique character
of a subarea may be deve,loped to enhance visitors' awareness of local
history.

A concrete sidewalk should be established approximately 5 feet from the
River Street Right-of-Way on the west side of the street. The planting
zone should be 8 feet wide from the edge of the sidewalk to the street
curb. A new concrete retaining wall should be installed from the Stutson
Street Bridge abutment north about 280 feet to accommodate the grade
change along River Street. A new sidewalk 6 feet wide should be
constructed along the west side of the retaining wall from the bridge
abutment to the lower level of River Street. The street corridor widths
for improvements to this section of River Street are summarized below:
West Sidewalk 61
Planting Zone 81
Curbing .51
Parallel Parking 81
Travel Lane 10,
Curbing .51
East Sidewalk 61
Retaining Wall 2'

Where pedestrian corridors cross streets, curbs should be zeroed out and
the crosswalk should be highlighted to increase pedestrian safety. A 10
foot brick stri_p should be provided on each side of the 'crosswalk.
Curbing material set flush to the street should form the joint between
asphalt paving and the brick strips. Crosswalks should correspond
directly to the 6 foot sidewalk pavement widths, with brick strips
corresponding to planting zone widths. On River Street, cobblestones are
recommended in place of the brick.

C. Lighting and Furniture:
Lonsistent wiUr-Me -turn of the century time theme, antique sytle posts
and lantern lighting should replace cobra lights on Lake Avenue, Stutson
Street, Latta Road, and all minor cross streets In the redevelopment
area. The materials for lighting fixtures should be cast iron or
aluminum, such as those manufactured by Antique Street Lamps, Inc. or an
equivalent quality.

The total height of post and luminaire should not exceed 15 feet.
Finished colors for lightposts should be black or dark olive.

At the waterfront, and along River Street, the lighting should be pole
lighting with an industrial character, such as the railroad fixture
manufactured by Sternberg.

Street furnishings should be expressive of the turn-of-the-century time
theme. Street furnishings include trash receptacles, drinking fountains,
benches, bollards, and tree grates. These items should be located in
planting zones such that pedestrian corridors remain unobstructed. Street
furnishings must be compatible in design, color, and materials with light
fixtures.

Benches should be of an historic style and could incorporate custom
lettering or a logo for River Harbor or the design district. They should
be provided at bus stops and as necessary at locations where pedestrians
congregate. Trash receptacles should be placed near each bench.

Bollards should be used at all pedestrian crossings. A bollard and chain
barrier should be placed between pedestrian accessways and the
Consolidated Rail tracks on River Street, where the sidewalks parallel the
railroad. Pipe railings should be installed with concrete retaining walls
on River Street between Latta Road and Stutson Street, and at the
Lighthouse Park. Similar pipe railings should be incorporated into the
design specifications for a concrete bulwark along the west shore of the
Genesee River. Bollards, chains, and pipe railings should be painted
black.

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby certify that the following is a true copy oi an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council of
the City of Rochester on - SePteuber 1119 90 and Approved by the
(not disapproved. approved, repassed after disapprovai)
Mayor of -the City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on SePtember 131.19 LO in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law. Ordinance No. 90-370

Amending The Municipal Code By Adding
A New Chapter Relating To Waterfront
Consistency Re , as amended

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:
Section 1. The Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 112 -
Waterfront Consistency Review, which shall read in its entirety as follows:

CHAPTER 112

WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW ORDINANCE

Section 112-1. Purpose.
The purpose of this cha ter is to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare in the My of Rochester, by providing a framework for
mental agencies to review actions proposed within the boundaries of
city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). This
framework will allow agencies to consider the policies and purposes
contained in the city's LVtrRP when reviewing applications for actions or
when directly approving, undertaking or fiinding agency actions located in
the waterfront area. The framework will also ensure that such actions are
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with said policies and
purposes.
It is the intention of the City of Rochester that the preservation,
enhancement and utilization of the natural and man-made resources of the
unique coa
city's stal areas take place in a coordinated and comprehensive
manner, in order to ensure a proper -balance between natural resource
protection and the need to accommodate population growth and economic
development. Accordingly, this ordinance is

intended to achieve such a balance, by permitting the beneficial use of coastal
resources while preventing: loss of living estuarine resources and wildlife;
diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront; erosion of
shoreline; impairment of scenic beauty; losses due to flooding, erosion and
sedimentation; or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems.
Section 112-2. Authority.
This ordinance is enacted under the authority of Section 20 of the General
Citj Law and the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of
the State of New York (Article 42 of the Executive Law).

Section 112-3. Definitions.

When used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings
ascribed to them:

ACTION - shall have the same meaning as in Section 48-3 of the Municipal
Code Environmental Review, but shall le limited to those activities that
constitute an unlisted or Type I action, as defined in Section 48-3.
AGENCY - any governmental agency, including but not limited to the City
Council, departments, offices, commissions, boards, agencies, officers or
other bodies of the City of Rochester.

COASTAL AREA - the New York State coastal waters and adjacent
shorelands as defined in Article 42 of the Executive Law. The s ecific
boundaries of the city's Coastal Area are shown on the Coastal rea Map on
file in the office of the New York State Secretary of State and as delineated
in the City of Rochester's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (TASK
D.

COASTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (CAF) - the form, contained in Appendix
A, which shall be used by an agency to assist it in determining the
consistency of an action with the city's LWRP.

CONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE - that an
action will not substantially hinder the a6hievement of any of the LWRF
policy standards or conditions and, whenever practicable, will advance one
or more of them.

DIRECT ACITONS - an action planned and proposed for implementation by
an agency itself, such as, but not limited to a capital project, or rule making,
procedure making or policy making decisions or determinations.
LOCAL WATERFRONT AREA (LWA) - that portion of the New York State
Coastal Area within the City of Rochester as delineated in the city's LW`RP
(TASK I).

LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (LWRP) - the
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program of the City of Rochester, as
V
a proved by the New York State Secretary of State, pursuant to the
aterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Executive Law,
Article 42), a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Clerk of the City of
Rochester.

Section 112-4. Review of Actions.

A. Whenever a proposed action is located in the LWA, an agency shall,
prior to approving, funding or undertaking the action, make a
determination that it is consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the applicable LV%TRP policy standards and conditions
set forth in Section 112-5 herein.
B. Whenever an agency receives an application for approval or funding of
an action or as early as possible in the agency's undertaking of a direct
action to be located in the LWA, the applicant, or in the case of a direct
action, the agency, shall prepare a Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) to
assist with the consistency review.
C. Prior to making its determination, the agency shall solicit and
consider the recommendation of the Commissioner of the City of
Rochester Department of Community Development or his/her
desi garding the consistency of the pro
ignee, rej posed action, by
referring a copy of the completed CAF to the Commissioner within ten
(10) days of its submission to or completion by the agency.
D. After referral from an agency, the Commi sioner shall consider
whether the proposed action is consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the LVVFRP policy standards and conditions sat forth
in Section 112-5 herein. The Commissioner may require the applicant
to submit all completed applications, EAF's and any other information
or documentation deemed to be necessary in order to make the
consistency determination.

E. The Commissioner shall render his/her written recommendation to the
agency within ten (10) working days following the submission by the
. d information, unless extended by mutual
applicant of the require
agreement of the Cornmi sioner and the applicant, or in the case of a
direct action, the agency. The recommendation shall indicate
whether, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the proposed action is
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, or inconsistent with
one or more of the applicable LWRP policy standards or conditions.
The recommendation shall state the manner and extent to which any
inconsistency affects the LWRP policy standards and conditions.

The Commi sioner shall, along with his/her consistency
determination, make any suggestions to the agency concerning
modification of the proposed action in order to make it consistent, to
the maximum extent practicable, with LWRP policy standards and
conditions, or to greater advance them.

In the event that the Commissioner's recommendation is not
forthcoming within the specified time, the application shall be deemed
to have received a recommendation that it is consistent to the
- extent practicable.

F. The agency shall make the determination of consistency based on the
CAF, the recommendation of the Commi sioner and such other
information as is deemed to be necessary in its determination. The
agency shall issue its determination within seven (7) days of receipt of
the Commissioner's recommendation.

G. Actions to be undertaken within the LWA shall be evaluated for
consistency in accordance with the following LWRP policy standards
and conditions, which are derived from and further explained and
described in TASK III of the City of Rochester's LWRP. The LW`RP is
on file in the City Clerk's office and is available for inspection during
normal business hours. Agencies which undertake direct actions shall
also consult with TASK IV: USES AND PROJECTS of the LViRP in
making their consistency determination. The action shall be
consistent with the policy to:
(1) Revitalize and redevelop deteriorating or underutilized
institutional, commercial, recreational and residential
areas and uses (POLICY 1, 1A. 1B. 1C, 1D. 1E. 1F, 1G

(2) Encourage the development of water-dependent uses near
coastal waters (POLICY 2,=;

(3) Ensure that development occurs where adequate public
infrastructure is available to reduce health and pollution
hazards (POLICY 5,5&!5B. 5Q ;
(4) Streamline development permit procedures (POLICY 6);
(5) Protect significant and locally important fish and wildlife
habitats from human disruption and chemical
contamination (POLICIES 7- 7A. 7B. 7C and 8);

(6) Maintain and expand commercial fishing facilities to
promote commercial and recreational Fi-sling opportunities
(POLICY 9.9A, 9B);

(7) Minimize flooding and erosion hazards through
nonstructural means, carefully-selected, long-term
structural measures and appropriate siting of structures
(POLICIES 11, 11A_ 11B_ 12, MA, 13,13-A, 14, 15 and 17,,

(8) Safeguard economic, social and environmental interests in
the coastal area when major actions are undertaken
(POLICY 18);
(9) Maintain and improve public access to the shoreline and to
water-related recreational facilities w rot ding the
environment (POLICIES 19,19A- I 19D. 20,20A.
20B. 20C. 20D. 20E ;

(10) Encourage and facilitate water-dependent and
water-enhanced recreational resources and facilities near
coastal waters (POLICY 21. 21A. 21B. 21C ;

(11) Encourage the development of water-related recreational
resources and facilities, as multiple-uses, in appropriate
locations within the shorezone (POLICY 22, 22A. -22B ;

(12) Protect and restore historic and archeological resources
(POLICY 23, 23A. 23B. 23C);

(13) Protect and upgrade scenic resources (POLICY 25, 25A.
25B. 25C ;

(14) Protect surface and groundwaters from direct and indirect
discharge of pollutants and from overuse (POLICIES 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 38);

(15) Perform dredging and dredge spoil disposal 'in a manner
Protective of natural resources (POLICY 35);

(16) Handle and dispose of hazardous wastes and effluents in a
manner which will not not adversely affect the environment
nor expand existing landfills (POLICY 39); and,

(17) Protect tidal and freshwater wetlands (POLICY 44).

H. If the agency determines that the action would cause a substantial
hindrance to the achievement of the LVaW licy standards and
conditions, such action shall not be undertaCnL] unless the agency
determines with respect to the proposed action that:
(1) No reasonable alternatives exist which would permit the
action to be undertaken in a manner which would not
substantially hinder the achievement of such LWRP Policy
standards and conditions, or which would not hinder the
overall implementation of the LV4RP;

(2) The proposed action and any required mitigation measures
would be undertaken in a manner which would - - - e
all adverse effects on natural and man-made resources is
within the LWRP, and would minirni e the extent to which
the implementation of LVVW policy standards and
conditions are hindered; and,

(3) The action will result in a significant and overriding city,
regional or state-wide public benefit.
Such a finding by the agency shall constitute a determination
that the action is consistent to the maximilm extent practicable.
I. Each agency shall maintain a file for each action which was the
subject of a consistency determination, including any
recommendations received from the Commissioner. Such files shall be
made available for public inspection upon request.
Section 112-6. Coordinated Review Required.
The agency and the Commissioner of Community Development or designee
shall coordinate the consistency determination -process required by this
chapter with the environmental review process required by Chapter 48 of
the Municipal Code.
Section 112-7. Severability.
The rovisions of this ordinance are severable. If any provision is found
invz.,d, such finding shall not affect the validity of any Part or provision
hereof other than the provision so found to be invalid.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.

Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, Councilmembers Childress Brown, Giess, IQng, Mains,
Muldoon, Norwood, Padilla, Stevenson - 9.
Nays - None - 0.

Underlined material added.

Attest
80 City Clerk

APPENDIX A

COASTAL ASSESSMENT F0RM

A. INSTRUCTIONS (Please print or type all answers)

1 . Applicants, or in the case of direct actions (city, town, village) agencies,
shall complete this CAF for proposed actions which are subject to the consistency review
law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a (city, town,
village) agency in asking a determination of consistency.

2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should
review the policies and explanations of policy contained in the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program (LWRP), a copy of which is on file in the (city, town, village)
clerk's office. A proposed action should be evaluated as to its significant beneficial
and adverse effects upon the coastal area.

3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed
actin may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in
the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if
necessarty, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be
certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be
undertaken.

B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION
1. Type of (city, town, village) agency action (check appropriate response):

(a) Directly undertaken (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency
regulation, land transaction)

(b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy)

(d) Agency undertaking action:

2. Describe nature and extent of action:

3. Location of action

Street or Site Description

4. Size of site

5. Present land use

6. Present zoning classification

7. Describe any unique or unusual land forms on the project site (i.e. bluffs,
dunes, swales, ground depressions, other geological formations):

8. Percentage of site which contains slopes of 15% or greater:

9. Streams, lakes, ponds or wetlands existing within or contiguous to the
project area:

(1) Name
(2) Size (in acres)

10. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the (c1ty, town,
village) agency, the following information shall be provided:

(a) Name of applicant:
(b) Mailing address:
(c) Telephone number: Area code ( )
(d) Application number, if any:

Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state
or federal agency?
Yes ___ No ___ If yes, which state or federal agency?

C. COASTAL ASSESSMENT (Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following
questions)
1. Will the proposed action be located in, or contiguous to, YES NO
or have a potentially adverse effect upon any of the resource
areas identified on the coastal area map: .............................

(a) Significant fish or wildlife habitats? ...........................
(b) Scenic resources of local or statewide significance? .............
(c) Important agricultural lands? ....................................
(d) Natural protactive features in an erosion hazard area? ...........
If the answer to any question above is yes, please explain in
Section D any measures which will be undertaken to mitigate any
adverse effects.

2. Wi11 the proposed action have a significant effect upon: YES N0

(a) Commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources?...-
(b) Scenic quality of the coastal environment? .......................
(c) Development of future, or existing water dependent uses? .........
(d) Operation of the State's major ports? ............................
(e) Land at water uses within a small harbor area? ...................
(f) Stability of the shoreline? ......................................
(g) Surface or groundwater quality?..' ................................
(h) Existing or potential public recreation opportunities? ...........
(i) Structures, sites or districts of historic, archeological or
cultural significance to the (city, town, village), State or
nation? ..........................................................

3. Will the proposed action Involve or result in any of the following: YES NO

(a) Physical alteration of land along the shoreline, land under
water or coastal waters? .........................................
(b) Physical alteration of two (2) acres or more of land located
elsewhere in the coastal area? ...................................
(c) Expansion of existing public services or Infrastructure In
undeveloped of low density areas of the coastal area? ............
(d) Energy facility not subject to Article VII or VII of the
Public Service Law? ..............................................
(e) Mining, excavation, filling or dredging in coastal waters? .......
(f) Reduction of existing or potential public access to or along
the shore? .......................................................
(g) Sale or change In use of publicly-owned Lands located on the
shoreline or under water? ........................................
(h) Development within a designated flood or erosion hazard area?
(i) Development on a beach, dune, barrier island or other natural
feature that provides protection against flooding or erosion?
(j) Construction or reconstruction of erosion protective
structures? .......................................................
(k) Diminished surface or groundwater quality? .......................
(1) Removal of ground cover from the site? ...........................

4. Project YES NO

(a) If project is to be located adjacent to shore:
(1) Will water-related recreation be provided? ..................
(2) Will public access to the foreshore be provided? ............
(3) Does the project require a waterfront site? .................
(4) Will it supplant a recreational or maritime use? ............
(5) Do essential public services and facilities presently
exist at or near the site? ...................................
(6) Is it located in a flood prone area? ........................
(7) Is it located in an area of high erosion? ..........

(b) If the Project site is publicly owned: YES NO
(1) Will the project protect, maintain and /or increase the
level and types of public access to water-related
recreation resources and facilities? ........................
(2) If located in the foreshore,will access to those and
adjacent land& be provided? .................................
(3) Will it involve the siting and construction of major
energy facilities? ..........................................
(4) Will it involve the discharge of effluents from major
steam electric generating and industrial facilities
into coastal facilities? ....................................
(c) Is the project site presently used by the community
neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ................
(d) Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas
known to be important to the community? .........................
(e) Is the project site presently used for commercial fishing or
fish processing? .................................................
(f) Will the surface area of any waterways or wetland areas be
increased or decreased by the proposal? ..........................
(g) Does any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally
important vegetation exist on this site which will be removed
by the project? ..................................................
(h) Will the project involve any waste discharges into coastal
waters? ..........................................................
(i) Does the project involve surface or subsurface liquid waste
disposal? ........................................................
(j) Does the project Involve transport, storage, treatment or
disposal of solid waste or hazardous materials? ..................
(k) Does the project involve shipment or storage of petroleum
products? ........................................................
(l) Does the project Involve discharge of toxics, hazardous
substances or other pollutants into coastal waters? ..............
(m) Does the project involve or change existing ice management
practices? .......................................................
(n) Will the project affect any area designated as a tidal or
freshwater wetland? ..............................................
(o) Will the project altar drainage flow, patterns or surface
water runoff on or from the site? ................................
(p) Will base management practices be utilized to control storm
water runoff into coastal waters? ................................
(q) Will the project utilize or affect the quality or quantity
of sole source or surface water supplies? ........................
(r) Will the project cause emissions which exceed federal or
state air quality standards or generate significant amounts
of nitrates or sulfates? .........................................

D. REMARKS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. (Add any additional sheets necessary to complete
this form.)

If assistance or further information is needed to complete this form, please contact
(city, town, village) clerk at

Preparer's Name: Telephone Number: ( )

Title: Agency: Data:

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby certify that the following is a true copy of an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council of
the City of Rochester on Septmber 11, 19 ZO and Approved by the
(not disapproved, approved. repassed after disapprovai)
Mayor ofthe City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on Septenber 13,,19%0- in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law. Ordinance No. 90-371

Amending Chapter 48 Of The Municipal
Code, Environmental Review, With Respect
To the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Provam And Waterfront Consistency
Review

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:
Section 1. Section 48-7 of the Municipal Code, Environmental Review process, as
amended, is hereby further amended by amending subsection AU) thereof to read in
its entirety as follows:
(1) Determine whether the action is sub*e t to this chapter, and whether
it is located within the boundaries 5thce City of Rochester's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (L7*FRP) area (see TASK I of the
LV*rRP). If the action is an exempt, an excluded or a Type II action,
the agency shall have no further responsibility under this chapter or
Chapter 112, Waterfront Consistency Review Ordinance, except
recordkeeping responsibilities. If the action is an unlisted or a Type I
action, the requirements of this chapter shall apply. If such an
unlisted or Type I action is located within the boundaries of the City's
LWRP, the consistency review procedures and requirements of
Chapter 112 shall also apply and be coordinated with the
environmental review required by this chapter.

Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.

Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, Councilmembers Childress Brown, Giess, King, Mains,
Muldoon, Norwood, Padilla, Stevenson - 9.

Nays - None - 0.

Attest
84 Citv Clark

City of Rochester
City Clerks Office
Certified Ordinance

Rochester, N.Y.,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I hereby certify that the following is a true copy of an ordinance which was duly passed by the Council of

the City of Rochester on September 11, 19 91 and Approved by the
(not disapproved, approved, repassed after disapproval)
Mayor of the City of Rochester, and was deemed duly adopted on September 13, 1991 in accordance

with the applicable provisions of law.

Ordinance No. 91-416

Amending Chapter 39 Of The Municipal
Code, Building Code, With Respect To Site
Preparation, as amended

BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Rochester as follows:

Section 1. Article IV of Chapter 39 of the Municipal Code, Building Code,
relating to Conflicts and severability and containing Section 39-401 and 39-402, is
hereby renumbered as Article V, with Section 39-401 and 39-402 renumbered as
39-501 and 39-502, respectively, and there is hereby added to Chapter 39 of the
Municipal Code the following new Article IV:

ARTICLE IV

Section 39-400. Purpose.
It is the purpose of these regulations to protect health, safety,
and welfare in the City of Rochester by regulating site
preparation activities, including filling, grading, and stripping,
so. as to prevent nuisances from being created, including
erosion, sedimentation or drainage.

Section 39-401. Title.

These regulations shall be known and may be cited as the
"Regulations for the Issuance of Site Preparation Permits in
the City of Rochester".

Section 39-402. Jurisdiction.

All site preparation, and associated activities requiring a Site
Preparation Permit, shall be in conformance with the
provisions set forth herein.

Section 39-403. Authority.
The Director of the Bureau of Buildings shall serve as the
agent of the Commissioner for the purpose of administering
these regulations.

Section 39-404. Definitions.

As used in this Article, in addition to the terms defined in
Section 39-201, the following terms shall have the meanings
indicated:

CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - A si ed
statement by the Commi si ner that specific construction Tas
been inspected and found to comply with all grading plans and
specifications.

CITY ENGINEER - The City Engineer of the City or an
authorized representative.

DIRECTOR - The Director of the Bureau of Buildings of the
City or an authorized representative.

DRAINAGE - The gravitational movement of water or other
liquids by surface runoff or subsurface flow.
EROSION - The process by which the ground surface is worn
away by action of wind, water, gravity, or a combination
thereof.

EXCAVATION OR CUT - Any act by which soil or rock is cut
into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, or
relocated, and also included shall be the conditions resulting
therefrouL

FELLING - Any activi which deposits natural or artificial
material so as to mo -a the surface or subsurface conditions of
land, lakes, ponds or watercourses.
GRADING - Any stripping, ti fillin tockpiling, or
'c'v' Mded '12 be the land in
any combination thereof, and also inc
its excavated or filled condition.

MULCHING - The application of a layer of plant residue or
other material for the purpose of effectively controlling erosion.

PERMANENT SOIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURE -
Those control measures which are installed or constructed to
control soil erosion and which are maintained after completion
of the project.
RATIONAL METHOD - A method of estimating the runoff in a
drainage basin at a specific point and time by mean of the
rational runoff formula.

@EDIMENT - Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is
in suspension, is being transported, has been deposited, or has
been removed from its site of origin by erosion.
SITE PREPARATION - Site preparation shall include, but is
not limited to: filling, stripping of vegetation, grading, altering
existing topography for any purposes whatsoever.
SOIL - All unconsolidated mineral or nonliving organic
material of whatever origin which overlies bedrock.
STRIPPING - Any activity which removes or significantly
disturbs the vegetative surface cover including clearing and
grubbing operations.

TEMPORARY SOIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES -
Interim control measures which are installed or constructed
for the control of soil erosion until permanent soil erosion
control is effected.

TOPSOIL - The natural surface layer of soil, usually darker
than subsurface layers, to a depth of at least six (6) inches
within an undisturbed area of soils.

WATERCOURSE - Any natural or artificial stream, river,
creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, culvert, drainage way,
gully,.ravine, or wash in which water flows in a definite
direction or course, either continuously or intermittently, and
which has a definite channel, bed, and banks, and any area
adjacent thereto subject to inundation by reason of overflow,
flood, or storm water.
WETLANDS - Areas of aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation, or
any areas which have been mapped as such by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation under the
New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act or the United States
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service for the
National Wetlands Inventory.
Section 39-405. Permit Requirement.
AL None of the following activities shall be commenced until a
permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of these
regulations or a building Rermit or site Rlgu ap9my
including site prejR atio-n- activitigs has been granted:

(1) Site preparation within wetlands;
(2) Site preparation on slopes which exceed one and one
half (1-1/2) feet of vertical rise for each ten (10) feet of
horizontal distance, as determined by a topographical
survey;

(3) Site preparation within the floodplain of any
watercourse;

(4) Excavation which affects more than fifty (50) cubic
yards of material within any parcel or any contiguous
area;
(5) Stripping which affects more than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of ground surface within any
parcel or any contiguous area;
(6) Grading which affects more than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of ground surface within any
parcel or any contiguous area; or
(7) Filling which exceeds a total of fifty (50) cubic yards of
material within any parcel or contiguous area.
Section 39-406. Permit Application, Review, Issuance and Compliance
Procedures.

A- Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a
permit under Section 39-405, six (6) copies of a permit
application shall be filed with the Commissioner, and the
application shall have been approved and a permit issued
pursuant to the provisions of these regulations.
B. At the time of filing an application for a site reparation
termit, a fee of seven hundred fifty dollars (@750.00) shall
e made payable to the City Treasurer.
C. The Director shall have the authority to recommend to the
Commissioner that a permit application be approved or
denied. The Director shall also have the authority to
recommend the approval of a permit subject to conditions.
D. Copies of the permit a li t* shall be submitted to the
'@o
T
City Engineer, who shM Zb :t recommendations on the
application to the Director within fifteen (15) business
days of the date of filing. Failure by the City Engineer to
comment within the fifteen (15) business day review
period shall not restrict the Director from carrying out his
or her responsibilities related thereto.
E. The Director shall make a recommendation to grant or
deny all permits within sixty (60) days after the date of
filing of a complete application, unless the applicant and
the Director consent to a time extension.

F. [Prior to malting a recommendation to grant a permit, the
Director shall:

(1) Seek the concurrence of the Director of Zoning;
.10

(2) Seek the concurrence of the Director of Planning;

(3) Seek the concurrence of the Director of Development
Services;
(4) Seek the concurrence of the City Engineer;
(5) Seek the concurrence of the Director of Neighborhood
Development; and

(6) Seek the concurrence of the Rochester Pure Waters
District if said District has jurisdiction.

G.] The Director shall recommend a reasonable time limit for
the termination of the permit and may recommend any
conditions which are deemed necessary to assure
compliance with the provisions of these regulations. In no
event shall the overall total time schedule for completion
of the project exceed twelve (12) months.

(HI-Q. The Director shall cause inspections to be performed
as required to assure compliancewith the terms and
conditions of the approvedge=its, and to submit
written notification to the sioner of any
violations of these terms or provisions.

MH. If at any time during the effective period of a permit,
the terms of the permit are violated, the
Commissioner may revoke the permit, in accordance
with the rocedures set forth in subsection 39-210H of
the City 8ode.
Section 39-407. Permit Application Materials.
A. The a plication for a permit regulated by these procedures
shall ger made to the Director, as agent for the
Commi si n , in such form as the Commissioner and
Director shall prescribe.
B. The application shall be made by the owner or by an
authorized agent including, but not limited to, an
architect, engineer, occupant of the property, or contractor
employed in connection with the propose& work.

C. The application shall contain:
(1) A site plan prepared by a civil engineer, landscape
architect, or land surveyor licensed and registered to
g
ractice in the State of New York. The site plan shall
e prepared at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch to
twenty (20) feet (1"-20') and shall indicate: existing
and proposed contours at horizontal intervals not to

exceed ten (10) feet; the locations of all buildings and
natural features including, but not limited to streams,
water bodies and wetlands, structures or
appurtenances; and the locations and descriptions of
any utilities, easements and rights-of-way.
(2) The site plan shall indicate all areas of vegetation,
including areas of grass, brush, tree clusters and wood
areas, caliper size of mature trees, and shall also
indicate the areas where topsoil is removed and
stockpiled and where topsoil is ultimately placed.
(3) A description of the material used in filling
operations, the total volume of material proposed to be
deposited on site, and a listing of the points of origin
of the proposed fill material which include:
(a) Name, address, and telephone numbers of the
owner of the source material;
(b) Street address, town, village, city, county and
tax account number of location of point of origin
for source material; and
W A notarized affidavit signed by the owner of the
source material which states that the material
has been tested and found free of any hazardous
waste and complies with the requirements set
forth in subsection 39-408A(7). A copy of the test
results, performed by an authorized testing
agency, shall be included as part of the affidavit.

(4) Proposed contours which shall. be shown at a
interval of two (2) feet.

(5) A time schedule which indicates:
(a) The anticipated commencement and completion
dates; and
M The anticipated duration (in days) of the
ex osure of all major areas of site preparation
before the installation of erosion anasediment
control measures.

(6) A performance bond or letter of credit in increments of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000.) for each five thousand
(5,000) cubic yards or fractions of thereof, of material
scheduled for placement on site. The bond shall not
be released until it has been determined b the
Director that the work has been completeYin
conformance with these regulations.

Section 39-408. Standards for Application Approval.
A. In grantm*g a permit under these regulations, the
standards anj considerations taken into account shall
include, but are not limited, to the following:
(1) Excavation, filling, grading, and strippinf shall be
permitted to be undertaken only in such ocations and
in such manner as to minimize the potential for
erosion and sedimentation and the threat to the
health, safety, and welfare of neighboring property
owners and the general public.
(2) Site preparation and construction shall be fitted to the
vegetation' to 0 aphy, and other natural features of
the site and s?aYpreserve as many of these features
as feasible.

(3) The control of erosion and sedimentation, includin
dust control, shall be a continuous process unde=en
as necessary prior to, during, and after site
preparation and construction.
(4) Mulching or temporary vegetation suitable to the site
shall be used where necessary to protect areas
exposed by site preparation, and permanent
vegetation which is well @da ted to the site shall be
installed as soon as practiff
(5) Where slopes are to be revegetated in areas exposed
by site preparation, the slopes shall not be of such
steepness that vegetation cannot be readily
established or that problems of erosion or
sedimentation may result.
(6) Site preparation and construction shall not adversely
affect the free flow of water or bring about flood
conditions by encroaching on, blocking, or restricting
watercourses, or drainage patterns.
(7) All fill materials shall be of a composition suitable for
the ultimate use of the fill, free of hazardous
materials, contaminants, rubbish, organic or frozen
material. It shall be free of any materials which may
corrode, collapse, dissolve or cause voids, or present
the potential for causing voids. Structural steel, steel
reinforcing, conduit, pxpm*g or similar materials are
not permitted to comprise the fill material.
Demolition or construction debris of any type is
prohibited.

(8) Fill material shall be compacted sufficiently to
prevent problems of erosion[, andI [w&here the
material is to support structures or roadways, it shall
be compacted to within ninety-five percent (95%) of
modified Proctor density with oper moisture
control. Compaction tests ShZbe submitted to the
Commissioner by an independent soils testing
laboratory which verify the compaction results.
(9) All topsoil which is excavated from a site shall be
stockpiled and used for the restoration of the site, and
such stockpiles, where necessary, shall be seeded or
otherwise treated to minimi e the effects of erosion.
All fill shall be covered to a minimum de?th of thirty
,e
(30) inches with clean earth free of boul ers or rocks
exceeding twelve (12) inches in diameter, and shall
also be covered with topsoil to a minimum depth of six
(6) inches. The final proposed grade elevations shall
be taken from the finished top soil elevation.

(10) Prior to, during, and after site preparation, an
integrated drainage system shall be provided which at
all times minimi es erosion, sedimentation, hazards of
slope instability, and adverse effects on neighboring
property owners.
(11) The natural drainage system shall generally be
preserved in preference to modifications of this system
excepting where such modifications are necessary to
reduce levels of erosion and sediment and adverse
effects on neighboring property owners.
(12) All drainage systems shall be designed to adequately
handle estimated flows both within the site and from
the entire upstream drainage basin, with the flow
estimations to be calculated utilizing the Rational
Method for a specified storm event.
(13) Sufficient grades and drainage facilities shall be
provided to prevent the ponding of water.
(14) Drainage systems, plantings, and other erosion or
sediment control devices shall be maintained as
fi-equently as necessary to provide adequate
protection against erosion and sediment and to insure
that the fi-ee flow of water is not obstructed by the
accumulation of silt, debris, or other material or by
structural damage, so as to avoid the creation of flood
conditions.

(15) Cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining property,
nor divert water onto the property of others.
(16) In the event that the removal of any trees, shrubs,
vegetation and/or other organic material is necessary
to conduct operations covered by this permit, all such
material shall be removed off-site to an approved
location prior to the commencement of iffor grading
activities.

Section 39-409. Denial of Permit.

A. Site Preparation Permits shall not be issued where:

(1) A nuisance will be established as defined by Section
59-23 of the Municipal Code;
(2) The proposed work would cause hazards to the public
safety, comfort, health, repose or welfare;
(3) The work as proposed by the applicant win damage
any public or private property or interfere with any
existing drainage course in such a manner as to cause
damage to any adjacent property or result in the
depositing of debris or sediment on any public way or
into any waterway or create an unreasonable hazard
to persons or property;
(4) The land area for which grading is proposed is subject
to geological hazard to the extent that no reasonable
amount of corrective work can eliminate or
sufficiently reduce settlement, erosion, slope
instability, or any other such. hazard to persons or
property; or
(5) The land areas for which the grading is proposed may
he within the d lain of any stream or watercourse
unless a hydro ogic report, pr pared by a professional
engineer, is su mitted to certz that the proposed
grading will have, 'in his opu*u* on, no detrimental
influence on the public welfare or upon the total
development of the watershed.
Section 39-410. Responsibility of Owner.
A. During grading and filling operations the owner shall be
responsible for:
(1) The prevention of damage to any public utilities or
services within the limits of grading and along any
routes of travel of the equipment that are not part of
the public right-of-way;
floo
I
b

(2) The prevention of damage to adjacent property. No
person shall grade on land so close to the property line
as to endanger any adjoining public street, sidewalk,
alley, or any pubhc or private groperty without
supporting and protecting sue property from setding,
cracking, or other damage which might result;
(3) Carrying out the proposed work in accordance with
the approved plans and in compliance with all the
requirements of the permit and Chapter 39; and
(4) The prompt removal of all soil, miscellaneous debris,
or other materials apphed, dumped, or otherwise
deposited on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or
other public ffioroughfares during transit to and from
the construction site, where such spillage constitutes
a public nuisance or hazard.
Section 39-411. Minimum Design Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control.
All grading plans and specifications including extensions or
previously approved plans shall include provisions for erosion
and sediment control in accordance with, but not hmited to,
accepted engineering standards and the Eridelines as outlined
in the document entitled, Gui hnes for osion jud_agdimcnt
Control in Urban Areas of New York State available from the
Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Section 39-412. Inspection.
The requirements of these regulations shall be enforced by the
Director. The Director shall cause the work to be inspected to
assure compliance with the requirements of these regulations.
Section 39-413. Project Closeout.
A. A Certificate of Substantial Compliance shall be issued by
the Director when all of the following have been submitted
to the Director or verified as specified elsewhere in these
regulations, including:

(1) Written verification from a New York State ficensed
professi'onal land surveyor, civil engineer, or
Landscape architect that the final grading and
contours conform with the requirements of the
approved site plan;
(2) Required tests verifying soil compaction have been
prepared by an independent soils testing lab and
copies of the results have been submitted; and

(3) Submission of the results of core samples taken from
the site, which verifies that the material deposited on
site complies with subsection 39-408A(7). Core
s shall be performed by an approved
indepenaent testing laboratory and shall be taken at
intervals not to exceed one (1) sample for each five
thousand (5,000) square feet of site area affected b
any filling, grading or stripping operation covered
these regulations. The exact locations of the samp as
shall be determined by the Director.

Section 39-413. Applicability of Article H.
Except where specific provisions relating to site preparation
are established in this Article, the Administrative Regulations
of Article II of this chapter shall apply to site preparation and
permits, performance of work and enforcement.
Section 2. Section 39-211 of the Municipal Code, Stop-Work orders, as amended,
is hereby further amended b ddin the words "or performed under any permit
tK a g
after the words 'Whenever e Commissioner has reasonable. grounds to believe that
work on any building or structure" where they appear at the beginning of the first
sentence of said section.

Section 3. Section 59-43 of the Municipal Code, Dumping, as amended, is hereby
further amended by deleting the words "Chief of Police" in each place where they
appear therein, and by inserting in their place the words "Director of Buildings".

Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect two weeks after the date of its
adoption.

Bracketed material deleted; underlined material added.

Passed by the following vote:
Ayes - President Curran, C ers Childress Brown, Giess, IQng, M
Muldoon, Norwood, Stevenson - 8.

Nays - None - 0.

17
Attest
95 City Cler

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Ccaastal Services Center Library
2234 South Zobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTA LIBRARY
11 1 ij,
38 14111515 6