Sands DEIS Text

Sands DEIS Text October 2024

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Integrated Resort

PREPARED FOR

LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC 5420 S. Durango Drive Las Vegas, NV 89113

PREPARED BY

VHB Engineering, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, P.C.

100 Motor Parkway, Suite 350

Hauppauge, NY 11788

October 2024

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

SANDS NEW YORK INTEGRATED RESORT

PROJECT LOCATION: 1255 Hempstead Turnpike (Nassau County Veterans Memorial

Coliseum Parcel) and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard (Marriott Hotel Parcel), Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York

TAX MAP NUMBERS: NCTM Nos. Section 44 – Block F – Lots 351, 411, 412, 415 for

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Property and NCTM Nos. Section 44 – Block F – Lots 326, 401 and 402 for Marriott Property

APPLICANT/LESSEE: LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC

c/o Daniel J. Baker, Esq. Greenberg Traurig LLP 900 Stewart Avenue

Garden City, New York 11530

LEAD AGENCY: Nassau County Legislature

Theodore Roosevelt Executive & Legislative Building 1550 Franklin Avenue

Mineola, New York 11501

Contact: Michael C. Pulitzer

Clerk of the Nassau County Legislature 516.571.4252

mpulitzer@nassaucountyny.gov

PREPARER & CONTACT: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was

Prepared by:

VHB Engineering, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, P.C.

100 Motor Parkway, Suite 350 Hauppauge, New York 11788

Contact: Terri Elkowitz, Senior Principal Louis Bekofsky, Managing Director 631.787.3400

With input from:

Architect Populous

601 West 26th Street, Suite 601 New York, NY 10001

Civil Engineers H2M

539 Broadhollow Road

Melville, NY 11747

Mechanical, Plumbing & Electrical Engineer Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B)

80 Pine Street

New York, NY 10005

Landscape Designer Martha Schwartz Partners 233 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10279

Pre-Construction Manager Pavarini McGovern

330 West 34th Steet, 12th Floor New York, NY 10001

Lighting Designer

Tillotson Design Associates 40 Worth Street, Room 703 New York, NY 10013

Acoustic/Noise Analyst Longman Lindsey

200 West 41st Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10036

Air Quality Consultant Inch and Meter

106 W 32nd Street, Floor 2 New York, NY 10001

Sustainability Consultant Transsolar Inc.

220 East 23rd Street, Suite 403 New York, NY 10010

Socioeconomics Ernst & Young LLP

Quantitative Economics & Statistics Practice 1101 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

Site Surveyor/Geotechnical/Environmental Consultant Langan

360 W 31st Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10001

Traffic Information

Philip Habib & Associates

432 Park Avenue South, 6th Floor New York, NY 10016

Legal Counsel Greenberg Traurig 900 Stewart Avenue Garden City, NY 11530

DATE OF PREPARATION: October 2024

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

prepared on behalf of the above-referenced Applicant/Lessee. Copies are available for public review and comment at the following:

Office of the Clerk of the Nassau County Legislature Theodore Roosevelt Executive and Legislative Building 1550 Franklin Avenue

Mineola, NY 11501

Office of the Town of Hempstead Town Clerk Town of Hempstead Town Hall

One Washington Street Hempstead, NY 11550

Uniondale Public Library 400 Uniondale Avenue

Uniondale, NY 11553

East Meadow Public Library 1886 Front Street

East Meadow, NY 11554

Hempstead Public Library 115 James A. Garner Way Hempstead, New York 11550

Garden City Public Library 60 7th Street

Garden City, NY 11530

The DEIS is also available at the following link : https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/5712/Las-Vegas-Sands- Nassau-Coliseum-Site-Doc

DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: November 20, 2024

COMMENT DEADLINE: January 6, 2025 at 5 p.m.

Note: A full copy of this DEIS is also included on a USB drive in the pocket of Volume 1. This will facilitate review of detailed plans, figures, etc.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ES-1
Description of the Proposed Action 1
Existing Conditions, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation Measures 58
Cumulative Impacts 582
Unavoidable Adverse Effects 602
1. Short-Term Impacts 602
2. Long-Term Impacts 603
Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources 606
Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action 608
Alternatives and Their Impacts 614
References..................................................................................................................................R-1
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................G-1

List of Volumes

Volume 1 of 15: Text, Tables and Figures Volume 2 of 15: Appendices 2-1 and 2-2

Volume 3 of 15: Appendices 2.3 through 3.1-3

Volume 4 of 15: Appendix 3.1-4

Volume 5 of 15: Appendices 3.1-4 (cont.) and 3.1-4a

Volume 6 of 15: Appendices 3.1-5 through 3.3-3

Volume 7 of 15: Appendices 3.4-1 through 8-4 (excluding Appendix 3.5-1)

Volume 8 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study, including Attachments A and B Volume 9 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachment B (cont.)

Volume 10 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachments C and D Volume 11 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachments E through H Volume 12 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachments H (cont.) and I

Volume 13 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachments J through U (excluding Attachment N)

Volume 14 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachment N Volume 15 of 15: Appendix 3.5-1 Traffic Impact Study Attachment N (cont.)

List of Appendices

2-1	Proposed Conceptual Master Plan and Phasing Exhibit
2-2	Site Plans
2-3	MFM FGEIS Findings Statement and MFM Zoning District
2-4	Town of Hempstead Town Board Resolutions for Nassau Events Center (NEC)
2-5	Proposed Lease
2-6	Positive Declaration for Sands Integrated Resort Lease and Final Scope
2-7	Proposed MF-IRD Zoning District
2-8	Marriott Purchase and Sale Agreement
2-9	Community Outreach Information
2-10	Deed Restrictions and Encumbrances
3.1-1	Soil Mechanics Drilling Corp. Soil Borings
3.1-2	Geotechnical Engineering Report
3.1-3	ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey
3.1-4	Nassau Coliseum Phase I ESA & Phase II ESI
3.1-4a	Nassau Coliseum Phase II ESI Tables
3.1-5	Long Island Marriott Phase I ESA & Phase II ESI
3.1-5a	Long Island Marriott Phase II ESI Tables
3.1-6	Elevator Pit Investigation
3.1-7	Limits of Disturbance: Off-Site Traffic Mitigation
3.2-1	Environmental Remediation Database Mitchel Field Contamination Site
3.2-2	Existing NCDPW Recharge Basin Tributary Areas and Capacities

List of Appendices (Cont.)

3.2-3	Correspondence with Town of Hempstead Water Department Regarding
	Water Availability
3.2-4	Contamination Sites and Toxic Sites with a One-Mile Radius
3.2-5	Correspondence with Nassau County Department of Public Works Regarding Sewer Availability
3.2-6	Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
3.2-7	Stormwater Management Concept Correspondence
3.3-1	Ecological Resources
3.3-2	Shadow Assessment
3.3-3	Landscaping and Planting Plans
3.4-1	Town of Hempstead BZO Chapter 146.1 (MFM Zoning District)
3.4-2	Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notice Criteria Tool Results
3.5-1	Traffic Impact Study
3.6-1	New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Community Air Monitoring Notes and Correspondence
3.6-2	Mobile Source Analysis
3.6-3	Stationary Source Analysis
3.6-4	Nassau County Department of Health Asthma Dashboard
3.7-1	Supplemental Noise Study Data
3.9-1	Local and Regional Socioeconomic Impact Data
3.10-1	Community Service Availability Requests and Responses
3.10-2	Life Safety Plans
3.11-1	Site and Surrounding Area Photographs
3.11-2	Digital Renderings
3.11-3	Photosimulations

List of Appendices (Cont.)

3.11-4	Lighting and Photometrics Plans
3.11-5	Architectural Renderings
3.11-6	Representative Exterior Materials
3.12-1	Phase IA Literature Search and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment
3.13-1	Correspondence with Energy Providers and Energy Load Analysis
3.13-2	Total Site Energy Analysis
3.14-1	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations
3.15-1	Construction Logistics Plans
3.15-2	Construction Correspondence
3.15-3	Limited Asbestos Inspection Report & PFAS Sampling for Dewatering
4-1	MSKCC Easement Agreement
4-2	Contemplated Development Program Provided by NYU Langone
4-3	Cumulative Impact Analysis Calculations: Water Supply and Sewage Generation
7-1	Cradle of Aviation Museum Letter
8-1	Alternative Conceptual Master Plan
8-2	Illustrative Graphics and Alternative Massing Model
8-3	Alternative CMP Phasing Plan Summary
8-4	Alternative CMP Socioeconomic Data

List of Tables

Table No. Description Page

Table 1 Existing Land Coverages 10

Table 2 Number of Ticketed Events at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum 2017-2023 13

Table 3 Summary of Prior Site Development and Application History 17

Table 4 Permits, Approvals, Funding and Review 53

Table 5 RFA Schedule 56

Table 6 Proposed Cut and Fill Estimates 75

Table 7 Existing Potable Water Demand 85

Table 8 Uniondale Water District Existing Water Supply Wells 87

Table 9 Uniondale Water District Total Consumptive Water Use (2013 to 2022) 88

Table 10 Estimated Historic Sewage Generation – Coliseum and Marriott Hotel 91

Table 11 Stormwater Generation under Existing Conditions 93

Table 12 Total Projected Domestic Water Demand for Phase 1 of the Integrated Resort, based on NCDPW Design Sewage Flows 94

Table 13 Total Projected Domestic Water Demand for Integrated Resort Full Build, based on NCDPW Design Sewage Flows 95

Table 14 Total Projected Sewage Generation from the Integrated Resort 103

Table 15 Stormwater Generation Under the Proposed Action 105

Table 16 Existing Ecological Communities 111

Table 17 USFWS IPaC Species 117

Table 18 New York State Species Records 118

Table 19 Existing Shadow Impact Duration on Hempstead Plains 123

Table 20 Shadow Impact Duration on Hempstead Plains 131

Table 21 Existing Land Coverages of the Subject Property 147

Table 22 MFM Bulk and Dimensional Requirements 171

Table 23 MFM-Compliant Plan Zoning Compliance 175

Table 24 Comparison of MFM-Compliant Plan to Lower-Density MFM Zoning District Alternative in the MFM Findings Statement 176

Table 25 Existing and Proposed Land Coverages as Depicted on the Dimensional Site Plan 181

Table 26 Table of Required Relief for Proposed Integrated Resort Pursuant to MFM Zoning District 197

Table 27 Proposed MF-IRD Bulk and Dimensional Requirements 202

Table 28 Compliance of the Proposed Action with MF-IRD 204

Table 29 Parking and Loading Requirements per Code and Proposed MF-IRD 205

Table 30 Meadowbrook State Parkway Saturday Volumes – September vs. ....................................... August (Summer) 225

Table 31 Existing Bus Service with Stops within ½ Mile of Subject Property 226

Table 32 Summary of Three-Year Crash History for Intersections Within Proximity of Subject Property 230

Table 33 Difference in Annual Average of Crashes at Select Intersections Between Pre/Post COVID 232

Table 34 Total External Trip Generation – All Modes 236

Table 35 Peak Hour Comparison – Integrated Resort and Coliseum 236

Table 36 Total External Trip Generation – Phase 1 – All Modes 240

Table 37 Improvements to Site Access 241

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures 242

Table 39 Increase in Traffic Volumes on Meadowbrook State Parkway from the Proposed Integrated Resort 257

Table 40 Speed (mph) Metrics for Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (South of Northern State Parkway) 258

Table 41 Speed (mph) Metrics for Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (South of Northern State Parkway) 259

Table 42 Speed (mph) Metrics for Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road (at Stewart Avenue Ramps) 259

Table 43 Roadway and Intersection Governing Jurisdictions 268

Table 44 Parking Required per Proposed MF-IRD Code 268

Table 45 Bus Capacity by Peak Hour vs. Project-Generated Bus Ridership 274

Table 46 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 281

Table 47 Background Concentrations 283

Table 48 Mobile Source Analysis Results, Intersection 5, Uniondale Avenue/Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike 298

Table 49 Mobile Source Analysis Results, Intersection 29, Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue 298

Table 50 Mobile Source Mesoscale Analysis Results (tons per year) 300

Table 51 Kitchen Exhaust Emission Rates and Exhaust Parameters 302

Table 52 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from Kitchen Exhaust 303

Table 53 2019-2021 Asthma Rates 311

Table 54 Common Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels 317

Table 55 Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) One-Hour, A-Weighted Sound Levels in Decibels (dBA) 318

Table 56 New York State Department of Transportation Noise Impact Criteria 319

Table 57 Town of Hempstead Noise Criteria (decibels) 321

Table 58 Average Existing Weekday Noise Receptor (Baseline) Sound Level (dBA) 324

Table 59 Highest Existing Weekday Noise Receptor Sound Levels (dBA) 324

Table 60 Average Existing Weekend Noise Receptor (Baseline) Sound Levels (dBA) 325

Table 61 Highest Existing Weekend Noise Receptor Sound Levels (dBA) 325

Table 62 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekday Daytime Sound Levels, in dBA) . 329 Table 63 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekday Nighttime Sound Levels, in dBA)......

. 330

Table 64 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekend Daytime Sound Levels, in dBA) . 330 Table 65 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekend Nighttime Sound Levels, in dBA) .....

. 331

Table 66 Average Weekday Daytime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA) 332

Table 67 Average Weekend Daytime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA) 332

Table 68 Average Weekday Nighttime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA) 333

Table 69 Average Weekend Nighttime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA) 333

Table 70 FTA-Recommended Criteria for Construction Noise as Measured at Adjacent Properties Per Usage 336

Table 71 FTA-Recommended Criteria for Construction Noise as Measured at Adjacent Properties per Usage in Terms of 8-hour Leq and 30-day averaged Ldn 336

Table 72 Calculated Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 300 feet per FTA Compared to Criteria 337

Table 73 Calculated Vibration Levels at Nearest Properties per FTA Compared to Criteria 340

Table 74 Current Tax Revenues – Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum 354

Table 75 Population Growth, 2000 – 2035 354

Table 76 Population by Race and Ethnicity, by Location, 2022 355

Table 77 Gender and Age by Location, 2021/2022 358

Table 78 Households and Median Household Income, 2012-2022 358

Table 79 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Trends in Nassau County and Town of Hempstead 359

Table 80 Percent Labor force and Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity, 2017-2021 360

Table 81 Percent Labor Force and Unemployment by Educational Attainment Ages 25-64,

2017-2021 361

Table 82 Estimated Distribution of Housing Units (2017-2021) 362

Table 83 Number of Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Nassau County, 2017-2021 362

Table 84 Median Sales Prices by Building Type, 2013-2023 362

Table 85 Number of Rent Stabilized Housing Accommodations by Location, 2019-2021 363

Table 86 Cumulative Sales Tax Contributions During Construction by Region, Impact and Phase ($ millions) 366

Table 87 Construction Worker Job Category and Compensation Range (in $) 366

Table 88 Summary of Tax Benefits of Integrated Resort Operation (Total and Net),

All Jurisdictions 368

Table 89 Annual Revenue, Operational Jobs and Operating Costs by Phase ($ millions) 370

Table 90 Job Categories with Associated Salaries and Benefits (in $) 370

Table 91 Estimated Distribution of Operations Employees, by Location and Phase 373

Table 92 Estimated Impact on Unemployment Rates in Nassau County and Town of Hempstead 374

Table 93 Gross, Current, and Incremental Annual Economic Impacts from Operations ($ millions) 375

Table 94 Total Annual Incremental Economic Impacts from Operations, New York State ($ millions) 376

Table 95 Total Annual Economic Impacts from Operations, by Region ($ millions) 376

Table 96 Annual Economic Impacts from Operations – Town of Hempstead ($ millions) 377

Table 97 Total Annual Economic Impacts from Operations – Nassau County ($ millions) 377

Table 98 Total Annual Economic Impact from Operations – New York State ($ millions) 378

Table 99 Total Annual Economic Impacts from Operations – Balance of State ($ millions) 378

Table 100 Sands Revenue Commitments to Local Governments (Nominal $ millions) 380

Table 101 Annual Hotel Tax Contributions by Municipality/Entity 382

Table 102 Annual Sales Tax Contributions by Municipality/Entity, Impact and Phase ($ millions) 383

Table 103 Annual Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (MCTMT) ($ millions) 384 Table 104 Annual New York State Corporate Income Tax and MTA Surcharge Contributions ($

millions) 385

Table 105 Total Local Tax Impact Tax Type, Phase, and Jurisdiction ($ millions) 387

Table 106 Projected Increase in Student Enrollment – Full Build Phase 389

Table 107 Estimated Total Spending Associated with Public School Student Population.................... Increases 390

Table 108 Total and Incremental (Net) Impact of Integrated Resort Operations on Local Government Revenue by Tax Type and Phase 391

Table 109 Potential Households and Residents 392

Table 110 Estimated Distribution of New Households and Residents and School-Aged Children to Nassau County 393

Table 111 Estimated distribution of new households to Nassau County 394

Table 112 Local Hospitals and Medical Centers 399

Table 113 Third Precinct Calls Dispatched 2021-2023 400

Table 114 Third Precinct EMS Calls Dispatched 2021-2023 401

Table 115 Uniondale UFSD Enrollment by Year 402

Table 116 PILOT Payment Breakdown by Jurisdiction 408

Table 117 Estimated Distribution of New Households, Residents and School-Aged Children in Nassau County 416

Table 118 Historical Annual Student Enrollment for Selected Nassau County Schools 416

Table 119 Projected Increase in Student Enrollment – Full Build 418

Table 120 Estimated Total Spending Associated with Public School Student Population .................. Increases 419

Table 121 Projected Solid Waste Generation 421

Table 122 Light Levels 509

Table 123 Proposed Action Energy Use Calculations 522

Table 124 Proposed Action Estimated 2030 Cumulative GHG Emissions 540

Table 125 Estimate of Cut and Fill 556

Table 126 Construction Worker Job Category and Compensation Range (in $) 568

Table 127 Disposal and Handling Procedures for Construction Waste 575

Table 128 Other Planned Developments and Cumulative Impact Issues 588

Table 129 Total Trip Generation from Other Planned Developments, by Peak Hour 595

Table 130 Net Trip Generation – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility 597

Table 131 Weekday AM Peak Hour – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility 598

Table 132 Weekday PM Peak Hour – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility 599

Table 133 Comparison of Alternatives 615

Table 134 Alternative CMP Development Program 622

Table 135 Existing and Proposed Land Coverages 624

Table 136 Proposed Parking Garages 626

Table 137 Projected Water Demand Based on Sewage Generation of Alternative CMP 630

Table 138 Stormwater Generation Under the Alternative CMP 632

Table 139 Zoning Compliance of Alternative CMP with MF-IRD on the Coliseum Property 634

Table 140 MFM Zoning District Compliance of Alternative CMP 634

Table 141 Net Trip Generation – Alternative CMP 638

Table 142 Notable Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures for the Alternative CMP 640

Table 143 Impact on Hempstead Turnpike Ramp Junctions for the Alternative CMP 648

Table 144 Parking Required for Alternative CMP 650

Table 145 Sands Revenue Commitments to Governments (nominal $ million) 656

Table 146 Solid Waste Generation of Alternative CMP 659

Table 147 GHG Emissions Comparison (with Mitigation) Between the Proposed Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP 665

Table 148 MFM Zoning District Compliance 671

List of Figures

Figure No. Description Page

Figure 1 Site Location 2

Figure 2 Tax Map 3

Figure 3 Regional Context 9

Figure 4 Conceptual Master Plan 28

Figure 5 General Locations of Proposed Local Surface Roadway and Parkway Improvements .35 Figure 6 USDA Soils 59

Figure 7 Topographic Map 63

Figure 8 Phase II ESI Boring Locations for the Coliseum Property 68

Figure 9 Phase II ESI Soil Boring Locations for the Marriott Property 72

Figure 10 Water Supply Service Areas 86

Figure 11 Stormwater Management System 107

Figure 12 Ecological Communities 112

Figure 13 Wetlands 121

Figure 14 Local Context 143

Figure 15 Study Area 144

Figure 16 Study Area Existing Land Use 145

Figure 17 Photograph Location Key Map for Site and Surrounding Areas 148

Figure 18 Major Land Uses 151

Figure 19 Study Area Existing Zoning 169

Figure 20 MFM Compliant Plan 174

Figure 21 Other Gaming Destinations 188

Figure 22 Airports and Heliports in Proximity to Subject Site 191

Figure 23 Proposed Zoning – MF-IRD 201

Figure 24 Study Area Intersections 213

Figure 25 Automatic Traffic Recorder Locations 218

Figure 26 2023 Existing Traffic Volumes 223

Figure 27 Multi-Use Paths and Trails Within Vicinity of Subject Property 228

Figure 28 2030 No Build Traffic Volumes 235

Figure 29 2030 Build Traffic Volumes 238

Figure 30 2030 Build Trip Distribution for Weekday PM Peak Hour 239

Figure 31 Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard & Sands Blvd Mitigation . 250 Figure 32 Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue

Mitigation 251

Figure 33 Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard/Site Access Mitigation 252

Figure 34 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard & Site Access ............................ Mitigation 253

Figure 35 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Sands Blvd/Main Entrance Mitigation 254

Figure 36 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at James Doolittle Boulevard Mitigation 255

Figure 37 Locations of Intersection Signal Timing/Phasing Optimization Mitigation 256

Figure 38 Meadowbrook State Parkway Mitigation - Mainline Widening 262

Figure 39 Meadowbrook State Parkway Mitigation - Northbound C/D Road Widening 263

Figure 40 Meadowbrook State Parkway Mitigation - Hempstead Turnpike Eastbound to ................. Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Ramp & Charles Lindbergh Boulevard .......... Eastbound to Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Ramp 264

Figure 41 Site Access and Circulation Plan 272

Figure 42 Disadvantaged Communities and Potential Environmental Justice Areas 285

Figure 43 Emission Sources within the Hempstead / New Cassel / Roosevelt / Uniondale / ............. Westbury DAC 286

Figure 44 Subareas Selected for Monitoring Program 287

Figure 45 Climate-responsive Building Features 306

Figure 46 Noise Receptor Locations and Area of the Proposed Central Utilities Plants 322

Figure 47 Potential Environmental Justice Areas 357

Figure 48 Viewshed Analysis 433

Figure 49 Photograph Location Key for Site and Surrounding Areas 434

Figure 50 Tall Buildings and Structures in the Surrounding Area 454

Figure 51 Illustrative Site Plan 460

Figure 52 Photosimulation Locations Key Map 465

Figure 53 Photosimulations 466

Figure 54 Shadow Assessment – Existing Marriott Property Shadows 495

Figure 55 Shadow Assessment – Proposed Shadows 501

Figure 56 OPRHP CRIS Map 512

Figure 57 Cultural Resource Photograph Locations 516

Figure 58 Other Planned Developments 584

Figure 59 Alternative CMP 623

Intentionally left blank

‌Executive Summary

This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which has been prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 for the proposed lease between Nassau County and LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC (Sands or the Lessee) and the ultimate development of the Sands New York Integrated Resort (the “Integrated Resort”) on the subject property, which consists of the approximately 71.6-acre Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (Coliseum or Coliseum property) site located at 1255 Hempstead Turnpike, Uniondale (NCTM Nos. Section 44 – Block F – Lots 351, 411, 412, 415 ) and the adjacent approximately 14.7-acre Marriott Hotel property (or Marriott property), located at 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale (NCTM Nos. Section 44 – Block F – Lots 326, 401 and 402).1

This executive summary, while a critical component of the DEIS, cannot substitute for the review of the detailed existing conditions and technical analyses presented throughout the document, as it is designed primarily to provide a concise overview. The technical analyses cannot be fully represented in the limited scope of an executive summary. The executive summary highlights key elements of the DEIS, as required by the SEQR regulations and set forth in The SEQR Handbook, (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Fourth Edition, 2020), and briefly summarizes the proposed action; the purpose, need and benefits; the environmental setting; significant beneficial and adverse impacts; mitigation measures proposed; and alternatives considered. It does not refer to or reproduce figures, tables or appendices that are relevant to a full understanding of the analyses contained in the DEIS. It is essential that involved agencies and interested parties review the entire DEIS to fully understand the proposed action and its purpose need and benefits, relevant existing environmental conditions, potential impacts, mitigation measures identified to minimize potential impacts, and the alternatives considered.

Review of the Executive Summary is not a substitute for the full evaluation of the proposed action performed in the following sections of this DEIS.

‌1 This DEIS collectively refers to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property and the Marriott Hotel property as the “subject property”

‌Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action consists of the execution of a lease with Nassau County for the Coliseum property, and potentially, the Marriott Hotel property, to facilitate the development of the proposed Sands Integrated Resort. The proposed lease, which has a term of 99 years, provides that, among other things, the Lessee may construct new improvements that include, but are not limited to, public entertainment and/or recreation uses; a conference facility; hotel; gaming; public entertainment and/or recreation; entertainment venue; and other related business or commercial purposes.

The lease contemplates the development of an Integrated Resort, which Sands is proposing as a dynamic entertainment and hospitality destination, featuring four- and five-star hotels, an entertainment venue, meeting and convention space, swimming pools and health club, as well as outdoor community spaces and a variety of entertainment programming – all in addition to world-class gaming facilities. Weaving through the casinos, hotels, meeting and conference space and the entertainment venue would be a “lifestyle complex” that would serve as the spine for circulating throughout the proposed Integrated Resort. It would contain continuous attractions and experiences, including a wide variety of food and beverage establishments and limited retail shops, which connect the Integrated Resort’s major facilities (e.g., casinos, hotels, entertainment venue, and meeting and conference space). The proposed project would repurpose the underutilized Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and transform the subject property into a next-generation, mixed-entertainment destination that fosters a sense of community and connectivity within its surroundings and draws people together.

The proposed Integrated Resort would transform the existing Coliseum property, which consists of a sea of asphalt and empty parking areas surrounding an underutilized Coliseum, into the premier regional entertainment and hospitality destination that would feature gaming, four and five-star hotels, meeting spaces, a live performance venue, and a wide range of restaurant and supportive experiences. The Integrated Resort, which would be developed in accordance with a proposed Conceptual Master Plan (see Appendix 2-1) is proposed to include the following new development:

› Two new hotels with a total of 1,670 rooms, spa, fitness center and pools

› Casino with 393,726 net square foot (SF) gaming area

› 147,292 square feet of food and beverage with 3,337 seats

› 213,000-SF conference center

› 4,500 seat arena/live performance venue

› 60,000-SF public attraction space

› 31,200 square feet of retail space

› Three parking garages

› Various back of house support spaces, circulation and interior utility spaces.

The proposed lease also requires that, if the on-site veterans memorial is demolished or removed by or on behalf of the Lessee, the Lessee must construct, at its own cost, a new veterans memorial at a total cost of no less than $1 million. In addition, the proposed lease provides that, as part of any new improvements for the Integrated Resort, the Lessee must construct the core

and shell of an approximately 1,500 sq. ft. police substation with designated parking for eight vehicles and a designated parking area for eight vehicles and must provide reimbursement of up to $500,000 to the Landlord, who is responsible for fit-out of the substation.

The proposed Integrated Resort would be connected to the Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District of the Nassau County sewer system for sewage disposal (with discharge to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant [WPCP]). The Integrated Resort is projected to generate a new sanitary flow of approximately 109,792 at Phase 1 and 701,400± gallons per day (gpd) at full-build. Examining the existing treatment (63.8± million gallons per day [mgd]) versus the treatment capacity (72 mgd), the addition of new sewage effluent from the proposed Integrated Resort (0.70± mgd) would not result in an exceedance of the treatment capacity. Furthermore,

Sands’ consultants undertook consultations with the Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW) regarding the proposed development. A formal request for sewer availability was submitted to NCDPW, and a response indicating availability/capacity, dated May 10, 2024, was received. No improvements to off-site sewer infrastructure are anticipated; however, on-site infrastructure would be relocated within the area of the proposed development.

The Integrated Resort is proposed to be served by the Town of Hempstead Water Department, Uniondale Water District (UWD) for water supply and is located within the Mitchel Field Water Supply Area. It is anticipated that without taking credit for the incorporation of water conservation measures, the proposed Integrated Resort (full-build) would have a potable water demand of approximately 109,792± gpd (plus an additional 14,613± gpd for irrigation) in Phase 1 and 701,400± gpd at full-build, which is approximately 604,127 gpd more than the existing condition for the Coliseum (97,273 gpd).2 When including irrigation (62,000± gpd), the total new water demand from the proposed Integrated Resort is 763,400 gpd. Reuse/renovation of the Coliseum building as a casino within Phase 1 of the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to create minimal additional water supply demand (an addition 12,500± gpd), such that existing water supply infrastructure is expected to be sufficient to accommodate the Phase 1 program.

However, to address the water demand for Phase 2, a new water supply well, with a capacity of

1.98 mgd, as well as associated treatment systems, backup power generation, and transmission water main are proposed to support the full build-out. Sands is in the process of designing the new well and conducting test wells. The well would ultimately be constructed in accordance with the standards of and with approval from the Town of Hempstead Water Department, and would be operated by the UWD. Sands has committed to funding this new well and appurtenances. However, if significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

Under the proposed action, stormwater runoff of approximately 1.34 million cubic feet for a five- inch storm event would be managed through on-site infiltration via a network of catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys, with overflow to Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537, located along Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. The proposed action would result in a decrease of close to eight percent of impervious areas at the subject property, which would result in a corresponding reduction to the stormwater load imposed on the County basin, thereby improving an already permitted condition. Both the architectural and landscape designs have incorporated low-impact development techniques that reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, including increased on-

‌2 The Marriott Hotel is currently served by the Town of Hempstead Water Department. As there will be no change in the Marriott Hotel operations, there would be no change in the water demand.

site infiltration and the installation of green roofs at different levels, various landscaping areas and gardens, on the ground floor. The updated stormwater management system would ensure that stormwater runoff would be properly captured and conveyed, precluding stormwater from running overland and potentially impacting adjacent properties or nearby surface waters. Sands’ consultant met with and sent a letter to NCDPW regarding the proposed stormwater management system. A response from NCDPW indicated that the project is subject to 239-f review and that it concurred with H2M’s assessment of stormwater management for the proposed Integrated Resort.

The amount of solid waste generation projected from the proposed Integrated Resort would be approximately 623 tons per month, and the amount of recycling would be approximately 157 tons per month. On-site collection of solid waste is proposed to occur within underground loading docks and service areas. There are no proposed exterior solid waste collection enclosures on the subject site. Solid waste generated on the subject property during operations would be collected by a licensed private carter and disposed at ReworldTM Hempstead (formerly Covanta), which has confirmed that it would accept waste from the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands would use a comprehensive waste management plan, incorporating strategies such as such as composting, recycling, and waste reduction programs and would primarily focus on managing the largest waste streams, which are food service and construction. Sands is in the process of identifying potential licensed facilities that would accept recycled materials from the proposed Integrated Resort. The proposed Integrated Resort would comply with the applicable requirements of the New York State Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by separating excess food for donation, donating food scraps to an organic recycler (based on facility availability and capacity), separating its remaining food scraps from other solid waste, training employees in the proper methods of for separating and storing food scraps, and submitting an annual report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Materials Management documenting donations, recycling, and other required information. Furthermore, Sands’ construction waste management diversion objectives for new construction are aligned with its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design™ (LEED) certification goal, targeting minimum 50 percent diversion and aspiring to exceed 75 percent diversion depending on the available local waste management infrastructure at the time the waste is generated. Sands is targeting LEED Gold Certification; however, the ultimate determination of the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized. While the proposed Integrated Resort would result in an increase in solid waste generation over the current use of the subject property, Sands would employ a comprehensive solid waste management program, which emphasizes reduction, reuse and recycling measures.

Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex, with electric supply from PSEG- Long Island. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site relates to commercial kitchen natural gas use and diesel emergency generators. Natural gas services would be provided by National Grid. Implementation of the proposed action would result in the disconnection of services from the Engie facility to the Coliseum property and the establishment of new utilities, including the construction of two central utilities plants (CUPs). The Marriott Hotel would still maintain utility connections with the Engie facility.

Based on the almost all-electric complex, Sands has requested a total electrical service capacity of 47 megavolt ampere (MVA) to serve the Full Build condition. PSEG Long Island has provided a

letter indicating that it would serve the proposed Integrated Resort. While PSEG Long Island can provide service to the subject property, an expanded or new substation would be required to serve the proposed Integrated Resort beyond Phase 1. PSEG Long Island is in the process of identifying locations for this new/expanded substation. Sands has committed to continuing to work with PSEG Long Island and to participating in funding the substation expansion needed to meet the energy demand of the proposed Integrated Resort.3

Sands’ proposed energy strategy would help to conserve electricity, minimize potential carbon emissions and avoid significant water consumption associated with cooling towers, which have typically been used to generate chilled water for air conditioning on similar developments.

Furthering Sands’ commitment to energy conservation and clean energy generation, the roofs of the proposed parking garages, meeting and conference space, and entertainment venue would include the integration of photovoltaic (PV) panels. Environmental sustainability is a critical consideration in the design of any modern development, and the Sands world-class Integrated Resort is no exception. The proposed Integrated Resort is being designed to exceed minimum building code performance with an eye towards reducing its environmental impact and being sustainable.

The subject property is uniquely situated to accommodate the proposed development, with excellent access to the surrounding roadway/highway network. Site access would be from a new north-south through road, connecting Charles Lindbergh Boulevard with Hempstead Turnpike. An additional access point is provided at the western portion of the property along Hempstead Turnpike. Access points are also proposed along Earle Ovington Boulevard and James Doolittle Boulevard. Bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation would be accommodated throughout the site, which would connect to the existing surrounding multi-use paths.

Parking for the overall development would be provided by a combination of parking garages and surface parking spaces. Dedicated areas for bus drop-off/pick-up, taxis and ride-hailing services (e.g., Uber, Lyft) have been incorporated into the project to enhance parking and site circulation.

As a result of Sands’ over $5 billion investment to develop the proposed Integrated Resort,4 over 7,000 jobs would be generated during the construction period and over 7,800 permanent jobs (over 5,000 full-time equivalents [FTE]) would be created upon full development. Sands is committed to leveraging the area’s local workforce and talent. Specific workforce development programs would target local unemployed individuals and prepare them for the workforce.

Programs include, amongst others, developing a training hub at Nassau Community College (NCC); collaborating with NCC and Long Island University (LIU) to develop hospitality degree programs; partnering with Minority Millennials to build a diverse local talent pipeline; partnering with Empower, Assist, Care (EAC) Network to support local community recruitment plans; identifying key stakeholders to provide awareness of job opportunities at the Integrated Resort; providing mentoring and leadership development for best-in-class team member advancement

‌3 If significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

‌4 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the license is awarded, design is finalized and bids are received.

and retention strategies; and offering a comprehensive benefits package, including childcare (through the YMCA), healthcare, on-site meals, and wellness programs.

The long-term economic impacts would be substantial and would include recurring tax revenue and various other community benefits and commitments, which are outlined in the subsection of this Executive Summary, entitled Purpose, Need and Benefits.

The Integrated Resort is proposed to be developed in two phases: Phase 1, consisting of the redevelopment of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum with the Coliseum Casino, a parking garage, one of three parking garages, one of two central utilities plants and a parking lot, is anticipated to begin in 2026 and be completed in 2027. Phase 2, which consists of the remainder of the Integrated Resort, is expected to begin in mid-2026 with construction being completed by the end of 2030 (the Full Build condition – when both Phases 1 and 2 are completed and operational – is projected to be reached at the end of 2030).

Various approvals from involved agencies would be required (as described later in this Executive Summary). The Town of Hempstead Town Board (Town Board) possesses jurisdiction over the required zoning approvals and various other land use approvals. A Petition is being filed with the Town Board for the creation of the Mitchel Field-Integrated Resort District (MF-IRD); application of that new zoning district to the subject property; and in accordance with the proposed zoning district, Conceptual Master Plan approval and site plan approval to allow the development of the Integrated Resort. All of these components of the proposed action are evaluated in this DEIS.

‌Summary of Site Conditions/Environmental Setting

The subject property is located in the heart of Nassau County in an area often referred to as the Nassau Hub. It contains the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, designed as a sports and entertainment venue, that is surrounded by approximately 5,900 surface parking spaces. A veterans memorial, including turf areas and flagpoles, is situated on a concrete area just east of the Coliseum building. The subject property also includes the 11-story, 618-key Marriott Hotel and associated 1,500± surface parking spaces, located east of the Coliseum, along James Doolittle Boulevard.

The subject property exhibits a generally flat topography. According to the soil borings drilled for the subject property, groundwater is situated at a depth of between 29 feet and 34 feet below grade surface. The subject property is not located within a Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA) or within an area of special flood hazard. There are no wetlands or water bodies located on the subject property. The ecological character and wildlife potential of the site is low, due to its developed nature.

There is turf and landscaping west of the Coliseum, adjacent to the western parking areas. The Coliseum parking areas contain minimal landscaping and tall lighting fixtures, and ticket booths are located at several access points, located along Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. The Marriott also contains vast asphalt parking areas and minimal landscaping.

the perimeter of the hotel parcel, but the parking areas are devoid of landscaping, except along Hempstead Turnpike. There are several signs indicating the location of the Marriott, at the hotel entrance along James Doolittle Boulevard and on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike. Lighting within the Marriott parking areas to the south of the hotel building is minimal, and the condition of the pavement, especially in the southernmost parking area, is poor.

Existing land coverages for the subject property are shown below:

Type of Coverage	Existing Coverage in Acres (Percent)
Buildings	5.3± acres (6.2±%)
Parking Structures	0.0 acres (0.0%)
Surface Parking Areas	55.5± acres (64.3±%)
Roadways	7.6± acres (8.8±%)
Walkways/Plazas/Other Hardscape	9.6± acres (11.1%)
Landscaping, Lawn and Pervious Surfaces	8.3± acres (9.6±%)
Total:	86.3± acres (100%)

Formerly a part of the Coliseum property, the approximately five-acre Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) property, which was sold to MSKCC by Nassau County and opened in 2019, is located near the southwestern portion of the subject property fronting on Hempstead Turnpike. Neither the MSKCC parcel nor the zoning district in which it is situated (the existing Mitchel Field Mixed-Use [MFM] Zoning District) would be changed by implementation of this proposed action.

The land uses located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property include:

North: The land uses to the north include Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, followed by NCC, Nassau Energy Corp. (Engie facility), the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) Center for Training and Intelligence (situated on the campus of NCC) and Museum Row.

East: The land uses to the east, beyond the Marriott Hotel property, include James Doolittle Boulevard, the Hempstead Plains, East Meadow Brook, and the Meadowbrook State Parkway.

South: The land uses to the south consist of Hempstead Turnpike and one-story businesses, located on the south side of this roadway, as well as single-family homes to the south of the businesses that front the roadway. RXR Plaza, with its 15-story towers, is the dominating development to the south-southwest of the subject property along Hempstead Turnpike.

West: The land uses to the west include Earle Ovington Boulevard, Hofstra University, Mitchel Athletic Complex and a number of large-scale office buildings, including the 10-story Omni office building to the northwest of the subject property.

The roadways directly surrounding the subject property are Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) to the south, Earle Ovington Boulevard to the west, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to the north, and James Doolittle Boulevard to the east. Other principal roadways in the area include:

› Meadowbrook State Parkway

› Northern State Parkway

› Southern State Parkway

› Glenn Curtiss Boulevard

› Merrick Avenue.

Public transportation options include the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), which provides service between New York City and eastern Long Island. The LIRR stations nearest the project site include Hempstead, Mineola, Garden City, Westbury, Country Life Press, and Carle Place (as described later in this DEIS, Sands would be providing shuttles only to the Hempstead LIRR station). Additionally, the Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE) bus, which is located throughout Nassau County with some routes extending into western Suffolk and eastern Queens, serves the subject site with a number of bus routes adjacent to and nearby the subject property.

Multi-use paths are present along each of the roadways surrounding the subject site, including Hempstead Turnpike, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and Earle Ovington Boulevard. A formal bike lane exists in each direction along James Doolittle Boulevard. The paths eventually connect to the Mitchel Field pedestrian path and bikeway, which provides greater connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the area as a whole. At the major intersections in the vicinity of the project site, pedestrian accommodations for crossing are provided with marked crosswalks and dedicated pedestrian signal equipment.

The subject property is located within the jurisdiction of the following service providers/utilities:

Sewer: Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW) - Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District

Water: Town of Hempstead Water Department - Uniondale Water District (UWD) and Mitchel Field\Water Supply Area (MFWSA)

Stormwater/Drainage: NCDPW

Police: NCPD Third Precinct

Ambulance: Uniondale Fire Department/NCPD Emergency Ambulance Bureau (EAB)

Fire: Uniondale Fire Department/Nassau County Office of the Fire Marshal

School District: Uniondale Union Free School District (UFSD)

Electricity: PSEG Long Island, Engie

Natural Gas: National Grid.

Activity levels at both the Coliseum and Marriott venues have fluctuated over the last decade for several reasons, including, but not limited to, the New York Islanders National Hockey League team’s relocation to a new facility, the COVID-19 pandemic, competition from other venues, and the financial struggles of the operator. Originally, the Coliseum was built to seat up to 15,000 spectators, before it was expanded to approximately 18,000 seats, including additional floor seating for certain events, such as concerts. At its peak of activity, besides being home to the Islanders with 41 regular season hockey games, pre-season games and playoff games, the Coliseum also hosted numerous concerts, the Ringling Brothers circus, ice shows, and other sporting events, including professional wrestling, basketball, and boxing matches. It was also used for political rallies, trade shows, and graduation ceremonies.

Currently, the Coliseum’s inability to attract high-profile events has significantly diminished its use as an entertainment venue and exhibition hall. The Coliseum is currently home to the Long Island Nets G-League Basketball Team and has been home to the New York Riptide Lacrosse team, which has relocated to Ottawa, Canada. It currently hosts a limited number of events, including, for example, the Long Island Metro Fire/EMS Expo, Monster Trucks, and Bridal Expos. Ticketed events and attendance have sharply declined since the Coliseum re-opened after its renovation in 2017. The number of events has fallen to fewer than one per week and is expected to be further reduced with the relocation of the Riptides Lacrosse Team to Ottawa.

The Marriott Hotel, which was also affected by the pandemic and the relocation of the New York Islanders, was constructed in 1982, and has been sold and renovated several times. Aside from the guest rooms, the Marriott contains numerous meeting rooms, an on-site restaurant, banquet halls, a grand ballroom, fitness center, and indoor swimming pool.

The subject property (predominantly the Coliseum property, and to a lesser extent, the Marriott Hotel property) has been the subject of prior development proposals and SEQR processes that were ultimately not implemented, which provide a context for the current environmental review of the proposed Integrated Resort. No development has occurred to date that has successfully achieved the Legislative Purpose of the prevailing Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field (created by the Town of Hempstead Town Board in the early 1970s) or the prevailing MFM Zoning District (which became effective in 2011). As explained through the application and development history provided below, the MFM Zoning District does not permit development at a level that could reasonably achieve the stated legislative purpose of the MFM Zoning District without relaxation of zoning requirements, as every application submitted or approved under this zoning district required zoning relief.

Mitchel Field comprises most of what is today part of Uniondale, and the subject property is situated within the boundaries of the former Mitchel Field. The history of Mitchel Field began in the early 1900s and is continuing to evolve. Mitchel Field, an army aviation field, was a major component of aviation on Long Island. It was originally established in 1917, and served as the main point of air defense during World War II for New York City and headquarters for the Air Defense Command, First Air Force and Continental Air Command in the late 1940s. Due to Mitchel Field’s location in an urban area, there were several problems with operating tactical aircraft (including its small size, noise, and several accidents). Ultimately, Mitchel Field was closed and the federal government turned it over to Nassau County in 1961. While much of the former Mitchel Field area is still owned by Nassau County (including the Coliseum property, Marriott Hotel property and NCC, but excluding, for example, MSKCC, the Omni and RXR Plaza), zoning is controlled by the Town of Hempstead.

The Town of Hempstead created the Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field (PDD), which became effective as of August 21, 1971, and included subdistricts for offices (MFO and MFO-II) and hotels (MFH). At that time, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was under construction, and the area around the Coliseum was then zoned Residence B. The Town’s PDD set forth its intention for the area around the new Coliseum to be developed in a comprehensive manner. In addition to the Coliseum building, other development occurred in the area through the early-

mid 1980s, including RXR Plaza (MFO), the Omni (MFO-II) and the Marriott Hotel (MFH),5 in accordance with the PDD at Mitchel Field.

The more recent history of the redevelopment efforts for the subject property began in 2000, when the late Charles B. Wang bought the New York Islanders Hockey Club, as the National Hockey League was considering moving the team from Long Island due to the facility’s substandard quality, disappointing attendance, and poor team performance. In 2004, Mr. Wang and then-Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi designed a proposal to redevelop and transform the Coliseum.

In December 2005, Charles Wang bought the Long Island Marriott, and in 2006, Mr. Wang’s Lighthouse Development Group, LLC (LDG) was designated to redevelop the subject property and other properties within the Nassau Hub area. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into in December 2006, which set forth, among other things, LDG’s various responsibilities with respect to the redevelopment of the subject property including that LDG had to invest at least $320 million on the total cost for the improvements, prepare plans for submission to the Town of Hempstead, and coordinate with Nassau County on the overall project.

In 2009, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for The Lighthouse at Long Island was prepared by LDG and accepted by the Town of Hempstead Town Board for proposed new zoning and development consisting of a new coliseum for the New York Islanders NHL team (total of 1.2 million SF, of which 416,000 SF existed), 2,306 residential units, 500,000 SF of retail, 1,000,000 SF of new office space (in addition to the existing 1.6 million SF), 118,000 SF of new convention/exhibition space (in addition to the existing 82,000 SF), 300 new hotel rooms (in addition to the 618 existing rooms at the Marriott Hotel), and structured parking.

Subsequent to public review of the aforesaid DGEIS, a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS), prepared the Town of Hempstead’s consultant and filed by the Town Board, introduced a proposed Mitchel Field Mixed-Use (MFM) Zoning District pursuant to the PDD at Mitchel Field. The then-proposed MFM Zoning District, analyzed in an FGEIS, significantly reduced the development potential at and around the subject property and surrounding sites from that proposed by LDG. A Findings Statement for the Lighthouse/MFM Zoning District was prepared in early 2011, and the Town of Hempstead adopted the MFM Zoning District, which became effective June 2011. The Lighthouse at Long Island project, as it was proposed, was not able to be developed under the newly-adopted MFM Zoning District, the project was abandoned, and the New York Islanders ultimately relocated from the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

‌5 The Marriott Hotel property was subsequently rezoned to the MFM District in 2011.

hotel rooms (including the Marriott Hotel), and structured parking. No residential units were proposed as part of that proposed CMP. The NEC CMP was approved by the Town of Hempstead Town Board in May 2015 under Town Board Resolution (TBR) 642-2015. The approved NEC CMP requested relief from the zoning requirements for conformity with Article XIII, Section 146.1(O)(3) of the MFM Zoning District “Establishment of Public rights-of-way” and Section 146.1(O)(4) “Complete Streets” of the Building Zone Ordinance (BZO), which was granted by the Town Board NEC renovated the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and immediate surrounding area (e.g., plaza space); however, the remainder of the approved development was never constructed.

Accordingly, Nassau County terminated the lease for redevelopment with NEC in 2018.

During the NEC CMP review process, the New York Islanders (the then primary tenant of the Coliseum) relocated to Barclays Center in Brooklyn in 2015 and ultimately to UBS Arena in Elmont in 2021, and the utilization of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum continued to decline.

In 2017, Nassau County sold approximately five acres of the total 77 acres, situated south of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, east of Earle Ovington Boulevard and north of Hempstead Turnpike, to MSKCC, which developed and opened a cancer treatment center and parking garage in 2019. The original approvals for MSKCC reflect the ultimate construction of 140,000 sf, not including the parking garage. As currently constructed, MSKCC contains approximately 114,000 sf and the 26,000 sf of additional floor area that was not previously constructed was to be built in the future. Currently, MSKCC has submitted updated plans to the Town of Hempstead for the construction of the additional 26,000 sf, which were recently approved. The proposed expansion commenced in June 2024. This development required zoning relief for the height of the parking garage, which was granted by the Town Board.

In 2018, a Development Plan Agreement (DPA) was executed between Nassau County and Nassau HUB Master Developer LLC (a special purpose entity formed as a joint venture between affiliates of Onexim, NEC’s parent company, and RXR Realty Investments LLC), for the 71.6 acres of property within the Nassau Hub (excluding the Marriott Hotel parcels). In December 2019, an application for development and amendment of the approved 2015 NEC CMP, known as the Nassau Hub Innovation District, and Part 1 – Environmental Assessment Form were submitted to the Town. Subsequent to the initial application submission in December 2019, a comprehensive Expanded Environmental Assessment considering the potential impacts associated with the development of the 71.6 acres surrounding the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was submitted to the Town in November 2021. The proposed development included 950,000 SF of office and R&D space, 850 hotel rooms, 175,000 SF of conference space, 2,000 restaurant seats, 150,000 SF of entertainment/experiential retail, a 600-seat cinema, a 1,000-seat performing arts venue and 500 residential units. This application requested the same right-of-way width reductions as the NEC CMP application and also required building height modifications and modifications to the number of dwelling units per residential building. This application was never acted upon.

Environmental Assessment Form) requesting the creation of a new zoning district (the MF-IRD), the rezoning of the subject property into that district, and approval of a Conceptual Master Plan for the development of the proposed Integrated Resort. The Town Board reviewed the application package and commenced the SEQR process by conducting coordinated review with all involved agencies; declaring the Town Board to be lead agency; issuing a positive declaration requiring the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement; and conducting formal scoping.

During the Town’s review of the aforesaid Petition and administration of the SEQR process, a Decision and Order was rendered in litigation that was brought by Hofstra University challenging Nassau County’s approval of the prior lease. That Decision and Order, issued on November 9, 2023, determined, among other things, that the County had violated provisions of the New York State Public Officers Law and SEQR and annulled the prior lease between the Lessee and Nassau County .6 After an appeal filed by Nassau County, the Appellate Division, on October 23, 2024, reversed the Decision and Order, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the joinder of LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC.7 The merits of the underlying matter remain pending.

Subsequent to the Decision and Order, Hofstra sought a judgment declaring that the Nassau County’s lease of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum to Nassau Live Center, LLC, which the Lessee had separately acquired for $241 million, was also invalid. A decision was rendered on February 23, 2024 declaring, among other things, that Nassau Live Center, LLC’s lease had been terminated and that the Lessee holds “no leasehold interest in the land upon which the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum sits.”8 An appeal is also pending for this Order.

‌6 Decision and Order (“Order”), dated November 9, 2023, in the action entitled In the Matter of Hofstra University v Nassau County Planning Commission, et al, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 606293/2023.

‌7 Decision and Order, dated October 23, 2024, in the action entitled In the Matter of Hofstra University v Nassau County Planning Commission, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department, Index No. 606293/23. 8 Decision, Order and Interlocutory Judgment, dated February 23, 2024.‌

‌Required Permits and Approvals

Permits, Approvals, Funding and Review

Agency	Permit/Approval/Funding/Review
Town of Hempstead Town Board	Adoption of new zoning district; Rezoning of Subject Property to new zoning district or relief from/amendments of MFM Zoning District; Approval of Conceptual Master Plan; Site Plan Approval
Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals	Potential Variance(s)
Town of Hempstead Building Department	Building Permits
Town of Hempstead Water Department/Uniondale Water District	Water Connection, Water Availability
Town of Hempstead Highway Department	Curb Cuts/Highway Work Permits
Nassau County Executive and Legislature	Lease Approval
Nassau County Department of Health	Backflow prevention devices, Swimming pools, Plans for Public Water Supply Improvement
Nassau County Department of Public Works	239-f Review, Sewer Connection/Availability for Discharge to Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, Stormwater, Curb Cuts, Highway Work Permits
Nassau County Planning Commission	Lease referral, 239-m Referral, Subdivision (potential)
Nassau County Open Space & Parks Advisory Committee	Lease referral
Nassau County Industrial Development Agency	Lease Assignments and/or Lease and PILOT Agreement Amendments/Restatements in connection with Potential Grants of Financial Assistance Pursuant to General Municipal Law, Art.18-A
Nassau County Fire Marshal	Site Plan Approval, Oxidizer Storage (for Water Treatment Chemicals)
New York State Department of Transportation	Curb Cuts/Highway Work Permits
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation	SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for Construction Activities, Long Island Well Permit, Chemical Bulk Storage for Water Treatment Chemicals, Water Withdrawal Permit (Potential for Dewatering), and Potential Article 24- Freshwater Wetlands and Section 401-Water Quality Certification (potential associated with off-site traffic mitigation)
New York State Department of Health	Plans for Public Water Supply Improvement

Agency	Permit/Approval/Funding/Review
New York State Gaming Facility Location Board	Gaming License
New York State Gaming Commission	Gaming License
PSEG Long Island	Utility Connection and Substation Expansion/New Substation*
National Grid	Utility Connection
Engie (Nassau Energy Corp.)	Utility Connection/Disconnect
Federal Aviation Administration	Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation
United States Army Corps of Engineers	Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Project) (potential associated with traffic mitigation)
*The proposed expanded or new PSEG LI substation may require review by the Nassau County Open Space & Parks Advisory Committee and the Nassau County Planning Commission, and approval by the Nassau County Legislature, if it is constructed on land owned by Nassau County. If the substation is constructed/expanded on property under the control of Nassau Community College, approvals would also be required from the Board of Trustees of Nassau Community College and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York.

The development of the proposed Integrated Resort is dependent upon, among other approvals, the award of a gaming license from the New York State Gaming Commission, based on a selection made by the New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Once the Gaming Facility Location Board selects the applications to proceed to licensure consideration, the Gaming Commission is charged with determining whether those applications meet the minimum licensing thresholds in the PML. It is not within the Gaming Commission’s purview to:

. . . re-evaluate all of the Applicants, compare Applicants or consider, or re-consider, the selection criteria the [Gaming Facility Location] Board will have considered and applied. The [Gaming] Commission will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board. The Commission will not decide whether it thinks the Board made the correct selections, nor will it exercise any review of the selection decisions the Board made. The Commission has no authority to select Applicants for gaming facility licensure consideration. The law gives the Board the sole power and authority to make those selections. The Commission is not an appellate body exercising review of the Board’s processes or decision-making.

Rather, the Commission will consider only the Applicants that the Board will have selected and presented to the Commission. With respect to each of those Applicants, the law charges the Commission with determining whether each such Applicant is qualified for licensure, is not disqualified for licensure and has met statutory minimum qualifications for licensure. If the Commission concludes that those criteria are present for an applicant, the Commission will have the authority to grant a Gaming Facility license to such Applicant.9

‌9 New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Request for Applications to Develop and Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State

(issued January 3, 2023), Pages 2 through 5. Available at: https://nycasinos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/01/01.03.23.rfa_.pdf .

Accessed August 2024.

With respect to schedule, as of June 27, 2024, the Gaming Facility Location Board has issued the RFA, accepted and responded to the first set of Applicant questions, accepted the second set of Applicant questions, and set the following schedule:10

Timeline	Date
RFA Issued	January 3, 2023
Applicants’ first set of questions due by 4:00 p.m.	February 3, 2023
Board responses to first set of questions	August 30, 2023
Applicants’ second set of questions due by 4:00 p.m.	October 6, 2023
Board responses to second set of questions	To be announced
Return Date: Applications due by 4 p.m. CAC process begins	June 27, 2025*
Applicant submits revisions/updates based on CAC suggested changes (if applicable)	To be announced
CAC vote deadline	September 30, 2025
Applicant submits proposal to applicable zoning authorities	To be announced
Zoning completion deadline*	To be announced
Board announces remaining Applicants	To be announced
Supplement Return Date: Supplements due by 4 p.m.	To be announced
Applicant public presentations to Board	To be announced
Board public comment event(s)	To be announced
Board selection of Applications to proceed to licensure consideration by the Commission	December 1, 2025
Commission licensure consideration	December 31, 2025

*While the information in the REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A GAMING FACILITY IN NEW YORK STATE, ADDENDUM #2, June 27, 2024 indicates that the

zoning completion deadline has not yet been announced, the New York Gaming Facility Location Board webpage discussing Required Approvals - Entitlements & Community Advisory Committees (Required Approvals - Entitlements & Community Advisory Committees | Gaming Facility Location Board (ny.gov), accessed August 15, 2024, states in pertinent part: By the June 27, 2025 Application Deadline, potential applicants must have all land-use entitlement processes substantially complete, as significant components of a proposal will most likely change during the required environmental and zoning approval processes.

‌Purpose, Need and Benefits
Sands’ purpose in developing the proposed Integrated Resort is to revitalize an underperforming
publicly-owned asset into a sustainable, world class and vibrant destination that generates

‌10 New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Request for Applications to Develop and Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State, Addendum #2 (June 27, 2024). Available at: https://nycasinos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/06/06.27.24addendum.pdf
Accessed August 2024.

significant economic and fiscal benefits for the community and achieves stated goals of New York State, Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead as further discussed below.
When evaluating the purpose, need and expected benefits of the proposed Integrated Resort, it is important to understand the framework within which this Resort, and particularly, the proposed casino component, is being considered. The impetus for the proposed project dates back to 2013, when New York State approved a constitutional amendment authorizing up to seven commercial casinos. Subsequently, in 2015 and 2016, the New York State Gaming Commission awarded licenses to four upstate casinos -- Tioga Downs Casino, Town of Nichols, Tioga County; del Lago Resort and Casino, Town of Tyre, Seneca County; Rivers Casino and Resort, City of Schenectady, County of Schenectady; Resorts World Catskills Casino, Town of Thompson, Sullivan County.11
As explained by the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, in a November 2020 report, revenues from gambling provide significant tax benefits to New York State. New York State collected approximately $3.7 billion in gaming revenue in fiscal year 2019-20. Of this, approximately $3.66 billion funded education, $74 million was distributed to municipalities that host certain gaming venues, and $66 million went to the New York State General Fund. The majority of revenue generated (just over two-thirds) was from traditional lottery games, with approximately 5.1 percent generated from traditional casinos.12
On October 11, 2023, NEWSDAY reported that New York State collected approximately $4.8 billion in tax revenues for fiscal year 2022-23 from all forms of gambling, with the lottery accounting for more than half of the revenue (approximately $2.7 billion), and the largest increase coming from mobile sports betting. NEWSDAY indicated that the New York State Comptroller reported that the State collected $727 million in tax revenue related to mobile sports betting during the 2022-23 fiscal year, more than double the $361 million it collected in 2021-22.13
In August 2023, Comptroller DiNapoli issued a report documenting the revenue impact from the casinos that were awarded licenses in 2015 and 2016 on upstate local governments, after the casinos had been open for several years.14 Rivers Casino and Resort opened in February 2017; del Lago Resort and Casino opened in January 2017; Resorts World Catskills Casino opened in February 2018; and Tioga Downs Casino opened in December 2016.15
The Comptroller assessed the casinos’ projections for 2019 against the actual tax revenue collected as of 2020 and determined that none of the casinos met their tax revenue projections due to a number of factors not the least of which was the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. As of 2022, only one casino, Tioga Downs,16 had reached its 2019 projection. Notwithstanding this,

‌11 Office of the New York State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments (August 2023), Pages 1 and 2.
‌12 Office of the New York State Comptroller. A Question of Balance, Gaming Revenues and Problem Gambling in New York State
(November 2020), Pages 5, 6 and 8.
‌13 Newsday. State sees big tax haul from mobile sports betting; calls to gambling hotline also up (October 11, 2023).
‌14 Office of the New York State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments (August 2023).
Available at: https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/local-government/publications/pdf/2023-casinos.pdf. Accessed August 2024.
‌15 Ibid, Page 2.
‌16 Ibid, Page 4.

between 2017 and 2022, these casinos have provided approximately $176 million in gaming tax revenues to local government.17
The impact of these tax revenues on the host town, particularly where the local government gaming taxes represented a substantial portion of overall tax revenues, as in the Towns of Tyre, Nichols and Thompson, facilitated significant reductions in real property taxes.18 Thus, the economic benefits associated with New York State-licensed casinos are positive and substantial.
The August 2023 Comptroller’s report also noted that, based on the audits that were conducted of the host Towns, there were budgeting challenges associated with the gaming revenue,19 and it was important for towns to conduct proper, multiyear financial planning.
In order to address the issue identified by the aforesaid Comptroller’s report and to protect Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead from impacts of potential shortfalls in projected gaming tax revenues, Sands has committed to providing a minimum level of annual tax revenue, if a gaming license is granted, as follows:
› Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation
› Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of
$10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation
These are guaranteed minimums such that, if the gaming revenues actually generated by Sands would yield tax revenues in excess of those set forth above, the County and the Town would receive those actual higher tax revenues.20 These guarantees establish the minimum that the County and Town would receive, and address the issue identified in the 2023 Comptroller’s report as the guarantees provide a reliable base amount from which the Town and County can establish their budgets and tax levies.
Potential licensing for Sands is a competitive process. On January 3, 2023, the New York State Gaming Facility Location Board issued a REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A GAMING FACILITY IN NEW YORK STATE (RFA) for up to three downstate casinos. While this process would be similar to that conducted for the upstate casinos, one of the significant differences is the requirement of approval by a Community Advisory Committee and demonstration of zoning compliance before the Gaming Facility Location Board would evaluate

‌17 Ibid, Page 14.
‌18 Ibid, Pages 11 and 12.
‌19 As an example, the Town of Tyre reduced its real property taxes by 42.1 percent from 2016 to 2017 and by 64.2 percent from 2017 to 2018. However, in 2021, due to the initial Covid-19 shut down and subsequent restrictions on the del Lago casino, Tyre overrode their property tax cap and increased their real property taxes to previous levels for a year to make up for the gaming tax revenue shortfall. Tyre returned to its pre-pandemic tax levy in 2022 and further reduced its real property tax levy by 87.1 percent in 2023 (Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments, Office of the New York State Comptroller, August 2023, Page 12).
‌20As explained in the Socioeconomics section, $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues are projected from the operation of the Integrated Resort to be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead;
$52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively.

the application. The Gaming Facility Location Board explained the expected benefits from downstate casinos in the RFA Introduction:
Revenue from new gaming facilities is expected to generate substantial fiscal benefit to New York’s public schools, local governments, and problem gambling treatment services. The jobs created by these casinos must deliver livable wages to help families live, stay, and prosper in New York. . . these projects can transform a community. The statutory prerequisites of obtaining approval from a separate, appointed Community Advisory Committee and successfully completing the municipal zoning and land-use processes ensures that only projects embraced by the community are placed before the Board for consideration. As this process unfolds, the Board expects to hear a variety of viewpoints from communities potentially impacted by proposed projects. The Board welcomes such input and will consider all public comments received during the process. The Board encourages responsible, ethical, innovative, and employee-minded businesses seeking to generate and expand access to economic opportunities in New York State to respond to this RFA . . .
Sands has been seeking public commentary from various organizations and community members for some time. Sands has met with over 600 separate organizations and individuals (some multiple times) for a total of about 1,500 community engagements, and has established various working groups to provide input to Sands on various issues facing the Town, County and broader Long Island region including workforce development, business development and tourism, environment and sustainability, transportation and infrastructure, public safety, and community needs.
In addition, Sands has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, and various taxing entities and community groups, which furthers the State’s identified objectives of benefitting tax-supported entities, problem gambling treatment services and other community needs. As part of its on-going lease negotiations with Nassau County and based on its numerous meetings with government officials and community representatives, the Lessee has committed to providing significant economic and community benefits, many of which would help mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. In addition to annual rent payments and permit review fees21 to Nassau County, the Lessee has agreed to provide the following:
› If a gaming license is granted, guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation
› If a gaming license is granted, guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation 22

‌21 Per the proposed lease, if a gaming license is granted, rent payments would be $10 million per year, upon commencement of casino operations. Approximately $8.75 million would be paid to the Nassau County Department of Public Works for the 239-f review.

‌22 If impacts are identified through the SEQR process that warrant additional mitigation funding directly to the Town of Hempstead, Sands would address same.

› A one-time upfront payment of $54 million to Nassau County
› Construction of a new 1,500-sf police substation with parking, and provision of up to
$500,000.00 for interior fit-out
› Payment of $900,000.00 per year to Nassau County, with a two percent annual escalation, for police services prior to casino opening. If the gaming license is awarded, upon opening of the casino, this payment would increase to $1.8 million annually, with a two percent annual escalation
› Community Benefits Payments of $4.0 million per year, if a gaming license is granted, or $2.0 million per year upon substantial completion of development of an alternative plan (with no casino), if a gaming license is not granted. The CBP would support and enhance fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers; school districts; libraries and library districts; athletic fields, ballfields and parks; and other community facilities. Forty percent of the CBP would be designated for community facilities in Uniondale
› Supplemental community benefits payments to Uniondale in the amount of $10 million, East Meadow in the amount of $10.0 million, and the Village of Hempstead in the amount of $5.0 million for a total of $25 million. Half of these payments, $12.5 million, would be made by Sands during the construction of the proposed project with 40 percent to benefit Uniondale, 40 percent to benefit East Meadow and 20 percent to benefit the Village of Hempstead. The balance of the payments made by Sands would allow Uniondale, East Meadow and the Village of Hempstead to complete their applicable community benefit projects and other approved grant applications 23
› At least $1 million for the construction of an appropriate monument, memorial, or other tribute to veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America.
The benefits set forth in the proposed lease are in addition to the millions of dollars of rent, hotel tax, sales tax, entertainment tax and other taxes and payments that would be paid by the Lessee. In addition, Sands would continue to negotiate community benefits with the Town of Hempstead during the zoning process.
Furthering Sands’ commitments to the Gaming Facility Location Board’s stated goals of providing problem gambling treatment services and delivering livable wages to help families live, stay and prosper in New York, Sands has arranged partnerships with various Long Island not-for-profit and educational organizations. As an example, Sands has committed $200,000 to The Family and Children’s Association to support the establishment of two new Gambling Support and Wellness Centers in Hempstead and Hicksville. Sands has partnered with NCC and LIU to create a hospitality program that would generate new career opportunities for students and graduates interested in hospitality management and culinary arts, two areas where there would be significant employment needs at the proposed Integrated Resort. This partnership is also helping to facilitate a bridge between NCC and LIU, whereby those graduating with an associate’s degree from NCC can advance to a bachelor’s degree program at LIU. Sands has also partnered with the not-for-profit Minority Millennials to build a diverse local talent pipeline for pre-apprenticeships and procurement opportunities associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. This partnership would enable Minority Millennials to further its mission of helping young people of color access

‌23 An agreement regarding this payment scenario has been executed between Nassau County and Sands.

jobs and build wealth. Minority Millennials would work with Sands to prepare local students and young professionals to take advantage of the extensive career opportunities at the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands has been in conversations with Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties and local trades, and is in the process of finalizing a PLA.
Additionally, through its established “Sands Cares” program, Sands intends to work with its partner communities, integrating corporate giving, nonprofit capacity building and Team Member volunteerism to address the priorities identified in the host communities. Sands Cares has created The Sands Youth Empowerment Initiative, where it has launched the Annual Awards Banquet for the Uniondale Knights Youth Football and hosted an event for over 400 students in Long Island Soccer clubs with soccer stars Carli Lloyd and David Beckham.
The socioeconomic analyses performed indicate that construction and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would also generate significant positive economic impacts, including:
› $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues projected from the operation of the Integrated Resort to be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and
$213 million to the MTA, respectively (guaranteed host community gaming revenue to be provided to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation and guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation)
› During the operational period, the proposed Integrated Resort would create approximately 2,900 direct jobs during Phase 1 and over 7,800 direct jobs (over 5,000 FTE) (including third- party tenants) at full operations, representing $911 million in labor income and $3.06 billion in total direct economic output for all of New York State (including the County and Town), annually.
› In addition to direct impacts, in the operational period, there would be indirect and induced jobs, including, together with the direct impacts, a total of over 4,800 jobs in Phase 1, with close to 13,000 jobs at full operation. The total labor income generated would be $464 million in Phase 1 and over $1.2 billion at full operations. The total annual economic output would be $1.7 billion in Phase 1, increasing to over $4.0 billion at full operations for all of New York State (including the County and Town).
› The creation of over 7,000 construction jobs.
› For Phase 1, direct labor income in the construction period of $232± million, with a total direct output of $830± million. Cumulatively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to generate $882± million in labor income, with a total direct output of $3.03± billion for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› In addition to the direct impacts, during the five-year construction period, there would be total indirect and induced labor income, as well. Together, the total labor income would be
$438± million at Phase 1, increasing to $1.68± billion by the end of construction, with a total output of $1.42± billion, rising to $5.30± billion at by the end of construction for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.

› During the construction period, Nassau County is expected to receive approximately $5.0± million in sales and use tax.
› Positive secondary/growth-inducing impacts for small businesses in and around Nassau County from the presence of the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands is proposing to support such businesses directly through vendor purchases.
› Sands has committed to promoting existing businesses and drawing tourists to the area that could greatly benefit existing venues and attractions. Sands proposes to market day-trip destinations to wineries, golf courses, beaches, ocean activities; to introduce room booking packages (e.g., a room paired with Islanders tickets and a winery tour); and to feature Long Island wines in their restaurants and hotel rooms.
› Attracting tourists to the area would benefit the existing cultural resources and park facilities located in the surrounding area, such as Museum Row and the 913-acre Eisenhower Park.
› The anticipated rise in visitor numbers at the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to positively impact nearby hotels via a spillover effect and significantly increase the tourism footprint.
In addition to the myriad economic and community benefits, the proposed Integrated Resort would finally achieve the legislative intent of the PDDs at Mitchel Field and the MFM Zoning District, as set forth in the Town of Hempstead BZO, including:
› Preserving and protecting the character of the greater Mitchel Field area and those of surrounding neighborhoods by providing entertainment, conference and meeting, hospitality and other supportive uses developed in a sustainable manner, and incorporating mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse impacts
› Promoting the desirable and suitable use of land within the greater Mitchel Field area by incorporating the failing Coliseum into the proposed casino component and redeveloping the surrounding underutilized land into a vibrant destination that would generate myriad positive economic impacts
› Promoting and achieving sustainable development that preserves, protects and enhances the environmental, economic and human resources of the Town of Hempstead through, among other things, Sands’ support of various community organizations
› Promoting innovative and quality site and architectural design for the proposed Integrated Resort, in accordance with a CMP, and committing economic investment in excess of $5 billion that would provide employment, entertainment, and tourism opportunities for current and future residents of the Town and County
› Creating an attractive physical environment that provides daily amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations
› Achieving harmonious visual and functional use relationships within the proposed Integrated Resort and with adjacent properties
› Promoting integration of pedestrian amenities and public transportation into the proposed Integrated Resort to facilitate walking, encourage the use of public transportation, and accommodate alternate modes of transportation that provide access to and from the Integrated Resort.

Moreover, the proposed Integrated Resort would achieve the relevant stated goals of various land use plans related to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum/Nassau Hub, including, but not limited to, the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan (1998); Nassau County Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008); HUB Major Investment Study (2006); Long Island Regional Economic Development Council: A Strategic Economic Development Plan For The Long Island Region (2011); and Long Island on the Rise: A Region Reaching for New Heights of Innovation and Inclusion: The Strategic Economic Development Plan for Long Island (2016).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the benefits associated with the proposed Integrated Resort are extensive and broad. This proposed action would generate significant economic, fiscal and community benefits and would achieve various stated goals of the Gaming Commission and Gaming Facility Location Board, identified needs in County and regional land use plans, and Town zoning intentions. There is likely no private development project in the history of Long Island that has resulted in the economic and community benefits and level of privately-funded mitigation that would be realized by this proposed Integrated Resort.

‌Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

‌Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions
The majority of the subject property is relatively flat and contains Urban Land, which has previously been disturbed and is not pristine. The site-specific geotechnical investigations noted the presence of soils exhibiting good leaching properties beneath the upper levels. The depth to groundwater, system design and relatively well-drained soils ensure that the proposed drainage systems would function properly.
Imported topsoil used for landscaping and other construction fill materials would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers. Also, as part of a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) being prepared as part of this application, erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion and the transport of materials off-site. These control measures would assist in ensuring that implementation of the proposed action would minimize impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation during the construction phase. Although grading would be undertaken on the of the subject property to accommodate site development, the overall topographic profile would not be significantly altered from the existing condition. Certain areas on the subject property would be graded for aesthetic purposes, including along Hempstead Turnpike, and a total cut of 660,000 cubic yards (cy) is anticipated.
Based upon subsurface investigations conducted for the Coliseum property and the Marriot Hotel property, no potential significant issues (soils or groundwater) were identified. According to the proposed lease with Nassau County, the Lessee is obligated to control and fund any investigation, remediation, management, handling, abatement or disposal of materials and environmental conditions at the site, including the excavation, characterization, management and disposal of hazardous substances or environmental media containing hazardous substances, provided they do not relate to the responsibility of the landlord. Additionally, the proposed lease

with Nassau County acknowledges the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in the Coliseum building and the potential presence of lead-based paint and other hazardous substances. The Lessee would assume responsibility for the remediation, clean-up, and other handling and management of the ACM and for the cost of such during the term of the proposed lease.
To mitigate potential impacts to soils, topography and subsurface/environmental conditions, the following measures are incorporated into the project design:
› Erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented in accordance with the SWPPP to minimize potential impacts to soils and groundwater, which would be monitored through the construction period. These measures would be maintained until the site is permanently developed.
› Each work site on the subject property would be secured by construction fencing, at the time that work site is under construction, in order to prevent unauthorized personnel coming into the site and coming into contact with potentially impacted materials.
› Excavated materials (e.g., soils) to be disposed of off-site would be sampled for waste characterization based upon the acceptance criteria and permitting requirements of the proposed recycling and/or disposal facilities. Transportation and disposal would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360.
› During construction activities, potentially contaminated soils, if encountered, would require separate segregation, and additional sampling and investigation would be required.
› Imported topsoil used for landscaping and other construction fill materials would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers.
› Recommendations from the Phase II Environmental Site Investigations conducted would be implemented, including:
- Reuse of on-site soil or non-native material would be conducted in accordance with the proposed site use and with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations, including NYSDEC Part 360.13 for soil reuse, NYSDEC Part 375 and NYSDEC DER-10.
- If any underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or associated appurtenances (e.g., fill lines, vent line, and electrical conduit) are encountered during redevelopment of the subject property, decommissioning, removal and off-site disposal would be done in accordance with NYSDEC and Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH) UST closure requirements. Previously unidentified USTs would be registered with the NYSDEC and NCDH, as necessary, prior to decommissioning or removal.
› Lead-based paint and other hazardous substances, if encountered, would be remediated in accordance with the lease.

› A Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) would be prepared that would identify the known and potential on-site contaminants and outline procedures and guidelines to mitigate exposure risks and protect the health of on-site workers during construction activities. With respect to the Coliseum property, the Lessee would remediate ACM, lead-based paint or other hazardous substances encountered during demolition and would pay the expenses associated with its remediation, removal and disposal.
‌Water Resources
According to the USGS Long Island Depth to Water Viewer,24 the depth to water at the subject property is estimated at between approximately 27 feet and 34 feet below ground surface (bgs), with the greatest depth to groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Coliseum building.
Groundwater observation wells installed around the subject property reported stabilized groundwater levels of generally between Elevation +46 and +51, which, with a ground surface elevation of +80, translates to groundwater located at between 29 feet and 34 feet bgs, similar to what was found on the Depth to Water Viewer.
Sands continues to coordinate with the Town of Hempstead Water Department with respect to the existing water supply conditions and projected water demand, as well as infrastructure needs related to the proposed project. The Integrated Resort would disconnect from the Engie facility as a source for both chilled/hot water supply or to meet thermal needs; however, the Marriott Hotel is proposed to remain connected for such services. No changes to Marriott water supply would result from implementation of the proposed action.
Phase 1 is expected to have a water demand of 109,792± gpd, which is only 12,500± gpd (12.9± percent) more than under the existing condition (97,273 gpd for the Coliseum, excluding irrigation25). Total anticipated domestic water usage for the Full Build condition of the Integrated Resort is assumed to match sewage generation, which is estimated at approximately 701,400 gpd using NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates.26 This represents an increase of approximately 604,127 gpd compared to the historical estimated water demand (based on the design flow) of approximately 97,273 gpd for the Coliseum.27
The water demand imposed by landscape irrigation must also be added to the domestic projection. To irrigate a landscaped area of 681,892± sf (15.7± acres), as proposed, assuming an irrigation rate of one inch per sf per week, the average demand during the growing season would be 62,000± gpd. This is a conservative assumption, as Sands is evaluating the use of captured stormwater runoff from roof areas to reduce the demand on the potable water supply

‌24 ESRI. Long Island Depth to Water and Hydrologic Conditions Viewer. Available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/81dc041e5331461e942787bed9ce084b. Accessed September 2024.
‌25 Irrigation in Phase 1 is projected to be approximately 14,600 gpd. The current amount of irrigation at the Coliseum property is unknown.
‌26 As no changes to the use of the Marriott Hotel are proposed, no changes to the existing water demand would result. Thus, the Marriott Hotel would not require additional water supply as a result of implementation of the proposed action.
‌27 The entire facility will be supported with air-source heat pumps for both heating and cooling. A primary chilled water and hot water system would be provided in each proposed central utilities plant. Overall, the proposed energy strategy will, among other things, avoid significant water consumption associated with cooling towers, which have typically been used to generate chilled water for air conditioning on similar developments.

for the anticipated drip irrigation system. Such stormwater capture and reuse could reduce the demand, depending upon season and availability of stormwater.
In addition to potable and irrigation water demand, fire protection systems are proposed to include individual building fire sprinkler systems supplied by a booster pump located at the CUP. The peak instantaneous fire protection system demand is anticipated to be up to 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). More specifically, the fire pump would be rated for 1,250 gpm to support the required standpipe flow of the tallest buildings on the site. The pump can also support the higher sprinkler demand at the electric vehicle (EV) charging areas. The anticipated flow rate to support EV charging is approximately 1,750 - 2,000 gpm.
Based on the existing condition maximum day plus fire-flow analysis, the Uniondale Water District (UWD) has a current capacity of 7.71 mgd, and a demand of 8.47 mgd, and therefore, is operating under a 0.76 mgd theoretical deficit for meeting this demand.28 The UWD deficit currently exists and does not include the projected water demand for the proposed Integrated Resort of 0.763 mgd, including irrigation (no credit was taken for the use of water conservation measures). To address the existing deficit (0.76 mgd), as well as the projected water use of the proposed Integrated Resort (0.763± mgd during the growing season), a new supply well is proposed, which would increase the UWD available capacity to cover the demand for the proposed Integrated Resort also provide excess capacity, which would increase the resiliency of the public water supply system within the UWD and mitigate the theoretical water supply deficit.
All plumbing fixtures in the Integrated Resort are proposed to be high-efficiency water- conserving fixtures meeting all water-conserving statutes in accordance with the New York State Plumbing Code, Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended, as well as the current LEED rating system for water efficiency.29 By utilizing high-efficiency plumbing fixtures,30 the proposed project would likely realize a minimum reduction of 25 percent in water consumption below the NCDPW water factors. Appliances that use water, such as dishwashers and washing machines, would be energy efficient, including Energy Star-certified, with the most energy and water efficient operation.
Based on the foregoing, a reduction at a minimum 25 percent for potable water would result in a potential decrease in potable water use of over 202,000 gpd, as compared to the projected water use based on the County’s design factors.
In addition, Sands proposes the use of a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters and stores rainwater for reuse. This system (for no-contact irrigation use, decorative fountains and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable based upon consultation with the appropriate agencies of Nassau County [NCDPW and/or NCDH]) would be a sustainable source of non-potable water use in the project and, therefore, would reduce the

‌28 Currently, the Uniondale Water District relies on interconnection with the East Meadow Water District distribution system to mitigate this deficit.
‌29 USGBC. Conserving Water for All People Through LEED v4.1. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/conserving-water-all-people- through-leed-v41. Accessed September 2024.
‌30 Such conservations measures may include use of WaterSense products like high-efficiency toilets which can reduce indoor water use by more than six percent and when compared to low-flow (1.6 gpf) toilets, and high-efficiency urinals which can reduce indoor water use by six-to-eight percent and when compared to low-flow (1.0 gpf) urinals. Alternatively, dual-flush toilets could save as much as 10 percent of total indoor water use. Other water conservation measures such as sensor-operated faucets may save as much as 1.6 percent of total indoor water use when compared to standard faucets, depending on product characteristics. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts

demand for potable water. Also, the Integrated Resort would not use cooling towers for air conditioning heat rejection (which utilizes substantial amounts of water),31 representing a significant water conservation measure.
With regard to infrastructure improvements, the most evident improvement required to accommodate sanitary flow on-site is the relocation of the 36-inch main, which traverses the site from north to south, and would service all of the facilities on the subject property, which, as noted above, was found to be feasible. Following consultation with the NCDPW, the existing connection to the 48-inch interceptor would be maintained following the on-site relocation in order to avoid construction within Hempstead Turnpike. The estimated capital cost of the sewer main relocation is $3.5 to $5.0 million, which would be borne by Sands.
Implementation of the proposed action would result in a decrease of impervious surface on the subject property from 78.0± acres to 70.6± acres. As such, the amount of stormwater runoff generated on-site would decrease from a volume of 1,459,516± cubic feet (cf) to 1,344,267± cf (a reduction of close to eight percent). The proposed redevelopment would continue to use the existing positive drainage network on the subject property. Drywells and catch basins are proposed to be located within the southwestern parking lot (at the corner of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike), and there would be new drainage overflow connections from the southwest parking lot drywell drainage system. The system would connect a new culvert (east of MSKCC) to the existing drainage chamber (and remove existing culverts) and re- route/reconstruct several existing drainage lines, as well as the re-route a box culvert that enters the site from Earle Ovington Boulevard (near South Drive) to accommodate the proposed redevelopment.
The updated stormwater management system would ensure that stormwater runoff would be properly captured and conveyed, precluding stormwater from running overland to adjacent properties or nearby surface waters. A preliminary SWPPP has been prepared that details the measures and best management practices to be undertaken to ensure there would be no significant off-site adverse impacts from construction-related erosion and sediment transport, as well as post-construction stormwater management. The preliminary SWPPP, including erosion and sedimentation control measures, has been developed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001) and requirements of Article XXXVIII of the Town BZO, entitled, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control, which requires that land development activities conform to the substantive requirements of NYSDEC’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. The preliminary SWPPP identifies erosion and sediment control practices designed in conformance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and post-construction stormwater management practices designed in conformance with applicable sizing criteria of the NYSDEC SPDES GP-0-20-001 and the performance criteria of the technical standards of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual and the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.
Regarding floodplains and surface waters, the subject property is not located within a floodway, the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain, and there are no natural surface waters on or

‌31 According to the EPA WaterSense “Water Efficiency Management Guide Mechanical Systems”, EPA 832-F-17-016c dated November
2017, “By design, cooling towers use significant quantities of water.”

directly adjacent to the subject property. Therefore, there would be no impact to or from such features, and the proposed action does not require floodproofing. The property is also not located within a Special Groundwater Protection Area.
A number of measures have been incorporated into the project design to minimize the impacts related to water use, sewage disposal and stormwater runoff impacts.
› A new 1.98 mgd water supply well, associated treatment systems, backup power generation, and transmission water mains would be constructed to support the full build-out of the Integrated Resort, which is expected to have a water demand of approximately 0.763 mgd during the growing season. Construction of the new well would result in a benefit to the greater community by increasing the capacity and resiliency of the public water supply in the UWD. Sands has committed to funding this new well and associated facilities. However, if significant additional users of the well are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.
› Water conservation techniques, including the use of Energy-Star appliances and installation of high-efficiency water-conserving fixtures would be incorporated into the project design.
› The Integrated Resort would not use cooling towers for air conditioning heat rejection (which utilizes substantial amounts of water), representing a significant water conservation measure.
› There would be a reduction in the amount of impervious surface on the site by approximately 7.4 acres.
› Implementation of the proposed action would result in reduction in stormwater runoff and its impacts on Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537 by increasing local infiltration by the strategic installation of drywells, catch basins and leaching galleys on the subject property.
› Use of a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters and stores rainwater for reuse. This system (for no-contact irrigation use and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable to Nassau County) would be a sustainable source of non- potable water use in the project and, therefore, would reduce the demand for potable water.
› Use of low-impact development techniques that reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, including green roofs and various landscaping areas and gardens. Such green roofs would provide increased potential for evapotranspiration, thereby decreasing the amount of site- generated runoff. Use of these techniques slows down the rate of runoff and allows the water to infiltrate the ground or to be captured for reuse in the proposed development.
› Sands would include regular monitoring and maintenance of the stormwater management system. This monitoring includes water quality testing, flow monitoring, and equipment maintenance, which would reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, increase water efficiency, and demonstrate a commitment to sustainable infrastructure design.
› No direct discharges of stormwater runoff to surface waters would occur.
› Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures would be installed and maintained by the general contractor (or subcontractor) in accordance with the engineering plans and details, and the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.

› A preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and a final SWPPP would be developed in accordance with the prevailing regulations of the NYSDEC and the Town of Hempstead to address potential stormwater runoff impacts during and post construction.
‌Ecological Resources
Existing ecological conditions at the subject property and vicinity were assessed through desktop review of government and non-government agency maps, databases, and records, as well as seasonal field surveys of the subject property and surrounding areas conducted by a Certified Ecologist (Ecological Society of America) and Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists) on September 14, 2023, December 14, 2023, August 6, 2024, and August 23, 2024.
The primary impact of the proposed action on habitats, vegetation, and wildlife would be removal and replacement of the existing unvegetated/impervious surfaces at the subject property due to redevelopment of the site. Implementation of the proposed action would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces from 78± acres (90.4 percent of the site) to 70.6± acres (82 percent of the site), with a corresponding increase in pervious/vegetated coverage from 8.3± acres (9.6 percent of the site) to 15.7± acres (18.2 percent of the site). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in an approximately seven-acre increase in vegetated habitat at the subject property.
The proposed 15.7± acres of vegetated areas to be installed under the proposed action would consist of a greater variety of habitat types characterized by high species diversity, including meadow habitats planted with native herbaceous plants and grasses, vegetated public parks, plazas, and gardens, as well as parking lot islands/borders, medians, shaded planters, and streetscapes planted with native trees, shrubs, forbs (e.g., all herbaceous plants with the exception of grasses), and no mow grasses. Additionally, the proposed action includes the installation of terraced landscaping/ green rooftop open space. As such, the proposed action would result in the introduction of ecological communities that do not currently occur at the subject property and would substantially increase the abundance and diversity of native vegetation, as compared to exiting conditions.
No federal or New York State listed species or species habitats were observed at the subject property during the field survey. Furthermore, due to largely unvegetated and developed conditions, as well as the subject property’s location within a densely populated portion of Nassau County characterized by high levels of human presence and activity, the subject property does not provide potential habitat for federal or New York State listed species known to occur locally or regionally. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to rare/protected species are anticipated due to implementation of the proposed action.
The Hempstead Plains grassland community, located beyond James Doolittle Boulevard to the east of the subject property, and to the north-northeast within NCC, would not be physically disturbed or directly impacted by the proposed action. The Hempstead Plains South (within the Purcell Preserve, south of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and east of James Dolittle Boulevard) is considered a sunlight sensitive resource, as it contains resident plant communities that could be hindered if access to sunlight is significantly altered through incremental shading due to new development. A shadow analysis was conducted, which indicates that, similar to the existing condition where the Marriott Hotel building casts shadows during limited periods, incremental

shadows would be cast onto limited areas of the westernmost portions of the Purcell preserve for periods of 2.0± hours to 3.5± hours. The location of incremental shadows would change throughout the year, and the largest areal extent of shading would occur during the December 21 analysis day, during the period when the sunlight needs of resident vegetation for photosynthesis and other biological processes are minimal to non-existent, as the aboveground portions of the herbaceous vegetation that predominates within the Hempstead Plains/Purcell Preserve have died back or are dormant during the non-growing season months.32 In all analysis days, shadow impacts are limited to the evening or late afternoon hours, thereby allowing for substantial periods of direct sunlight to vegetation within the affected areas, particularly during the growing season, when shadow impacts would occur for as little as 2.0± hours and would not exceed 3.5± hours on any of the representative analysis days. As such, the affected areas would receive six hours or more of direct sunlight, which would meet or exceed the minimum sunlight requirements for most resident grassland plant species that occur within the Hempstead Plains.33
The presence of shadows on the Purcell Preserve from the subject property is not a new occurrence. The existing Marriott property casts afternoon shadows onto the Hempstead Plains, affecting the northwestern border of the preserve. Impacts from shadows on limited portions of the Purcell Preserve under proposed conditions would be similar to those that currently occur to limited portions of the Purcell Preserve from the Marriott Hotel building.
With the exception of the westernmost portions of the Purcell Preserve, the remainder of the Hempstead Plains, including those portions of the Hempstead Plains located to the north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (the Hempstead Plains North), would be unaffected by incremental shadows from the proposed development.
Based on the results of the shadows analysis, the areal and temporal extent of incremental shading from the proposed development would be negligible and would not result in significant adverse effects to the Hempstead Plains.
To address potential impacts to ecological resources, the proposed action includes the following mitigation measures:
› Site design that would decrease impervious surfaces from approximately 78 acres to 70.6 acres and increase pervious area/vegetation from approximately 8.3 acres to 15.7 acres.
› Implementation of a landscape plan that would increase the quantity and quality of native vegetation, wildlife habitat potential, and native plant diversity at the subject property, through installation of meadows and other vegetated habitats featuring native trees, shrubs, grasses, and other herbaceous plants. The landscape plan would replace the existing low diversity, fragmented landscaped areas dominated by non-native species with a diverse array of habitat types, including meadows, vegetated public parks, plazas, gardens, parking lot islands/borders, medians, and streetscapes planted with native flora.
› The landscape plan includes the establishment of large, contiguous blocks of meadow habitats planted with native herbaceous plants and grasses that replicate the plant species

‌32 Bauerle, W., Oren, R., Way, D., ad Reynolds, R.F. Photoperiodic regulation of the seasonal pattern of photosynthetic capacity and the implications for carbon cycling (May 14, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1119131109 . Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119131109. Accessed February 2024.
‌33 Boston College Dyck Arboretum of the Plains. Defining Sun Requirements for Native Plants. Available at: https://dyckarboretum.org/defining-sun-requirements-for-native-plants/#! Accessed January 2024.

assemblages found within the nearby Hempstead Plains grassland community, including native grassland species such as Little Bluestem, Pennsylvania Sedge, Goldenrods, Butterfly Weed, Purple Cone Flower, Asters, and others.
› The landscape plan includes no-mow lawns, reducing or eliminating the need for maintenance practices, watering, and fertilizer applications.
› Implementation of bird safe building designs to minimize the potential for bird collisions, including the minimization of the amount of high-risk glazed areas, as well as the installation/use of exterior opaque vertical louvers, treated frit patterns, exterior screens, grilles, shutters, blinds, etching, sandblasting, texturing, and other recognized measures to make transparent site elements more evident to birds. To further reduce the potential for bird collisions, the landscape plan includes strategic placement of shrubs and trees away from the glazed faces of the towers.
› To avoid potential adverse impacts to avian navigation and migrator behavior, the lighting plan design avoids or minimizes the potential for glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill. The lighting plan design would not result in light trespass beyond the boundaries of the subject property, thereby avoiding light pollution impacts to the Hempstead Plains and its resident fauna, including birds.
› The lighting plan incorporates a variety of measures to mitigate light pollution and avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to local insect populations. These include concealed and integrated exterior building lighting, fully shielded lighting systems to mark access points, pole-mounted full-cutoff luminaires at surface parking areas, soft, indirect cove lights at the hotel entry drop-off points, perimeter walking paths illuminated with low-level bollards, in- grade paver lights at the proposed veterans memorial plaza, parking garage interiors lit with non-directional, shielded, surface-mounted cylinders that would directs light downward to minimize potential light-spill, and vertical mullions at windows to baffle interior lighting as viewed from exterior areas.
› The landscape plan is composed of native and native-adaptive plant species, including many characteristic native grassland plants of the Hempstead Plains community. As such, seed dispersal from the proposed landscaped areas to offsite vegetated habitats via wind, birds, or other wildlife may serve to increase native plant abundance within the Hempstead Plains and would not exacerbate exiting non-native invasive species issues and associated management concerns. It is further expected that the anticipated increase in pollinator birds and insects at the subject property resulting from the quantitative expansion of meadow habitats and native flowering plant abundance would expand the use of the Hempstead Plains and other vegetated habitats in the surrounding area by these species.

‌Land Use, Zoning and Community Character

Implementation of the proposed action would transform the existing Coliseum property, currently a sea of asphalt and empty parking areas with an underutilized Coliseum, into a premier, next-generation, mixed-entertainment destination that fosters a sense of community and connectivity within its surroundings and draws people together. Sands is proposing a dynamic entertainment and hospitality destination, featuring four- and five-star hotels, an entertainment venue, meeting and conference space, swimming pools and health club, as well as outdoor community spaces and a variety of entertainment programming – all in addition to

world-class gaming facilities. Weaving through the casinos, hotels, meeting and conference space and the entertainment venue would be a “lifestyle complex” that would serve as the spine for circulating throughout the proposed Integrated Resort. It would contain continuous attractions and experiences, including a wide variety of food and beverage establishments and limited retail shops, which connect the Integrated Resort’s major facilities (e.g., casinos, hotels, entertainment venue, and meeting and conference space). The proposed Integrated Resort includes:

› Two new hotels with a total of 1,670 rooms, spa, fitness center and pools

› Casino with 393,726 net square foot (SF) gaming area

› 147,292 square feet of food and beverage with 3,337 seats

› 213,000-SF conference center

› 4,500 seat arena/live performance venue

› 60,000-SF public attraction space

› 31,200 square feet of retail space

› Three parking garages

› Various back of house support spaces, circulation and interior utility spaces.

The land coverages associated with the proposed action include:

Existing and Proposed Land Coverages as Depicted on the Dimensional Site Plan

Type of Coverage	Existing Coverage (Proposed Action) in Acres (Percent)	Proposed Coverage In Acres (Percent)
Buildings	5.3 acres (6.2%)	28.3 acres (32.7%)
Parking Structures	0.0 (0.0%)	6.1 (7.1%)
Surface Parking Areas	55.5 (64.3%)	20.0 (23.2%)
Roadways	7.6 (8.8%)	5.4 (6.3%)
Walkways/Plazas/Other Hardscape	9.6 (11.1%)	10.8 (12.5%)
Landscaping, Lawn and Pervious Surfaces	8.3 (9.6%)	15.7 (18.2%)
Total:	86.3 acres (100%)	86.3 acres (100%)

There are numerous land use plans that are relevant to the subject property. Including:

› Nassau County Comprehensive Plan (1998)

› Nassau County Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008)

› Nassau County Open Space Plan (2001)

› HUB Major Investment Study (2006)

› Uniondale Hamlet Vision Plan (2012)

› Long Island Regional Economic Development Council: A Strategic Economic Development Plan for The Long Island Region (2011)

› Long Island on the Rise: A Region Reaching for New Heights of Innovation and Inclusion: The Strategic Economic Development Plan for Long Island (2016)

The proposed redevelopment of the property into the Sands Integrated Resort aligns with the recommendations and goals of the relevant land use plans, as it would serve as a regional hub, concentrating a variety of uses, including entertainment, lodging, and recreational in a central location, attracting a wide range of people from Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York City and beyond.

According to the Town of Hempstead Zoning Maps (Map Nos. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 48, and 49) and the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance (BZO), the entirety of the subject property is situated within the MFM Zoning District, which is part of the overall PDD at Mitchel Field (Article XIII of the Town of Hempstead BZO). The MFM Zoning District is limited to only the subject property and the outparcel containing the MSKCC facility. The MFM Zoning District permits arenas, hotels, offices, restaurants, research and development facilities and residential uses among other uses. There have been several attempts to redevelop the Coliseum property under the MFM Zoning District zoning without success, and all approved development required some level of relief from MFM Zoning District requirements.

When initially evaluating zoning consistency of the proposed Integrated Resort with the Town of Hempstead BZO, it was clear that the proposed development concept would either require relaxation from various provisions of the prevailing MFM Zoning District, amendments to that district, or the establishment of a new zoning district. Sands prefers and has proposed a new zoning district, the MF-IRD. Accordingly, the proposed action consists of three components related to zoning: the creation of a new zoning district (the MF-IRD); rezoning of the tax parcels that comprise the subject property into the MF-IRD; and development of the Integrated Resort in accordance with the proposed MF-IRD.

From a use perspective, it is the Lessee’s position that the uses proposed are permissible under the existing MFM Zoning District, as all of the proposed uses, with the exception of the casino, are explicitly listed as permitted uses in that district (i.e., hotel, conference center, spa, offices, restaurants, retail stores, theatre and associated accessory uses). With respect to the casino, one of the permitted uses in the MFM Zoning District is:

Arena, convention center, exhibition facility or theater(s), and similar entertainment uses as may be approved by the Town Board.

Based on the analysis performed in the DEIS, it is Sands’ position that that the casino represents a “similar entertainment use” that could be approved by the Town Board. It should also be noted that, even though the proposed action incorporates uses permitted in the MFM Zoning District, like all prior developments and proposals under that District, either relief would have to be granted or the MFM Zoning District would have to be amended to allow development of the proposed Integrated Resort. While zoning authority rests entirely with the Town of Hempstead Town Board, in the event that the Town Board would prefer to adopt a new zoning district, the Lessee has proposed the MF-IRD.

The purposes of the proposed MF-IRD are similar to those outlined in the MFM Zoning District (which was used as a base in drafting of the proposed MF-IRD), and consist of the following:

› To preserve and protect the special character of the greater Mitchel Field area and those of surrounding neighborhoods

› To promote the desirable and suitable use of land within the greater Mitchel Field area and provide opportunities for development and redevelopment of land on which the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum is situated and on proximate properties in a manner consistent with sound planning principles

› To promote, encourage and achieve sustainable development that preserves, protects and enhances the environmental, economic and human resources of the Town of Hempstead

› To promote innovative and quality site and architectural design for buildings and neighborhoods that would encourage economic investment and development, employment opportunities and would provide entertainment, hospitality, commercial, housing, and other supportive uses and amenities for current and future residents in accordance with a well- considered conceptual master plan for the MF-IRD

› To create an attractive physical environment that provides daily amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations

› To achieve harmonious visual and functional use relationships within the district and with adjacent neighborhoods

› To promote integration of pedestrian amenities and public transportation into neighborhoods to facilitate walking, encourage the use of public transportation, and accommodate alternate modes of transportation that provide access to destinations within the district, and to and from surrounding communities within the Town.

The proposed MF-IRD furthers the intent and goals of Article XIII of the BZO, Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field by providing a new zoning district that promotes the development of innovative, attractive sites that provide benefits to the Town and larger region. As indicated in the legislative purpose of the PDD, there was an understanding of the dual responsibilities associated with Mitchel Field (County ownership and Town zoning, community services and local tax structure). The PDD recognizes that “the synergistic influence of creative design and quality construction at each step [of development] would promote the ultimate ideal of environmental quality.” The proposed MF-IRD embraces this focus on environmental quality through the required green site features and sustainability.

The character of the subject site would be transformed from an underutilized building in a sea of parking to a modern, active destination with a sense of place. The mix of buildings would be thoughtfully designed and much of the parking would be concealed within structures, rather than in the current surface lots. Landscaping has been a priority through the design process, with the intention of providing linkages to the local neighborhoods and complementing the architectural design.

Sands has conducted extensive community engagement to create a plan that enhances the community character with amenities and uses to serve local residents. These features include a live performance venue, outdoor plazas, meeting and conference spaces, and complementary retail and restaurant offerings. A primary design objective is to fully integrate the development with the community and add value to the neighborhood through linkages and synergies with

surrounding areas. The proposed development would help strengthen the community character through increasing positive economic impact, strengthening pedestrian linkages, introducing new amenities, and enhancing public spaces. A central amenity would be an almost five-acre plaza with year-round programming to serve as a primary space for community engagement and entertainment.

In order to minimize potential impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on the land use, zoning, and community character, measures have been incorporated into the project design, and the proposed MF-IRD includes design guidelines, including provisions for green site and building requirements and landscape/hardscape features as follows:

› The proposed action includes the adaptive re-use of the Coliseum structure.

› The MF-IRD would facilitate the transformative redevelopment of the Coliseum property to encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field, consistent with the objectives of the PDD and MFM District. The proposed MF-IRD has also been patterned after, and incorporates many, of the zoning and design requirements of the MFM District, thereby furthering the goals of that district.

› The design incorporates a significant amount of new green and open space on the site through the introduction of an outdoor plaza, a veterans memorial, and substantial landscaping throughout the subject property.

› The podium design features a series of landscaped terraces and setbacks that gradually step down the massing of the building. These terraces and setbacks would serve to break up the building’s scale, while creating a series of visual connections between different levels of the podium. The terracing of the building mass also allows for a transition between the podium and the hotel towers above, so there is not one solid wall of buildings.

› The choice of building materials and the composition of the building components on the site would ensure a visually appealing design.

› The proposed project would incorporate a comprehensive landscaping plan that would provide visual relief from the proposed buildings, partially screening and softening them, as well as the entire perimeter of the property and the internal roadways.

› The proposed surface parking areas would be surrounded by landscaping that would help screen them from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. Landscaped islands within these areas would also minimize the visual impact of the asphalt and concrete parking lots and would help screen the vehicles parked within these surface lots.

‌Transportation and Parking

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Sands New York Integrated Resort was prepared, in accordance with the Final Scope, to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed action. The purpose of the TIS was to determine if there are significant adverse traffic impacts that would result from development and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort, to evaluate the adequacy of the roadway network to accommodate the proposed Integrated Resort, and to propose mitigation measures, as required. The TIS includes an evaluation of the existing traffic operations, an assessment of future conditions without development of the

proposed Integrated Resort (no-build condition), an estimate of projected trip generation for the proposed Integrated Resort (for Phase 1 and Full Build), and the evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on future traffic and transit operations in the Study Area (build condition and build condition with mitigation).

To inform the analysis, a traffic data collection program was developed that included obtaining turning movement counts (TMCs) at study intersections and automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts on local roadways and along the Meadowbrook State Parkway, the Northern State Parkway, the Southern State Parkway and their ramps. Study locations included:

Hempstead Turnpike at James Doolittle Boulevard
Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Nassau Coliseum Main Entrance
Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue
Hempstead Turnpike at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) Entrance
Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue
Earle Ovington Boulevard at Hofstra East Gate Road/Site Access
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound (EB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound (WB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Nassau Community College
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB at James Doolittle Boulevard/Site Access
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at Nassau Community College Perimeter Road
Merrick Avenue at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue
Hempstead Turnpike at Eisenhower Park Pedestrian Entrance
Hempstead Turnpike at Coolidge Drive
Hempstead Turnpike at Park Boulevard/East Meadow Avenue
Merrick Avenue at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Peters Gate
Hempstead Turnpike at California Avenue/Hofstra Boulevard
Hempstead Turnpike at Oak Street/Hofstra
Front Street at Merrick Avenue
Front Street at Uniondale Avenue
Front Street at California Avenue
Fulton Avenue at Peninsula Boulevard/Bennett Avenue
Fulton Avenue at Clinton Street
Fulton Avenue at N Franklin Street
Franklin Avenue at Stewart Avenue
Old Country Road at Franklin Avenue/Mineola Boulevard
Old Country Road at Clinton Road/Glen Cove Road (H)
Old Country Road at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Avenue (H)
Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue (H)
Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park Boulevard (H)
Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse (H)
Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street (H)
Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road (H)
Oak Street at Commercial Avenue
Commercial Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Westbury Boulevard (Meadow Street)
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at U-Turn (near Earle Ovington Boulevard
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB at Coliseum North Exit Gate
Earle Ovington Boulevard at Coliseum Media/Staff Parking
Hempstead Turnpike WB at Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off Ramp
Hempstead Turnpike WB at Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off Ramp
Hempstead Turnpike EB at Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off Ramp
Hempstead Turnpike EB at Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off Ramp
Hempstead Turnpike at Front Street
Hempstead Turnpike at Carman Avenue/3rd Street
Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road
Merrick Avenue at Bellmore Avenue
Merrick Avenue at North Jerusalem Avenue
Merrick Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue
Uniondale Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue
Uniondale Avenue/Brookside Avenue at Nassau Road
Stewart Avenue at Ring Road West (Roosevelt Field) (H)
Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance (H)
Old Country Road at Salisbury Park Drive/School Street
Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive (H)
Merrick Avenue at Privado Road (H)
Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue/Post Road
Main Street/2nd Street at Franklin Avenue
Main Street at Meadow Street
Meadow Street at Washington Avenue
Meadow Street at Clinton Road
Meadow Street at Lindbergh Street
Westbury Boulevard at Lindbergh Street
Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Meadow Street
Hempstead Turnpike at Perimeter Road East/Franklin Avenue
Washington Street at W Columbia St
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) between James Doolittle Boulevard and Meadowbrook State Parkway Ramps – Both Eastbound (EB) and Westbound (WB) directions
Earle Ovington Boulevard between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB and Hofstra East Gate Road – Both Northbound (NB) and Southbound (SB) directions
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard between Earle Ovington Boulevard and James Doolittle Boulevard - Both EB and WB directions
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB to EB U-turn
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB to WB U-turn
Hempstead Turnpike west of Newbridge Road (NY 106) – Both EB and WB directions
Old Country Road east of Zeckendorf Boulevard – Both EB and WB directions
Northern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Post Avenue
Post Avenue Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway EB
Northern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Post Avenue
Post Avenue Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway WB
Northern State Parkway EB Mainline East of Post Avenue
Northern State Parkway WB Mainline East of Post Avenue
Northern State Parkway WB Connector to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Ramp to Northern State Parkway EB
Northern State Parkway EB Connector to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Connector to Northern State Parkway WB
Northern State Parkway EB Mainline through Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange
Northern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Glen Cove Road NB
Glen Cove Road Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway EB
Glen Cove Road Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline North of Old Country Road
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline North of Old Country Road
Old Country Road WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Old Country Road WB
Old Country Road Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Ring Road East Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Old Country Road EB
Old Country Road EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Old Country Road
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline South of Old Country Road
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline South of Old Country Road
Zeckendorf Boulevard WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Roosevelt Field
Zeckendorf Boulevard WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Zeckendorf Boulevard EB
Zeckendorf Boulevard EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Zeckendorf Boulevard EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Zeckendorf Boulevard (Dibblee Drive)
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Roosevelt Field
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline South of Zeckendorf Boulevard
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline South of Zeckendorf Boulevard
Merchants Concourse Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Merchants Concourse NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Stewart Ave/Endo Boulevard
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Stewart Ave/Endo Boulevard
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Merchants Concourse NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway north of Stewart Avenue NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway north of Stewart Avenue SB
EB Stewart Avenue Ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to EB Stewart Avenue
Stewart Avenue Ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Stewart Avenue ramps
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB CD Road between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Stewart Avenue ramps
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off-Ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB south of Charles Lindbergh overpass
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB CD Road south of Charles Lindbergh overpass
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off-Ramp to WB Hempstead Turnpike
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off-Ramp to EB Hempstead Turnpike
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to WB Hempstead Turnpike
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to EB Hempstead Turnpike
EB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
EB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
WB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
WB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
Meadowbrook State Parkway south of Hempstead Turnpike NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway south of Hempstead Turnpike SB
Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
Southern State Parkway EB Mainline west of Meadowbrook State Parkway
Southern State Parkway WB Mainline west of Meadowbrook State Parkway
Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Nassau Road
Nassau Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
Nassau Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Nassau Road
Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Road
Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Road
Meadowbrook Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
Meadowbrook Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
Merrick Avenue SB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue SB
Merrick Avenue NB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue NB
Merrick Avenue NB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue NB
Merrick Avenue SB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue SB
Babylon Turnpike WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Babylon Turnpike EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike EB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike EB
Babylon Turnpike WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Babylon Turnpike EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike WB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike WB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline south of Babylon Turnpike
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline north of Babylon Turnpike
Sunrise Highway WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Sunrise Highway EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway EB
Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway EB
Sunrise Highway WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Sunrise Highway EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway WB

Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway WB

Background traffic volumes in the Study Area were projected to the Phase 1 Build year (2027), when the initial portions of the Integrated Resort would be open to the public, and the Full Build year (2030). A No-Build Condition was also considered to evaluate future traffic conditions without construction of the proposed Integrated Resort. The evaluation of the Full Build condition established the necessary mitigation measures for surface street intersections. The Full Build mitigation (mitigation measures for surface intersections) would be in place by operation of Phase 1 and would, thus, effectively mitigate Phase 1 impacts. Mitigation measures for parkway impacts are associated with the Full Build year (2030) and would be in place prior (subject to local and state agencies approvals/permits) to the completion of Phase 2.

Overall, under 2030 Build Conditions, the Integrated Resort is expected to generate 1,455 external trips during the Weekday AM peak hour, 2,304 trips during the Weekday PM peak hour, 3,107 trips during the Friday Evening peak hour, 3,011 trips during the Saturday Midday peak hour, and 4,186 trips during the Saturday Evening peak hour. Of these total trips, walking/bicycle trips range from 27 to 90 trips depending on the peak hour. Between 92 and 94 percent of all trips generated to/from the site are estimated to be made by automobile. Trip credits for transit mode, internal capture, and pass-by traffic were considered and applied to the gross trip generation to develop the appropriate net level of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. Credits to account for internal trips were initially estimated using the ITE publication Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition .34 A comparison of anticipated trip generation rates for the Integrated Resort and the previous use of the subject property for sporting events and concerts at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum revealed that the most intensive peak hour of the Coliseum was higher than the most intensive peak hour of the proposed Integrated Resort, as detailed in the table below .35

‌34 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.

‌35 Count data for Coliseum was collected on April 1, 2019 from 5:00 to 11:00 p.m. during an Islanders vs. Maple Leafs hockey game. These counts were used to determine the number of trips entering and exiting the subject property.

Peak Hour Comparison – Integrated Resort and Coliseum

Time Period	Movement	Sands Integrated Resort	Coliseum Event1
Weekday Evening Peak Hour2	Enter	1,575	3,017
	Exit	1,532	332
	Total	3,107	3,349
Evening Peak Hour3	Enter	2,013	338
Evening Peak Hour3	Exit	2,173	4,526
	Total	4,186	4,864
1 Counts at NYCB Live (4/1/2019 Islanders Game), where attendance was 13,917 persons per https://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201904010NYI.htm l 2 Weekday evening 6:00 to 7:00 PM for both uses 3 Sands Saturday evening peak hour and Coliseum exiting peak hour on observed Monday

The results of the capacity analyses conducted for proposed Integrated Resort indicate that some intersections with project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS would require modifications. Recommended improvements are provided for roadways where there would be project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS. The results of the intersection capacity analysis indicate that for all time periods analyzed, the mitigation proposed retains good levels of traffic service or returns intersection levels of service and delay to No-Build Condition levels.

All costs associated with the design, permitting and construction of the identified mitigation and access improvements would be borne by Sands. Sands intends to implement all required physical intersection mitigation for the Full Build during the Phase 1 construction period to minimize disruption to the Study Area.

Assessment of vehicular traffic operations on the adjacent highway network was conducted to analyze traffic conditions on the Meadowbrook State Parkway, Southern State Parkway, Northern State Parkway, and Sunrise Highway, and their interchanges with local streets. Under Existing and No Build 2030 conditions, the parkway study network was found to experience congestion and delay, especially during peak hours. Though posted parkway speed limits of 55 mph exist on all the parkways, analysis of average corridor speed indicates that, even in existing conditions, there is not a single corridor and peak hour combination that operates in free flow average speed conditions. The corridor travel speeds decrease in the No Build 2030 conditions as the forecasted additional traffic volume (without the proposed action) is loaded into the network. In short, notable capacity issues exist in the existing and no build conditions on all the parkways studied. The analysis of the build condition indicated that mitigation was at various parkway locations, and the proposed mitigation is summarized later in this section.

Consistent with the Final Scope, a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and the proposed Sands Boulevard (proposed new external signal), which would provide access to the project site as well as locations internal to the site where traffic signals are proposed (1 external location, 6 internal locations). These analyses were performed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 11th Edition.36 There are nine warrants described in the MUTCD, and the installation of a traffic signal should only be considered if one or more of the nine signal warrants are met, and in

‌36 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 11th Edition, FHWA, December 2023.

consideration of engineering judgment. The following locations either meet at least one warrant or are recommended based on engineering judgement for a signal to ensure that trips are processed efficiently and safely for vehicles and pedestrians:

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Sands Boulevard

› Sands Boulevard at North Drive

› Sands Boulevard at Hotel Tower 1 Loop

› North Drive at Hotel Tower 2 Loop/Garage A West Access

› North Drive at Garage A East Access

› South Drive at Garage B Access

› West Drive at Garage C Access/MSKCC Access.

The proposed Integrated Resort would be served by both surface parking fields and structured parking. These parking garages and parking fields are located such that ample parking would be available close and convenient to the various components of the Integrated Resort to serve site visitors and employees. The 9,963 spaces within the on-site parking garages and another 2,487 parking stalls in surface level lots (12,450 spaces in total) would be in compliance with the parking requirements of the proposed MF-IRD and sufficient to meet projected demand.

A Project Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan was developed for the Integrated Resort to provide a cohesive approach to establish a targeted set of strategies aimed at reducing single occupancy vehicle trips to and from the proposed site. The TDM plan describes how the Integrated Resort would provide information and education, enhance alternative transportation infrastructure and mobility and incentivize staff and visitors so that they use more sustainable, multi-modal commuting options such as walking, bicycling, transit, and carpooling, which would result in reduced trip generation.

The Integrated Resort is committed to encouraging use of non-vehicular modes and plans to leverage the proximity of the LIRR by providing a shuttle from the Hempstead LIRR Station (and, by proximity, the Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center) directly to the site. No other area railroad stations would be served by this shuttle service. The cost of this service would be borne by Sands. The Integrated Resort would also provide direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations via a coach shuttle. The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to generate additional ridership demand on existing local transit services, specifically the NICE Bus service and the LIRR Hempstead branch, and published data demonstrate that both have capacity to accommodate the projected additional ridership.

Overall, the TIS concluded:

› The magnitude of trips anticipated to visit the site during the weekday peak hour is generally consistent with the projections associated with the traffic study prepared for the MFM Zoning District and past proposals for the site. The Saturday evening peak hour trips generated by the proposed Integrated Resort are consistent with the level of vehicular trips associated with the peak hour of an event at the Coliseum, when it was operating at full capacity.

› The Integrated Resort is truly a mixed-use site with gaming, hotels, entertainment, meetings and conference space, public attraction, restaurants, and retail spaces. The unique nature of the mixed-use development allows for benefits that focus on meaningful reductions in

external trip-making as drivers are internally captured on-site traveling among all the various uses, and the creation of a robust internal transportation network connecting all the uses.

› The Integrated Resort has committed to a series of significant Transportation Demand Management strategies aimed at reducing auto use to and from the site. These commitments include provision, accommodation and/or support for numerous transit options and connections to bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, as well as strategies aimed at employees and visitors to discourage the concept of driving solo in an automobile to and from the Integrated Resort.

› The newly generated trips can be accommodated within the Study Area with the implementation of the proposed site access improvements and the recommended off-site mitigation funded by Sands. The traffic analysis was conducted for periods of peak commuter demand as well as site related peaks to address different impacts associated with each of these periods.

› A range of roadway improvements have been identified that focuses on areas of higher increases of site traffic, as well as addressing existing congestion areas. Specifically, geometric and traffic signal operation improvements are proposed at intersections on the local street network, as well as capacity improvements on the Meadowbrook State Parkway to address the combination of existing traffic-related deficiencies and project-related increases.

Based upon the traffic impact analyses conducted for the proposed Integrated Resort, a series of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding roadways and intersections. All proposed mitigation measures would be funded by Sands and be in place by completion of Phase 2, subject to permitting and approvals by agencies with jurisdiction. These improvements are as follows:

› Physical Mitigation Improvements at Intersections:

Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access:
- WB: Modify right-turn lane to eliminate uncontrolled movement
- SB: Restripe southbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes and a shared thru-right lane
- NB: Restripe approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a shared thru-right lane and a right-turn lane
- Restrict WB U-Turns (PM Peak)
Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue:
- SB: Construct additional right-turn lane. Restripe southbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a thru lane, a shared thru-right lane, and a right- turn lane
Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (EB)/Site Access:
- EB: Construct an additional left-turn lane
- WB: Remove one left-turn lane, construct an additional channelized right turn lane
- SB: Construct an additional U-turn only lane
Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Bus and Delivery Vehicle Access Roadway:
- Construct deceleration lane and one-way roadway from Earle Ovington Boulevard to Garage A.
- From Garage A, construct a one-way roadway with a right out only from the site onto Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Blvd.):
- Construct Intersection
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at James Doolittle Boulevard:
- EB: Remove right-turn lane
- NB: Remove right-turn lane
  › Physical Mitigation Improvements on Parkways and Interchanges:
Removal of the existing lane drop (from two lanes to one lane) to widen to two full lanes the ramp from westbound Northern State Parkway onto southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
Widening to a fourth lane southbound on Meadowbrook State Parkway from Northern State Parkway to Zeckendorf Boulevard
Widening of northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to four lanes from Old Country Road to the Northern State Parkway ramps
Bridge widenings and replacements to accommodate the widenings noted above including; widening of the Meadowbrook State Parkway bridge over Westbury Avenue, replacement of the MTA Long Island Railroad bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span, and replacement of the Old Country Road bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span
Widening of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway ramp to eastbound Northern State Parkway to a two-lane ramp onto Northern State Parkway
Widening of the north end of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road, which currently transitions to a single lane, to two lanes and merging both lanes onto Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline prior to the Stewart Avenue overpass. The existing third northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline travel lane would be dropped prior to the C-D road merge
Along eastbound Hempstead Turnpike the extension of the deceleration lane onto the ramp to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 500 feet)
Along southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway the extension of the acceleration lane from the ramp from eastbound Hempstead Turnpike (approximately 400 feet)
An extension of the two lane section of the ramp from eastbound Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 350 feet) and an extension of the acceleration lane from the same ramp onto the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 450 feet)
› Intersections Recommended for Signal Timing/Phasing Optimization
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access:
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Cunningham Avenue
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at MSKCC Entrance
Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Union Dale Avenue
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Park Boulevard/E. Meadow Avenue
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Hofstra Boulevard/California Avenue
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Oak Street/Hofstra Boulevard
Fulton Avenue at N. Franklin Street
Stewart Avenue at Franklin Avenue
Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive
Merrick Avenue at Privado Road
Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue
Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Meadow Street
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Blvd.)
Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue (for Holiday Peak Period)
Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road (for Holiday Peak Period).

› The Promotion of Public Transit Options: The Integrated Resort would leverage and expand on existing NICE bus service and the proposed Nassau County Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Earle Ovington Boulevard to encourage a significant number of trips by alternative modes. The Integrated Resort would also provide a shuttle from the Hempstead LIRR Station directly to the site and a direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations via a coach shuttle. The cost of both bus services would be borne by the Lessee for the Integrated Resort.

› Connectivity to Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: The Integrated Resort would promote walking and biking to/from and within the project site by providing pedestrian connections into its major entrances for both visitors and employees. The pedestrian accommodations around the site would continue to be via the multi-use path. Crosswalks are provided at signalized intersections to provide connection to and from the surrounding areas.

› Transportation Management Association Membership: The Integrated Resort would investigate membership in a local area Transportation Management Association (TMA), which provides incentives and awareness of alternative mode choices available in the area and work to connect partners to continue to improve those choices.

employee shift start and end times outside of the peak traffic periods and work with employees to encourage use of alternate modes of travel by posting information on bicycling infrastructure and transit options.

› Parking Policy: In order to encourage carpooling, and reduce traffic and parking impacts, the Integrated Resort would provide priority parking for carpoolers in its staff parking areas. These parking spaces would be closely located to the employee entrance.

‌Air Quality
Potential direct air quality impacts associated with implementation of a proposed action result from emissions generated by stationary sources, such as emissions from on-site kitchen exhaust or emissions from parking lots. Indirect effects are caused by off-site emissions associated with a project, such as emissions from vehicles (the mobile sources noted above) traveling to and from the project site. An air quality assessment was prepared of the proposed action with a focus on the following areas of potential concern:
› Potential impacts from mobile sources (vehicle trips) introduced by the proposed project on ambient air quality at the microscale (intersection) level.
› Potential impacts from mobile source on ambient air quality at the mesoscale (regional) level.
› Potential impacts of emissions from parking. Based on the size and anticipated use of each of the parking facilities, Garage A was analyzed to evaluate worst-case impacts of the proposed parking uses on air quality.
› Potential impacts from stationary air pollution sources introduced by the project, specifically the commercial kitchen exhaust vents.
› As the proposed project would be located near Disadvantaged Communities (DAC), as identified by New York State,37 the air quality analysis identifies the common air pollutants and their sources, estimates the impact of project generated emissions on nearby areas, and assesses potential impacts related to asthma.
Air pollution is of concern because of its demonstrated effects on human health, especially respiratory health. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. These six pollutants are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), are pollutants with known or suspected health impacts of concern. The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 listed 188 air toxics and addressed the need to control toxic emissions from transportation sources. EPA identified nine compounds with substantial contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers or contributors and non-cancer hazard contributors from the 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). These compounds are 1, 3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

‌37 New York State, Disadvantaged Community Criteria, https://climate.ny.gov/resources/disadvantaged-communities-criteria/

Mobile source analyses were completed at a microscale (local) level and consisted of a CO screening analysis including a Level of Service, capture criteria, volume threshold screening analysis, and parking garage assessment. Even though the screening analysis did not identify intersections that necessitated further air quality analysis, a more detailed microscale analysis was completed at two intersections to further evaluate the potential effect of the project- generated traffic on Disadvantaged Communities. An analysis was completed to evaluate the effect of the project-generated traffic on air quality at the regional (mesoscale) level
A CO microscale dispersion modeling was not warranted for any of the intersections that would be affected by the proposed project as the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to exceed the NAAQS for CO using the criteria and methodology prescribed in TEM by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT).38 However, there are some sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, senior centers, retirement communities, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes) requiring consideration per the TEM within the area.
Ultimately, none of the intersections meet the thresholds requiring detailed air quality analysis and the results of the analyses show that project related traffic is not expected to significantly impact air quality in the area including within the designated Disadvantaged Communities.
The mesoscale emissions associated with traffic conditions under the No-Build and Build Condition show that the Build Condition would result in an increase in emissions of all modeled criteria pollutants. However, the emissions increase would be well below the de minimis thresholds specified by the EPA.39 Therefore, there would be no potential for significant adverse impacts on air quality from the proposed Integrated Resort at the regional level.
Furthermore, as Sands has committed to an all-electric facility (with the exception of commercial kitchens and emergency generators), the air quality assessment determined that there would be no potential for significant adverse impacts on air quality from stationary sources (including commercial kitchens and parking garages) associated with the proposed Integrated Resort.
Measures incorporated into the proposed Integrated Resort directly address several of the NYSDEC Program Policy mitigation measures, including:
› Operational mitigation, including minimal use of fossil fuel (the Integrated Resort would be an almost all-electric facility)
› Use of lower emission technologies
› Electric vehicle charging stations
› Planting and upkeep of trees and green infrastructure
› Use of alternative process technologies that would reduce or eliminate GHG emissions or co- pollutants.
With respect to asthma, the New York State Department of Health defines asthma as, “a disease
that causes breathing problems. It inflames and narrows the airways that carry oxygen in and out

‌38 New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Environmental Procedures Manual: Air Resources (Page 1.1-107). Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and- guidance/epm/repository/epmair01.pdf, Accessed September 2024.
‌39 USEPA, De Minimis Tables, https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/de-minimis-tables

of the lungs. People with asthma can have recurring periods of wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath and coughing. These breathing problems are called asthma attacks or episodes. Asthma is a chronic disease. In other words, people with asthma live with it every day.” Statewide, asthma indicators have generally worsened, with 22 of the 44 statewide indicators showing negative trends. The indicators show increases in emergency room visits and hospitalizations from 2020 to 2021. The increases are shown mainly for those aged 0 to 44 years, with decreases in rates for those aged over 45 years. However, statewide total and age-adjusted asthma-related deaths are down roughly 25 percent from 2020 to 2021.
Traffic-related emissions contribute to some of the criteria pollutants that may exacerbate asthma. Of the 29 indicators presented on the dashboard for Nassau County, 28 have shown improvement or no change, while only one indicator showed worsening. The lone indicator showing negative trend from 2020 to 2021 was “asthma universe prevalence for the Medicaid Managed Care population,” where the rate per 100 increased from 3.5 to 3.6. Total and age- adjusted asthma deaths have improved, as have hospitalization and ER rates for all ages. Nassau County provided information for 2022 asthma rates, which show that Hempstead continues to have one of the higher rates of emergency room visits in the county.
The mobile source air quality analysis performed assessed all the intersections included in the traffic impact analysis. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the NYSDOT TEM, a three-level screening procedure was used to determine if an individual intersection met the criteria for further air quality analysis. Given the intersections’ Level of Service (LOS), Capture Criteria, and Volume Threshold TEM procedures, it was determined that a microscale air quality modeling analysis would not be warranted, as the proposed project would not impact existing conditions to such a degree as to exceed the NAAQS. Nonetheless, a microscale air quality modeling analysis was performed at two selected intersections based on their proximity to sensitive uses and Disadvantaged Communities. The results of the microscale analyses at these two intersections show that there would be no significant adverse air quality impacts.
Quantifying the exact percentage of asthma cases directly attributable to air pollution is challenging due to multiple factors contributing to the onset and exacerbation of the condition. Asthma is influenced by a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Genetic predisposition plays a significant role, as individuals with a family history of asthma are more likely to develop the condition. Environmental factors such as allergens (pollen, mold, pet dander), occupational exposures, and indoor pollutants (secondhand smoke, household chemicals) can also trigger asthma symptoms. Furthermore, individual responses to these triggers can vary widely, making it difficult to isolate the impact of air pollution alone. The complexity of asthma's multifactorial nature requires sophisticated epidemiological studies to discern the contribution of air pollution alongside other risk factors. These studies often rely on large-scale population data and advanced statistical models to account for various confounders. For instance, socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and pre-existing health conditions can influence the prevalence and severity of asthma, complicating the assessment of the direct impact of air pollution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as various health organizations emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches that consider the interplay of multiple factors to accurately estimate the burden of asthma attributable to air pollution (IPCC, 2021). Consequently, while significant associations can be drawn between air pollution and asthma exacerbations, pinpointing an exact percentage remains a complex and

evolving challenge in public health research. The NYSDEC has published their report entitled New York State Community Air Monitoring Initiative, date August 12, 2024 detailing the results of their air quality monitoring efforts in a number of Disadvantaged Communities in the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead.
As the traffic study includes a number of study intersections within the identified Disadvantaged Communities and the evaluation of those intersections as part of the microscale analysis described above (which includes an analysis of predicted CO, PM2.5 24-hour, and PM2.5 annual levels), indicate no significant impacts to traffic conditions, it can be concluded that the project will not adversely affect air quality conditions in those communities. Based on the air quality impact protocols established by EPA, NYSDEC, and local agencies, which has been complied with in preparation of the air quality analyses, the proposed project would not exceed NAAQS thresholds. The NAAQS are designed to protect public health and the environment by regulating the presence of harmful pollutants in the air. Thus, based on the air quality impact protocols established by NYSDOT and followed for this analysis of the proposed Integrated Resort, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact.
Based on the NYSDOT TEM screening analysis, detailed microscale analysis at two intersections, and mesoscale analysis, the vehicle emissions from the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on air quality. The refined analysis of kitchen exhausts indicates that there would be no significant adverse air quality impacts from the use of gas for cooking in the proposed project kitchens. There would also be no significant adverse air quality impacts from the proposed parking facilities. Furthermore, no significant adverse air quality impacts are expected for Disadvantaged Communities since the proposed Integrated Resort incorporates many of the NYSDEC-identified mitigation measures. Additionally, the microscale analysis conducted at intersections near these Disadvantaged Communities show that the predicted CO, PM2.5 24-hour, and PM2.5 annual levels would be below the applicable NAAQS, which, as noted, are designed to protect public health and the environment.
To effectively minimize potential air quality impacts, Sands has incorporated the following mitigation measures into the proposed Integrated Resort:
› Using innovative building materials and heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems, such as air-source heat pumps for heating and cooling
› Designed as a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex (the only exception being a limited amount of natural gas utilized for cooking and emergency generators)
› Using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens
› Monitoring all major sources of energy consumption and undertaking regular and sustained efforts throughout the life cycle of the facility to maintain and improve energy efficiency and reliance on renewable sources of power
› The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the use of renewable energy through the installation of an on-site solar PV system, which is anticipated to achieve at least eight percent of electricity needs. The solar PV array size is estimated to be approximately 8,400 kW, which would generate 10,387,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Beyond the eight percent, Sands is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions in the proposed action by entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable

sources. The 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions assumed from the use of renewable electricity sources is a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.
› Designing with high-performance building envelopes, efficient mechanical systems, and smart lighting
› Incorporating daylighting, using natural light to illuminate interior spaces
› Local sourcing of materials and the use of sustainable, low-carbon materials such as recycled steel
› Retaining and reusing the existing Coliseum structure, prioritizing low-embodied carbon materials with high recycled content, and using low-embodied carbon insulation and roofing materials
› Designing the façade based on a high R-value insulating envelope and incorporating a rain screen technology for optimal thermal performance, water shedding and air tightness.
› Developing an extensive and innovative landscaping plan, maximizing the use of native species, drought-tolerant plantings and pollinator zones
› Installing landscape islands within the parking lots to avoid large expanses of pavement and act as natural heat sinks by absorbing and dissipating solar radiation
› Installing landscape terraces on roof surfaces to act as natural insulators, mitigating the urban heat island effect, and contributing to stormwater management
› Facilitating sustainable transportation options and TDM, such as ride sharing programs (carpooling for employees) and providing accessible and convenient connections to the Hempstead LIRR station. Providing bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and wide sidewalks and dedicated pedestrian crossings throughout the subject site, as well as connections to exterior multiuse paths.
› Proposing extensive traffic mitigation to reduce potential air quality impacts
› Incorporating building design, site design, sustainable transportation and transportation demand management, as well as a comprehensive landscaping plan that would specifically address a number of the NYSDEC-recommended mitigation measures related to Disadvantaged Communities, including:
- Operational mitigation, such as limitations on the amount of fossil fuel combusted at the project or the allowable hours of operation for the project
- Use of lower emission technologies
- Use of alternative process technologies that would reduce or eliminate GHG emissions or co-pollutants
- Designing truck travel routes that avoid, or minimize impact to, Disadvantaged Communities
- Adding electric vehicle charging stations at the facility
- Physical mitigation, such as the planting and upkeep of trees, green infrastructure, or other means of carbon sequestration.
‌Noise and Vibration
A noise analysis was conducted to evaluate the compliance of the proposed Integrated Resort with the applicable Town, State and federal regulations. The noise analysis evaluates existing sound levels in and around the subject property and then compared to the projected sound level impacts from vehicular and on-stationary sources to determine the potential future noise impacts. Existing and future sound levels were calculated following procedures and guidance of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), NYSDOT and New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual .40 The future results represent the total sound levels that are expected to occur in the Study Area.
The noise analysis evaluates the projected vehicular traffic, the proposed CUPs, building mechanical equipment, and building operation sound levels from the proposed Integrated Resort as these are the sources with the potential to generate exterior noise that could impact existing area sound levels. Special events that may be held outdoors (for example in the Central Plaza), such as live music, performances, are expected to conform to Town of Hempstead noise criteria. If an event is being considered that would exceed such criteria, Town permission would be sought.

Mobile Sources
During the daytime and nighttime, the dominant noise source under the existing, 2030 No-Build, and 2030 Build conditions is from vehicles traveling on the major roadways in the Study Area, such as Hempstead Turnpike, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard.
Exceedance of NYSDOT/FHWA highway, Town of Hempstead and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criteria were noted during noise monitoring of existing conditions. The noise analysis results for mobile sources demonstrate that under the 2030 Build condition, the maximum increase in sound levels from the existing condition for any receptor location ranges from 0 to one dBA for the weekday daytime and nighttime hours and from one dBA to four dBA for the weekend daytime and nighttime hours, all of which are less than the NYSDOT highway criteria of over six (+6) dBA and FHWA’s criteria of over ten (+10) dBA.

Stationary Sources
During the nighttime period, the dominant stationary noise source from the Integrated Resort is expected to be CUPs and building mechanical equipment. The CUPs would house a significant portion of the HVAC equipment, and they would be constructed of CMU and concrete panels, thereby reducing potential noise impacts. However, the air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) would be located on the roofs of the CUPs and would not be enclosed.
The noise analysis determined that the 2030 No-Build condition sound levels at the receptor locations would be virtually the same as the existing condition sound levels, and where there would be changes, due to the proposed project’s contribution in the Build condition, the increase

‌40 The use of New York City’s 2021 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual projection method is the most efficient way of providing the traffic noise projections, as there is no SEQRA equivalent projection method. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/19_Noise_2021.pdf .

would be no greater than +2 dBA, which is within the NYSDOT non-highway impact criteria (+3 dBA or greater). In the majority of cases, there would be no change in sound levels from the existing condition to the Build condition from proposed stationary sources at the Integrated Resort. In one case (Location 4 Marriott Hotel, situated on the subject property) there would be an increase of two dBA during the weekend nighttime period under the 2030 Build condition from the proposed stationary sources at the Integrated Resort. The remaining sound level changes reflect an increase of one dBA. Based on these results, since all of the changes are less than three dBA, they would be either not perceptible or only barely perceptible to the average person, and would not exceed the NYSDOT non-highway criteria of a three dBA or above increase.
The proposed Integrated Resort has been designed to minimize operational sound levels to the surrounding areas to the maximum extent practicable and would implement mitigation measures to reduce or minimize noise from construction activities. Such mitigation measures are anticipated to include the following:
› Most of the HVAC equipment would be housed within the CUPs, to be constructed of CMU and concrete panels, which would minimize potential noise impacts from this equipment
› Emergency generators would be housed within custom acoustical enclosures that would attenuate noise associated with generator operation (which is expected to be limited)
› A vegetated berm is proposed to be constructed at the southern boundary of the subject site along the north side of Hempstead Turnpike, between the Integrated Resort and the neighborhood to the south. Such berms are a type of noise barrier that mitigate noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the proposed vegetated berm would provide additional noise attenuation to the residential community to the south.
› A Construction Management Plan would be developed to ensure compliance with the noise regulations
› The performance of construction activities would adhere to the Town of Hempstead Noise Ordinance (Chapter 144), which restricts construction in the more sensitive overnight hours
› Construction equipment would be required to have properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems
› Construction activities would require proper operation and maintenance, and prohibition of excessive idling of construction equipment engines
› Perimeter construction fencing would be installed along with a hoarding wall, which would be y relocated during the construction period as the construction activities move around within the subject property. Both of these fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area
› Where possible, construction equipment would be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible
› Construction equipment would be required to be kept in good repair and equipped with mufflers

› Quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) back-up alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet applicable regulations
› To minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise), during the construction period, construction vehicles would be routed through primary streets and highways, and would not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets
› To minimize vibration impacts across the site, including areas near MSKCC, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed on the site. However, it is noted that other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the CM would coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction.
‌Public Health – Problem Gambling
According to the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS):
Gambling is defined as the act of risking something of value on a game of chance for the desired result. Usually, gambling addiction is discovered when there is a loss of accessibility to money and/or negative actions occur. Gambling Addiction or Problem Gambling is known as the “hidden addiction” because there are no visible signs. Unlike alcohol or drug addiction, you can’t visibly see the effects of someone’s gambling. For example, if someone has been drinking, you may smell alcohol, or they may be slurring their speech. Because of the lack of visibility, often those suffering from a gambling addiction can hide it longer than someone with an alcohol or drug problem.41
There are many resources currently available to address problem gambling, and New York State is cognizant of the need to balance the benefits of revenues from gambling and its effects.
Moreover, New York State has legislation in effect that prohibits persons under 21 years of age from gambling, and those under 21 would be prohibited from the casino floor of the proposed Integrated Resort. Accordingly, the development of the casino component of the proposed Integrated Resort would not provide an additional opportunity for gambling to those under 21 years of age.
Sands has extensive experience in addressing Responsible Gaming issues and is incorporating extensive measures into the proposed Integrated Resort and its operations to help prevent, recognize, and address problem gambling. Sands has developed a responsible gambling mission, which includes:
› Developing and sustaining an internal culture and awareness of responsible gambling through continuous training, publicity, and active Team Member engagement
› Exercising Corporate Social Responsibility through active participation in and sponsorship of a variety of responsible gambling partners and events
› Developing and maintaining effective relationships with key stakeholders such as regulators, other gaming operators, community partners, academics, and research organizations

‌41 New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports. Problem Gambling Prevention & Responsible Play. Available at: https://oasas.ny.gov/prevention/gambling. Accessed June 2024.

› Operating in collaboration with the local government
› Implementing responsible gambling measures validated by scientific research
› Being aware of emerging themes in Responsible Gambling both locally and internationally
› Providing patrons with information on responsible gaming and the harm caused by problem gambling
› Making annual contributions to organizations that support research into the prevention of gambling related harms and the treatment services that assist individuals who suffer from problem gambling.
Sands has implemented an evidence-based philosophy, based around shared responsibility, the implementation of evidence-based initiatives and reducing the occurrence of gambling related harms. Sands utilizes many problem gambling prevention measures in its operations that would be applied at this location, and as indicated above, has a mission to create a culture of responsible gambling through training, publicity, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sands is dedicated to promoting an entertainment experience free of social harm.
Sands has incorporated extensive measures into its proposed Integrated Resort to identify and assist persons with problem gambling. The following is a list of the measures to be employed by Sands at the proposed Integrated Resort to minimize potential problem gambling issues:
› Incorporating on-site resources to promote responsible gambling and provide assistance with problem gambling, including signage, collaterals and access to the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports HOPEline (1-877-8-HOPENY) for further assistance.
› Implementing an Exclusion Program to complement the exclusion regime provided by the New York Gaming Commission, focusing on prohibiting from entry into the casino for patrons who have been identified as displaying observable signs of potential problematic gambling behavior. Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 is permitted to be on the gaming floor longer than it takes them to reach their destination. All persons under the age of 21 would require an escort to walk through the gaming floor to ensure that no underage gaming takes place.
› Maintaining records and reporting of the Exclusion Program under the New York Gaming Commission.
› Stationing Security at all entrances who would have access to the Sands facial recognition system.
› Partnering with the New York State office of Children and Family Services and other local support facilities, and contributing financially to organizations that provide problem gambling education, treatment for those who suffer from problem gambling, and information on the importance of responsible gaming.
› Committing $200,000 to the Family and Children’s Association toward the establishment of
two new Gambling Support and Wellness Centers, in Hempstead and Hicksville.
› Establishing, implementing, and operating a Responsible Gambling training program for all casino employees. Casino employees would be trained to recognize potential behavior and verbal signs exhibited by a casino patron that may indicate problematic gambling behavior, and in procedures/protocols to report identified patrons to a responsible Gambling Ambassador.

› Training Responsible Gambling Ambassadors on techniques and protocols to communicate with an identified patron and provide information on Sands’ Responsible Gambling Program, counseling programs and treatment services.
› Continuing to review the problem gaming programs on a regular basis with experts in the field to ensure the programs reflect current and relevant science in the responsible gambling and problem gambling fields.
› Establishing an employee assistance program that would provide services to support wellbeing and prevention, short-term counseling, consultation, programs and referrals to Sands’ team members.
‌Socioeconomics
To quantify the effects that the construction and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would have upon the local community and surrounding region, a comprehensive analysis of economic conditions and expected economic impacts was conducted by EY. From a socioeconomic standpoint, development of the proposed Integrated Resort would result in myriad and substantial benefits, both during construction and in the long-term operation of the proposed Integrated Resort.
Construction and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would generate significant positive economic impacts, including:
› The creation of over 7,000 construction jobs at the site of the proposed Integrated Resort.
› For Phase 1, the total amount of direct labor income in the construction period is expected to be $232± million, with a total direct output of $830± million. Cumulatively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to generate $882± million in labor income, with a total direct output of $3.03± billion for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› In addition to the direct impacts, during the five-year construction period, there would be total indirect and induced labor income, as well. Together, the total labor income would be
$438± million at Phase 1, increasing to $1.68± billion at full operations, with a total output of
$1.42± billion, rising to $5.30± billion at full operations for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› During the construction period, Nassau County is expected to receive approximately $5.0± million in sales and use tax.
› During the operational period, the proposed Integrated Resort would create over 2,900 direct jobs during Phase 1 and over 7,800 jobs (5,000 full-time equivalents) at full operations, representing $911 million in labor income and $3.06 billion in total direct economic output for all of New York State (including the County and Town), annually.
› In addition to direct impacts, in the operational period, there would be indirect and induced jobs, as well. Together with the direct impacts, a total of over 4,800 jobs in Phase 1, with close to 13,000 jobs at full operations. The total labor income generated would be $464 million in Phase 1 and over $1.2 billion at full operations. The total annual economic output would be $1.7 billion in Phase 1, increasing to over $4.0 billion at full operations for all of New York State (including the County and Town).

› A total of $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues generated by the operation of the Integrated Resort would be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively. Sands has committed to guaranteed host community gaming revenue, as follows:
- Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation
- Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation
Sands is partnering with Empower, Assist, Care (EAC) Network to support local community recruitment plans and identifying key stakeholders to provide awareness of job opportunities at the Integrated Resort. With respect to construction, a project labor agreement (PLA)42 would be implemented, and negotiations are underway with the building trades. Sands is committed to executing a PLA for the construction of the Integrated Resort. Sands is partnering with the NCC to create a workforce development training hub. The college would become the primary employee training center for the proposed Integrated Resort, featuring programs in hotel and casino management, security and surveillance, meetings and banquets, entertainment, and food and beverages, as well as include an internship and experiential learning component for NCC students. Sands is also partnering with NCC and LIU to create a new comprehensive hospitality program that would enable NCC graduates to advance their two-year associates degree to a four-year bachelor’s degree at LIU’s campus.
The economic output during both the construction and operational periods would be substantial, and the fiscal benefits generated by the construction of the Integrated Resort would continue far into the future. The anticipated annual gaming revenue (with the guaranteed minimums to Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead), combined with the substantial community benefits commitments, and PILOT payments, are expected to exceed the costs to provide public services.
‌Community Facilities and Services
In addition to the substantial revenues described in the Socioeconomics subsection above, the proposed lease commits Sands to providing community benefits payments of $4 million per year, if a gaming license is granted, or $2 million per year upon substantial completion of development of an alternative plan (with no casino), if a gaming license is not granted. These

‌42 PLAs are pre-hire collective bargaining agreements negotiated between construction unions and construction contractors that establish the terms and conditions of employment for construction projects. Available at: https://www.dol.gov/general/good-jobs/project- labor-agreement-resource-guide, Accessed May 2, 2024

payments would support and enhance fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers; school districts; libraries and library districts; athletic fields, ballfields and parks; and other community facilities. Forty percent of these community benefits payments would be designated for community facilities in Uniondale. As part of the proposed lease, Sands has also committed to providing $25 million to be divided amongst Uniondale ($10 million), East Meadow ($10 million) and the Village of Hempstead ($5 million) for community benefits to be paid upon Sands being selected by New York State to receive a commercial gaming license.43
Per the terms of the proposed lease with Nassau County, an advisory committee would be established for the community benefits payments, comprising an equal number of representatives appointed by Sands and the County Executive and one representative appointed by each of the following: (i) the Majority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (ii) the Minority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (iii) the Town of Hempstead Supervisor; and
(iv) the Hempstead Town Board. The Advisory Committee would review and advise on the allocation of community benefits funding, and a community benefits agreement (CBA) would be executed between Nassau County and Sands that would include an independent compliance monitor for these payments.
In addition to the community benefits payments and the various other revenue and payments, Sands is also proposing a $4 million annual PILOT, divided amongst various jurisdictions, as shown in the table below.44
PILOT Payment Breakdown by Jurisdiction

PILOT %
PILOT $
County
16.80%
$672,000
Town
24.60%
$984,000
School
58.60%
$2.344 million
Total PILOT
100.00%
$4.0 million
The economic output during both the construction and operational periods of the Integrated Resort would be substantial, and the fiscal benefits generated by the construction of the Integrated Resort would continue well into the future. The anticipated annual gaming revenue (with the guaranteed minimums to Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead), combined with the substantial community benefits commitments (that would be available to support fire departments, ambulance services, school districts, libraries, parks, and other community facilities), and PILOT payments, are expected to far exceed the costs to provide public services. As such, the school districts and local government services would see a significant surplus. Furthermore, to minimize potential impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on community facilities and services, the following measures have been incorporated into the proposed action:
› The Integrated Resort would implement a comprehensive fire safety program featuring a Fire
Command Center within the Integrated Resort’s Security Center. This center would house a

‌43 An agreement regarding this payment scenario has been executed between Nassau County and Sands.
‌44The actual PILOT payment would be finalized upon further consultation with Nassau County Industrial Development Agency. For the purpose of this analysis, the PILOT is assumed to be $4 million to escalate over the life of the PILOT agreement to over $5 million.

full fire alarm control panel and a facility-wide fire alarm communication system, ensuring alarm notifications are transmitted to all components of the Integrated Resort.
› A state-of-the-art fire protection system and fire suppression system would be provided at the Integrated Resort.
› Sands would have trained staff within the proposed Integrated Resort to provide immediate on-site medical assistance, thereby reducing the demand on public emergency medical services.
› A fire/EMT substation is proposed within Parking Garage A next to the proposed police substation. Ambulance/EMT vehicles would be stationed nearby to provide immediate emergency services to patrons at the Integrated Resort.
› The proposed Integrated Resort would be constructed according to the latest New York Building and Fire Codes and would feature appropriate water supply and infrastructure systems to meet fire protection requirements.
› Each building component would be equipped with a two-way communication phone and an in-building Emergency Responder Radio Communication System, ensuring comprehensive radio frequency coverage and two-way voice communication for the Fire Department throughout the facility.
› Each component of the Integrated Resort would feature a new addressable fire alarm system compliant with the relevant New York State Building Code, National Association of Professionals for Fire Protection (e.g., NFPA 72-2016), and applicable ADA standards.
› For high-rise sections of the proposed building, audible alarm signals would be transmitted to the floor of the alarm, as well as the floors above and below. Additionally, activation of any alarm zone would trigger an inquiry tone on all other floors. For low-rise buildings, audible alarm signals would be sent to all floors, prompting a full evacuation.
› The Integrated Resort would be served by wet sprinklers, with areas subject to freezing (e.g., loading docks, parking areas, unconditioned space) served by a dry sprinkler system. There would also be a foam suppression system within specific areas of the building.
› A comprehensive security system would be integrated into the proposed Integrated Resort, with 60± surveillance operators and 400± security officers throughout the property.
› When special events are planned at the property, Sands would have extra security, including off duty police officers to further mitigate potential impacts to NCPD.
› A business continuity management program, which would supply the framework for identifying threats, responding to emergencies, and managing crises, would be implemented.
› The security program would be developed and implemented in accordance with Nassau County and New York State regulations. The security team would include former law enforcement, military, private security, and casino security professionals. Sands plans to recruit individuals with experience from local police, fire, and first responder agencies, as well as military personnel and those with relevant private sector experience from Nassau County.
› An Exclusion System would be implemented that prevents individuals who are on exclusion lists, as well as minors, from entering the casinos.

› Video surveillance would cover the building perimeter, entrances, loading dock, lobbies, elevator lobbies, stairwells, major MEP and technology rooms, counting/cash rooms, secure storage, doors requiring card access, visitor and employee gates with license plate readers, and parking areas.
› Sands would have emergency action and protective action plans that include procedures for coordination with local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and other first responders, and also include the ability to make facilities and resources available for community use during times of emergency/disaster.
› The technology proposed for use as part of the security system includes closed circuit television (CCTV), which involves cameras with facial recognition, as well as an access control/door locking system, a license plate recognition system, panic alarms, x-ray machines, metal detectors, and a criminal and terrorism information system.
› Sands proposes to periodically conduct ground deployment and tabletop exercises involving team members from various departments and local external partners, such as law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and emergency management teams. Sands operational teams would train with law enforcement and other external agencies on-site to enhance their training exercises.
› Prior to the casino opening, Sands would pay Nassau County $900,000 per year, subject to a
2.0 percent annual escalation as a contribution toward the County’s provision of exterior police and security at the premises. After the casino opening, this would rise to $1.8 million, annually, with a 2.0 percent escalation.
› Sands would construct a 1,500-square-foot police substation on-site, with accompanying police vehicles, and provide up to $500,000 for its fit out.
› Gaming revenue from the proposed Integrated Resort would be taxed by New York State, with nearly 40% allocated to local schools.
› At Full Build, local schools are projected to receive $217 million annually from gaming taxes and license fees. Additionally, the PILOT allocation to the Uniondale UFSD would be approximately $2.34 million, annually, based on a total PILOT of $4 million.
› Creation of a new comprehensive hospitality program for NCC and LIU students, including programs in hotel and casino management, security and surveillance, meetings and banquets, entertainment, and food and beverage.
› A comprehensive waste management plan would be prepared for the proposed Integrated Resort, incorporating strategies such as waste reduction and recycling programs in the areas of operational, food, and construction waste.
› Food waste would be managed through a three-pronged strategy: prevention (reducing waste generation by avoiding overproduction with accurate guest counts), rescue (donating recovered food to community causes), and diversion (using anaerobic digesters or other waste processing technologies).
› Sands would work with regional partners to repurpose food that might otherwise go to waste by donating unused food to local food banks and soup kitchens.
› Sands would implement construction waste management diversion objectives for new construction, aligned with LEED certification, targeting minimum 50 percent diversion, depending on the available local waste management infrastructure.

› Sands would comply with the New York State Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by separating excess food for donation, sending food scraps to an organic recycler (as available), separating remaining food scraps from other solid waste, training employees in proper separation and storage methods, and submitting an annual report to the NYSDEC Division of Materials Management documenting donations, recycling efforts, and other required information.
› Approximately 3.4 acres of public open space would be provided, which would be designed for the community at large and offer diverse elements, including a large plaza, along with smaller, more intimate gardens.
› At least $1 million would be allocated to construct a new monument, memorial, or tribute to
U.S. armed forces veterans, replacing the existing memorial. The design process would involve Nassau County veterans to create a new memorial wall and water feature in the Central Plaza.
‌Aesthetic Resources
From a design perspective, the vision for the proposed project is to create a unique development for Nassau County that combines its history, culture and spaces with a view toward the future.
The Integrated Resort is envisioned as an iconic destination, to attract tourists and local residents alike, entice repeat visits and appeal to people of all ages and cultures. It would be a sustainable asset to the community with its inspiring architecture, dynamic uses and diverse range of attractions and activities offered throughout the year. The project’s design principles include community integration; interconnected components; visually appealing design; memorable guest experiences; and environmental sustainability.
Set back from Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and surrounded by a large, flat, sea of asphalt parking fields, and the MSKCC facility, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum is a distinctive oval shaped structure with a domed roof that is visible from a distance, since the subject property is generally flat, and it is surrounded by vast surface parking lots with minimal intervening vegetation. The exterior façade, which was updated from 2015 – 2017 and possesses a unique architectural design, is predominantly composed of metal (4,700 aluminum fins), concrete and glass, and the building is immediately surrounded by a concrete plaza with limited landscaping. Minimal vegetation is present in the form of grass, decorative trees, and shrubs, primarily as part of the veterans memorial plaza. Other site features include lighting (both decorative and for parking areas), flag poles in the veterans memorial plaza, and traffic control devices such as gates, ticket booths, cones, handicap parking signs, and other site signage. One of the most dominant visual features of the subject property is the vast asphalt and concrete parking fields with minimal scattered landscaping. The site lacks shelter and shade.
The Marriott Hotel; an eleven-story, 121± foot tall, off-white structure with numerous angles along its front façade. The Marriott is surrounded by surface parking lots with minimal landscaping. The visual contribution of the overall subject property to the community character of the area is associated with the architecturally distinctive Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the tall Marriott Hotel, as well as the vast surface parking areas, which are predominantly vacant most of the time. The flat topography, lack of vegetation and vast amount of surface

parking on both sites, contribute to the underutilized, uninviting character, particularly of the Coliseum property.
The visual characteristics of the overall Study Area are diverse and defined by its varied land uses. The absence of streetscape elements along the surrounding roadways also contribute to the visual character of the area. There is no strong sense of a particular visual character in the area.
The architectural styles vary considerably amongst the structures, as the area was developed throughout the last century. Traditional, one-story brick military buildings, airplane hangars, modern office buildings, institutional-style educational buildings, one- and-two-story single- family residences of vernacular style and warehouse-style office/industrial facilities are among the various architectural styles that combine to form the mixed visual character of the Study Area.
Creating architectural themes for the various programmatic elements that are distinct from one another, yet complementary, is a key aspect of the proposed design of a visually interesting and world-class destination. Sands would feature a cohesive design that allows programmatic elements to display distinctive identities. The Integrated Resort is proposing to use a variety of materials, colors and textures to create differentiation among components. In terms of the building’s massing, the combination of the horizontally organized podium components45 with the verticality of the hotel towers reinforces the distinctly complimentary relationships of the whole. The composition of individual elements play off one another in a manner that manages scale while blending with and respecting the context. Articulated façade elements provide a final defining and unifying characteristic of the overall design. The use of exterior elements such as the horizontal and vertical louvers, podium cladding materials and fritted glazing provide a series of elements that would enable the Integrated Resort to be respectful of its location and an architecturally timeless addition to the community. The visually appealing components of the Integrated Resort, including its iconic architectural elements as well as the plazas and landscaping elements, would replace the expansive parking spaces that currently surround the underutilized Coliseum property and dominate the visual character of the site.
The building composition prioritizes horizontality over verticality to ensure that the project blends with its surroundings. The towers are clad with refined bronze shading elements to create an ephemeral visual quality, while managing inside heat gain. The podium design features a series of terraces/green roofs and setbacks that gradually step down the massing of the building. These terraces and setbacks would serve to break up the building’s scale, while creating a series of visual connections between different levels of the podium. The terracing of the building mass also allows for a transition between the podium and the hotel towers above, so there is not one solid wall of buildings. Horizontal articulation and proposed landscape features would provide visual interest to facades while allowing for appropriate amounts of daylight to penetrate into the building interior.
To provide a basis for assessing the potential impact of the proposed action on aesthetic resources, the existing visual character of the subject property and surrounding area was captured. A viewshed analysis was performed of the area generally bounded by Southern State

‌45 “Podium construction, also known as pedestal or platform construction, represents a unique building style with distinct horizontal divisions between an upper tower and a lower “podium.” https://www.arrantconstruction.com/constructing-podium-structures-a- comprehensive-guide/. Accessed June 11, 2024

Parkway on the south, Northern State Parkway/New York State Route 25/Jericho Turnpike on the north, Wantagh State Parkway on the east, and Nassau Boulevard on the west. The viewshed refers to the areas on the ground from which the proposed project is expected to be visible.
Multiple photosimulations were prepared that depict the post-development views of the subject property from areas where the viewshed analysis determined that there would be potential visibility.
The Marriott Hotel, at 121 feet in height, would remain on the eastern portion of the subject property. The existing Coliseum building would be incorporated into the Coliseum Casino. The other portions of the Integrated Resort and the proposed parking garages would be approximately 95 feet in height. The two visually dominant features of the site are expected be the two hotel towers, located near the center of the subject property, based on their relative height above the remaining proposed structures. These two hotel towers would be approximately 278 feet in height, extending to approximately 298 feet (including the parapet). These towers would be clad in the refined bronze shading elements (or similar). The entertainment Venue and meeting and conference space would each be up to 95 feet in height.
The proposed planting approach would provide a unified landscape design that embraces the use of native species, a warm and welcoming color palette, and an overall look and feel that pays homage to the Hempstead Plains. The design incorporates a lush layer of wooded plantings along the property boundaries (particularly Hempstead Turnpike), which would connect to the surrounding neighborhood, providing greenery along the edges of the site. This would improve the pedestrian and biking experience along the surrounding multi-use pathways. The goal is to use topography and grading (in some instances creating berms) to reduce the scale of the structures at the periphery of the site. Increasing the building setbacks and raising the grade in these areas is anticipated to help mitigate the visual impact of the garages while creating a strong plane of vision for planting. By sloping the planting areas, passersby would see a deeper layering of planting zones set back from the edge of the property.
A shadow analysis was performed to identify and analyze shadow conditions at the subject property, currently and upon implementation of the proposed action, to facilitate an assessment of the potential shadow impacts of the proposed action upon surrounding properties and resources. Overall, given the limited presence of sunlight-sensitive resources in the area surrounding the subject property (i.e., only the Hempstead Plains), and the limited extent of shadows to be cast by the proposed structures, there would be no significant adverse shadow- related impacts upon implementation of the proposed action.
Sands has designed the lighting to be respectful of the natural environment and surrounding area and to minimize the potential for light trespass beyond property boundaries. The goal of the lighting is to provide a warm and subtle nighttime atmosphere while minimizing light spill or visual brightness at adjacent properties. The proposed design of the exterior lighting systems utilizes fully dimmable, glare controlled, low brightness luminaires and avoids excessive contrast between the various components of the Integrated Resort. Glazed apertures (e.g., windows, glazed doors, etc.) are proposed to have a soft glow from the interior layers of lighting, but exterior façade lighting would be minimized to reduce the effect on surrounding areas. Vertical mullions at windows are expected to baffle interior lighting as perceived from exterior portions of the site and off-site areas.

Overall, the proposed lighting has been designed to comply with the U.S. Green Building Council’s recommendation to not exceed 0.10 fc of vertical illuminance at the project boundary in order to minimize light trespass.46 Businesses within the Town of Hempstead are precluded from emitting glare upon an adjacent or nearby residential dwelling, as set forth at Article XXXI, §
302.P of its Building Zone Ordinance.
In order to minimize potential impacts of the proposed development on aesthetics and visual resources, the following measures have been incorporated into the design of the Integrated Resort.
› The podium design features a series of landscaped terraces and setbacks that gradually step down the massing of the building. These terraces and setbacks would serve to break up the building’s scale, while creating a series of visual connections between different levels of the podium. The terracing of the building mass also allows for a transition between the podium and the hotel towers above, so there is not one solid wall of buildings.
› The towers would be clad with refined bronze shading elements or similar to create an ephemeral visual quality, while managing inside heat gain.
› The choice of building materials and the composition of the building components on the site would ensure a visually appealing design
› The proposed project would incorporate a comprehensive landscaping plan that would provide visual relief from the proposed buildings, partially screening and softening them, as well as the entire perimeter of the property and the internal roadways.
› The proposed surface parking areas would be landscaped, which would help screen them from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. Landscaped islands within these areas would also minimize the visual impact of the asphalt and concrete parking lots, and would help screen the vehicles parked within these surface lots.
› The proposed lighting has been designed to comply with the U.S. Green Building Council’s recommendation to not exceed 0.10 fc of vertical illuminance at the project boundary in order to minimize light trespass and consistent with applicable Town of Hempstead requirements.
› All lighting fixtures within 35 feet inboard of the site boundary would either be existing light poles to remain, or low bollards aiming into the property only.
› The lighting plan incorporates a variety of measures to mitigate potential light pollution and avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to local insect populations. These include concealed and integrated exterior building lighting, fully shielded lighting systems to mark access points, pole-mounted full-cutoff luminaires at surface parking areas, soft, indirect cove lights at the hotel entry drop-off points, perimeter walking paths illuminated with low- level bollards, in-grade paver lights at the proposed veterans memorial plaza, parking garage interiors lit with non-directional, shielded, surface-mounted cylinders that would directs light downward to minimize potential light-spill, and vertical mullions at windows to baffle interior lighting as viewed from exterior areas.

‌46 USGBC. Light pollution reduction. Allowable light trespass by lighting zone (GIBc17)

› The lighting plan has been designed to support the goals of reducing energy consumption, being mindful of glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill from the lighting systems, and incorporating automated controls that allow for dim capabilities and time-clock settings or having sensors that provide illumination where needed for safety and security.
‌Cultural Resources
Review of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) revealed that the subject property is not located within an archaeologically-sensitive area. Moreover, no State or National-Register-Eligible or Listed buildings situated on or substantially contiguous to the subject property were identified. The Town of Hempstead’s list of landmarks found on the Town’s website47 was also reviewed, and there are no Town landmarks identified either on or substantially contiguous to the subject property. Furthermore, a previously-conducted Phase 1A study concluded that the subject property has virtually no sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric or historic period archaeological sites and no further investigations were recommended.
In addition, there are no archaeological or historical resources, archaeologically-sensitive areas or Town designated landmarks substantially contiguous to the subject property. The various listed and eligible historic properties detailed in the section above are situated 1,500±-4,000± feet away from the subject property and are separated from them by modern developments and roads. Views from those properties toward the subject property contain infrastructure that is typical of a well-developed suburban commercial area (e.g., major roadways, commercial buildings, utility infrastructure).
While portions of the proposed Integrated Resort would be visible from several historic resources, the landscape in this area has already been considerably altered by human disturbance, including extensive commercial, institutional, utility and roadway development of varying heights and architectural styles. Views of the proposed Integrated Resort from historic resources would be present, but not out of character with the existing development of the area, which is already seen from the existing historic resources. Further, the presence of the proposed Integrated Resort would not result in changes to the current or past uses or the aesthetic character of historic buildings.
Moreover, the proposed Integrated Resort would bring additional visitors to the area who may also visit cultural resources in the area, supporting a major goal of the Nassau County Hub (attracting people to the cultural anchor). The Cradle of Aviation Museum, which is part of Museum Row, has endorsed the proposed Integrated Resort saying that it “aligns with our mission of promoting education, culture and the overall well-being of Long Island.” The proposed action would “be a catalyst for economic growth in the region” and has the “potential for collaborative events and partnerships between the resort and cultural institutions like the Cradle of Aviation” fostering a “vibrant cultural scene, enriching the lives of residents and visitors alike.” Accordingly, it is expected that the Integrated Resort would enhance the visitation to the existing cultural resources.

‌47 Town of Hempstead. Landmark Preservation. Available at: https://hempsteadny.gov/580/Landmarks-Preservation. Accessed March, 2024

As there would be no direct impacts to any archaeological or historical resources or designated landmarks on or substantially contiguous to the subject property and the nearest historic properties are already impacted by intervening development, no mitigation is required.
‌Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities
Under the existing condition, average electricity usage at the Coliseum property averages approximately 413,000 kWh per month. Existing PSEG Long Island service routes to the Coliseum property through the Nassau Energy Corporation property (known as “Engie”), underneath Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and into a Service Room on the east side of the Coliseum at the Event Level. There are also 12-inch chilled water lines (for air conditioning) and 6-inch hot water lines (for heating). The Marriott property is served by PSEG, and electrical service is independent from that of the Coliseum. Based on information provided by Marriott, average electricity usage is approximately 466,000 kWh per month.
Natural gas is currently supplied to the subject property by National Grid. The existing Coliseum property currently receives high-pressure natural gas from the street main located in Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and average usage is approximately 509 therms per month. Based on information provided by Marriott, average natural gas usage is approximately 8,200 therms per month.
As the Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel were both constructed over four decades ago, neither was developed with significant energy efficiency or conservation measures.
Implementation of the proposed action would result in the disconnection of services from the Engie facility to the Coliseum property and the establishment of new utilities, including the construction of central utilities plants (CUPs) for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Integrated Resort (CUP-1 and CUP-2, respectively). For natural gas services, the Integrated Resort would disconnect from the existing north-south gas line, mentioned above, and would have two new natural gas connection points.
The energy strategy for the Integrated Resort is consistent with Sands’ overall commitment to sustainability as set forth in the Sands ECO360 program.48 The ECO360 program works to minimize Sands’ environmental impact and reflects its vision to lead the way in sustainable building development and resort operations. Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site is natural gas for commercial kitchens and two diesel-fueled emergency generators for emergency power supply.49 The proposed HVAC systems for the proposed Integrated Resort have been designed with energy efficiency and conservation as the focus. The HVAC mechanical systems would all be electric driven, use high performance and very efficient heat pump technology with heat recovery, and would not burn any fossil fuels such as gas in a boiler or furnace to make hot water or steam.
Overall, this proposed energy strategy, by conserving electricity and fossil fuels, also minimizes potential carbon emissions. Another benefit of air source heat pumps is the avoidance of significant water consumption associated with conventional campus air conditioning that relies

‌48 Sands. Our Planet. Available at: https://www.sands.com/responsibility/planet/. Accessed August 2024.
‌49 Sands is also in the process of evaluating the potential for use of renewable natural gas.

upon evaporative cooling towers typically used to generate chilled water for air conditioning. Furthering Sands’ commitment to energy conservation and clean energy generation, the roofs of the proposed parking garages, meeting and conference space, and entertainment venue would include the integration of solar PV panels.
The proposed Integrated Resort would use passive design strategies to minimize energy use intensity and meet high-efficiency project expectations. Sands would focus on building exterior wall thermal performance and other building performance criteria (e.g., material selection, internal operations, building form) as part of Sands’ commitment to achieving LEED certification and is also planning to pursue LEED for Communities.50 LEED for Communities would help Sands plan, develop, and operate the complex in a way that enhances sustainability and quality of life by focusing on natural systems and ecology, transportation and land use, water efficiency, energy and GHG emissions, materials and resources, quality of life, and innovation.
A key feature of this program is the use of HVAC equipment and operations strategies that would result in high-performance and efficient design. These strategies include the integration of high-efficiency mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems, using energy-efficient appliances and equipment, and smart zoning of climate design conditions throughout the building components.
Smart metering and methods for sharing information regarding energy usage for the building components would be implemented. Sands proposes various submeter stations within the proposed Integrated Resort to identify electricity, chilled and hot water use for each building component, and submeters for major mechanical equipment and subsystems such as lighting. Similar to Sands’ other resorts, the proposed Integrated Resort would employ facility engineers who continually monitor performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation and minimize utility consumption. All new building components would meet or exceed the requirements of the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State.
Upon completion of Phase 1 of the proposed Integrated Resort, the service demand was calculated to be 11,964 kilovolt-ampere (kVA) (10,242 kW). At Full Build (completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2), the overall service demand is projected to be 46,581 kVA (40,805 kW). Sands has requested a total electrical service capacity of 47 megavolt ampere (MVA), and Sands received a letter of service availability from PSEG Long Island, dated December 8, 2023, indicating that it would provide service to the subject property. Preliminary review by PSEG Long Island has indicated that in order to support this ultimate capacity, power would be provided from a combination of existing capacity at the 69kV Lindbergh Substation, as well as the construction of an additional substation/expanded substation in the general vicinity of this existing substation (alternative locations are currently being explored). For the initial phase of the proposed Integrated Resort, it is projected that four (4) 10MVA, 13.2kV feeders would be provided from the existing Lindbergh Substation to provide 20MVA of capacity in a 2N configuration.
To increase awareness of the importance of energy efficiency and to inform the public about the amount of renewable energy produced on-site and off-site, Sands would install informational

‌50 Sands is committed to achieving LEED certification for the Integrated Resort under the Building Design and Construction commercial building rating system and for the entire complex under the LEED for Communities rating system. Its target is LEED Gold Certification; however, the ultimate determination of the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized.

displays in the lobbies of the hotels and casino to showcase the renewable electricity production data in real time.
Overall, Sands is committing to an almost 100 percent electricity-based development, which would incorporate energy-reduction and conservation measures, as well as energy-efficient design. Consultations have been undertaken with the service providers, who have confirmed that they would supply the Integrated Resort, and Sands would participate in funding the required substation expansion/new substation associated with its energy demand. The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the use of renewable energy through the installation of an on-site solar PV system and would continue to explore other renewable energy options through the design process. Therefore, the proposed development is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on the use of energy or utilities. However, proposed measures to mitigate energy use and utilities include:
› HVAC systems would be electric and would not burn fossil fuels through gas or steam. High performance efficient heat pump technology with heat recovery would also be used.
› Central utility plants would be used, which provide more efficient cooling and heating energy generation equipment shared across the site than distributed independent smaller equipment unable to move thermal energy across the site.
› High efficiency air source and water source heat pumps with heat recovery would be used in the two CUPs for the production of chilled water, space heating hot water, and domestic hot water heating.
› Air-side systems would be used and include provisions for outside air demand response and enhanced filtration (higher grade minimum efficiency reporting value [MERV] rating) for indoor air quality and efficiency measures.
› Lighting controls would be arranged to allow for intelligent dimming and control and incorporate occupancy monitoring.
› All lighting would be LED, and smart sensors would be used. Daylighting would also be incorporated into the development, and occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting will be used in all public spaces, hotel rooms, and office areas.
› Energy Star-rated appliances and equipment will be used to keep the energy use intensity as low as possible.
› Larger walk-in coolers and freezers will use efficient variable speed parallel rack type refrigeration systems.
› A plug load management/control plan will be implemented to switch off devices and/or programmed to minimize energy use when not in use in areas that are unoccupied.
› PV panels will be integrated into the roofs of the proposed parking garages, meeting and conference space, and entertainment venue. Sands is targeting a minimum of eight percent of the overall energy consumption of the proposed project to be supplied through on-site renewable energy via installation of PV systems. Sands also aims to procure off-site renewable energy within the same grid as the Integrated Resort via a power purchase agreement with the local energy provider.
› A stratified chilled water thermal storage tank is under study to shift a portion of the electrical demand of the heat pumps from the warmest part of the day, as well as a large-

scale battery storage system also providing uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to business- critical loads to shift a portion of electrical demand when the grid is highly loaded to the middle of the night when grid loading is reduced.
› Smart metering and methods for sharing information regarding energy usage for the building components will be implemented.
› Sands is committed to achieving LEED third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort. Its target is LEED Gold under the Building Design and Construction rating system, though the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized. Sands is also planning to pursue certification of the entire Sands complex under the LEED for Communities rating system.
› The Integrated Resort will incorporate energy recovery from the fresh air supply, heat recovery and transfer from cooling-dominated spaces to heating-dominated spaces via the hydronic systems. Efficient electronically commutated (EC) motor-based fan coil units that optimize both interior comfort and energy efficiency will be used to minimize HVAC fan energy.
› Sands will employ facility engineers who continually monitor performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation.
› Sands will continue to work with PSEG Long Island and has committed to participate in funding a substation expansion/new substation to meet the energy demands of the Integrated Resort.
‌Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability
There are specific regulatory requirements and policies at the federal, state, and local levels for GHG emissions, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainability, and resiliency and emergency/disaster preparedness that were used to analyze the proposed action. The analysis of GHG emissions includes direct emissions from on-site stationary and mobile sources and indirect emissions for off-site stationary sources, mobile sources, and solid waste.
In the proposed action (with mitigation), Sands is anticipated to reduce natural gas consumption by a minimum of 10 percent compared to the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) by using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens. Use of Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances are conservatively projected to reduce natural gas consumption by
10 percent to an estimated 328,347 MMBtu per year. This results in approximately 1,938 metric tons per year emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e) avoided. In the proposed action (with mitigation), the total direct stationary source GHG emissions from natural gas and diesel fuel combustion are an estimated 20,136 tons per year of CO2e.
It is expected that the GHG produced by vehicles directly associated with the proposed action would primarily result from shuttle bus activities. Other project-owned or managed vehicles such as security vehicles are expected to produce a much smaller amount of GHG emissions. The proposed action would not exceed the federal GHG mandatory reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year established by the USEPA.51 Total direct GHG emissions from

‌51 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98.2, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, (42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.), established October 30, 2009.

stationary and mobile sources are expected to be 22,463 metric tons of CO2e per year in the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) and 20,525 metric tons of CO2e per year for the proposed action after incorporating mitigation measures.
The indirect stationary assessment estimates GHG emissions associated with the project-related stationary sources, such as off-site combustion for energy generation consumed by the proposed action in the form of electricity consumption, as required by the NYSDEC GHG Policy. Indirect stationary source emissions would result from electricity consumption by HVAC systems, lighting, the electronic casino games, plug loads, and other end uses. Electricity consumption was modeled for the different types of facilities and uses associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, such as hotel, retail, food and beverage, parking garages, gaming facilities, convention center, and back of house, etc. Additionally, electricity consumption was estimated by three primary end uses in lighting, plug loads, and mechanical consumption. A total of approximately 131,415 MWh per year of electricity is expected to be consumed by the uses associated with the proposed facilities under the baseline scenario (with no mitigation). In the baseline scenario, the proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to exceed the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent by installing an on-site system of solar PVs and by incorporating energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency measures that would be incorporated in the design and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort include passive design strategies, high- efficiency MEP systems and HVAC equipment, Energy Star‐rated appliances and equipment, LED lighting, occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and building automation technology to optimize performance.
The estimated consumption of 131,415 MWh of electricity in the baseline scenario was converted to carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions using standardized conversion factors provided by the USEPA.52 Considering the GWP associated with each GHG, a total of 72,644 metric tons per year of CO2e is estimated in the baseline scenario.
Beyond exceeding the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent in the baseline scenario, Sands is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions in the proposed action by entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources. The 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions assumed from the use of renewable electricity sources is a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.53
After incorporating the additional 20 percent reduction in indirect GHG emissions, the total electricity use in the proposed action is estimated to be 105,132 MWh per year. Considering the GWP associated with each GHG, a total of 58,115 metric tons per year of CO2e is estimated.
Sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources results in approximately 14,529 metric tons per year of CO2e emissions avoided.

‌52 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Updated State-Level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation 1998-2000 (April 2002). Available at: http://www.eia.gov/environment/archive/e-supdoc-u.pdf .
‌53 Climate Group. RE100 Reporting Guidance 2023, Version 7.1 (June 2023). Available at: https://www.there100.org/sites/re100/files/2023- 06/RE100%20reporting%20guidance%202023.pdf .

Indirect mobile source GHG emissions are produced by patrons and employee travel trips to and from the project site. Emissions are based upon traffic volumes, the distance vehicles travel, and GHG emission rates. It is estimated that there would be roughly 135 million miles of passenger vehicle transit, 6.6 million miles of taxi/rideshare transit, and 1.5 million miles of shuttle bus transit associated with the proposed action annually. Given the traffic estimates, it is estimated that indirect mobile sources would contribute roughly 38,423 metric tons of CO2e annually. As vehicles become cleaner and more zero-emission vehicles are introduced, these emissions are expected to decrease with time.
Indirect GHG emissions from solid waste generated at the Integrated Resort would occur from the landfilling of waste. Anaerobic digestion that occurs at the landfills results in the solid waste degrading in GHG emissions. Estimates of solid waste generation were obtained for the proposed action from Sands, based on the estimated size (total area) and functional use of each building associated with the Integrated Resort. The estimated GHG emissions associated with solid waste were calculated using the conversion factor for mixed municipal solid waste as disposed in a landfill from a USEPA study.54 The USEPA study indicates that 0.42 metric tons of CO2e are produced per U.S. short ton of solid waste.
The total annual solid waste sent to the landfill is estimated to be 7,480 U.S. short tons per year in the proposed action. Using the USEPA’s conversion factor, the proposed action is estimated to generate 3,142 metric tons of CO2e per year due to solid waste landfilling. If the solid waste goes to a waste to energy facility instead of a landfill, the overall GHG emissions are generally lower than that of a landfill due to the offset of fossil fuel use and lower methane emissions. However, the actual impact can vary based on specific technologies and efficiencies employed in both waste-to-energy and landfill gas capture systems.55 The solid waste GHG emissions estimated herein conservatively assume the solid is disposed in a landfill rather than a waste-to-energy facility. Operation of the Integrated Resort would incorporate a comprehensive recycling program to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions associated with landfilling. It is estimated that approximately 1,880 U.S. tons of recyclables would be collected and kept out of landfills, preventing approximately
790 metric tons of CO2e from being emitted to the atmosphere per year in landfills.
Total indirect GHG emissions (including indirect stationary sources, indirect mobile sources, and solid waste) are an estimated 114,998 metric tons of CO2e per year in the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) and 99,680 metric tons of CO2e per year after incorporating mitigation measures. Reduction of indirect GHG emissions over and above the baseline scenario would occur by sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources and by diverting at least 20 percent of solid waste from landfills by recycling.
Sands would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions associated with construction activity, energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainability, climate resiliency, and emergency/disaster preparedness. Specific measures that are proposed to be incorporated in the

‌54 USEPA. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd Edition, September 2006, Exhibit B-1, “Net GHG Emissions from Source Reduction and MSW Management Options - Emissions Counted from a Waste Generation Reference Point (MTCO2E/Ton),” page 127. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/2006470266/.
‌55 Arena, U., Gregorio, F. Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Systems: Landfill and Energy Recovery from a Specific Case Study
(2014), Journal of Waste Management, Volume 34, Issue 12, Pages 2404-2412.

proposed Integrated Resort to reduce GHG emissions, minimize impacts associated with climate change, and promote sustainability, include the following:
› Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site (aside from renewables) relates to industrial kitchen natural gas use and emergency generators.
› The HVAC systems will all be electric, use high performance heat pump technology with heat recovery, and will not burn fossil fuels through gas or steam. No combustion equipment is expected to be used on site to produce heat, steam, or hot water. Key HVAC, equipment, and operation strategies that would be incorporated to maximize performance and efficient design include use of on-site central thermal plants, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or air handling units with direct outside air connections, hydronic heating and cooling systems that optimize interior comfort and energy efficiency, heat recovery air source heat pumps, and efficient electric-driven water source heat pumps that simultaneously produce domestic hot water and provide chilled water generation.
› Energy efficiency strategies include maximizing daylight penetration and use, installing LED lighting, using occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and using smart sensors and plug load management.
› The proposed Integrated Resort would install smart metering and submeter stations to track electricity and chilled and hot water use, and facility engineers would continually monitor energy performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation.
› The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to reduce natural gas consumption by a minimum of 10 percent compared to the baseline scenario by using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens.
› The Integrated Resort is anticipated to exceed the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent by installing an on-site solar PV system and by incorporating energy efficiency measures.
› The proposed Integrated Resort is being designed to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions beyond the baseline scenario by sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources. The reduction in GHG emissions assumed in the analysis from the use of renewable energy sources represents a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.
› Operation of the Integrated Resort would incorporate a comprehensive recycling program to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions associated with solid waste landfilling.
› Sands is proposing two bus services, including a shuttle bus to the Hempstead LIRR station as well as larger, longer-distance coach buses, which will provide direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations, providing a single-seat trip between the highest population in the capture area and the Integrated Resort. This will promote the use of mass transit and reduce the lower occupancy vehicle count, which will, in turn, reduce VMT.

› Implementation of Sands Sustainable Procurement Policy will be extended to the proposed Integrated Resort to reduce impacts on human health and the environment and strengthen local communities by ensuring the procurement of products and services that; conserve natural resources, materials, water and energy, and protect biodiversity; maximize recyclability and recycled content, and minimize waste; reduce toxicity and pollution, including GHG emissions; and provide opportunities for small and medium size enterprises and local businesses.
› Sands is committed to achieving USGBC LEED third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort. Buildings designed and constructed to achieve LEED certification help reduce energy and water use, improve indoor air quality, support better building material choices, and drive innovation. While the Integrated Resort would strive for certification at the LEED Gold level, the realized level of LEED certification will be determined as design advances.
› Additional sustainability elements that are incorporated in the proposed action to minimize potential GHG impacts include:
- Developing the Integrated Resort within a previously disturbed, primarily paved site to reduce the overall land-use footprint.
- Featuring a layout of interconnected building components that facilitate efficiency in equipment, performance, and space allocation to minimize energy use.
- Avoiding the use of cooling towers for air conditioning, which typically represents the largest single use of potable water in resorts.
- Providing an on-site bus depot within Parking Garage A, connected to the casinos and hotels/restaurants/retail by an overhead pedestrian bridge, that enhances safety and provides comfortable and convenient year-round access.
- Installing EV charging infrastructure.
- Improving existing stormwater management by recharging stormwater runoff on-site and in the adjacent Nassau County recharge basin, and by promoting groundwater recharge.
- Using low-impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff, including green roofs/landscaped terraces.
- Incorporating a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters, and stores rainwater for reuse. The recovery and reuse system will only be for no-contact irrigation use, and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable to Nassau County.
- Reducing the heat island effect by incorporating high albedo roofing and pavement materials.
- Installing drought-tolerant plant species and integrating advanced irrigation technologies to reduce water needs associated with on-site irrigation.
- Installing low-flow fixtures and appliances to reduce indoor water use.
- Reducing food waste via prevention, donation, and diversion strategies.
‌Construction
The Integrated Resort is proposed to be developed in two phases: Phase 1, consisting of the redevelopment of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum with the Coliseum Casino, Parking Garage A, CUP-1, and Parking Lot E, is anticipated to begin in 2026 and be completed in 2027. Phase 2, which consists of the remainder of the Integrated Resort, is expected to begin in mid- 2026 with construction being completed by the end of 2030.56
Phase 1 construction is planned to commence in 2026 (subject to securing a gaming license and required approvals), and is scheduled to be completed in 2027, for a total anticipated duration of 24 months. Phase 2 construction is projected to begin within six months of the start of Phase 1 (projected at mid-2026 and continuing to the end of 2030), after which the overall Integrated Resort would be open and operational (i.e., Full Build condition).
In compliance with §144-3.G of the Hempstead Town Code, construction would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (weather permitting), Monday through Friday. Construction work would begin at about 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, with most workers arriving between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., with approximately 75 percent leaving by 3:00 p.m.
For safety and security purposes, prior to the start of actual construction activities, the perimeter of the site will be secured with construction fencing. Construction fencing will also be installed around active work zones and staging areas. The construction work zones would be attended during work hours and gated and locked during non-working hours. In addition to fencing, prior to commencement of demolition and construction of Phase 1, vehicle gates, staging, security booths, material laydown and storage, construction trailers locations, first aid areas, temporary sanitary facilities, and a temporary commissary would be installed, along with wheel/truck washing stations and concrete wash out locations, which will be maintained during excavation and foundation activities, so as to minimize off-site tracking of dirt and debris onto area roadways. Temporary covered walkways and hoarding walls will also provide safety and security for guests and employees (once Phase 1 is operational), as well as construction workers. The hoarding wall will also assist with mitigating potential visual and noise impacts during construction.
Demolition of existing structures (in this case limited to selective interior and exterior portions of the Coliseum, parking fields and associated facilities, such as lighting fixtures in Phase 1) will be performed in compliance with applicable environmental and health and safety laws and regulations, including but not limited to OSHA, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Clean Water Act, and would ensure that necessary measures are taken to prevent hazardous substances, hazardous wastes or pollutants (which can be a product or by- product of its activities) from being discharged into the environment. Prior to demolition and the commencement of construction, a Rodent Free Certificate will be obtained from the Nassau County Department of Health.
Construction traffic associated with construction activities would involve the vehicles performing
operations on the site, the delivery and removal of construction materials, as well as worker’s

‌56 As with all projects, timing of actual construction is dependent upon various factors, the most significant of which is timing of decisions on substantive approvals (e.g., determinations on gaming license, zoning amendments, site plans and other required permits and approvals).

vehicles and tradesman vans. The number and types of construction vehicles will vary depending on the stage of construction and the operations underway at any given time. Construction Logistics Plans have been prepared to minimize potential impacts to the area’s surrounding roadways to the extent feasible. Sands will require that all contractors/subcontractors provide a Construction Vehicle Access and Control Plan for their personnel, to be approved by the CM prior to the start of work. No vehicles will be permitted access to the site without prior submission and approval of a Construction Vehicle Access and Control Plan.
The Construction Logistics Plans show the accommodation of on-site parking of worker vehicles, construction vehicles, areas for loading and unloading materials, areas for spoil and staging of material stockpiles, and areas for other support operations. While the locations of these areas would move around the site as it is built out, there would always be adequate areas designated on the site to fully support all operations. Construction workers and business entities working on the site will abide by specific direction from the construction management team as to the entry and exit points on the site they must use, and in the case of construction trucks, the routes they take to arrive at and depart from the site. This will ensure that trucking activities remain on the designated major roadways and do not impact other, more minor roads less suited for heavy vehicles. Site access would be controlled using gates and a badging system; access gates would be attended during working hours and locked during non-working hours.
It is expected that most construction vehicles, including, but not limited to excavators, cranes, lifts, trenchers and compactors, will be brought to the site one time and remain on the site for the duration of their use. When not active, they will be stored on-site. When they are moved off- site, they would travel via the prescribed routes. Some construction vehicles, including dump trucks and haulers, will be entering and leaving the site daily. Construction vehicles would arrive and depart via Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24), Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.
Construction worker safety is a primary focus for Sands. Accordingly, each trade contractor will be required to prepare a CHASP designed to prevent occupational injuries and/or worker exposure to hazards. The CHASP would include measures for worker and community/area protection, including the use of personal protective equipment, dust control and emergency response procedures. The procedures would be designed to ensure compliance with applicable requirements of government agencies and regulations, including those established by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the NYSDEC. In addition, each CHASP will include a truck route access plan, emergency room location map, gate designation map, on-site parking area designation map, and a mass transit access map. Bulletins will be issued monthly identifying which parking lots will be utilized and which gates will be primary and secondary for deliveries and primary and secondary for parking. Several first aid stations will be set up throughout the subject property during all stages of construction.
As the proposed action involves soil disturbance of one or more acres, coverage under the current SPDES general permit would be sought. In accordance with the requirements of the GP- 0-20-001, and of Article XXXVIII of the Town BZO, a preliminary SWPPP has been developed, and would be finalized prior to the issuance of building permits. The preliminary SWPPP details the measures and best management practices to be undertaken to ensure there will be no off-site

adverse impacts from construction-related erosion and sediment transport, as well as post- construction stormwater management. The preliminary SWPPP identifies erosion and sediment control practices designed in conformance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and post-construction stormwater management practices designed in conformance with applicable sizing criteria of the NYSDEC SPDES GP-0-20-001 and the performance criteria of the technical standards of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual.
Significant beneficial socioeconomic impacts are expected from the proposed $5 billion57 Sands investment for construction of the Integrated Resort. A summary of the direct, indirect and induced construction-related socioeconomic impacts is provided below.
› Implementation will result in the creation of over 7,000 construction jobs at the site of the proposed Integrated Resort.
› For Phase 1, the total amount of direct labor income in the construction period is expected to be $232± million, with a total direct output of $830± million. Cumulatively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to generate $882± million in labor income, with a total direct output of $3.03± billion for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› In addition to the direct impacts, during the five-year construction period, there would be total indirect and induced labor income, as well. Together, the total labor income would be
$438± million at Phase 1, increasing to $1.68± billion by the end of construction, with a total output of $1.42± billion, rising to $5.30± billion by the end of construction for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› During the construction period, Nassau County is expected to receive approximately $5.0± million in sales and use tax.
Sands has committed to a number of programs with local organizations, including Minority Millennials and the Empower, Assist, Care Network (EAC), regarding the development of the local employment base for construction, including a pre-apprenticeship fair, as well as a number of employment recruitment efforts. In addition, a project labor agreement (PLA) will be executed and implemented, and negotiations are underway with the building trades with regard to the details. Sands has been in conversations with Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties and local trades and is in the process of finalizing a PLA.
Construction activities will result in temporary increases in sound levels to nearby receptors due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction of the proposed project. The 2018 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Manual, which includes recommended noise and vibration criteria relating specifically to construction activities, was used in the evaluation of the potential construction impacts associated with the proposed project. Given the noise levels for typical construction equipment per the FTA typical construction equipment noise emission levels and the nearest potential residential/residential-type receiving properties, which are the existing on-site Marriott Hotel (proposed to remain) and the closest off-site residence on Cunningham Avenue, both approximately 300 feet south (worst-case scenario) of the construction activity

‌57 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that will be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the license is awarded, the design is finalized, and bids are received. Thus, the projected socioeconomic impacts presented in this DEIS are conservative.

associated with the new building components of the proposed Integrated Resort, it has been calculated that the most intensive construction noise would not exceed the most stringent FTA- recommended construction noise criteria. Any receptors situated at greater distances from the construction activity will be less impacted by the construction. To further minimize potential construction noise impacts, Sands has incorporated measures, including the requirement for equipment to be kept in good repair and be equipped with mufflers. Idling of equipment not in use will not be permitted. Also, quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) back-up alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet applicable regulations.
Perimeter construction fencing will be installed to provide site security and a visual screen. Internally, a hoarding wall will be installed, which will be occasionally relocated during the construction period as the location of the construction activities moves around within the subject property. Fencing/wall features will provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area. Furthermore, to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise impacts), during the construction period, construction vehicles will be routed along primary streets and highways, and will not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets.
With respect to construction-related vibration impacts, the primary source of vibration from the proposed project is expected to be short-term construction operations that include large construction vehicles and non-vibratory pile driving. The FTA Manual guidelines, which were used in the analysis, provide thresholds for identifying the vibration sensitivity of buildings. It is noted that MSKCC may contain vibration-sensitive equipment in its facility. Therefore, to minimize vibration impacts across the site, including areas near MSKCC, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed on the site. However, it is noted that other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the CM will coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction.
The FTA Manual criteria were used to calculate the expected vibration levels at the nearest residential-type and residential properties, which are the existing Marriott Hotel (to remain) and closest residence on Cunningham Avenue, both located approximately 300 feet away from construction activities. The vibration level analysis shows that the most vibration-intensive construction activities would be below the most stringent vibration criteria at the 300-foot distance for both damage to structure and annoyance per the FTA Manual guidelines. Based on the foregoing, the off-site impacts of vibration from construction are expected to be minimal.
Construction activity generally affects air quality as a result of particulate matter (fugitive dust) created by excavation, demolition, transfer of debris into trucks, emissions from on-site diesel equipment, and emissions from increased truck traffic to and from the construction site. Three sources of air pollutant emissions during construction were considered – construction-related traffic, on-site construction equipment, and fugitive dust from storage and transfer of construction materials. There would be no construction-related vehicles using local roadways, including those within the adjacent NYSDEC-identified Disadvantaged Community. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that off-site roadway detours or diversions will be required for traffic around nearby communities, including those disadvantaged communities. Therefore, a detailed quantitative analysis of construction air quality impacts was not warranted based on guidance

from the NYSDOT TEM.58 The amount of material that would be removed from the site is estimated at 660,000 CY. Material removal and delivery can result in fugitive dust emissions as well as impacts from transport from diesel trucks. The main component of diesel exhaust that has been identified as having an effect on human health is fine particulates. To ensure that the construction of the proposed project results in the lowest feasible diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions and fugitive dust emissions, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented.
Specific project features to be incorporated in the design to contribute to the LEED rating for construction include, but are not limited to, locally manufactured materials, low-emitting materials, construction waste recycling, and the implementation of a construction indoor air quality management plan. The CM will develop a comprehensive Construction Pollution Management plan to reduce the potential for impacts due to construction activities.
Waste management directives will be in place at the construction site. The waste management landfill diversion objectives align with LEED requirements. The minimum target for waste diversion during construction is 50 percent, with an aspiration to achieve 75 percent diversion, depending on local waste management availability and infrastructure. To monitor this, the CM will be required to provide monthly reports on the quantities of material recycled for that month, as well as the overall percentage of material recycled in the project to date. Sands will require the following materials be recycled, and labeled waste containers/staging areas will be provided for these waste streams at designated locations: paper; cardboard; wood crates; plastic containers; and metals and lumber. Furthermore, non-construction and demolition waste streams (e.g., food scraps, cups, bottles and cans) would be recycled. Labeled waste containers will be provided in appropriate locations such as break and lunchroom areas. The recyclable construction waste and non-construction waste would not be intermingled. If the mixed-waste construction and demolition waste recycling center is not able to meet the established goals, the CM would make arrangements with another vendor and will require certain construction waste streams to be segregated.
Overall, Sands will employ sustainability measures that will help support better building and material choices, and help to drive innovation in support of reducing the overall environmental impact related to construction of the Integrated Resort. In order to minimize potential impacts associated with construction activities to the extent practicable, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated:
› Perimeter construction fencing would be installed around the construction site to provide site security and a visual screen. Internally, temporary covered walkways and a hoarding wall, which will provide for both safety and security for the general public, employees and construction workers, will be installed. The hoarding wall will be occasionally relocated during the construction period as the location of the construction activities moves around within the subject property. These fencing/wall features will provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area.

‌58 New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Environmental Procedures Manual: Air Resources (Page 1.1-107). Available
at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and-guidance/epm/repository/epmair01.pdf (PDF page 113). Accessed September 2024.

› Site access would be controlled using gates and a badging system, and access gates would be attended during working hours and locked during non-work hours.
› Construction materials and products will be stored in a protected and secured designated area.
› All vehicles associated with the proposed construction would be contained on site, no vehicles would park or stage on adjacent streets.
› All workers must carpool with a minimum of two workers per vehicle during peak calendar quarters of construction.
› Construction vehicles would arrive and depart via Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24) by several prescribed routes via either the Long Island Expressway or Sunrise Highway to ensure that construction vehicles do not traverse local, secondary roadways.
› Excavated materials (e.g., soils) to be disposed of off-site would be sampled and characterized, based upon the acceptance criteria and permitting requirements of the proposed recycling and/or disposal facilities. Transportation and disposal would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360.
› Reuse of on-site soil or non-native material will be conducted in accordance with the proposed site use and with NYSDEC regulations, including NYSDEC Part 360.13 for soil reuse, NYSDEC Part 375 and NYSDEC DER-10.
› Imported topsoil used for landscaping would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers.
› If any USTs and/or associated appurtenances (e.g., fill lines, vent line, and electrical conduit) are encountered during redevelopment of the subject property, decommissioning, removal and off-site disposal would be done in accordance with NYSDEC and NCDH UST closure requirements. Previously unidentified USTs would be registered with the NYSDEC and NCDH, as necessary, prior to decommissioning or removal.
› Prior to renovation activities, ACM abatement plans would be developed to ensure the proper handling, removal, and disposal of ACM in accordance with applicable regulations. Appropriate engineering controls and best management practices to minimize asbestos exposure would be implemented during any activities that could result in the disturbance of ACM. Asbestos air monitoring would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.
› Lead-based paint and other hazardous substances, if encountered, would be remediated in accordance with prevailing regulations.
› A CHASP will be prepared that will incorporate measures for worker and community protection, including personal protective equipment, dust control and emergency response procedures. The CHASP would be prepared prior to construction, and implemented during each phase of construction.
› A preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, which would be finalized for review and approval prior to construction. As part of the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control measures to minimize construction-related impacts to soils and groundwater would be installed prior to construction and monitored through the construction period. These measures would be maintained until the site is permanently developed.

› Measures to minimize impacts to air quality, including fugitive dust and GHG emissions control measures, would be implemented throughout the construction period.
› Quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) backup alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet all applicable regulations.
› Construction would occur in accordance with the hours and days permitted by the Town of Hempstead Town Code.
› Construction equipment would be required to have properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems.
› Proper operation and maintenance, and prohibition of excessive idling of construction equipment engines, will be required.
› Where possible, construction equipment will be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible.
› In order to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise), during the construction period, construction vehicles will be routed through primary streets and highways, and will not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets
› MSKCC may contain vibration-sensitive equipment in its facility. To minimize vibration impacts, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed to be used on the site. However, other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the CM will coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction
› To help achieve the LEED rating for construction, various measures will be incorporated into the project, including, but not limited to, use of locally manufactured materials, use of low- emitting materials, construction waste recycling, and the implementation of a construction indoor air quality management plan.
› Waste management directives will be put in place at the construction site to achieve a minimum waste diversion during construction of 50 percent, with an aspiration to achieve 75 percent diversion.
› In order to avoid the inadvertent removal of dirt and similar materials from the site during construction, various measures will be implemented including provision of a truck tire wash‐ off; proper covering of trucks leaving the site with debris; routine cleaning of sidewalks and paved areas; and disposal of concrete waste in containers for removal from site.
› To reduce embodied carbon, Sands will procure local materials and products; request embodied carbon data during contracting and procurement, so that lower carbon building material options can be secured; and reduce construction waste, such that materials will be procured at appropriate quantities to eliminate extras and reduce packaging. Sands will also recycle construction waste to minimize quantities of construction waste to be landfilled.

‌Cumulative Impacts

The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, Fourth Edition, 2020, pages 80 and 82) explains, in pertinent part, that:

Cumulative impacts occur when multiple actions affect the same resource(s). . .

Cumulative impacts must be assessed when actions are proposed, or can be foreseen as likely, to take place simultaneously or sequentially in a way that the combined impacts may be significant. As with direct impacts, assessment of cumulative impacts should be limited to consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts, not speculative ones. . .

. . .If two or more actions affecting the same resource(s) are proposed at about the same time, or one after the other, their cumulative impact may be significant. If a third action is subsequently proposed, the need to examine cumulative impact may be even more important. For example, multiple developments using the same road segment, sewage treatment plant, or water supply may incrementally increase existing impacts to a significant level.

Courts, however, have set some limits and standards for when a lead agency may consider cumulative impacts. The lead agency must clearly articulate at least one basis for requiring cumulative impact assessment:

› The actions themselves can be demonstrated to be clearly related;

› Two or more separate actions can be demonstrated to be likely to cause specific impacts on a specific, single resource; or

› Two or more actions are proposed within a designated protected resource area for which an adopted management plan exists.

Note that in all such cases, the lead agency must clearly articulate the functional connections of potential impacts to resources, as courts have generally not accepted proximity alone as a basis for requiring cumulative impact analysis.

In accordance with the foregoing, Sands contacted the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead, as well as proximate incorporated villages (e.g., Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Westbury, Freeport) to identify those recently-approved or planned developments [that have current pending applications]) for which a cumulative impact assessment may be necessary.

Additionally, for traffic analysis purposes, the NYSDOT and NCDPW have been contacted regarding recently approved and/or planned roadway and/or infrastructure projects that may affect the roadways considered within the TIS for this application. A total of 15 other proposed developments were evaluated as part of the cumulative impact analysis.

As required by the Final Scope, these recently approved or planned developments have been analyzed for cumulative impacts affecting the same environmental factors as the proposed action. This includes examining the cumulative impacts on water supply (for projects that are proposed within the service area of the Town of Hempstead Water Department or the Mitchel Field Water Supply Area), sewage generation (for projects that would discharge sanitary waste to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant), electrical supply (for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, if NYU is able to provide calculated electric loads), air quality (for projects that are situated within the NYSDEC-designated Hempstead/New Cassell/Roosevelt/Uniondale/Westbury disadvantaged community), and traffic impacting the same locations as the proposed action. The table below identifies those recently-approved or planned developments and assesses whether they would have common impacts on the environmental factors identified in the Final Scope.

Other Planned Developments and Cumulative Impact Issues

Project and Description	Within Hempstead Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction	Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP	Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis	Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Initiative
Gardens at Buffalo, 17- 33 Buffalo Ave. Village of Freeport (200 multifamily units, inc. 40 senior units)	No	Yes	Yes*	No
The Bridge, South Station Plaza, Village of Mineola (121 multifamily units, 10,000 sf event space)	No	No	Yes*	No
The Royal Blue, 101 & 105 Searing Ave., Village of Mineola – (54 multifamily units)	No	No	Yes*	No
120 & 125 Third Street, between Old Country Road and Third Street, Village of Mineola (440 multifamily units and 9,840 sf of retail)	No	No	Yes*	No
85 Willis Ave/111 Second St., Village of Mineola (92 multifamily units)	No	No	Yes*	No
The Cornerstone at Westbury (Phase 1 and Phase 2), 461 and 425 Railroad Ave., Village of Westbury (131 multifamily units)	No	Yes	Yes**	Yes
249 Drexel Ave, Village of Westbury (18 multifamily units, 1,750 sf retail)	No	Yes	No	No
353 Union Ave., Village of Westbury (187 multifamily units)	No	Yes	No	Yes
Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead	No	No	Yes**	No

Project and Description	Within Hempstead Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction	Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP	Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis	Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Initiative
145 North Franklin Street, Village of Hempstead (244 units, 8,667 sf retail)
Carman Place 126 Bedell Street, Village of Hempstead (228 units, 22,290 sf retail)	No	No	Yes*	Yes
Estella Housing Bedell Street, Village of Hempstead (66 Apts., 30 dwelling units, 5,540 sf retail)	No	No	Yes**	Yes
Grubb Site Plan 257 Main Street, Village of Hempstead (173 units, 2,069 sf retail)	No	No	Yes*	Yes
Clinton Manor LLC 226 Clinton Street, Hempstead NY (60 senior units, 60 apt. units)	No	No	Yes**	No
281 Clinton Street, Village of Hempstead (conversion of day school to retail)	No	No	No	No
600 Front Street, Village of Hempstead (54 multifamily units)	No	No	No	No
Proposed Shopping Center, 357 and 440 Old Country Road, Carle Place, Town of Hempstead (35,558 sf of retail space, 3,015 sf bank with drive-thru and 2,818 sf restaurant with drive-thru)	No	Yes	Yes*	No

Project and Description	Within Hempstead Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction	Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP	Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis	Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Initiative
Roosevelt Field Pad Sites, 630 Old Country road, Town of Hempstead (Hotel with 170 keys and 85 seat restaurant and 90,000 sf medical office building)	Yes (Roosevelt Field Water District)	Yes	Yes*	No
393-401 Old Country Road, Carle Place, Town of North Hempstead – conversion of retail/restaurant to medical office space	No	Yes	No	No
MSKCC, 1101 Hempstead Turnpike, Town of Hempstead (26,000 sf expansion)	Yes (Uniondale Water District)	Yes	Yes*	No
Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital at Nassau Community College, Town of Hempstead (800 beds, 350,000 sf of academic/ research and administration offices, 200,000 sf of student/ staff housing and 250,000 sf of ambulatory medical use)	Yes (Mitchel Field Water Supply Area)	Yes	See details regarding traffic, below*	No

*Trip generation prepared by VHB for OPD original application or calculated by VHB based on ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

**Trip generation received from municipality.

With respect to water resources, the following are the proposed OPDs that are located within either the Town of Hempstead Water Department or the MFWSA. The figures below represent the estimated potable water demand, based on Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates published by the NCDPW, based on the assumption that the domestic water demands would be equal to the sewage flow rates.59 Of the OPDs identified, only one is also located within the area of the

‌59 Fixture unit counts, water saving devices and other potential measures to reduce water demand are unknown and have not been considered as part of these estimates.

Uniondale Water District, namely the proposed expansion of the MSKCC Uniondale facility. The contemplated NYU Langone Hospital project is located within the boundary of the MFWSA. Three UWD interconnections with the MFWSA are being used as the daily source of water to the MFWSA and are integral to the water supply to the MFWSA. The Hotel (Pad Site) and Medical Office Building located on the Roosevelt Field Mall property are proposed within the boundary of the Roosevelt Field Water District, which is also operated by the Town of Hempstead Water Department. The calculations below are based on NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates:60

› MSKCC Expansion – Town of Hempstead Water Department, Uniondale Water District

26,000 sf medical office x 0.1 gpd/sf = 2,600± gpd
› Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility – Town of Hempstead Water Department, MFWSA
800 hospital beds x300 gpd/bed = 240,000 gpd
350,000 sf academic/research offices x 0.06 gpd/sf = 21,000 gpd
200,000 sf staff/student housing @ 750 sf/unit =
267 units x 200 gpd/unit = 53,400 gpd
250,000 sf ambulatory medical use x 0.10 gpd/sf = 25,000 gpd
TOTAL 339,400± gpd
› Roosevelt Field Pad Sites (Hotel and Medical Office) – Town of Hempstead Water Department, Roosevelt Field Water District
170 hotel rooms x 150 gpd/room = 25,500 gpd
85 restaurant seats x 30 gpd/seat = 2,550 gpd
90,000 sf medical office x 0.10 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd

As shown above, these projects range in scale and potential water demands on the Town of Hempstead Water Department’s Districts, totaling approximately 379,050 gpd or 0.38± mgd. For conservative analysis purposes and because specific calculations for irrigation for each OPD were not available, 10 percent of the potable water demand was added for irrigation, bringing the total potential projected water demand to 416,955± gpd or (0.42± mgd).

The Town of Hempstead Water Department, upon review of a request for water availability from Sands, has identified the need for a new water supply well. Sands is in the process of designing the new well and conducting test wells. The well would ultimately be constructed in accordance with the standards of and with approval by the Town of Hempstead, to be operated by the UWD. The new well is proposed to be designed with a capacity of 1.98 mgd. At Full Build, Sands would generate a new water demand of 0.763± mgd. Therefore, excess capacity would be available from this new well (1.22± mgd),61 which could address the projected demand from OPDs (including the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility) and could also cover the Uniondale Water District’s theoretical deficit of 760,000 gpd (maximum day plus fire flow, Section 3.2.1.2).

‌60 Water demands from fire water services are not included as part of these domestic water use estimates.

‌61 Sands has committed to funding this new well. However, if significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

Notwithstanding this, each of these projects would be required to coordinate and secure confirmation of water availability from the Town of Hempstead Water Department, and at that time, the Water Department would confirm whether water would be available and if the projects would be required to provide mitigation for their projected water demand.

With respect to sewage disposal, sewage effluent from the majority of the OPDs is transported to and treated at the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). Effluent from the other OPDs (i.e., those in the Village of Mineola and those in the Village of Hempstead) is directed to and treated at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility, previously known as the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant.62 The following are the estimated sewage flows that would be transported to the Cedar Creek WPCP for treatment from the OPDs, based on the NCDPW’s Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates.63 Where bedroom mix was unknown, one-bedroom units were assumed for all senior apartments and independent living units. Furthermore, since the new medical office building at 393-401 Old Country Road is a conversion of an existing office and restaurant, and since the medical office is already in operation, the sewage effluent was not included in this analysis.

›	The Gardens at Buffalo, Village of Freeport	22,000 gpd
		21,000 gpd
		8,000 gpd
›	TOTAL The Cornerstone at Westbury, Village of Westbury	51,000± gpd 23,600 gpd
		3,900 gpd
›	TOTAL 249 Drexel Avenue	27,500± gpd 5,400 gpd

›	TOTAL Alpine Multifamily Residential	5,575 gpd = 34,000 gpd
		5,100 gpd
	TOTAL	39,100 gpd
› Proposed Shopping Center, Carle Place, Town of North Hempstead

110 studio/one-bedroom units x 200 gpd/unit =
70 two-bedroom units x 300 gpd/unit =

20 three-bedroom units x 400 gpd/unit =

118 studio/one-bedroom units x 200 gpd/unit =

13 two-bedroom units x 300 gpd/unit =
18 two-bedroom units (assumed) x 300 gpd/unit =

1,750 sf retail x 0.1gpf/sf (assume wet retail, no food) = 175 gpd

170 micro/studio/one-bedroom units x 200 gpd/unit

17 two-bedroom units x 300 gpd/unit =

35,558 sf retail x 0.03 gpd/sf = 1,067 gpd

‌62 The Bay Park Conveyance Project will eventually convey treated water from the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility, which currently discharges an average of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated water into Reynolds Channel, to the Cedar Creek WPCP ocean outfall pipe. (https://www.bayparkconveyance.org/about, accessed February 2024)
‌63 Where the bedroom mix was unknown, all units were assumed to contain one bedroom. Also, it was assumed that “senior apartment units” and “independent living dwelling units: would be equal to the flow of “one bedroom “apartment/condo,” which is 200 gpd/unit.
3,015 sf Drive-thru Bank x 0.03 gpd/sf = 90 gpd
Restaurant with drive-thru (assume 1 seat per 37 sf or Restaurant use) 2,818 sf @ 37 sf/seat =
77 seats x 30 gpd/seat = 2,310 gpd
TOTAL 3,467± gpd
› Roosevelt Field Pad Sites (Hotel and Medical Office) (37,050± gpd for both buildings), hamlet of Garden City, Town of Hempstead
170 hotel rooms x 150 gpd/room = 25,500 gpd
85 restaurant seats x 30 gpd/seat = 2,550 gpd
90,000 sf medical office x 0.10 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd
TOTAL 37,050± gpd
› MSKCC Expansion, hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead
26,000 sf medical office x 0.1 gpd/sf = 2,600± gpd:
› Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, hamlet of Garden City, Town of Hempstead
800 hospital beds x 300 gpd/bed = 240,000 gpd
350,000 sf academic/research offices x 0.06 gpd/sf = 21,000 gpd 200,000 sf staff/student housing @ 750 sf/unit =
267 units x 200 gpd/unit = 53,400 gpd
250,000 sf ambulatory medical use x 0.10 gpd/sf = 25,000 gpd TOTAL 339,400± gpd

The Cedar Creek WPCP currently treats approximately 63.8 mgd, operating at approximately 88.6 percent of its permitted capacity of 72 mgd, according to H2M. The total estimated sewage flow for the OPDs is 505,692± gpd (0.506± mgd).

Adding that to the expected new sewage flow from the Integrated Resort of 701,400 gpd (0.70± mgd), the cumulative sewage discharge of the OPDs combined with the proposed Integrated Resort would be 1,207,092 (1.21± mgd), which is within the available capacity of the Cedar Creek WPCP of 72 mgd, (63.8 mgd + 1.21 mgd = 65.01± mgd). However, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, each proposed project, if it has not already done so, would be required to submit a request for sewer availability to the NCDPW, which would evaluate the impact of each project on the County’s sanitary sewer collection and treatment system and identify required mitigation, if any, to be provided by each proposed project.

With respect to cumulative impacts on electricity, no electrical demand information was publicly available for the OPDs or the contemplated NYU Langone project as of the time of preparation of this section of the DEIS. Sands and its consultants have met with PSEG Long Island to discuss the energy needs of the Integrated Resort, and Sands submitted a service request to PSEG Long Island, which contained a projection of its electricity needs. PSEG Long Island has confirmed that it would provide service to Sands. However, as explained earlier in this Executive Summary, a new or expanded substation would be required, and locations for the new/expanded substation are

‌64 The new medical office building is a conversion, which is currently operational and, therefore, is not included as a new sanitary flow in this analysis.

currently being identified and assessed. Sands has committed to continuing to work with PSEG Long Island and to participating in funding of the new or expanded substation needed to meet the energy demand of the Integrated Resort.

Similar to the Integrated Resort, any of the other OPDs, including the contemplated NYU Langone project, would, at the appropriate point in their individual application process, have to submit a service request to PSEG Long Island that would document its projected energy needs and would have to work with PSEG Long Island to determine improvements that may be required to satisfy the projected demand. Through this interaction, it is anticipated that PSEG Long Island would identify improvements required, if any, to ensure that the cumulative impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort, the OPDs and the contemplated NYU Langone project would not adversely impact the electrical system.

With respect to traffic, traffic associated with the identified OPDs was included as part of the No- Build analysis that was conducted in the Traffic Impact Study. The traffic impacts of the Build condition (i.e., background growth, plus OPDs, plus Integrated Resort) include the cumulative impacts of the identified OPDs. The trip generation associated with the OPDs follows:

Total Trip Generation from Other Planned Developments, by Peak Hour

Other Planned Development (Location)	AM Weekday Peak	PM Weekday Peak	Friday Evening	Saturday Midday (Peak Generator)	Saturday Evening
The Gardens at Buffalo (Freeport Village)	68	73	73	78	49
The Bridge (Mineola Village)	39	35	39	54	33
The Royal Blue (Mineola Village)	19	24	19	24	15
120 & 125 Third Street (Mineola Village)*	125	81	116	134	81
85 Willis/111 Second Street (Mineola Village)	29	27	19	27	18
Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead (Hempstead Village)	68	86	79	125	65
Carman Place (Hempstead Village)	142	236	163	238	104
Estella Housing (Hempstead Village)	43	70	62	74	43
Grubb Street (Hempstead Village)	76	95	78	85	53
Clinton Manor LLC, 226 Clinton Street (Hempstead Village)	32	44	49	45	25
Cornerstone at Westbury (Westbury Village)**	45	49	46	55	33
Proposed Shopping Center-Old Country Road (North Hempstead Town)	74	213	290	276	251
Roosevelt Field Mall Pad Sites - Hotel and Medical Office (Hempstead Town)***	275	429	164	363	88

Other Planned Development (Location)

Weekday Peak

Friday Evening

Saturday Midday (Peak Generator)

Saturday Evening

MSKCC Expansion (Hempstead Town)

N/A

*Trip generation is based on 490 units. It is noted that this project was ultimately approved at 450 units.

**The Cornerstone at Westbury is a two-phased project that was analyzed in the TIS as two separate projects.

*** Each pad site was analyzed separately in the TIS.

The Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Integrated Resort incorporates all of the identified OPDs in its analysis of potential impacts, therefore, the analysis and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed Integrated Resort, which are set forth in the Transportation and Parking subsection of this Executive Summary, incorporate the impacts from the OPDs. Thus, the traffic analysis and proposed mitigation for the Integrated Resort inherently address the cumulative impacts of the OPDs.

With respect to NYU Langone (which is not included in the above table) the build year for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility is at least two years after the 2030 Full Build year for Sands. Thus, the proposed Integrated Resort would be operational before the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital. Accordingly, a separate traffic sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the additive impact of the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility to the Full Build condition of the Integrated Resort (which includes the traffic from the identified OPDs).

Due to the nature of the contemplated Hospital Facility, it is expected that some vehicle trips at the site would be multi-use or “internal,” meaning that trips to more than one land use on the site are generated internally and do not add an additional trip to the adjacent roadway network. The internal trip credit was estimated using the procedures outlined in the ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition65 and is also included in the table below.

		AM Peak Hour			PM Peak Hour
Land Use	Enter	Exit	Total	Enter	Exit	Total

Net Trip Generation – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility

Student/Staff Housinga	22	72	94	57	37	94
Hospitalb	1,031	401	1,432	446	906	1,352
R&D Centerc	276	60	336	51	268	319
Medical-Dental Officed	550	128	678	189	566	755
Internal Capturee	-60	-32	-92	-32	-59	-91
Total	1,819	629	2,448	711	1,718	2,429

Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 221 – Multifamily Residential Mid-Rise 3-10 Levels for 240 Units
Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 610 – Hospital for 800 beds
Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 760 – Research and Development Center for 350,000 sf
Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 720 – Medical-Dental Office Building for 250,000 sf
Internal Capture based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program [NCHRP] 684 Guidelines

‌65 Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Based on information provided by NYU Langone, the contemplated hospital facility is estimated to generate 2,448 new trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 2,429 new trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour.66 Based on these trip generation data, the traffic operations analysis evaluated the weekday AM and PM time periods, coinciding with the highest levels of traffic anticipated to be associated with the contemplated Hospital Facility at the following intersections:

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Merrick Avenue

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound at NCC Perimeter Road

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound at James Doolittle Boulevard

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound at Earle Ovington Boulevard/NCC Access

› Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access

› Earle Ovington Boulevard at East Gate Road/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access

› Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue

› Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access

› Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue

› Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard at Commercial Avenue

› Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street

› Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse.

The capacity analyses for the weekday AM and PM peak hours shows that all the intersections would operate with the same overall intersection LOS with the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility as the Integrated Sands Resort Build with the exception of the following (periods affected provided in parentheses):

› Hempstead Tpke at Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access (AM)

› Earle Ovington Blvd at East Gate Rd/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access (AM)

› Hempstead Tpke at Earle Ovington Blvd/Uniondale Ave (AM)

› Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Earle Ovington Blvd/NCC Access (AM and PM).

‌66 As NYU Langone did not provide a concept plan for evaluation and no plans were publicly available at the time the DEIS was prepared, for the purposes of the traffic evaluation performed in the Traffic Impact Study), it was assumed that the main access to the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility would be located opposite the signalized intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard, in the location of the current main NCC access.

serves as a point of access for NCC, and based on available information, the cumulative impact assessment assumed that this location would serve as an access point for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, receiving significant portions of the traffic from the Hospital Facility in the future condition (2,448 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,429 trips in the PM peak hour). Based on these factors, and assuming that NYU Langone selects this location for access, improvements to this intersection would be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic from the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility at the westbound right turn and the southbound left turn movements. The improvements necessary to accommodate the operations of the Hospital Facility at this intersection are not associated with the proposed Integrated Resort and the impact to that intersection would not occur until the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility is operational, assuming NYU selects this location for access. This intersection is located in an area where the intersecting roadways have significant right-of-way widths, such that roadway mitigation could be implemented in the future to accommodate potential impacts from the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, if and when it is approved and developed.

With respect to air quality, the proposed Integrated Resort project would not exceed the NAAQS for CO and for PM2.5. As traffic from the identified OPDs are included in the No-Build background traffic analysis, their impacts are accounted for in the impact analysis for the Integrated Resort.

Accordingly, the cumulative traffic emissions from the proposed Integrated Resort together with the OPDs that are situated within the Hempstead/New Cassel/Roosevelt/ Uniondale/Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Program, would not result in a significant adverse cumulative impact on air quality.

Additionally, based on the results of the stationary source analysis for the proposed project and the distance of the Integrated Resort to the OPDs that are within the Hempstead/New Cassel/Roosevelt/Uniondale/Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Program, there would be no cumulative adverse impact on air quality from the OPD stationary sources and the proposed Integrated Resort’s kitchen exhaust emissions.

Based on the foregoing, no significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts from the mobile and stationary sources associated with the proposed project and the OPDs situated within the Hempstead/New Cassel/ Roosevelt/Uniondale/Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Program are expected.

‌Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action
Growth-inducing aspects are generally described as the long-term, secondary effects of the proposed action. As explained in The SEQR Handbook 67 :
The growth inducement section of an EIS should . . . describe any further development which the proposed action may support or encourage, such as:
› Attracting significant increases in local population by creating or relocating employment, or by providing support facilities or services (stores, public services, etc.); or

‌67 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The SEQRA Handbook 4th Edition. 2020. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.

› Increasing the development potential of a local area, for example, by the extension of roads, sewers, water mains, or other utilities. . . (Page 122)
The SEQR Handbook68 further indicates:
Some activities will encourage or lead to further increases in population or business activity. This type of secondary impact is called growth inducement (page 84).
With respect to increasing the development potential of a local area, even though the proposed action includes improvements to utilities and roadways, the community in which the Integrated Resort is proposed is a well-developed suburban area with zoning and other regulations that control development potential. The most significant utility improvement that is being proposed is the development of a public supply well. This supply well has been needed in the area for a long time, since the time The Lighthouse at Long Island project was proposed in 2009. Since no new development has occurred on the Coliseum site since that time, the well was never constructed. The proposed well is proposed to have a capacity of 1.98 million gallons, and the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to use 0.763± mgd (including domestic use and irrigation), which is a projected maximum. The new well would increase the UWD available capacity to provide the Full Build condition of the proposed Integrated Resort with potable water and would provide a benefit to the greater community by increasing the capacity and resiliency of the public water supply system within the UWD.
Based on discussions with PSEG Long Island and Nassau County, in order to meet the full electrical needs of the proposed Integrated Resort, a new or expanded substation would be required, and a new or expanded facility would also be required to meet the anticipated needs of the contemplated NYU Langone hospital. PSEG Long Island is currently assessing potential locations and design configurations. Sands will continue working with PSEG Long Island and has committed to contributing to new or expanded substation to address the electrical demands of the proposed Integrated Resort.69 While the electrical infrastructure would need to be expanded, it would not induce growth, as the infrastructure would be designed and constructed to meet the projected needs in this area.
The proposed transportation improvements are designed to mitigate impacts associated with the proposed action and will, in various circumstances, help to improve existing roadway conditions that contribute to current delays and congestion. These roadway improvements would not provide significant excess capacity or new access beyond what is required to address various existing conditions, and the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action thereby not creating a condition that would induce growth potential.
As explained above, growth inducement can also result from attracting significant increases in local population. The proposed action does not include any residential development; however, the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to generate over 7,800 operational jobs (5,000 FTE) (including both Sands’ employees and third-party businesses within the Integrated Resort [e.g., spa, restaurants]) to support its operations. These operational jobs are expected to be filled

‌68 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The SEQRA Handbook 4th Edition. 2020. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.
‌69 Cost-sharing would be considered if additional significant users are identified.

primarily by currently unemployed workers and recent high school or college graduates, and Sands has committed to workforce development programs to facilitate this employment.
The socioeconomics analysis projected that approximately 246 workers may migrate to Nassau County to fill operational jobs, which will minimally impact housing demand in Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead. The data also demonstrates that there is sufficient available housing stock that is either vacant, for sale or in the pipeline to accommodate this potential increase in population. Accordingly, the proposed Integrated Resort would not attract significant increases in population that would induce residential growth.
The proposed Integrated Resort is expected to have positive secondary or growth-inducing impacts as small businesses in and around Nassau County are expected to benefit from the presence of the Integrated Resort. Sands proposes to support small businesses directly through vendor purchase and serving as a driver of substantial leisure and business tourism. In addition to drawing an anticipated 10 million annual domestic and global visitors, the proposed Integrated Resort is likely to recapture spending from New Yorkers that would have otherwise visited casino properties outside of New York State.
Sands will also work in partnership with local restaurants to develop the food and beverage program elements for the Integrated Resort and has committed to promoting existing businesses and drawing tourists to the area that could greatly benefit existing venues and attractions. Sands proposes to market day-trip destinations to wineries, golf courses, beaches, ocean activities; to introduce room booking packages (e.g., a room paired with Islanders tickets and a winery tour); and to feature Long Island wines in their restaurants and hotel rooms.
Therefore, the proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to advance the tourist industry on Long Island, not just due to the Resort itself, but in coordination and cooperation with other tourist attractions.
The proposed Integrated Resort, attracting tourists to the area, is also expected to benefit the existing cultural resources and park facilities located in the adjacent area, such as Museum Row and the 913-acre Eisenhower Park. The Cradle of Aviation Museum, which is part of Museum Row, has endorsed the proposed Integrated Resort saying that it “aligns with our mission of promoting education, culture and the overall well-being of Long Island.” The proposed action would “be a catalyst for economic growth in the region” and has the “potential for collaborative events and partnerships between the resort and cultural institutions like the Cradle of Aviation” fostering a “vibrant cultural scene, enriching the lives of residents and visitors alike”.
As a new entertainment destination, the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to attract more tourists to the area, thereby increasing hotel bookings and revenue. The anticipated increase in visitors to the Integrated Resort is expected to increase business activity for nearby hotels. The volume of visitors to the area due to the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to significantly increase the nearby hotels’ tourism footprint.
While implementation of the proposed action will not induce growth as a result of infrastructure improvements, the over $5 billion investment by Sands will generate myriad secondary benefits. In addition, there will be positive growth inducement for existing businesses and cultural facilities that will benefit from the increased activity and tourism associated with the proposed Integrated Resort.

‌Alternatives and Their Impacts

The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR §617.9(b)(5)(v), require that an environmental impact statement include, in pertinent part:

a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. The description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed. The range of alternatives must include the no action alternative. . .

In accordance with the foregoing, the DEIS contains a description and evaluation of reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed action as set forth in the Final Scope. Pursuant to the Final Scope, the following alternatives were analyzed:

› No Action, no additional development occurs on the subject property and the Coliseum and Marriott Hotel continue to function as they currently do.

› Redevelopment of the subject property,70 assuming a gaming license is not awarded.

A “Ritz-Carlton,” “St. Regis” or equivalently-branded hotel containing at least 200 rooms and amenities, with 24-hour reception, a concierge, dining, valet parking, a pool, a fitness center and suites
Up to 500 residences, which may include workforce housing, condominium units or cooperative units
An entertainment venue containing a minimum of 3,600 seats
Any other lawful use subject to the County’s prior written consent
› MFM-Compliant Plan, including the following development:
Coliseum, with Exhibition Space: 416,000 sf
Residential: 428 units (535,000 sf)
Retail: 192,000 sf
Restaurant: 60,000 sf
Hotel: 1,000 keys (627,000 sf)
Multiplex Cinema: 1,400 seats (19,600 sf)
Conference/Meeting Space: 145,000 sf
Office: 100,000 sf
Parking garages: 380,344 sf.

‌70 This alternative includes the rezoning of the Marriott to the proposed MF-IRD. However, no changes in the use or expansions of the Marriott Hotel are proposed under this alternative. Unlike the proposed action, there will not be any physical alterations to the Marriott Hotel property under this alternative (the proposed action includes reconfiguration of parking at the Marriott Hotel property, while this alternative does not).

Below is a table that compares the quantifiable impacts of the proposed action (i.e., the proposed Integrated Resort) with the no action alternative, and the redevelopment of the subject property, assuming a gaming license is not awarded.

Comparison of Alternatives

Parameter	Proposed Action (Integrated Resort)	Alternative CMP (No Gaming License Awarded)	No Action
Size of subject property	86.3± acres	86.3± acres 71	86.3± acres
Type of Development	Entertainment/Hospitality	Mixed-Use, including Residential	Entertainment/Hospitality
	Casino Hotels Meeting and Conference Space	Residential Hotel Food and Beverage

Proposed Uses	Food and Beverage Retail Performance Venue Public Attraction Space Veterans Memorial Spa	Retail Entertainment Retail Multipurpose Recreational Facility Performance Venue Medical Office Research & Development Office Veterans Memorial	Coliseum Hotel Veterans Memorial
Gross Floor Area, excluding basements and structured parking	3,751,672 square feet	2,365,913 square feet	643,923 square feet
Floor Area Ratio, excluding basements and structured parking	1.0	0.76	0.17
Zoning District	Proposed MF-IRD	Proposed MF-IRD	MFM
Public Open Space	3.4± acres	3.16± acres	0 acres
Pervious Surface	15.7± acres	29.4± acres	8.3± acres
Impervious Surface	70.6± acres	42.2± acres	78.0± acres
Material Displacement/Earthwork/Demolition Debris	660,000± CY	97,000± CY	N/A
Population (direct)	0 72	949	0
Public School-Aged Children (direct)	04	41 (direct, on-site)	0
Solid Waste	623± tons per month	395± tons per month	157± tons per month
Stormwater Runoff	1,344,267± cubic feet	925,379±cubic feet	1,459,516± cubic feet
Domestic Water Demand/Sewage Generation 73	701,400± gpd	378,300± gpd	230,000± gpd
Permanent (Operational) Annual Jobs (Direct)74	7,800±	2,790±	478±
Total Annual Permanent Jobs (Direct, Indirect, Induced)6	12,365±	4,096±	543±
Total Annual Operational Labor Income (NYS)75	$1.26± billion	$306.6± million	$14± million
Total Annual Operational Output (NYS)6	$4.06± billion	$826.2± million	$29± million
Total Annual Operational State Tax (NYS)6	$154.2± million	$33.4± million	N/A

‌71 Under this alternative, while the Marriott Hotel property would be rezoned to MF-IRD, there would be no physical alterations to the Marriott Hotel property (i.e., no reconfiguration of parking, as is proposed under the Proposed Action – Integrated Resort). Accordingly, with the exception of site acreage (i.e., acreage to be rezoned), the quantitative impacts in this table do not include the Marriott Hotel property, as the physical site and all operations at the Marriott Hotel would remain the same under this alternative.

‌72 The Integrated Resort would not result in direct population or school-aged children impacts, as there would be no residences on the site. Potential indirect population/school aged children are presented in Section 3.10.2, Community Facilities and Services.

‌73 Does not include irrigation.

‌74 The permanent jobs, including direct, indirect and induced, are new jobs associated with the Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP. The number of permanent jobs for the no action alternative reflect the current existing condition for the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

‌75 The totals for labor income, output, state tax and local tax for both the operational and construction periods consider direct, indirect and induced contributions at Full Build.

Parameter	Proposed Action (Integrated Resort)	Alternative CMP (No Gaming License Awarded)	No Action
Total Annual Operational Local Tax (including County and Town)	$632.2.6± million 76	$40.7± million	N/A
Construction Jobs (Direct)	7,000±	3,970±	0
Total Construction Labor Income (NYS)6	$1.68± billion	$1.06± billion	0
Total Construction Output (NYS)6	$5.3± billion	$3.35± billion	0
Total Construction State Tax (NYS)6	$147.4± million	$94.2± million	0
Total Construction Local Tax (including County and Town)	$9.8± million	$7.2± million	0
Parking Spaces	12,450 (2,487 surface parking spaces)	6,380 (1,281 surface parking spaces)	7,400± surface parking spaces
Traffic Generation AM Weekday Peak Hour	1,455 vehicle trips 77	995 vehicle trips	185 vehicle trips 79
PM Weekday Peak Hour	2,304	2,404	99

Friday Evening Peak Saturday Midday Peak Saturday Evening Peak

Note: N/A = Not Available/Not Applicable

3,107

3,011

4,186

--78

3,082

--10

229

‌76 For the proposed Integrated Resort, guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County is $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation. Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead is $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation.

‌77 The trip generation associated with the Marriott Hotel is not new trip generation, as the trips already exist on the roadway network and there would be no change to hotel operations.

‌78 As the Alternative Plan (No Casino License Awarded) does not include a traffic generator with a use that would generate significant traffic during the Friday or Saturday Evening Peaks, these time periods did not require analysis. The PM Peak hour is the peak traffic period for the Alternative Plan.

‌79 The trip generation figures reflect existing conditions for the Coliseum property.

With respect to the alternative of an MFM-Compliant Plan, which was required based on comments received during the scoping process, as explained in 6 NYCRR §617.9(b)(5)(v), a DEIS must contain “a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. . .”

The analyses performed in the DEIS demonstrate that the proposed Integrated Resort could not be developed under the existing MFM Zoning District without significant relief from various provisions thereof. Also, there has never been a project proposed or implemented that has fully conformed to the prevailing MFM Zoning District. The analyses in the DEIS also demonstrate that Sands could not develop its proposed Alternative CMP (if a gaming license is not awarded) without relief from multiple provisions of the MFM Zoning District.

In compliance with the requirements of the Final Scope, an MFM-Compliant Plan was prepared and analyzed. That plan, prepared by Sands’ civil engineer, H2M, maximized potential density, while fully complying with all requirements and permitted uses of the MFM Zoning District.

The MFM-Compliant Plan has substantially less building square footage than the proposed Integrated Resort. Given the substantial non-recoverable investments that Sands has made, including the $241 million paid for a private lease for the Coliseum property; the financial commitments that Sands has made (even in the condition where a gaming license is not awarded); and the costs associated with redevelopment of the Coliseum site, it is not feasible for Sands to develop a plan that fully conforms to the prevailing MFM Zoning District as there would not be sufficient yield to support the investments made. As indicated above, there has never been a project developed or proposed under the MFM Zoning District that has not required relief from various provisions of that district. Accordingly, an MFM-Compliant Plan alternative is not feasible for Sands to pursue, and given that this alternative is not feasible, no further analysis is required.

‌Description of the Proposed Action

‌Introduction
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 for the proposed lease between Nassau County and LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC (Sands or the Lessee) and the ultimate development of the Sands New York Integrated Resort (the “Integrated Resort”) on the subject property, which consists of the approximately 71.6-acre Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (Coliseum or Coliseum property) site located at 1255 Hempstead Turnpike, Uniondale (NCTM Nos. Section 44 – Block F – Lots 351, 411, 412, 415 ) and, potentially, the adjacent approximately 14.7-acre Marriott Hotel property (or Marriott property), located at 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale (NCTM Nos. Section 44 – Block F – Lots 326, 401 and 402) (Figure 1 and Figure 2).80
The proposed action consists of the execution of a lease with Nassau County for the Coliseum property, and potentially, the Marriott Hotel property, to facilitate the development of the proposed Integrated Resort. Various other approvals from involved agencies would be required (described later in this section of the DEIS). The Town of Hempstead Town Board (Town Board) possesses jurisdiction over the required zoning approvals and various other land use approvals. A Petition is being filed with the Town Board for the creation of the Mitchel Field Integrated Resort District (MF-IRD);81 application of that new zoning district to the subject property;82 and in accordance with the proposed zoning district, Conceptual Master Plan approval and site plan approval to allow the development of the Integrated Resort (in addition to other required approvals, see Section 2.7, Required Permits and Approvals) to allow for the development of the Integrated Resort.

‌80 This DEIS collectively refers to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property and the Marriott Hotel property as the “subject property”
‌81 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center owns and occupies 1101 Hempstead Turnpike (Section 44 – Block F - Lot 413), and this property would remain zoned within the existing Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District.
‌82 The development of the Integrated Resort, as proposed, would either require relief from/amendments to the existing Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District, in which the subject property is situated, or the adoption of the proposed MF-IRD and rezoning of the subject property thereto.

Merrick

West Rd

Eas

le

s Lindb

e

rg

h B

i

a

Miller Av

7th St

lvd

R lro

5th St

Davis Ave

‌Nassau Community College
East Meadow Brook Pond

C

ha

d

gh Blv

rles Lindber

Ave

Char

Mitchel County Park
Meadowbrook Park

ber

d

Lin

es

Gilroy Ave

l

D

Char

e

om

Ovington

e

Bl

Earl

vd

Blvd

H

gh

empste

a

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Glen

n C

urt

iss

anor Pkwy

M

Rd

Hofstra University

Blvd

Hempstead Tpke

SKueblljeencbtePrgroperty
Memorial High School

Br

Walton Ave

Marvin Ave

Fron

t St

n St

Front St

d St

Tulsa St

Braxto

Midlan

axton St

Nassau County

tch

Subject Property
- Boundaries are approximate
  
  N
  
  0
  
  1,000 Feet
  
  N
  
  ‌ 0 1,000 Feet
  Subject Property
- Boundaries are approximate
While Sands has not yet negotiated a lease with Nassau County for the Marriott Hotel property, LVS NYC Holdco, LLC, which has the same principals as LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC, has a purchase and sale agreement with the Marriott operator (Appendix 2-8). Sands has confirmed that, if it ultimately decides to secure the Marriott property, it may renovate the existing hotel, however, it has no plans to expand the hotel operation nor does it plan to change the current uses. The goal of the renovation, if the Marriott is ultimately secured, would be to upgrade its quality (room quality, food and beverage). If an expansion or a change in use was to be proposed in the future by this Lessee or another party, an application would have to be made to the Town and a SEQR process would have to be conducted.
Following years of failed attempts to redevelop the Coliseum site, and the loss of the New York Islanders to the UBS Arena, the proposed action would reinvigorate and redevelop the Coliseum property with a world-class destination that would incorporate components of leisure, business and entertainment, and provide significant economic and community benefits for Nassau County, the Town of Hempstead, and the entire region. The Integrated Resort is proposed to include the following new development, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action :83
› Two new hotels with a total of 1,670 rooms, spa, fitness center and pools
› Casino with 393,726 net square foot (SF) gaming area
› 147,292 square feet of food and beverage with 3,337 seats
› 213,000-SF conference center
› 4,500 seat arena/live performance venue
› 60,000-SF public attraction space
› 31,200 square feet of retail space
› Three parking garages
› Various back of house support spaces, circulation and interior utility spaces.
The proposed Integrated Resort would transform the existing Coliseum property, which consists of a sea of asphalt and empty parking areas surrounding an underutilized Coliseum, into the premier regional entertainment and hospitality destination that would feature gaming, four and five-star hotels, meeting spaces, a live performance venue, and a wide range of restaurant and supportive experiences.
Development of the proposed Integrated Resort would result in substantial increases in revenue to the state, county, town, schools, and other local taxing jurisdictions, a significant portion of which is guaranteed, as summarized in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits below and detailed in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics. Furthermore, Sands has also committed to providing significant economic and community benefits (see Section 2.5 and Section 3.9).
The subject property is uniquely situated to accommodate the proposed development, with excellent access to the surrounding roadway/highway network. Site access would be from a new north-south through road, connecting Charles Lindbergh Boulevard with Hempstead Turnpike.

‌83 This is the maximum development being considered, which is being analyzed in this DEIS to ensure a comprehensive environmental assessment.

An additional access point is provided at the western portion of the property along Hempstead Turnpike. Access points are also proposed along Earle Ovington Boulevard and James Doolittle Boulevard. Bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation would be accommodated throughout the site, which would connect to the existing surrounding multi-use paths (see Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, for a discussion of site circulation, as well as Appendix 2-1, Appendix 2-2, and Appendix 3.5-1).
Parking for the overall development would be provided by a combination of parking garages and surface parking spaces. Dedicated areas for bus drop-off/pick-up, taxis and ride-hailing services (e.g., Uber, Lyft) have been thoughtfully incorporated into the project to enhance parking and site circulation.
The proposed Integrated Resort would be connected to the Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District of the Nassau County sewer system for sewage disposal (with discharge to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant) and the Town of Hempstead Water Department, Uniondale Water District (UWD) for water supply. A new water supply well is proposed to serve the Integrated Resort at the Full Build condition. Stormwater runoff would be accommodated through on-site infiltration via a network of catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys, with overflow to Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537, located along Glenn Curtiss Boulevard, south of Hempstead Turnpike. See Section 3.2.2, Water Resources, for a complete discussion of impacts related to sewage disposal, water supply, and stormwater runoff.
As a result of Sands’ over $5 billion investment to develop the proposed Integrated Resort,84 over 7,000 jobs would be generated during the construction period and over 7,800 permanent jobs (over 5,000 full-time equivalents [FTE]) would be created upon full development. A detailed description of economic benefits resulting from implementation of the Integrated Resort is provided in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics.
Sands is committed to leveraging the area’s local workforce and talent. Specific workforce development programs would target local unemployed individuals and prepare them for the workforce. Programs include, amongst others, developing a training hub at Nassau Community College (NCC); collaborating with NCC and Long Island University (LIU) to develop hospitality degree programs; partnering with Minority Millennials to build a diverse local talent pipeline; partnering with Empower, Assist, Care (EAC) Network to support local community recruitment plans; identifying key stakeholders to provide awareness of job opportunities at the Integrated Resort; providing mentoring and leadership development for best-in-class team member advancement and retention strategies; and offering a comprehensive benefits package, including childcare (through the YMCA), healthcare, on-site meals, and wellness programs. A full discussion of proposed community benefits is provided in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits, below.
In order to develop the proposed Integrated Resort and realize the associated economic and community benefits, a new zoning district is being proposed. The Town of Hempstead Town Board has zoning authority over the subject property, and accordingly, it would be the Town Board’s determination as to whether the proposed new zoning district, the MF-IRD, would be

‌84 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the license is awarded, design is finalized and bids are received.

adopted and applied to the subject property or if the Town Board would consider relief from/amendments to the existing Mitchel Field Mixed-Use (MFM) Zoning District to allow the development of the Integrated Resort. The MFM Zoning District was established in 2011 to facilitate the renovation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, which was the home of the New York Islanders, as well as the redevelopment of the overall Coliseum property for mixed-use purposes. The MFM Zoning District was designed, in pertinent part, to “. . .promote the desirable and suitable use of land within the greater Mitchel Field area and provide opportunities for development or redevelopment of land surrounding the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum in a manner consistent with sound planning principles.85 Moreover, the MFM Zoning District presumed that development on the Coliseum property would take place around an active Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum building, as the “Permitted Uses” indicate, in pertinent part: “. . .In addition to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, a lot or premises shall be used for at least two or more of the following purposes. . .”86 (emphasis added).
However, since its establishment in 2011, apart from the renovation of the Coliseum and the development of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) along Hempstead Turnpike, no other development has taken place within the MFM Zoning District. Also, the New York Islanders relocated to Barclays Center in Brooklyn in 2015 and then to UBS Arena in Elmont in 2021, and the utilization of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum has significantly decreased, threatening its overall viability, as explained in Section 2.2.4, Historical and Current Level of Activity on the Site and Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning, and Community Character.
As the utilization of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum has significantly decreased since the adoption of the MFM Zoning District, and Nassau County, as the property owner, has negotiated a proposed lease with Sands (discussed below) that contemplates full redevelopment of the Coliseum property. A new zoning district, the MF-IRD, is being proposed as part of the proposed action to facilitate the overall property redevelopment. The proposed MF-IRD is being designed to accommodate two different development options: the proposed action, which includes the Integrated Resort with a casino; and an alternative development, in the event Sands does not secure a gaming license (the second option is analyzed in Section 8.2, Redevelopment of the Coliseum Property, Assuming a Gaming License is Not Awarded).

‌2.1.1 Organization and Preparation of the DEIS
The DEIS is divided into ten sections and addresses the items required in the Final Scope, issued by the Nassau County Legislature, as Lead Agency. The first section of the DEIS is the Executive Summary. This section, Section 2, provides a description of the proposed action. Section 3 of this DEIS provides a discussion of the existing conditions, potential impacts of the proposed action and proposed mitigation measures, arranged by resource topic. Section 4 discusses and evaluates the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and other proposed or pending developments to be constructed by 2030,87 which is the projected Full Build year (as identified by the various municipal entities enumerated in that section of the DEIS). Section 5 summarizes

‌85 Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. §146.1B – MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District (MFM). Available at: https://ecode360.com/14496307#15284366. Accessed August 2024.
‌86 Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. §146.1C – MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District (MFM). Available at: https://ecode360.com/14496307#15284366. Accessed August 2024.
‌87 The only exception is the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, which is expected to be completed after 2030.

those short-term and long-term impacts described in Section 3 that cannot be completely mitigated. Section 6 describes both human and natural resources that would be committed as a result of the implementation of the proposed action that are irreversible or irretrievable. Section 7 includes an analysis of the potential growth-inducing aspects of the proposed development. Alternatives and their impacts are discussed and analyzed in Section 8 of the DEIS. Section 9 presents the references that have been used in preparing in the DEIS. Finally, a list of abbreviations and acronyms is included as Section 10, Glossary.
VHB served as the principal preparer of the DEIS. However, numerous other consultants contributed to the technical analyses in the DEIS, as listed on the inside cover sheet. The most significant technical contributions were provided by the consultants set forth below.
› H2M Architects + Engineers (H2M) provided civil engineering services for the proposed project. In addition, H2M prepared the technical information and analysis of the water supply, including the proposed water supply well, sewage disposal and stormwater management (including the stormwater pollution prevention plan). H2M also prepared the Alternative Plan and the technical engineering analyses that accompany that plan.
› Populous prepared the architectural plans associated with the proposed Integrated Resort.
Populous was also responsible for preparing the architectural model and the renderings included in this DEIS.
› Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B) is the mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineer (MEP) for the proposed development. JB&B prepared the analyses regarding electric and natural gas usage, as well as designed the mechanical systems and central utilities plants. JB&B provided technical information associated with existing and proposed utilities for incorporation into the DEIS.
› EY prepared socioeconomic analyses for the proposed Integrated Resort and Alternative Plan.
› Longman Lindsey prepared the noise and vibration analysis for the proposed Integrated Resort and the Alternative Plan.
› Inch and Meter conducted the mobile and stationary source air quality analyses.
› Langan Engineering and Environmental Services prepared the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Environmental Site Investigation (ESI) for 1255 Hempstead Turnpike, Uniondale, New York (Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum) and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II ESI for 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, New York (Long Island Marriott Hotel).

‌Summary of Existing Site Conditions

‌Physical Characteristics of the Site

The subject property is located in the heart of Nassau County in an area often referred to as the Nassau Hub (Figure 3). It contains the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, shown in the photograph below, designed as a sports and entertainment venue, that is surrounded by approximately 5,900 surface parking spaces. A veterans memorial, including turf areas and flagpoles, is situated on a concrete area just east of the Coliseum building. The subject property also includes the 11-story, 618-key Marriott Hotel and associated 1,500± surface parking spaces, located east of the Coliseum, along James Doolittle Boulevard (photograph below right).

The subject property exhibits a generally flat topography.

According to the soil borings drilled for the subject property, groundwater is situated at a depth of between 29 feet and 34 feet below grade surface, as indicated in Section 3.2, Water Resources. As noted in Section 3.2, Water Resources, the subject property is not located within a Special

Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA) or within an area of special flood hazard. There are no wetlands or water bodies located on the subject property. As documented in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, the ecological character and wildlife potential of the site is low, due to its developed nature. No rare, threatened or endangered plants were observed on-site or are known to occur on the subject

property.

‌Figure 3: Regional Context

Sands New York Integrated Resort

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Veterans Highway

Northern

La Guardia

Wantagh

Long Island

Expressway

State

Nassau

Suffolk

Parkway

Long Island Mac Arthur

Grand

Newark Liberty Intl

Kings

Central Parkway

State

Parkway

Meadowbrook

State Parkway

Southern

Parkway

Queens

State

John

F Kennedy Intl

Republic

0 6 Miles

County Boundaries Major Airports

Major Highways

Subject Property

Long Island Rail Railroad

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS; Suffolk County GIS; NYS GIS; Arc GIS Hub; CUGIR; Esri; USGS

There is a digital monument sign located on the Coliseum property, just north of Hempstead Turnpike, near the main access. In addition to the hotel building and parking spaces, the Marriott parcel contains landscaping around the building foundation (and adjacent to the building) and the perimeter of the hotel parcel, but the parking areas are devoid of landscaping, except along Hempstead Turnpike. There are several signs indicating the location of the Marriott, at the hotel entrance along James Doolittle Boulevard and on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike. Lighting within the Marriott parking areas to the south of the hotel building is minimal, and the condition of the pavement, especially in the southernmost parking area, is poor. Several photographs of the existing site conditions are provided above, with additional photographs in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character and Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources.

Land coverages for the subject property are shown in Table 1 .

‌Table 1 Existing Land Coverages

Type of Coverage	Existing Coverage in Acres (Percent)
Buildings	5.3± acres (6.2±%)
Parking Structures	0.0 acres (0.0%)
Surface Parking Areas	55.5± acres (64.3±%)
Roadways	7.6± acres (8.8±%)
Walkways/Plazas/Other Hardscape	9.6± acres (11.1%)
Landscaping, Lawn and Pervious Surfaces	8.3± acres (9.6±%)
Total:	86.3± acres (100%)

Formerly a part of the Coliseum property, the approximately five-acre Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) property, which was sold to MSKCC by Nassau County and opened in 2019, is located near the southwestern portion of the subject property fronting on Hempstead Turnpike. Neither the MSKCC parcel nor the zoning district in which it is situated (the existing MFM Zoning District) would be changed by implementation of this proposed action.

‌Surrounding Land Uses and Roadway/Highway Network
This section of the DEIS provides a brief summary of the surrounding land uses and roadway/highway network. More detailed information regarding these topics is included in Sections 3.4, Land Use, Zoning, and Community Character, Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, and Appendix 3.5-1.
1. Land Uses
  As described above and shown on Figure 1, the subject property is surrounded by roadways. The land uses located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property include:
  North: The land uses to the north include Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, followed by NCC, Nassau Energy Corp. (Engie facility), the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) Center for Training and Intelligence (situated on the campus of NCC) and Museum Row.
  East: The land uses to the east, beyond the Marriott Hotel property, include James Doolittle Boulevard, the Hempstead Plains, East Meadow Brook, and the Meadowbrook State Parkway.
  South: The land uses to the south consist of Hempstead Turnpike and one-story businesses, located on the south side of this roadway, as well as single-family homes to the south of the businesses that front the roadway. RXR Plaza, with its 15-story towers, is the dominating development to the south-southwest of the subject property along Hempstead Turnpike.
  West: The land uses to the west include Earle Ovington Boulevard, Hofstra University, Mitchel Athletic Complex and a number of large-scale office buildings, including the 10-story Omni office building to the northwest of the subject property.
2. Roadway/Highway Network
  The roadways directly surrounding the subject property are Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) to the south, Earle Ovington Boulevard to the west, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to the north, and James Doolittle Boulevard to the east (Figure 1). Other principal roadways in the area include:
  › Meadowbrook State Parkway
  › Northern State Parkway
  › Southern State Parkway
  › Glenn Curtiss Boulevard
  › Merrick Avenue.
  Public transportation options include the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), which provides service between New York City and eastern Long Island. The LIRR stations nearest the project site include Hempstead, Mineola, Garden City, Westbury, Country Life Press, and Carle Place (as described later in this DEIS, Sands would be providing shuttles only to the Hempstead LIRR station). Additionally, the Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE) bus, which is located throughout Nassau County with some routes extending into western Suffolk and eastern Queens, serves the subject site with a number of bus routes adjacent to and nearby the subject property.
  There are also multiple NICE bus hubs including the Hempstead LIRR station, the Roosevelt Field Hub, Mineola Intermodal Center, and the Mineola Courthouse providing connectivity to multiple routes throughout Nassau County. Nassau County is also planning a BRT system which, when implemented, would serve the subject property.
  Multi-use paths are present along each of the roadways surrounding the subject site, including Hempstead Turnpike, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and Earle Ovington Boulevard. The paths eventually connect to the Mitchel Field pedestrian path and bikeway, which provides greater connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the area as a whole. At the major intersections in the vicinity of the project site, pedestrian accommodations for crossing are provided with marked crosswalks and dedicated pedestrian signal equipment.
  Traffic, roadway and alternative transportation are discussed in detail in Section 3.5,
  Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1.
‌Service Providers and Utilities
The subject property is located within the jurisdiction of the following service providers/utilities:
Sewer: Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW) - Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District
Water: Town of Hempstead Water Department - Uniondale Water District (UWD) and Mitchel Field\Water Supply Area (MFWSA)
Stormwater/Drainage: NCDPW
Police: NCPD Third Precinct
Ambulance: Uniondale Fire Department/NCPD Emergency Ambulance Bureau (EAB)
Fire: Uniondale Fire Department/Nassau County Office of the Fire Marshal
School District: Uniondale Union Free School District (UFSD)
Electricity: PSEG Long Island, Engie
Natural Gas: National Grid.
Water, sewer and stormwater/drainage are discussed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, while police, ambulance and fire protection services, and schools/educational facilities are discussed in Section 3.10, Community Facilities and Services. Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, provides a discussion of electricity and natural gas facilities.

‌Historical and Current Level of Activity on the Site

Activity levels at both the Coliseum and Marriott venues have fluctuated over the last decade for several reasons, including, but not limited to, the New York Islanders National Hockey League team’s relocation to a new facility, the COVID-19 Pandemic, competition from other venues, and the financial struggles of the operator. Originally, the Coliseum was built to seat up to 15,000 spectators,88 before it was expanded to approximately 18,000 seats, including additional floor seating for certain events, such as concerts. At its peak of activity, besides being home to the Islanders with 41 regular season hockey games, pre-season games and playoff games, the Coliseum also hosted numerous concerts, the Ringling Brothers circus, ice shows, and other sporting events, including professional wrestling, basketball, and boxing matches. It was also used for political rallies, trade shows, and graduation ceremonies.

In the mid-2000s, the New York Islanders drew thousands of attendees for each of their 41 regular season home games. The NHL regular season runs from mid-October through mid-April, and the Stanley Cup playoff schedule includes games from mid-April through the beginning of June. Attendance records from the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 seasons show an average pre- season attendance of 10,500 per game. Regular season game attendance was approximately 11,000 attendees per game and an average play-off game attendance was approximately 15,000 attendees. On average, the Islanders hosted a sell-out crowd for approximately 10 games per

‌88 Nassau Coliseum. About Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Available at: https://www.nassaucoliseum.com/about. Accessed August 2024.

regular season. In the 2014-2015 season, the Islanders averaged over 15,000 spectators per game, the highest average of their time paying at the Coliseum.89 The Coliseum was closed between 2015 and 2017 for renovation. After its renovation in 2017, the Coliseum offered approximately 16,000 seats for concerts, 14,500 seats for basketball and 13,900 seats for hockey.90

Currently, the Coliseum’s inability to attract high-profile events has significantly diminished its use as an entertainment venue and exhibition hall. The Coliseum is currently home to the Long Island Nets G-League Basketball Team and has been home to the New York Riptide Lacrosse team, which has relocated to Ottawa, Canada. It currently hosts a limited number of events, including, for example, the Long Island Metro Fire/EMS Expo, Monster Trucks, and Bridal Expos. Table 2 below provides the number of ticketed events at the Coliseum and attendance between 2017 and 2023. See Section 2.3, Site Development and Application History, for a detailed description of the history of the subject property. Ticketed events and attendance have sharply declined since the Coliseum re-opened after its renovation in 2017. The number of events has fallen to fewer than one per week and is expected to be further reduced with the relocation of the Riptides Lacrosse Team to Ottawa.

‌Table 2 Number of Ticketed Events at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum 2017-2023

Year	Ticketed Events	Attendance
2017*	125	548,034
2018	201	567,234
2019	174	806,016
2020	59**	251,614
2021***	34	126,525
2022	64	167,689
2023	47	109,307
Source: Sands * Reopened in April 2017 after latest renovation. COVID shortened season, last event March 8, 2020. * First event after COVID, occurred March 11, 2021.

According to data provided by the Marriott Hotel, the following are the hotel occupancy rates from 2020 – 2023 (note that 2020 includes only partial room availability due to the COVID-19 Pandemic):

› 2020: 32.7%

› 2021: 53.6%

‌89 HockeyDB. NHL Attendance Graph for Nassau Coliseum. Available at: https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl- attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7085. Accessed September 2024.

‌90 Nassau Coliseum. About Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Available at: https://www.nassaucoliseum.com/about. Accessed August 2024.

› 2022: 69.5%

› 2023: 73.6%.

‌Site Development and Application History

As explained in the Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, and in the history below, no development has occurred to date that has successfully achieved the Legislative Purpose of the prevailing Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field (created by the Town of Hempstead Town Board in the early 1970s) or the MFM Zoning District (which became effective in 2011). As explained through the application and development history provided below, the MFM Zoning District does not permit development at a level that could reasonably achieve the stated legislative purpose of the MFM Zoning District without relaxation of zoning requirements, as every application submitted or approved under this zoning district required zoning relief.

Also, as explained in detail in Section 3.4, the level of development that could actually be achieved on the Coliseum property, based on a plan designed in full conformance with the prevailing MFM Zoning District, is far less than that presented and evaluated in the associated Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which set forth the analysis that led to the adoption of the MFM Zoning District (see analysis in Section 3.4).

‌History of the Subject Property
Mitchel Field comprises most of what is today part of Uniondale, and the subject property is situated within the boundaries of the former Mitchel Field. The history of Mitchel Field began in the early 1900s and is continuing to evolve.91 Long Island has a long and storied aviation history, and Mitchel Field was one of the most important air fields located on Long Island in the early part of the 20th century. Mitchel Field, an army aviation field, was a major component of aviation on Long Island. It was originally established in 1917 as Field #2, and then renamed to Mitchel Field in 1918 to honor the former New York City Mayor John Purroy Mitchel. Mitchel Field served as the main point of air defense during World War II for New York City and headquarters for the Air Defense Command, First Air Force and Continental Air Command in the late 1940s. The majority of Mitchel Field was located north of Hempstead Turnpike, but a portion was also located to the south. The Santini Base property was picked up after the expansion of Mitchel Field proper in 1938. Santini was split in two by the creation of Meadowbrook State Parkway in 1954. One of the original Hempstead Turnpike entrances was across from the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum at the present-day Glenn Curtiss Boulevard.
Due to Mitchel Field’s (including the Santini Base) location in an urban area, there were several
problems with operating tactical aircraft (including its small size, noise, and several accidents).

‌91 Cradle of Aviation Museum. History of the Cradle of Aviation Museum. Available at: https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/history/.
Accessed August 2024.
Ultimately, Mitchel Field was closed and the federal government turned it over to Nassau County in 1961. While much of the former Mitchel Field area is still owned by Nassau County (including the Coliseum property, Marriott Hotel property and NCC, but excluding, for example, MSKCC, the Omni and RXR Plaza), zoning is controlled by the Town of Hempstead.
The Town of Hempstead created the Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field (PDD), which became effective as of August 21, 1971, and included subdistricts for offices (MFO and MFO-II) and hotels (MFH). At that time, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was under construction, and the area around the Coliseum was then zoned Residence B. The Town’s PDD set forth its intention for the area around the new Coliseum to be developed in a comprehensive manner. In addition to the Coliseum building, other development occurred in the area through the early- mid 1980s, including RXR Plaza (MFO), the Omni (MFO-II) and the Marriott Hotel (MFH),92 in accordance with the PDD at Mitchel Field.

‌Prior Applications

In 2009, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for The Lighthouse at Long Island93 was prepared by LDG and accepted by the Town of Hempstead Town Board for proposed new zoning and development consisting of a new coliseum for the New York Islanders NHL team (total of 1.2 million SF, of which 416,000 SF existed), 2,306 residential units, 500,000 SF of retail, 1,000,000 SF of new office space (in addition to the existing 1.6 million SF), 118,000 SF of new convention/exhibition space (in addition to the existing 82,000 SF), 300 new hotel rooms (in addition to the 618 existing rooms at the Marriott Hotel), and structured parking.

‌92 The Marriott Hotel property was subsequently rezoned to the MFM Zoning District in 2011.

‌93 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for “The Lighthouse at Long Island,” Hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, June 2009.

reduced the development potential at and around the subject property and surrounding sites from that proposed by LDG. A Findings Statement for the Lighthouse/MFM Zoning District was prepared in early 2011, and the Town of Hempstead adopted the MFM Zoning District, which became effective June 2011 (Appendix 2-3). The Lighthouse at Long Island project, as it was proposed, was not able to be developed under the newly-adopted MFM Zoning District, the project was abandoned, and the New York Islanders ultimately relocated from the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

In 2013, Nassau County selected Nassau Events Center (NEC) as the new operator of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, and NEC entered into a lease with Nassau County for the Coliseum and Marriott Hotel properties. In 2015, NEC prepared a Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) for the redevelopment of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the surrounding 77 acres, owned by Nassau County and known as the Nassau Hub. The NEC CMP proposed a renovated Coliseum and exhibition hall (no change in square footage), a 1,500-seat cinema, 385,000 SF of retail, 200,000 SF of restaurants, 675,000 SF of office, 350,000 SF of convention/banquet spaces, 1,843 hotel rooms (including the Marriott Hotel), and structured parking. No residential units were proposed as part of that proposed CMP. The NEC CMP was approved by the Town of Hempstead Town Board in May 2015 under Town Board Resolution (TBR) 642-2015. The approved NEC CMP requested relief from the zoning requirements for conformity with Article XIII, Section 146.1(O)(3) of the MFM Zoning District “Establishment of Public rights-of-way” and Section 146.1(O)(4) “Complete Streets” of the Building Zone Ordinance (BZO), which was granted by the Town Board (Appendix 2-4). NEC renovated the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and immediate surrounding area (e.g., plaza space); however, the remainder of the approved development was never constructed. Accordingly, Nassau County terminated the lease for redevelopment with NEC in 2018.

In 2017, Nassau County sold approximately five acres of the total 77 acres, situated south of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, east of Earle Ovington Boulevard and north of Hempstead Turnpike, to MSKCC, which developed and opened a cancer treatment center and parking garage in 2019. The original approvals for MSKCC reflect the ultimate construction of 140,000 sf, not including the parking garage. As currently constructed, MSKCC contains approximately 114,000 sf and the 26,000 sf of additional floor area that was not previously constructed was to be built in the future. Currently, MSKCC has submitted updated plans to the Town of Hempstead for the construction of the additional 26,000 sf, which were recently approved.94 The proposed expansion commenced in June 2024. This development required zoning relief for the height of the parking garage, which was granted by the Town Board.

‌94 The 26,000-sf expansion, though previously approved and under construction, as required by the Final Scope, is included in the discussion of cumulative impacts, within this DEIS. An easement agreement between the Lessee and MSKCC (cited as Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases [MHCAD]) is discussed in Section 4, Cumulative Impacts, of this DEIS and included in Appendix 4-1.

In 2018, a DPA was executed between Nassau County and Nassau HUB Master Developer LLC (a special purpose entity formed as a joint venture between affiliates of Onexim, NEC’s parent company, and RXR Realty Investments LLC), for the 71.6 acres of property within the Nassau Hub (excluding the Marriott Hotel parcels). In December 2019, an application for development and amendment of the approved 2015 NEC CMP, known as the Nassau Hub Innovation District, and Part 1 – Environmental Assessment Form were submitted to the Town. Subsequent to the initial application submission in December 2019, a comprehensive Expanded Environmental Assessment considering the potential impacts associated with the development of the 71.6 acres surrounding the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was submitted to the Town in November 2021. The proposed development included 950,000 SF of office and R&D space, 850 hotel rooms, 175,000 SF of conference space, 2,000 restaurant seats, 150,000 SF of entertainment/experiential retail, a 600-seat cinema, a 1,000-seat performing arts venue and 500 residential units. This application requested the same right-of-way width reductions as the NEC CMP application and also required building height modifications and modifications to the number of dwelling units per residential building. This application was never acted upon.

A summary listing key milestone/event dates in the site’s development and application history,

up to the proposed Integrated Resort, is presented in Table 3, below.

‌Table 3 Summary of Prior Site Development and Application History

Milestone/Event	Year
1,100±-acre Air Force Base at Mitchel Field Established	1917
Mitchel Field Air Base Closed and Turned Over to Nassau County	1961
Planned Development at Mitchel Field Created by Town of Hempstead	1971
Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Opened	1972
Opening of Long Island Marriott Hotel	1982
Charles Wang Buys Marriott Hotel	2005
Lighthouse Development Group (LDG) selected by Nassau County to redevelop the subject property, amongst other adjacent properties (e.g., Marriott, RXR Plaza, The Omni)	2006
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) filed by the Town of Hempstead for The Lighthouse at Long Island and a newly created MFM Zoning District, which significantly reduced the amount of development permitted at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Site from that proposed by LDG	2011
MFM Findings Statement and MFM Zoning District (part of the Planned Development at Mitchel Field zoning district) adopted by Town Board	2011
NEC entered into a lease agreement (and amended lease agreement) with Nassau County to develop Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and surrounding acreage	2013 (2015)
NEC CMP approved by Town Board Resolution (TBR 642-2015), modifying certain aspects of MFM Zoning District NEC Phase I Site Plan Approval for 188,000 SF (TBR 1147-2015)	2015
New York Islanders relocate to Barclays Center in Brooklyn	2015
NEC Phase I Amended Site Plan Approval (TBR 261-2017)	2017
NEC completed renovation and re-opened Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum	2017

Milestone/Event	Year
Development Plan Agreement executed between Nassau County and Nassau HUB Master Developer LLC (joint venture between affiliates of Onexim and RXR Realty Investments LLC)	2018
New York Islanders temporarily return to Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum before final move to UBS Arena in 2021	2018 - 2021
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center opened on 5±-acre parcel adjacent to the 86.3-acre subject property	2019
RXR/Onexim joint venture submitted petition to Town of Hempstead for Nassau Hub Innovation District	2019

‌Proposed Integrated Resort Application History
1. Prior Leases and SEQR Process

In April 2023, the Nassau County Planning Commission voted to recommended approval of a lease between Nassau County and Sands (the prior lease). On May 22, 2023, the Legislature voted to approve the execution of the prior lease, and that lease was then signed by Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. In August of 2023, the Lessee submitted a Petition to the Town of Hempstead Town Board (with accompanying documentation including a Part 1 – Environmental Assessment Form) requesting the creation of a new zoning district (the MF-IRD), the rezoning of the subject property into that district, and approval of a Conceptual Master Plan for the development of the proposed Integrated Resort. The Town Board reviewed the application package and commenced the SEQR process by conducting coordinated review with all involved agencies; declaring the Town Board to be lead agency; issuing a positive declaration requiring the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement; and conducting formal scoping.

During the Town’s review of the aforesaid Petition and administration of the SEQR process, a Decision and Order was rendered in litigation that was brought by Hofstra University challenging Nassau County’s approval of the prior lease. That Decision and Order, issued on November 9, 2023, determined, among other things, that the County had violated provisions of the New York State Public Officers Law and SEQR and annulled the prior lease between the Lessee and Nassau County.95 After an appeal filed by Nassau County, the Appellate Division, on October 23, 2024, reversed the Decision and Order, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the joinder of LVS NY Holdco 2, LLC.96 The merits of the underlying matter remain pending.

‌95 Decision and Order (“Order”), dated November 9, 2023, in the action entitled In the Matter of Hofstra University v Nassau County Planning Commission, et al, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 606293/2023.

‌96 Decision and Order, dated October 23, 2024, in the action entitled In the Matter of Hofstra University v Nassau County Planning Commission, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department, Index No. 606293/23.

terminated and that the Lessee holds “no leasehold interest in the land upon which the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum sits.”97 An appeal is also pending for this Order.

Notwithstanding the pending appeals, the Lessee and Nassau County are complying with the above Decisions and Orders. A new lease is being considered, which is the subject of this SEQR process along with the development of an Integrated Resort, which is contemplated by that lease (see Section 2.4, Description of Proposed Action, below). The Nassau County Legislature commenced SEQR coordinated review for the new lease on July 2, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the Nassau County Legislature declared itself to be the lead agency, issued a positive declaration and established a formal scoping process, which included a public scoping meeting on September 9, 2024, with the public comment period extending until September 19, 2024 (see Appendix 2-6 for a copy of the Positive Declaration). Upon conclusion of the formal scoping process, the Nassau County Legislature issued a Final Scope on October 7, 2024 (see Appendix 2-6 for a copy of the Final Scope). This DEIS has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the Final Scope.

‌Description of the Proposed Action

‌Introduction
The proposed lease, which has a term of 99 years, provides that, among other things, the Lessee may construct new improvements that include, but are not limited to, public entertainment and/or recreation uses; a conference facility; hotel; gaming; public entertainment and/or recreation; entertainment venue; and other related business or commercial purposes. The proposed lease also requires that, if the on-site veterans memorial is demolished or removed by or on behalf of the Lessee, the Lessee must construct, at its own cost, a new veterans memorial at a total cost of no less than $1 million. In addition, the proposed lease provides that, as part of any new improvements for the Integrated Resort, the Lessee must construct the core and shell of an approximately 1,500 sq. ft. police substation with designated parking for eight vehicles and a designated parking area for eight vehicles and must provide reimbursement of up to $500,000 to the Landlord, who is responsible for fit-out of the substation. The proposed lease also provides for an alternative development, which includes a mixed-use complex with a Ritz-Carlton, St. Regis or reasonably equivalent branded hotel with amenities; up to 500 residences; an entertainment venue; and other uses permitted by the proposed lease, with the Landlord’s consent. A copy of the proposed lease is included in Appendix 2-5.
The lease contemplates the development of an Integrated Resort, which Sands is proposing as a dynamic entertainment and hospitality destination, featuring four- and five-star hotels, an entertainment venue, meeting and convention space, swimming pools and health club, as well as outdoor community spaces and a variety of entertainment programming – all in addition to world-class gaming facilities. Weaving through the casinos, hotels, meeting and conference space and the entertainment venue would be a “lifestyle complex” that would serve as the spine

‌97 Decision, Order and Interlocutory Judgment, dated February 23, 2024.
for circulating throughout the proposed Integrated Resort. It would contain continuous attractions and experiences, including a wide variety of food and beverage establishments and limited retail shops, which connect the Integrated Resort’s major facilities (e.g., casinos, hotels, entertainment venue, and meeting and conference space). The proposed project would repurpose the underutilized Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and transform the subject property into a next-generation, mixed-entertainment destination that fosters a sense of community and connectivity within its surroundings and draws people together.
Sands’ vision is to create a unique development for Nassau County that stems from an understanding of the past, present and overall culture of the site and surrounding area with a view towards the future.
Centrally located within Nassau County and accessible by car and public transportation (Figure 3), the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to draw tourists from across the world to Long Island, resulting in significant positive economic contributions to the Town, County, and the broader New York State. Development of the proposed Integrated Resort would serve to realize the full potential of the subject property as set forth in the PDDs at Mitchel Field in the 1970s and the MFM Zoning District in 2011.
‌Proposed Zoning
The Coliseum and Marriott properties are proposed to be rezoned from the MFM Zoning District to the new MF-IRD, as described below, and a Petition is being filed with the Town of Hempstead Town Board (Town Board), which possesses jurisdiction over the required zoning approvals and various other land use approvals. The Petition would request that the Town Board create the MF- IRD (Appendix 2-6);98 apply that new zoning district to the subject property;99 and in accordance with the proposed zoning district, approve the Conceptual Master Plan and site plan.
The proposed action involves changes in the zoning classification of certain parcels, designated as Nassau County Tax Map Numbers: Section 44, Block F, Lots 351, 411, 412 and 415 for the Coliseum property and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, and Section 44 – Block F – Lots 326, 401 and 402 for the Marriott Hotel property (Figure 2), now classified in the MFM Zoning District.
As discussed in Section 2.2, Summary of Existing Site Conditions and explained in detail in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the existing MFM Zoning District cannot accommodate the proposed Integrated Resort without relaxations for floor area ratio, heights of non-residential buildings, hotels and parking garages, various yard setbacks, and internal right-of-way widths, among others. The existing MFM Zoning District does not allow for feasible development that would achieve the stated goals of the PDDs at Mitchel Field, MFM Zoning District, or various local and regional plans for development of the subject property and surrounding area (known as the Hub), as explained in detail in Section 3.4. This is also demonstrated in Section 2.3, Site Development and Application History, which summarizes past attempts to develop the subject property both prior and subsequent to the adoption of the MFM

‌98 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center owns and occupies 1101 Hempstead Turnpike (Section 44 – Block F - Lot 413), and this property would remain zoned within the existing Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District.
‌99 The development of the Integrated Resort, as proposed, would either require relief from/amendments to the existing Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District, in which the subject property is situated, or the adoption of the proposed MF-IRD and rezoning of the subject property thereto.
Zoning District and explains that no development has been approved in the MFM Zoning District, including the development of MSKCC, that has not required some level of zoning relaxation. Therefore, instead of requesting multiple modifications to/relaxations from the existing MFM Zoning District, Sands is requesting the creation and adoption of a new MF-IRD.
The MF-IRD would become part of Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field of the Town’s BZO, which was adopted in 1971 when the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was still under construction. The MF-IRD is being proposed to facilitate the transformative redevelopment of the Coliseum property, to encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field, and to permit the development of the property in accordance with the lease negotiated between Nassau County and the Lessee. See Appendix 2- 7 and Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning, and Community Character.
The Legislative Purpose of the proposed MF-IRD was patterned after that of the MFM Zoning District, and states:
. . . In addition to the legislative purpose described in § 135 of this article, the MF-IRD is conceived and enacted to further promote and protect the public health, safety, general welfare and amenities of the Town of Hempstead. At the time that Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field was adopted in 1971, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was still under construction. Over the past 50 years, the utilization of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum has significantly decreased, and its viability is limited. Accordingly, the Town Board has created the MF-IRD to facilitate the transformative redevelopment of that Nassau County- owned property and proximate properties to encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field. Its purposes include the following:
1. To preserve and protect the special character of the greater Mitchel Field area and those of surrounding neighborhoods.
2. To promote the desirable and suitable use of land within the greater Mitchel Field area and provide opportunities for development and redevelopment of land on which the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum is situated and on proximate properties in a manner consistent with sound planning principles.
3. To promote, encourage and achieve sustainable development that preserves, protects and enhances the environmental, economic and human resources of the Town of Hempstead.
4. To promote innovative and quality site and architectural design for buildings and neighborhoods that will encourage economic investment and development, employment opportunities and will provide entertainment, hospitality, commercial, housing, and other supportive uses and amenities for current and future residents in accordance with a well- considered conceptual master plan for the MF-IRD.
5. To create an attractive physical environment that provides daily amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations.
6. To achieve harmonious visual and functional use relationships within the district and with adjacent neighborhoods.
7. To promote integration of pedestrian amenities and public transportation into neighborhoods to facilitate walking, encourage the use of public transportation, and
  accommodate alternate modes of transportation that provide access to destinations within the district, and to and from surrounding communities within the Town.
  Proposed permitted uses in the MF-IRD include the following, and many are the same as those in the prevailing MFM Zoning District:
  › Arena, convention center, exhibition facility, casino/gaming, theater, movie theatre, golf entertainment, miniature golf, bowling, and similar entertainment uses as may be approved by the Town Board
  › Hotel or conference center
  › Office, bank, financial institution or brokerage service
  › Medical or dental office or clinic
  › Store for the sale, at retail, of articles to be used on or off the premises
  › Supermarket
  › Restaurant, cafe or luncheonette, excluding a drive-in restaurant, drive-in luncheonette, drive-in counter or drive-in refreshment stand
  › Personal service retail, such as retail hand laundry, custom tailoring, hand dressmaking or shoe repairing
  › Research and development facilities (including medical research and laboratories)
  › Hospital and medical center
  › Public school, parochial school, private school; college or university; trade school or training facilities; music, dancing or other instructional school; dormitory for educational institutions
  › Senior citizen congregate-care facility, assisted living facility or nursing home
  › Day-care facility
  › Health club or spa
  › Cultural facilities, museums, performing arts venues, memorials
  › Club, fraternal organization, lodge or philanthropic use
  › Townhouses or multiple-family dwellings
  › Post office, library, emergency services or other municipal buildings or governmental uses
  › Religious uses
  › Park, recreational or open space uses, including outdoor entertainment uses
  › Public and private transportation facilities. Accessory uses include, but are not limited to:
  › In relation to hotels and/or conference facilities, accessory uses and structures on the same lot or premises with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure, including restaurants, cocktail lounges, public banquet halls, ballrooms, meeting rooms, swimming pools, spas, fitness centers, tennis courts, boutiques, gift shops, drugstores and other business uses customarily incidental to the operation of a hotel and/or conference center.
  › In relation to offices, accessory uses and structures permitted on the same lot or premises with the principal use or structure shall be limited to uses customary and incidental to the
  principal use, fitness centers, recreational facilities, cafeterias, retail and service shops and facilities.
  › Clubhouse and meeting rooms
  › Outdoor in-ground or indoor swimming pools and tennis courts
  › Utility and energy facilities, including renewable energy facilities
  › Open surface parking and parking structures.
  Further details regarding the MF-IRD are included in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning, and Community Character of the DEIS, and the complete text of the proposed MF-IRD, including the proposed bulk and dimensional regulations, is included in its entirety in Appendix 2-7.
  Similar to the MFM Zoning District, the MF-IRD contains design guidelines addressing green site features and sustainability, building design and landscape design. Additional discussion of these elements of the proposed zoning and how they would be achieved is contained in Section 3.4.2, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character of this DEIS.
  Any application made pursuant to the provisions of the MF-IRD shall originate via a petition/ application to the Town Board. Such application shall include a CMP for the MF-IRD, similar to the requirements of the MFM Zoning District. In the event that the Town Board approves said application, it may attach certain conditions to said approval, which conditions shall become an integral part thereof.
  Also, as discussed in Section 3.4.2, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character of this DEIS, there is a proposed review and approval process by a Design Review Board. In reviewing applications, the Design Review Board shall substantially follow the criteria of the MF-IRD Design Guidelines and sign regulations.

‌Conceptual Master Plan

In accordance with the proposed MF-IRD, Sands proposes to develop a world-class facility that incorporates multiple components of leisure, business and entertainment to provide a wide range of experiences for the local community and guests. Sands’ Integrated Resort concept leverages the complementary travel patterns of business travelers who attend meeting and conferences during workdays and that of leisure tourists and visitors who visit on weekends, offering an array of experiences under a single roof. The destination would feature gaming, four and five-star hotels, meeting spaces, a live performance venue, public attraction space, and a wide range of restaurant and supportive retail experiences. Each component of the proposed Integrated Resort would be thoughtfully woven together through a series of articulated landscape strategies and united by a common theme of environmentally sustainable design. The CMP, which depicts the components of the proposed Integrated Resort, would be submitted to the Town of Hempstead, along with the Petition, and has been more fully developed into an engineered dimensional site plan (Appendix 2-2).

Sands is proposing to design and construct an unrivaled, iconic destination for visitors and locals alike, that invites repeat visits and appeals to people of all ages and cultures, creates a sustainable destination that is an asset to the community as a result of its inspiring architecture, dynamic uses, and diverse range of facilities and activities throughout the year. To achieve this,

Sands and its design team have followed five planning principles and design strategies, as described below.

Community Integration: Create a development for Nassau County that is integrated with the community. The planning and design strategy is grounded in a commitment to integrating and complementing the local community. An integrated resort is often a catalyst for dramatic positive transformations to the surrounding community. Sands intends to revitalize the underutilized Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property by creating an anchor development that frames Nassau County as a world-class tourism destination, with projected annual visitation of 10 million persons, and serves as an entertainment hub for local residents. Incorporating community voices is a core principle of Sands’ planning and design approach. Through its community outreach activities (see Section 2.6, Community Outreach), Sands has worked with the community to create a plan for amenities to serve local residents. These include a live performance venue, outdoor plazas, meeting spaces, and complementary retail and restaurant offerings. The goal is to design a property that is fully integrated with the community and supports a variety of land uses to add value to the neighborhood. Through linkages and synergies with surrounding areas and community needs. Sands has deﬁned neighborhood connectivity through several avenues, which include increasing positive economic impact, strengthening pedestrian linkages, introducing new amenities, and enhancing public spaces. The development approach exceeds the traditional boundaries of an integrated resort by inviting the surrounding community into the development. A central amenity would be the large eastern plaza with year- round programming to serve as a primary space for community engagement and entertainment.
Interconnected Components: Create connected neighborhoods using a combination of distinct architectural features and physical and visual thoroughfares resulting in a cohesive and integrated development that feels like a series of interconnected destinations. An integrated resort is a structure combining several components, which
could otherwise stand alone, in a seamless environment that creates a whole experience – one that is far more powerful than the sum of its parts. Based on the proposed program, the interconnected components of this Integrated Resort have been designed as a cohesive development. Combined, the elements of the development offer myriad activities that create a vibrant tourism destination and local entertainment hub.
Visually Appealing Design: Create an extraordinary visitor experience through attractive and engaging design. The architectural and interior concepts push the boundaries of convention. The design approach reflects a sense of modernity with respect for the local landscape to create a visually captivating experience. The landscape design would enhance strategy to create physical linkage with the local neighborhood, while complementing the architectural design. The goal is to create an environment that is sophisticated and civic in nature, yet reminiscent of a resort. In harmony with the architecture, the landscape design would enhance the visual and spatial qualities of the development while providing a range of environmental benefits. The landscape design would establish a sense of place along with a resilient approach to climate change through water management strategies and sustainable landscape practices (Section 3.2.2, Water Resources, Section 3.3,2, Ecological Resources, and Section 3.14,2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability. Furthering the focus on sustainability and building in resilience to climate change, the design would incorporate features such as native planting and increased on-site stormwater recharge. With respect to lighting, the goal is to create a warm and subtle night-time atmosphere to fit with the natural environment and low ambient levels of the surrounding area. The lighting plan (Appendix 2-2) would minimize spill and visual brightness at adjacent properties. The proposed design of the exterior lighting systems uses fully dimmable, glare controlled, low brightness luminaires and avoids excessive contrast with subtle transitions between the varied zones of program. See Section 3.11.2, Aesthetic Resources, for a discussion of the proposed lighting.
Memorable Guest Experience: Design physical spaces, products, and services that create positive and memorable experiences for guests. Every element of the proposed Integrated Resort would be carefully crafted to enhance the guest experience. The arrival experience is a critical element of any destination, as the first impression sets the tone for the entire visit and the experiences that are to come. Primary entrances would be grand and inviting, featuring large canopies that provide shelter from the elements while creating a sense of comfort and beginnings. Entry spaces would provide a clear visual connection to the rest of the development, drawing visitors in and inviting them to explore. There would be inviting pathways and corridors that draw people into the development with strong visual and physical connections between the various elements and attractions of the resort.
Environmental Sustainability: Design with the future in mind. Environmental sustainability is a necessary consideration in designing any modern development and a cornerstone of every integrated resort we establish. Sands has adopted a holistic approach to environmental responsibility and carries it through in every design detail. As discussed in Section 3.14.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability, the proposed Integrated Resort would be designed with an eye toward

The planning and design strategy for the proposed Integrated Resort is based on the idea that the project should integrate and complement the community. The intention is to revitalize the underutilized Coliseum property by creating an anchor development that would frame Nassau County as a world-class destination for visitors and locals. Sands’ commitment to listening to the different voices in a community is a core principle of the planning and design. As discussed in Section 2.6, Community Outreach, Sands has had numerous meetings with community members, local civic organizations, chambers of commerce and other business groups, tourist and cultural organizations, local religious, sports and educational groups, amongst others, and has worked with the community to design amenities that serve people, such as performance venue, outdoor plazas, meeting spaces, retail and restaurants. The goal is to develop an integrated community, supporting a variety of land uses and creating unique opportunities for integration with the neighborhood.

The Integrated Resort is proposed to be constructed in two phases (see Phasing Exhibit in Appendix 2-1) Phase 1, expected to commence construction in 2026 and be completed at the end of 2027, consists of the remodeling of the Coliseum to adaptively reuse as casino space with supportive services (e.g., food and beverage, limited retail, circulation, support operations).

Various site and arrival improvements would be made, and one of the proposed three parking garages would be constructed, along with one of the central utilities plants (which would be housed within Parking Garage A) and the police substation. During the public scoping process for the DEIS, comments were raised regarding why the casino was being developed in Phase 1 and what would happen if only Phase1 was developed. However, this condition would not occur, as construction of Phase 2 (described below) would commence within six months of the commencement of construction of Phase 1 (see Section 3.15-1, Construction). Thus, there would be considerable overlap between the construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Furthermore, as explained in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, as well as Appendix 3.5-1), Sands proposes to implement all required intersection mitigation for the Full Build condition during the Phase 1 construction period so that Full Build intersection mitigation is in place for Phase 1 opening, subject to approvals from the agencies having jurisdiction over the affected roadways.

In addition, the gaming license application to be submitted by Sands would include phased development, which if awarded a gaming license, Sands would be required to develop in its entirety. The primary reasons that Sands proposes to renovate the Coliseum to accommodate a portion of the casino development in Phase 1 are (a) this is the most efficient means to realize casino revenue benefits to New York State, Nassau County, the Town of Hempstead another taxing districts, and (b) the renovation allows portions of the Coliseum to be adaptively reused, which is a more sustainable approach than Coliseum demolition and construction of a new building.

Phase 2, which is the Full Build, would begin in the middle of 2026 and is anticipated to be complete at the end of 2030. Phase 2 includes, among other things, the remainder of the proposed site development, including additional casino gaming space; two Hotel Towers;

additional Food and Beverage spaces; conference center; entertainment venue; public attraction space; additional retail space; two additional parking garages; another central utilities plant; and associated site improvements.

Pursuant to the MF-IRD, Sands developed a CMP that depicts the Integrated Resort, its building components, the site layout, as well as site features, including landscaping (Figure 4). As shown on the CMP, the Integrated Resort comprises just over 3.75 million square feet of floor area, excluding parking garages.100 As illustrated on the CMP, at the heart of the Integrated Resort is the proposed Gaming, Dining and Retail Area, comprising two gaming areas, one (the Coliseum Casino) located in the northern portion of the site, which would envelop and re-use portions of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum building, and one located further south on the property. The interior of the Coliseum would remain, but would be redesigned to permit the development of a portion of the Gaming, Dining and Retail facilities. The South Casino, comprising Gaming, Dining and Retail Uses, would be situated at the center of the site. Most of the Coliseum’s exterior would no longer be visible. Two new Hotel Towers (with mitigation incorporated into the design to minimize the potential for bird collisions, as explained in Section 3.3.2, Ecological Resources) would be built on top of a podium, which would contain the gaming, food and beverage and retail facilities. One hotel (Hotel Tower 1) would be located at the eastern side of the site, south of and diagonally across from the Marriott Hotel (which is proposed to remain) and the other (Hotel Tower 2) would be situated at the western side of the subject property.

‌100 This is the maximum development being considered, which is being analyzed in this DEIS to ensure a comprehensive environmental assessment.

SITE DATA

NCTM:

ZONING.

LOT AREA EXISTINGBULOINGGROSSFLOORAREA. PROPOSED UDING GROSS FLOOR AREA FLOORAREARATIO

BUILDING AREAS:

USEjEXCLUDINGSTRUCTIJREDPARKING} MEETINGSAND CONFERENCE

SEC.44,8Ul.f,LOT326,351,401,402,411,412.&415 Mf.lRO:MITCtiELFIELDINTEGAATEORESORTDISTRICT J,756,127SF (8627AC)

64l,923SF (COUSEUM&MARRIOTT}

3,751,6 .: (EXCLUDING BAsaENTSANO PARKING STROCll.lRES)

BASEMENT AREA ABOVE GRADE AREA U'llTS

6.(19SF 228,434Sf

1,200SF S4,307SF

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION

BUILDINGROOF LINE UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE

PARKING GARAGE

GAM!NG, DINING, RETAl.

SYMBOL

architects

engineers

ENT'ERT,',IN!iENTVENUE PIJBUCATTR,f.CTION SUPPORTAREAS M.E.P.FACLITES

26,939SF

47,999Sf

72,ll06Sf 11S.993Sf S3.786SF

3'4-',262SF

135,85JSF

2,021,918SF

320,920SF

184,203SF

81,2USF

60,00JSF 343,ll06Sf B!.2!!..§f.

3,647SEATS

2,288KEYS

4,500SEATS

MEETINGS AND CONFERENCE

ENTERTA!HMEITTVENUE

■■1 11

‌CONSUl,U,NTS:

53a Broad Hollow Road, -&th Floor Eest Metvrne,NY11747

631.756.8000 • www.h2m .com

PARKING RE_Q_UIREMENTS:

765,261SF 3,7S1,672SF

3.l63.750SF"

HOTEL TOWER

POOL ANOSPA

Char/es Lindbergh Boulevard

(Nassau CountyRoadway)

USE {CODE SECTION) PARKING REQUIREMENT

MEETINGSANOCONFERENCE(§J19A(5)) 234,8S3SF 1SPACEPER200SF 1,175SPACES RETAIL(§319.A(8)) 55,50TSF 1SPACEPER200SF 278SPACES

RESTAURANTS(§319A(16)) 162,792SF 1SPACEPER100SF 1,626SPACES 1,mEMPLOYEES 1SPACePEJUEMPlOYEES 353SPACES

HOTEL(§319.A(2)) 2,288KEYS 1SPAO:PERKEY 2,288SPACES NETGAMINGARE,l,{§Mf-lRO) 39l,726Sf 1SPACEPER200SF 1,969SPACES

WATER FEATURE

MARK	I DATE	DESCRIPTION

WALKWAYS

GAMllGCIRCULATIONANOSUPPORT(§MF·IRO} 300,l96Sf ENTERTAINI.ENTVENUE(§319.A(4)) 4,500SEATS

Pl.lBUCATTRACTK)l(§319.A(5)) 60,IIXlSf

SUPPORTAREASl§MF-IRO) 6311,068Sf

MEPFACUTIES(§t.lf.lRO) 4\6117◄Sf TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED

PRO\l'IOEOPARKIHG

1SPACEPER200SF

1SPACEPER3SEA.TS

1SPACEPER200SF

1SPACEPER500SF

1SPACEPERtOIIXlSf

1.5(11SPACES

1,500SPACES

300SPACES

1,311SPACES

◄2SPACES 12,411SPACES

"'>q,.,,.

E'.s,.

llo '-1'1ct0

GARAGE"A"

(Z.O'lfT.•TOP PHOTCM:ilTAICPANELS)

- N 71"29•1rre 30!.'u· - -

LOADING REQUIREMENTS:

2,-487SPACES(INCLOOING-t2ACCESSl8LESPACES)

996.3SPACES(l UOINGmACCESSIBLESPACES)

12,◄50SPACES{INCLUOES1fi6ACCESSB.ESPACES)

lei, e,- 1>

;,.ct

{1LEVEl.8ElOWGAADE)

TOTALNON-Ri:SIDENTIALUSE 4,516,933Sf (PARKINGSTRUCruRESEXCLUDEO) FIRSHO,IIXlSf 1LOADINGSPACES

· f §

LOT COVERAGE TABLE:

W<DUSE

§MF•IRD

NEXTlll,OOJSf 1SPACEPEREACliADOITIONAL200.00JSF TOTALLOADINGREOU MEKf ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE: Mf•INTEGRATEORESQRTDISTRICf FlOORAREARATlO BULOINGHEIGl,'f( TEL) lfOTELBUI.Ol,GliEIGHT PARl<INGSTRUCruREiiEIGHT FROHTYARO	1LOADINGSPACES 22LOAOINGSPACES 2◄LOADINGSPACES (12'X))') -= REQUIRED §W°•IRD "'"" §MF•IRD """'		-,., ... "..'.
	§MF·IRD		-,., ... "..'.
LOAOINGZONES	§MF•IRD	24SPACES	2◄SPACES
PUBLICOPENSPACE	§W°•IRD	3.0,, (112,744SF)MIN	J.9"4(1'7 SF)

§MF,IRD

§W°•IRD

1.60W.X.

'""'"'

10'MIN

AREA/SF/Ag

1,231,192SFl2827N:,

PERO:NTAGE 32.76"

gll1:/

DUnltEOF

ISTING COLISEUM

,f·!

DETACHEOPARKINGSTRUCTURECOVERAGE IMPERVIOUS AREAS· ROADWAYS, PARKING & WloUmAYS l.ANDSCAPEAREA·EXCI.UDNQROOFTOPOPENSPACE

:al7,193Sf/ 6.1JN:, 1,577,650SF/3622N:,

681892Sf/1565AC

J,758,127SF/8627N:,

7.11"

41.99'!1,

18.14%

q.s1G

'"'¾ qle

R"II05.oo,

.,.4 27.65'

o..22•10•2r

C8=N0c6,•.".6,'..S_0.•,1.:

IEETINGS AND

CONFERENCE

IIIJl'KT.•'la'OIIIOOFI

GARAGE"B"

(95.D'lff•TOPOFROOF)

(VALET8ELOWGRAOE)

JMT I JMT/MRO I BJM r RJR

(

. r

LVSC2301 4121>D24 AS SHOWN

Las Vegas Sands Corp.

••, oqct

GARAGE"C"

GAMING· DINING· RETAIL

(9S.G'HT.•TOPOfFIOOf)

.!!!

::i

.!!!

0 u

&ff

"';;,_

Cl)

Sands New York

...c:7'1-»'1S

NEW YORK

(95.0'lft•TOPOFROOF)

r •) •·

-· ._·. o,"v"°E·Y:'·'·'

SM"42'29.fW375,00'

937.81'TOMEADOW8RDC«STATEPAAl<WAY

1255 Hempstead Turnpike,

Uniondale, NY 11553

NCTM: Sec. 44, Block F, Lots 351,401,402,411,412, & 415

- - - -

=·····

I '. I

,"'==

['" REGULATORY REVIEW

(NY$Ro,H'24) >fnQ

1-C-ONCCEPMTUAPL MA1ST.E0R PLAN

I Figure 4: Conceptual Master Plan

HompGsRtAePoHICdsTcA"LmE p;k,

- , a

II,J_

•-,._.,.50 ,oo J Q•,. Cl)

The hotels, which are the tallest parts of the proposed Integrated Resort, would be situated toward the interior of the site. The fitness/spa and pool area would be located between the two Hotel Towers, above the gaming-dining-retail facilities. The pool area would be available to guests only and the spa would be open to the public.

The proposed meeting and conference space is proposed to be connected to Hotel Tower 2 and the gaming, dining and retail space to the east and south-southeast. The entertainment venue would be located south of Hotel Tower 2 and southeast of the gaming, dining and retail areas.

Serving all of these building components are three Parking Garages, which are located at the edges of the subject property (north, west and south). Parking Garage A, located at the northern extent of the property, would be connected to the Coliseum Casino via a pedestrian tunnel and a pedestrian bridge, situated across North Drive. Parking Garage B would be connected to the meeting and conference space and the South Casino, and serve those facilities as well as Hotel Tower 2. Finally, Parking Garage C would be connected to the South Casino and generally serve the entertainment venue and Hotel Tower 1. Three surface parking areas, located on the northeast, southeast and southwest corners of the site, would serve guests and employees.

Further, there would be two vehicle drop-off loops – one located adjacent to Hotel Tower 2 and the meeting and conference space and one in front of Hotel Tower 1. The proposed parking and site circulation are described in more detail below and in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, of this DEIS.

The landscape and hardscape plan connects all of the building components that comprise the Integrated Resort. The landscaping plan is discussed in more detail in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, of this DEIS. A Central Plaza, which would include a variety of landscape materials and settings, is proposed to include a new veterans memorial. The Central Plaza would be located along the eastern portion of the site, opposite the Marriott Hotel and open to the public. While the proposed Integrated Resort would offer programming in this area (including seasonal offerings), the Plaza would provide the community with space to host neighborhood events, winter festivals, summer markets, art shows, outdoor music performances and similar community activities. The West Plaza, located north of the Meeting and conference space and northwest of Hotel Tower 2, would provide guests and visitors an outdoor space that can be used for relaxation and contemplation. Aside from the plazas, the perimeter of the proposed Integrated Resort, including both the parking garages and the surface parking areas, would be landscaped to provide screening of the Integrated Resort from external roadways and off-site properties.

Internal roadways would contain substantial landscaping, with a tree-lined median located along Sands Boulevard.

As detailed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1, the subject property is bounded by four roadways of Town, Nassau County and New York State jurisdiction and currently served by a number of access points. Access to the project site is currently provided via both signalized and unsignalized access points. The proposed access plan is well developed to accommodate all visitors to the site and works in coordination with the proposed internal roadway system. As shown on the CMP, there would be two access points on Hempstead Turnpike, five access points on Earle Ovington Boulevard (including two exit-only points and an entrance into Parking Garage A that is restricted to buses and trucks), two access points on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (including the exit from Parking Garage A for buses/trucks), and three access points from James Doolittle Boulevard.

The redevelopment of the property to the proposed Integrated Resort would include internal roadways to allow for the efficient circulation of all users. Destination points on the site include parking areas (both structured and surface), passenger pick-up and drop-off areas, valet services, shuttle and bus operations areas and delivery services. The site design, as depicted on the CMP, provides four roadways for vehicular circulation within the site:

› Sands Boulevard (the new north-south roadway, west of the Marriott Hotel, connecting Hempstead Turnpike and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard), which would act as the main entrance to the Integrated Resort

› North Drive, which extends from Earle Ovington Boulevard terminating at the new Sands Boulevard and running between Parking Garage A and the Coliseum Casino

› West Drive, which extends north from Hempstead Turnpike, east of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, terminating at South Drive

› South Drive, which extends from Earle Ovington Boulevard, opposite East Gate Drive, terminating at West Drive

Alternative modes of transportation available to the proposed Integrated Resort include public bus service through the NICE Bus System, Sands-sponsored shuttle bus service to the Hempstead LIRR station, Sands-sponsored coach buses providing connections to the Integrated Resort from New York City and other locations, and potential bus rapid transit facilities being developed by Nassau County, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Areas for ride-hailing vehicles (e.g., Uber, Lyft) would be provided on the site.

Parking for the overall development would be provided by a combination of parking garages and surface parking spaces as described above, the proposed Integrated Resort would provide 9,963 parking stalls, including 300 valet spaces, within the three on-site parking garages (Parking Garages A, B and C) in addition to another 2,487 parking stalls in surface parking lots (Lots E, F and G), as well as the Marriott Hotel. Therefore, 12,450 spaces in total would be provided, which would meet the proposed MF-IRD parking requirement of 12,411 spaces. Collectively parking areas within the proposed Integrated Resort have been designed to accommodate handicap accessible spaces, visitor parking, employee parking, valet parking, buses, electric vehicle charging stations and bicycles. As discussed below, Parking Garage A is proposed to house a police substation and provide parking spaces for emergency service vehicles, including police cars and ambulances.

A complete discussion of site access, site circulation, parking and alternative modes of transportation is included in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1 of this DEIS.

Components of the CMP by Phase
A discussion of the components of each phase of the proposed development as shown on the CMP (Figure 4) follows.
Phase 1:

Repurposed Coliseum (Coliseum Casino)
The existing Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum is currently designed as a two-level sports arena with an exposition area on the lower level. As part of Phase 1, the existing Coliseum facility would be repurposed to include a multi-level gaming area, with a gaming floor at grade, and a second gaming floor below grade. Each level would also include back of house space, office areas, retail, and food and beverage areas. The new casino would be connected to Parking Garage A via a pedestrian bridge, as well as a pedestrian tunnel under North Drive, as described below (Figure 4 and Appendix 2-2).
Although gaming would be a central component of the Integrated Resort, the proposed 393,726 net SF gaming area (included in both Phase 1 and Phase 2, described below) represents less than 10 percent of the project’s total square footage.
Parking Garage A and CUP-1
Parking Garage A would be constructed in Phase 1 and located in the northern portion of the proposed development to initially serve the Coliseum Casino. It would be connected to the Coliseum Casino, and ultimately the South Casino, Restaurants and Supportive Retail (lifestyle complex) and Hotels to the south, by a pedestrian bridge spanning North Drive, a lower lobby pedestrian tunnel under North Drive and by vehicles from North Drive. Parking Garage A would contain over 4,300 parking stalls for general use (including self-parking) and also accommodate trucks/coach buses and LIRR shuttle buses that serve the Hempstead LIRR station. A dedicated site roadway is provided from Earle Ovington Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site that enters and exits Parking Garage A on the north side. Deliveries and buses would be accommodated in the underground level of the parking garage with a pedestrian tunnel provided into the casino building under North Drive. This dedicated roadway would also facilitate the egress of emergency vehicles from Parking Garage A, which would be staged on the east side of the ground floor. Valet service for patron passenger cars is provided in a dedicated area on the ground floor of Parking Garage A, as is ridesharing such as Uber and Lyft. A portion of the garage’s stalls would accommodate electric vehicle charging stations.
The initial central utilities plant (CUP-1) is proposed to be constructed within the footprint of Parking Garage A. CUP-1 is proposed to be a multi-story structure that would support all of the central utilities (including the air source heat pumps used for heating and cooling, situated on the roof of the CUP) for Phase 1 and for half of Phase 2, when additional air source heat pumps would be installed. A second CUP (CUP-2) would be constructed in Phase 2 to support the

remainder of the development. See Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities for additional discussion.
As described in Section 3.10.2, Community Facilities and Services, Sands would construct a 1,500-SF police sub-station on the subject site, with police vehicles maintained on-site. This substation would be located on the ground level within Parking Garage A, along with a fire/ Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) substation and K-9 unit kennel, adjacent to various utility rooms within CUP-1. Ambulance/EMT and other first responder vehicles would be stationed adjacent to the substations, within the footprint of CUP-1, within the footprint of Parking Garage A, to provide immediate emergency services to patrons in need at the proposed Integrated Resort.

Parking Lot E
Parking Lot E is proposed to contain over 500 surface parking spaces and be located in the northeast corner of the subject property, north of the Marriott Hotel and east of Parking Garage A and west of James Doolittle Boulevard. Access to this surface parking lot would be from James Doolittle Boulevard, and internally, via Sands Boulevard.

Site Improvements and Utilities
By the end of Phase 1, both Sands Boulevard and North Drive would be completely constructed and operational. It is noted that West Drive and South Drive (the roadways around MSKCC) already exist.
Site improvements in this phase include the utility work required to upgrade incoming and outgoing services to the Coliseum Casino, including upgraded drainage systems (installation of stormwater facilities) in the northeast surface parking area. Sewer and water service connections would be modified and upgraded as necessary. Existing utility services from Engie facility would be disconnected from the Coliseum building, as required, and new electric service and gas lines would be provided.

Back-of-House Areas
Back-of-house areas, which are included in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 uses, primarily encompass employee and business segment work spaces and other supportive facilities such as loading docks, security centers, kitchens, warehouse spaces and offices. These areas are fundamental to providing safe and efficient operation of the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands would be thorough and diligent in creating safety for the Integrated Resort’s points of entry and how people and goods are moved throughout the property. Sands’ focus on designing secure and efficient back-of-house operations begins at the building perimeter and extends to all areas where employees would conduct behind-the-scenes work or transport and remove items.

Roadway Improvements
The traffic impact analysis has identified a range of roadway improvements that are recommended to address existing capacity deficiencies within the Study Area (see Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, and Appendix 3.5-1), facilitate site access, and mitigate traffic impacts on Study Area roadway intersections and the nearby parkways. Proposed roadway

improvements are detailed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, and Appendix 3.5-1. With respect to local surface roadways, at most locations, mitigation is limited to simple signal timing or phasing changes and does not include physical changes to the roadway system. Some intersections require physical changes to increase roadway capacity, including Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access, Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue, and Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (EB)/Site Access (Figure 5). In addition, there are proposed improvements along the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway (which are described below). All the mitigation measures, aside from those associated with the parkway, as described in Appendix 3.5-1, were developed for the 2030 Full Build Condition. Sands intends to implement all required intersection mitigation at the local surface roadway intersections for the Full Build during the Phase 1 construction period, subject to approval of the agencies having jurisdiction, to minimize disruption to the Study Area. Accordingly, even though the totality of these intersection mitigation measures are not required to mitigate traffic impacts associated with Phase 1 development, they would be implemented for Phase 1 development. With regard to the parkways, the mitigation would be in place prior to the completion of Phase 2 (Full Build), subject to approval of the agencies having jurisdiction.
The identified capacity improvements on the Northern State Parkway and the Meadowbrook State Parkway address existing conditions and project impacts. Other improvements include those at the Hempstead Turnpike and Meadowbrook State Parkway, as well as Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Meadowbrook State Parkway. These proposed off-site roadway improvements include:
› Removal of the existing lane drop (from two lanes to one lane) to widen to two full lanes the ramp from westbound Northern State Parkway onto southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
› Widening to a fourth lane southbound on Meadowbrook State Parkway from Northern State Parkway to Zeckendorf Boulevard
› Widening of northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to four lanes from Old Country Road to the Northern State Parkway ramps
› Bridge widenings and replacements to accommodate the widenings noted above including; widening of the Meadowbrook State Parkway bridge over Westbury Avenue, replacement of the MTA Long Island Railroad bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span, and replacement of the Old Country Road bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span
› Widening of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway ramp to eastbound Northern State Parkway to a two-lane ramp onto Northern State Parkway
› Widening of the north end of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road, which currently transitions to a single lane, to two lanes and merging both lanes onto Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline prior to the Stewart Avenue overpass. The existing third northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline travel lane would be dropped prior to the C-D road merge
› Along eastbound Hempstead Turnpike the extension of the deceleration lane onto the ramp to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 500 feet)

› Along southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway the Extension of the acceleration lane from the ramp from eastbound Hempstead Turnpike (approximately 400 feet).
› An extension of the two-lane section of the ramp from eastbound Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 350 feet in length) and an extension of the acceleration lane from the same ramp onto the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 450 feet in length).
See Figure 5 for the locations of the proposed off-site parkway improvements. Details and concept plans of the proposed off-site improvements to the parkways are contained in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking and in Appendix 3.1-7. A discussion of these proposed off-site improvements, and their potential impacts, are provided throughout the relevant sections of this DEIS.
Phase 2:

South Casino
As part of Phase 2 of the proposed Integrated Resort, a new “South Casino” would be constructed adjacent to the Coliseum Casino. A variety of food and beverage offerings would be located in the areas surrounding the casino floor, providing a wide range of dining options and cuisines from food hall bites to fine dining. The high-limit areas of the South Casino would provide guests with privacy and access to premier amenities such as tailored services, luxury finishes, an invitation-only restaurant and a lounge. Sands envisions the casino’s dining attractions would become a destination for Long Island and the region.

Restaurant and Supportive Retail (Lifestyle Complex)
As indicated above, throughout the lifestyle complex (including part of Phase 1), the proposed Integrated Resort would offer a wide range of food and beverage options. The lifestyle complex, housing the restaurant and retail offerings would serve as connectors throughout the resort, providing easy access to the casino, hotel, meeting and conference center, the entertainment venue, as well as outdoor spaces. The food and beverage program would be a major feature of the Integrated Resort, driving visitation and enhancing the overall guest experience. The food and beverage venues would be integrated within the casino as well as other areas of the hotels/spa. Providing access to a wide range of cuisines and price points from the gaming floor is extremely important to the overall customer experience.

CUP-2
CUP-2 is proposed to be integrated with Garages B and C, as well as with the South Casino. CUP- 2 would support the central utilities for the second half of Phase 2 building components.

Figure 5: General Locations of Proposed Local Surface Roadway and Parkway Improvements
Sands New York Integrated Resort
Stewart Ave

P

c

i

k Av

a

e

r

k

B

l

v

d

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Mille

5th St

R

ai

lroad Av

e

Davis Ave

7th St

West Rd

d

Blv

o

d

P

R

En

erimete

Merrick Ave

Merrick

r d

East Rd

le

s Lind

be

rg

h B

r Ave

Hempstead Tpke

lvd

‌Nassau Community College

C

ha

d

gh Blv

rles Lindber

Ave

Char

Mitchel County Park
Meadowbrook Park

ber

d

Lin

es

l

D

Char

e

om

Ovington

e

Bl

Earl

vd

Blvd

H

gh

empste

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Glen

n C

urt

iss

anor Pkwy

Gilroy Ave

Walton Ave

Marvin Ave

M

Rd

Hempstead Tpke

Hofstra University

N
0 0.1 0.2 Miles
Subject Property
Approximate Locations for Proposed Intersection Mitigation Measures* Approximate Locations for Proposed Parkway Mitigation Measures*

Blvd

Kellenberg Memorial High School
*Mitigation Measures include all physical roadway improvements proposed to mitigate the traffic impacts analyzed by the conducted Traffic Impact Study for the Sands New York Integrated Resort.

Source: NearMap, ESRI, Nassau County

Hotel Towers
Phase 2 of the Integrated Resort would include two hotels – a 946-key, five-star luxury hotel and a 724-key boutique hotel. The five-star luxury hotel would be located on the east side of the property, directly adjacent to the South Casino and proximate to the entertainment venue. Large windows would provide views of green terraces and balconies, and the Integrated Resort’s landscaped exterior grounds. The 724-key boutique hotel would be smaller in size with an intimate feel. This hotel would be positioned between the Coliseum Casino and the meeting and conference space and offer a range of fitness, beauty and wellness options for guests. Guests of the proposed Integrated Resort would have access to hotel amenities, such as a roof-top pool and spa and fitness center that would be connected both to the hotels and the lifestyle complex that serves as the central spine for navigating the site. Hotel guests would have access to the spa via the hotel elevator, and non-hotel guests (who can also patronize the space) would enter through a convenient entrance in the lifestyle complex. An array of treatment rooms, studios, fitness facilities and other spaces would house a variety of wellness offerings.

Entertainment Venue
Honoring the legacy of the live events at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, the proposed Integrated Resort would include an entertainment venue as a major attraction. The venue would be able to accommodate a wide range of events, from small intimate performances to larger- scale concerts and shows. Although the performance venue would be multi-purpose in its functionality, it would be designed and optimized for live entertainment, with a focus on optimized acoustics and viewing angles that bring the audience closer to the action. Sands is proposing to invest in state-of-the-art technology to enhance production value and guest experience. The proposed venue would also accommodate other large-scale events, such as corporate keynote speeches, large-format presentations, and comedy shows.

Meeting and Conference Space
The meeting and conference space would encompass about 213,000 square feet, as well as associated outdoor space, capable of accommodating a variety of functions from business meeting and conferences to parties and celebrations. As such, the meeting spaces would target conference travel, local business organization meetings, and other events.
The proposed Integrated Resort would be a premier destination through providing functional and flexible conference spaces, ballrooms and pre-function areas that can be configured as needed. Each space would feature views of the surrounding area, and design elements would provide productive and inspiring environments for meetings and events. The meeting and conference space would be equipped with advanced information technology systems and high- speed connectivity to deliver state-of-the-art capabilities.

Outdoor Spaces
The proposed Integrated Resort’s outdoor public spaces are a primary feature and attraction for the property, providing both gathering spaces for entertainment and activities, as well as an inviting setting to welcome guests. Outdoor spaces are strategically located within the property and complement the resort’s architecture. The diverse outdoor experience would include larger plazas along with intimate manicured gardens.

The Central Plaza, along with other landscape and hardscape elements, would be started in Phase 1 and completed in Phase 2. The Central Plaza located between the Coliseum Casino and the existing Marriott Hotel on the east side of the subject property would be similar in size to the western lawn at Bryant Park in Manhattan. It would provide the community with space to host neighborhood events, winter festivals, summer markets, art shows, outdoor music performances and other community activities.
As part of the Central Plaza, Sands would develop a veterans’ memorial to honor the site’s origins. Sands would engage Nassau County veterans in the design of a
memorial wall and water feature, which would be situated within a grove of trees and flanked by permanent seating for quiet reflection. Berms and low walls would shelter the memorial from roadway traffic to create an area of honor and respect. In addition, the veterans memorial space would be able to accommodate veterans’ events.
As indicated in Section 3.10.2.5, Community Facilities and Services: Open Space and Recreational Resources, Sands has designed the proposed Integrated Resort such that there would be areas, particularly the Central Plaza, that would be made available to the community for hosting neighborhood events and local programming. Moreover, Sands proposes to implement its own range of programming concepts including concerts, festivals, cultural and arts showcases, outdoor markets, and seasonal activities on the Central Plaza that would be open to the community.
The proposed West Plaza, situated near the meeting and conference space and the boutique hotel, would be a smaller intimate garden. This area would have landscaped zones providing guests outdoor space for relaxation and contemplation.
As shown on the landscaping and planting plans in Appendix 2-2, additional plantings would occur across the site as part of the comprehensive landscaping plan, both internally and around the perimeter.

Other Attractions
The proposed Integrated Resort would seek to provide approximately 60,000 SF of space for high-quality experiential attraction. Since customer tastes and preferences change, Sands is proposing to wait until closer to property opening to finalize a specific attraction.
Other Site Improvements
As with Phase 1, new utilities would be installed and connected to serve the building components constructed in Phase 2.
Parking Garage B
Parking Garage B would be located south of the proposed Integrated Resort’s meeting and conference space and west of the casinos and lifestyle complex. Parking Garage B is situated north of the off-site MSKCC parcel, in the western portion of the subject site and adjacent to Earle Ovington Boulevard. Garage B would have four points of access -- at the intersection of West Drive and South Drive a northbound, entrance only access is provided for employees from Hempstead Turnpike. A central signalized access point is provided for entering vehicles only from either direction, while the westerly access point provides for exiting vehicles to the west only. On Earle Ovington Boulevard, an exit-only to the northbound direction is provided in the location of an existing exit from what is now a surface parking area. This additional exit would allow for travel to the north only. Garage B would accommodate personal vehicles of the employees of the proposed Integrated Resort, as well as an employee drop-off/pick-up area. A valet parking area for Hotel Tower 2 guests (via the drop-off loop adjacent to that hotel) and for the meeting and conference space would be located below grade within this garage.

Parking Garage C
Parking Garage C would be located in the southern portion of the proposed Integrated Resort, north of Hempstead Turnpike, west of the proposed entertainment venue and south of the casinos and hotels/spa complex. Vehicular access to Parking Garage C would be from two access points -- West Drive, which runs north-south from Hempstead Turnpike to South Drive and an internal roadway. This garage would accommodate delivery vehicles to the site via a separate access point on West Drive. It would also contain a drop-off/valet for the live performance venue, as well as a rideshare drop-off/pick-up area. A drop-off loop adjacent to Hotel Tower 1 would serve hotel guests wishing to valet their vehicles, which would then be stored via underground connections to Garage C.

Parking Lot F
Parking lot F would be located in the southeast corner of the site, south of the Marriott Hotel property, east of the proposed entertainment venue. This lot is proposed to contain over 800 parking spaces and be used for general guest parking for all of the resort amenities.
Parking Lot G
Parking Lot G would be located in the southwest corner of the site, near the intersection of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike, west of the off-site MSKCC. This parking lot would be used primarily as an employee parking area and would contain approximately 700 parking

stalls. Access to this parking lot would be internal from South Drive, off Earle Ovington Boulevard. An additional point of egress is provided on Earle Ovington Boulevard, where an exit- only to the northbound direction is provided in the location of an existing exit from what is now a surface parking area. This additional exit would allow for travel to the north only.

Marriott Hotel
Other than the proposed parking reconfiguration at the southern end of the Marriott Hotel property (Lot F), there are no plans for any changes to the Marriott Hotel. As explained above, while Sands has not negotiated a lease with Nassau County for the Marriott Hotel property, it has a purchase and sale agreement with the Marriott operator (Appendix 2-8). Sands has confirmed that, if it ultimately decides to secure the Marriott property, it may renovate the existing hotel, however, it has no plans to expand the hotel operation nor does it plan to change the current uses. The goal of the renovation, if the Marriott is ultimately secured, would be to upgrade its quality (room quality, food and beverage). If an expansion or a change in use was to be proposed in the future by this Lessee or another party, an application would have to be made to the Town and a SEQR process would have to be conducted.
Infrastructure and Services
As explained in Section 3.2, Water Resources, the proposed Integrated Resort would be connected to the Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District of the Nassau County sewer system for sewage disposal (with discharge to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant [WPCP]). The Integrated Resort is projected to generate a new sanitary flow of approximately 109,792 gallons per day (gpd) at Phase 1 and 701,400± gpd at Full Build. Examining the existing treatment (63.8± million gallons per day [mgd]) versus the treatment capacity (72 mgd), the addition of new sewage effluent from the proposed Integrated Resort (0.70± mgd) would not result in an exceedance of the treatment capacity. Furthermore, Sands’ consultants undertook consultations with the Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW) regarding the proposed development. A formal request for sewer availability was submitted to NCDPW, and a response indicating availability/capacity, dated May 10, 2024, was received (Appendix 3.2-5). No improvements to off-site sewer infrastructure are anticipated; however, on-site infrastructure would be relocated within the area of the proposed development.
The Integrated Resort is proposed to be served by the Town of Hempstead Water Department, Uniondale Water District (UWD) for water supply and is located within the Mitchel Field Water Supply Area, as described in the Section 3.2, Water Resources, of this DEIS. It is anticipated that without taking credit for the incorporation of water conservation measures, the proposed Integrated Resort (Full Build) would have a potable water demand of approximately 109,792± gpd (plus an additional 14,613± gpd for irrigation) in Phase 1 and 701,400± gpd at Full Build, which is approximately 604,127 gpd more than the existing condition for the Coliseum (97,273 gpd).101 When including irrigation (62,000± gpd), the total new water demand from the proposed Integrated Resort is 763,400 gpd. Reuse/renovation of the Coliseum building as a casino within Phase 1 of the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to create minimal additional

‌101 The Marriott Hotel is currently served by the Town of Hempstead Water Department. As there would be no change in the Marriott Hotel operations, there would be no change in the water demand.

water supply demand (an addition 12,500± gpd), such that existing water supply infrastructure is expected to be sufficient to accommodate the Phase 1 program. However, to address the water demand for Phase 2, a new water supply well, with a capacity of 1.98 mgd, as well as associated treatment systems, backup power generation, and transmission water main are proposed to support the Full Build-out. Sands is in the process of designing the new well and conducting test wells. The well would ultimately be constructed in accordance with the standards of and with approval from the Town of Hempstead Water Department, and would be operated by the UWD. Sands has committed to funding this new well and appurtenances. However, if significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.
Under the proposed action, stormwater runoff of approximately 1.34 million cubic feet for a five- inch storm event would be managed through on-site infiltration via a network of catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys, with overflow to Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537, located along Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. The proposed action would result in a decrease of close to eight percent of impervious areas at the subject property, which would result in a corresponding reduction to the stormwater load imposed on the County basin, thereby improving an already permitted condition. Both the architectural and landscape designs have incorporated low-impact development techniques that reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, including increased on- site infiltration and the installation of green roofs at different levels, various landscaping areas and gardens, on the ground floor. The updated stormwater management system would ensure that stormwater runoff would be properly captured and conveyed, precluding stormwater from running overland and potentially impacting adjacent properties or nearby surface waters. Sands’ consultant met with and sent a letter to NCDPW regarding the proposed stormwater management system. A response from NCDPW indicated that the project is subject to 239-f review and that it concurred with H2M’s assessment of stormwater management for the proposed Integrated Resort, as discussed in Section 3.2, Water Resources.
As described in Section 3.10.2.4, Solid Waste, the amount of solid waste generation projected from the proposed Integrated Resort would be approximately 623 tons per month, and the amount of recycling would be approximately 157 tons per month. On-site collection of solid waste is proposed to occur within underground loading docks and service areas, particularly in Parking Garages A and C. There are no proposed exterior solid waste collection enclosures on the subject site. Solid waste generated on the subject property during operations would be collected by a licensed private carter and disposed at ReworldTM Hempstead (formerly Covanta), which has confirmed that it would accept waste from the proposed Integrated Resort (Appendix 3.10-1). Sands would use a comprehensive waste management plan, incorporating strategies such as such as composting, recycling, and waste reduction programs and would primarily focus on managing the largest waste streams, which are food service and construction. Sands is in the process of identifying potential licensed facilities that would accept recycled materials from the proposed Integrated Resort. The proposed Integrated Resort would comply with the applicable requirements of the New York State Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by separating excess food for donation, donating food scraps to an organic recycler (based on facility availability and capacity), separating its remaining food scraps from other solid waste, training employees in the proper methods of for separating and storing food scraps, and submitting an annual report to the NYSDEC Division of Materials Management documenting donations, recycling, and other required information. Furthermore, Sands’ construction waste management diversion objectives for new construction are aligned with its Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design™ (LEED) certification goal, targeting minimum 50 percent diversion and aspiring to exceed 75 percent diversion depending on the available local waste management infrastructure at the time the waste is generated. Sands is targeting LEED Gold Certification; however, the ultimate determination of the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized. While the proposed Integrated Resort would result in an increase in solid waste generation over the current use of the subject property, Sands would employ a comprehensive solid waste management program, which emphasizes reduction, reuse and recycling measures.
Energy
As explained in Section 3.13.2, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex, with electric supply from PSEG-Long Island. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site relates to commercial kitchen natural gas use and diesel emergency generators. Natural gas services would be provided by National Grid.
Implementation of the proposed action would result in the disconnection of services from the Engie facility to the Coliseum property and the establishment of new utilities, including the construction of two CUPs. The Marriott Hotel would still maintain utility connections with the Engie facility.
Based on the almost all-electric complex, Sands has requested a total electrical service capacity of 47 MVA to serve the Full Build condition. PSEG Long Island has provided a letter indicating that it would serve the proposed Integrated Resort (Appendix 3.13-1). While PSEG Long Island can provide service to the subject property, an expanded or new substation would be required to serve the proposed Integrated Resort beyond Phase 1. As discussed in Section 3.13.2, alternative locations are being explored for the expanded or new substation. Sands has committed to continuing to work with PSEG Long Island and to participating in funding the substation work needed to meet the energy demand of the proposed Integrated Resort.102
The proposed energy strategy would help to conserve electricity, minimize potential carbon emissions and avoid significant water consumption associated with cooling towers, which have typically been used to generate chilled water for air conditioning on similar developments.
Furthering Sands’ commitment to energy conservation and clean energy generation, the roofs of the proposed parking garages, meeting and conference space, and entertainment venue would include the integration of photovoltaic (PV) panels.
Sustainability

Section 3.13.2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability

‌102 If significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

Resort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, minimize impacts associated with climate change, and promote sustainability:

› Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site relates to commercial kitchen natural gas use and emergency generators.

› The heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems would all be electric, use high performance heat pump technology with heat recovery, and would not burn fossil fuels through gas or steam. No combustion equipment is expected to be used on site to produce heat, steam, or hot water. Key HVAC, equipment, and operation strategies that would be incorporated to maximize performance and efficient design include use of on-site central thermal plants, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or air handling units with direct outside air connections, hydronic heating and cooling systems that optimize interior comfort and energy efficiency, heat recovery air source heat pumps, and efficient electric-driven water source heat pumps that simultaneously produce domestic hot water and provide chilled water generation.

› Energy efficiency strategies include maximizing daylight penetration and use, installing LED lighting, using occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and using smart sensors and plug load management.

› The Integrated Resort would install smart metering and submeter stations to track electricity and chilled and hot water use, and facility engineers would continually monitor energy performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation.

› The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to reduce natural gas consumption by a minimum of 10 percent compared to the baseline scenario by using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens.

› The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to achieve a minimum 28 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions compared to the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) by incorporating energy efficiency measures that are expected to achieve a minimum eight percent reduction in energy consumption and by sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources, including solar photovoltaics.

› Operation of the Integrated Resort would incorporate a comprehensive recycling program to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions associated with solid waste landfilling.

› Sands is proposing two bus services, including a shuttle bus to the Hempstead LIRR station as well as larger, longer-distance coach buses, which would provide direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations, providing a single-seat trip between the highest population in the capture area and the Integrated Resort. This would promote the use of mass transit and reduce the lower occupancy vehicle count, which would, in turn, reduce VMT.

› Implementation of Sands Sustainable Procurement Policy would be extended to the proposed Integrated Resort to reduce impacts on human health and the environment and strengthen local communities by ensuring the procurement of products and services that; conserve natural resources, materials, water and energy, and protect biodiversity; maximize recyclability and recycled content, and minimize waste; reduce toxicity and pollution,

including GHG emissions; and provide opportunities for small and medium size enterprises and local businesses.

› Sands is committed to achieving USGBC LEED third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort. Buildings designed and constructed to achieve LEED certification help reduce energy and water use, improve indoor air quality, support better building material choices, and drive innovation. While the Integrated Resort would strive for certification at the LEED Gold level, the ultimate determination of the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized. Sands is also planning to pursue LEED for Communities.

› Additional sustainability elements that are incorporated in the proposed action to minimize potential GHG impacts but are not listed above include the following:

Developing the Integrated Resort within a previously disturbed, primarily paved site to reduce the overall land-use footprint.
Featuring a layout of interconnected building components that facilitate efficiency in equipment, performance, and space allocation to minimize energy use.
Avoiding the use of cooling towers for air conditioning, which typically represents the largest single use of potable water in resorts.
Providing an on-site bus depot within Parking Garage A, connected to the casinos and hotels/restaurants/retail by an overhead pedestrian bridge, that enhances safety and provides comfortable and convenient year-round access.
Installing EV charging infrastructure.
Improving existing stormwater management by recharging stormwater runoff on-site and in the adjacent Nassau County recharge basin, and by promoting groundwater recharge.
Using low-impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff, including green roofs/landscaped terraces.
Incorporating a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters, and stores rainwater for reuse. The recovery and reuse system would only be for no-contact irrigation use, and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable to Nassau County.
Reducing the heat island effect by incorporating high albedo roofing and pavement materials.
Installing drought-tolerant plant species and integrating advanced irrigation technologies to reduce water needs associated with on-site irrigation.
Installing low-flow fixtures and appliances to reduce indoor water use.
Reducing food waste via prevention, donation, and diversion strategies.

Section 3.2

Water Resources

Section 3.3

Ecological Resources

Section 3.5

Transportation and Parking

Section 3.10

Community Facilities and Services

Section 3.13

Use and Conservation of Energy

Section 3.14

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability

‌Purpose, Need and Benefits
Sands’ purpose in developing the proposed Integrated Resort is to revitalize an underperforming publicly-owned asset into a sustainable, world class and vibrant destination that generates significant economic and fiscal benefits for the community and achieves stated goals of New York State, Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead as further discussed below.
When evaluating the purpose, need and expected benefits of the proposed Integrated Resort, it is important to understand the framework within which this Resort, and particularly, the proposed casino component, is being considered. The impetus for the proposed project dates back to 2013, when New York State approved a constitutional amendment authorizing up to seven commercial casinos. Subsequently, in 2015 and 2016, the New York State Gaming Commission awarded licenses to four upstate casinos -- Tioga Downs Casino, Town of Nichols, Tioga County; del Lago Resort and Casino, Town of Tyre, Seneca County; Rivers Casino and Resort, City of Schenectady, County of Schenectady; Resorts World Catskills Casino, Town of Thompson, Sullivan County.103
As explained by the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, in a November 2020 report, revenues from gambling provide significant tax benefits to New York State. New York State collected approximately $3.7 billion in gaming revenue in fiscal year 2019-20. Of this, approximately $3.66 billion funded education, $74 million was distributed to municipalities that host certain gaming venues, and $66 million went to the New York State General Fund. The majority of revenue generated (just over two-thirds) was from traditional lottery games, with approximately 5.1 percent generated from traditional casinos.104
On October 11, 2023, NEWSDAY reported that New York State collected approximately $4.8 billion in tax revenues for fiscal year 2022-23 from all forms of gambling, with the lottery accounting for more than half of the revenue (approximately $2.7 billion), and the largest increase coming from mobile sports betting. NEWSDAY indicated that the New York State Comptroller reported that the State collected $727 million in tax revenue related to mobile sports betting during the 2022-23 fiscal year, more than double the $361 million it collected in 2021-22.105
In August 2023, Comptroller DiNapoli issued a report documenting the revenue impact from the casinos that were awarded licenses in 2015 and 2016 on upstate local governments, after the casinos had been open for several years.106 Rivers Casino and Resort opened in February 2017; del Lago Resort and Casino opened in January 2017; Resorts World Catskills Casino opened in February 2018; and Tioga Downs Casino opened in December 2016.107

‌103 Office of the New York State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments (August 2023), Pages 1 and 2.
‌104 Office of the New York State Comptroller. A Question of Balance, Gaming Revenues and Problem Gambling in New York State
(November 2020), Pages 5, 6 and 8.
‌105 Newsday. State sees big tax haul from mobile sports betting; calls to gambling hotline also up (October 11, 2023).
‌106 Office of the New York State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments (August 2023).
Available at: https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/local-government/publications/pdf/2023-casinos.pdf. Accessed August 2024.
‌107 Ibid, Page 2.

The Comptroller assessed the casinos’ projections for 2019 against the actual tax revenue collected as of 2020 and determined that none of the casinos met their tax revenue projections due to a number of factors not the least of which was the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. As of 2022, only one casino, Tioga Downs,108 had reached its 2019 projection. Notwithstanding this, between 2017 and 2022, these casinos have provided approximately $176 million in gaming tax revenues to local government.109
The impact of these tax revenues on the host town, particularly where the local government gaming taxes represented a substantial portion of overall tax revenues, as in the Towns of Tyre, Nichols and Thompson, facilitated significant reductions in real property taxes.110 Thus, the economic benefits associated with New York State-licensed casinos are positive and substantial.
The August 2023 Comptroller’s report also noted that, based on the audits that were conducted of the host Towns, there were budgeting challenges associated with the gaming revenue,111 and it was important for towns to conduct proper, multiyear financial planning.
In order to address the issue identified by the aforesaid Comptroller’s report and to protect Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead from impacts of potential shortfalls in projected gaming tax revenues, Sands has committed to providing a minimum level of annual tax revenue, if a gaming license is granted, as follows:
› Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation
› Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of
$10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation
These are guaranteed minimums such that, if the gaming revenues actually generated by Sands would yield tax revenues in excess of those set forth above, the County and the Town would receive those actual higher tax revenues.112 These guarantees establish the minimum that the County and Town would receive, and address the issue identified in the 2023 Comptroller’s report as the guarantees provide a reliable base amount from which the Town and County can establish their budgets and tax levies.
Potential licensing for Sands is a competitive process. On January 3, 2023, the New York State Gaming Facility Location Board issued a REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A GAMING FACILITY IN NEW YORK STATE (RFA) for up to three downstate casinos.

‌108 Ibid, Page 4.
‌109 Ibid, Page 14.
‌110 Ibid, Pages 11 and 12.
‌111 As an example, the Town of Tyre reduced its real property taxes by 42.1 percent from 2016 to 2017 and by 64.2 percent from 2017 to 2018. However, in 2021, due to the initial Covid-19 shut down and subsequent restrictions on the del Lago casino, Tyre overrode their property tax cap and increased their real property taxes to previous levels for a year to make up for the gaming tax revenue shortfall. Tyre returned to its pre-pandemic tax levy in 2022 and further reduced its real property tax levy by 87.1 percent in 2023 (Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments, Office of the New York State Comptroller, August 2023, Page 12).
‌112As explained in the Socioeconomics section, $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues are projected from the operation of the Integrated Resort to be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead;
$52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively.

While this process would be similar to that conducted for the upstate casinos, one of the significant differences is the requirement of approval by a Community Advisory Committee and demonstration of zoning compliance before the Gaming Facility Location Board would evaluate the application. The Gaming Facility Location Board explained the expected benefits from downstate casinos in the RFA Introduction:
Revenue from new gaming facilities is expected to generate substantial fiscal benefit to New York’s public schools, local governments, and problem gambling treatment services. The jobs created by these casinos must deliver livable wages to help families live, stay, and prosper in New York. . . these projects can transform a community. The statutory prerequisites of obtaining approval from a separate, appointed Community Advisory Committee and successfully completing the municipal zoning and land-use processes ensures that only projects embraced by the community are placed before the Board for consideration. As this process unfolds, the Board expects to hear a variety of viewpoints from communities potentially impacted by proposed projects. The Board welcomes such input and will consider all public comments received during the process. The Board encourages responsible, ethical, innovative, and employee-minded businesses seeking to generate and expand access to economic opportunities in New York State to respond to this RFA . . .
As explained in Section 2.6, Community Outreach, below, Sands has been seeking public commentary from various organizations and community members for some time. Sands has met with over 600 separate organizations and individuals (some multiple times) for a total of about 1,500 community engagements, and has established various working groups to provide input to Sands on various issues facing the Town, County and broader Long Island region including workforce development, business development and tourism, environment and sustainability, transportation and infrastructure, public safety, and community needs (Appendix 2-9).
In addition, Sands has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, and various taxing entities and community groups, which furthers the State’s identified objectives of benefitting tax-supported entities, problem gambling treatment services and other community needs. As part of its on-going lease negotiations with Nassau County and based on its numerous meetings with government officials and community representatives, the Lessee has committed to providing significant economic and community benefits, many of which would help mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. In addition to annual rent payments and permit review fees113 to Nassau County, the Lessee has agreed to provide the following:
› If a gaming license is granted, guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation
› If a gaming license is granted, guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising

‌113 Per the proposed lease, if a gaming license is granted, rent payments would be $10 million per year, upon commencement of casino operations. Approximately $8.75 million would be paid to the Nassau County Department of Public Works for the 239-f review.

to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation 114
› A one-time upfront payment of $54 million to Nassau County
› Construction of a new 1,500-sf police substation with parking, and provision of up to
$500,000.00 for interior fit-out
› Payment of $900,000.00 per year to Nassau County, with a two percent annual escalation, for police services prior to casino opening. If the gaming license is awarded, upon opening of the casino, this payment would increase to $1.8 million annually, with a two percent annual escalation
› Community Benefits Payments of $4.0 million per year, if a gaming license is granted, or $2.0 million per year upon substantial completion of development of an alternative plan (with no casino), if a gaming license is not granted. The CBP would support and enhance fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers; school districts; libraries and library districts; athletic fields, ballfields and parks; and other community facilities. Forty percent of the CBP would be designated for community facilities in Uniondale
› Supplemental community benefits payments to Uniondale in the amount of $10 million, East Meadow in the amount of $10.0 million, and the Village of Hempstead in the amount of $5.0 million for a total of $25 million. Half of these payments, $12.5 million, would be made by Sands during the construction of the proposed project with 40 percent to benefit Uniondale, 40 percent to benefit East Meadow and 20 percent to benefit the Village of Hempstead. The balance of the payments made by Sands would allow Uniondale, East Meadow and the Village of Hempstead to complete their applicable community benefit projects and other approved grant applications 115
› At least $1 million for the construction of an appropriate monument, memorial, or other tribute to veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America.
The benefits set forth in the proposed lease are in addition to the millions of dollars of rent, hotel tax, sales tax, entertainment tax and other taxes and payments that would be paid by the Lessee. In addition, Sands would continue to negotiate community benefits with the Town of Hempstead during the zoning process.
Furthering Sands’ commitments to the Gaming Facility Location Board’s stated goals of providing problem gambling treatment services and delivering livable wages to help families live, stay and prosper in New York, Sands has arranged partnerships with various Long Island not-for-profit and educational organizations. As an example, Sands has committed $200,000 to The Family and Children’s Association to support the establishment of two new Gambling Support and Wellness Centers in Hempstead and Hicksville. Sands has partnered with NCC and LIU to create a hospitality program that would generate new career opportunities for students and graduates interested in hospitality management and culinary arts, two areas where there would be significant employment needs at the proposed Integrated Resort. This partnership is also helping to facilitate a bridge between NCC and LIU, whereby those graduating with an associate’s degree

‌114 If impacts are identified through the SEQR process that warrant additional mitigation funding directly to the Town of Hempstead, Sands would address same.
‌115 An agreement regarding this payment scenario has been executed between Nassau County and Sands.

from NCC can advance to a bachelor’s degree program at LIU. Sands has also partnered with the not-for-profit Minority Millennials to build a diverse local talent pipeline for pre-apprenticeships and procurement opportunities associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. This partnership would enable Minority Millennials to further its mission of helping young people of color access jobs and build wealth. Minority Millennials would work with Sands to prepare local students and young professionals to take advantage of the extensive career opportunities at the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands has been in conversations with Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties and local trades, and is in the process of finalizing a PLA.
Additionally, through its established “Sands Cares” program, Sands intends to work with its partner communities, integrating corporate giving, nonprofit capacity building and Team Member volunteerism to address the priorities identified in the host communities. Sands Cares has created The Sands Youth Empowerment Initiative, where it has launched the Annual Awards Banquet for the Uniondale Knights Youth Football and hosted an event for over 400 students in Long Island Soccer clubs with soccer stars Carli Lloyd and David Beckham.
As detailed in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, construction and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would also generate significant positive economic impacts, including:
› $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues projected from the operation of the Integrated Resort to be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and
$213 million to the MTA, respectively (guaranteed host community gaming revenue to be provided to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation and guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation)
› During the operational period, the proposed Integrated Resort would create approximately 2,900 direct jobs during Phase 1 and over 7,800 direct jobs (over 5,000 FTE) (including third- party tenants) at full operations, representing $911 million in labor income and $3.06 billion in total direct economic output for all of New York State (including the County and Town), annually.
› In addition to direct impacts, in the operational period, there would be indirect and induced jobs, including, together with the direct impacts, a total of over 4,800 jobs in Phase 1, with close to 13,000 jobs at full operation. The total labor income generated would be $464 million in Phase 1 and over $1.2 billion at full operations. The total annual economic output would be $1.7 billion in Phase 1, increasing to over $4.0 billion at full operations for all of New York State (including the County and Town).
› The creation of over 7,000 construction jobs.
› For Phase 1, direct labor income in the construction period of $232± million, with a total direct output of $830± million. Cumulatively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to generate $882± million in labor income, with a total direct output of $3.03± billion for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.

› In addition to the direct impacts, during the five-year construction period, there would be total indirect and induced labor income, as well. Together, the total labor income would be
$438± million at Phase 1, increasing to $1.68± billion by the end of construction, with a total output of $1.42± billion, rising to $5.30± billion at by the end of construction for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› During the construction period, Nassau County is expected to receive approximately $5.0± million in sales and use tax.
› Positive secondary/growth-inducing impacts for small businesses in and around Nassau County from the presence of the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands is proposing to support such businesses directly through vendor purchases.
› Sands has committed to promoting existing businesses and drawing tourists to the area that could greatly benefit existing venues and attractions. Sands proposes to market day-trip destinations to wineries, golf courses, beaches, ocean activities; to introduce room booking packages (e.g., a room paired with Islanders tickets and a winery tour); and to feature Long Island wines in their restaurants and hotel rooms.
› Attracting tourists to the area would benefit the existing cultural resources and park facilities located in the surrounding area, such as Museum Row and the 913-acre Eisenhower Park.
› The anticipated rise in visitor numbers at the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to positively impact nearby hotels via a spillover effect and significantly increase the tourism footprint.
In addition to the myriad economic and community benefits, the proposed Integrated Resort would finally achieve the legislative intent of the PDDs at Mitchel Field and the MFM Zoning District, as set forth in the Town of Hempstead BZO, including:
› Preserving and protecting the character of the greater Mitchel Field area and those of surrounding neighborhoods by providing entertainment, conference and meeting, hospitality and other supportive uses developed in a sustainable manner, and incorporating mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse impacts
› Promoting the desirable and suitable use of land within the greater Mitchel Field area by incorporating the failing Coliseum into the proposed casino component and redeveloping the surrounding underutilized land into a vibrant destination that would generate myriad positive economic impacts
› Promoting and achieving sustainable development that preserves, protects and enhances the environmental, economic and human resources of the Town of Hempstead through, among other things, Sands’ support of various community organizations
› Promoting innovative and quality site and architectural design for the proposed Integrated Resort, in accordance with a CMP, and committing economic investment in excess of $5 billion that would provide employment, entertainment, and tourism opportunities for current and future residents of the Town and County
› Creating an attractive physical environment that provides daily amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations
› Achieving harmonious visual and functional use relationships within the proposed Integrated Resort and with adjacent properties

› Promoting integration of pedestrian amenities and public transportation into the proposed Integrated Resort to facilitate walking, encourage the use of public transportation, and accommodate alternate modes of transportation that provide access to and from the Integrated Resort.
Moreover, as explained in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the proposed Integrated Resort would achieve the relevant stated goals of various land use plans related to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum/Nassau Hub, including, but not limited to, the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan (1998); Nassau County Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008); HUB Major Investment Study (2006); Long Island Regional Economic Development Council: A Strategic Economic Development Plan For The Long Island Region (2011); and Long Island on the Rise: A Region Reaching for New Heights of Innovation and Inclusion: The Strategic Economic Development Plan for Long Island (2016).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the benefits associated with the proposed Integrated Resort are extensive and broad. This proposed action would generate significant economic, fiscal and community benefits and would achieve various stated goals of the Gaming Commission and Gaming Facility Location Board, identified needs in County and regional land use plans, and Town zoning intentions. There is likely no private development project in the history of Long Island that has resulted in the economic and community benefits and level of privately-funded mitigation that would be realized by this proposed Integrated Resort.
‌Community Outreach
Sands has developed a comprehensive community engagement program that consists of core working groups addressing various topics, and meetings with hundreds of community members, stakeholders and other parties who have expressed interest in the proposed Integrated Resort. From the outset, Sands has focused on connecting and collaborating with the community.
Building on the work done for past proposals at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property, Sands and its team convened six community-based working groups to gather information regarding issues already experienced in the communities surrounding the Coliseum property, to identify concerns regarding potential development impacts, and to define the goals and aspirations of the surrounding communities. Participation in the working groups is an open process with several key community members and stakeholders actively working to promote broad community participation in these groups. These six working groups include:
› Workforce Development
› Community Partnerships
› Transportation & Infrastructure
› Public Safety
› Environment & Sustainability
› Business Development/Tourism.
As of July 31, 2024, over 100 community members have participated in 19 meetings, and these meetings would continue through the development process. The working group members represent a broad spectrum of Long Island interests including local community activists and

members, non-profits, chambers of commerce, civic leaders, fire districts, library districts, as well as regional subject matter experts. The working groups have broad representation including participants from Uniondale, Hempstead, East Meadow, and Garden City. A full list of the working group participants and meeting dates is included in Appendix 2-9.
Each working group has identified goals relating to its subject matter and is working with Sands and its team to identify opportunities where the proposed development could help achieve the identified goals. A brief summary of various working group goals follows:

Workforce Development Working Group Goals:
› Maximize local jobs including veterans, minority and women-owned business enterprise (MWBE), disabled and at-risk populations
› Capture opportunities for ancillary jobs
› Work with organized labor on local job training and hiring (short and long-term job opportunities)
› Strengthen workforce pipeline for future job and long-term career opportunities
› Create career pathways.

Community Partnerships Working Group Goals:
› Provide exposure and maximize opportunities for students and young adults in the surrounding communities
› Ensure and measure inclusiveness – seniors, veterans, youth, minority diversity, special needs populations
› Increase quality, affordable housing in the region
› Ensure access to quality, affordable childcare
› Continued community input even after construction
› Ensure resources are provided for gambling and other addiction prevention programs.

Transportation & Infrastructure Working Group Goals:
› Ensure infrastructure meets future commercial demands
› Avoid local communities becoming a parking lot for the project
› Reduce the number of cars on the road traveling to the site.

Public Safety Working Group Goals:
› Improve community safety
› Increase recruitment and retention for the volunteer fire department
› Increase quality and access to youth sports and meaningful extracurricular activities for local youth that foster both mental and physical health
› Discourage ancillary predatory businesses adjacent to the site
› Develop strategies aimed at prevention and mitigation of addiction (gambling and substance abuse), as well as human trafficking
› Prioritize safety and security for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists

› Prioritize local first responders' knowledge of the site.

Environment & Sustainability Working Group Goals:
› Create and sustain healthier communities
› Promote community resiliency
› Incorporate an effective solid waste management system
› Increase exposure of innovative green programming to youth/schools and local community residents (community education programs)
› Protect community resources (water/air)
› Support green job opportunities
› Create a sustainable (renewable) energy plan for the project
› Work with Friends of Hempstead Plains to protect, restore and enhance the remaining Hempstead Plains parcels.

Business Development/Tourism Working Group Goals:
› Prepare small businesses for new opportunities stemming from the proposed development
› Attract ancillary companies to co-locate in the surrounding communities
› Provide opportunities for new and emerging businesses in and around the surrounding communities
› Attract people from outside of Nassau County to the development
› Use the project as a gateway to other Long Island destinations
› Mitigate displacement due to gentrification
› Upgrade the site, and to the extent possible, Uniondale and the surrounding communities, with state-of-the-art communication infrastructure technology.
In addition to the working group meetings, as noted above, Sands and its team have hosted about 1,500 community engagements, ranging from one to over 500 people, and varying from in-person, virtual and telephone meetings to full-scale events, such as the Season of Sparkle holiday celebration at the Coliseum in December of 2023 and the Long Island soccer club event at the Mitchel Field Athletic Center in March 2023 (where over 400 students met with soccer legends David Beckham and Carli Lloyd). Topics covered at these events have included project briefings, procurement, workforce development, sustainability as well as various other issues related to project development and operations. These engagements would continue through the development process. A listing of engagements conducted through July 31, 2024 is included in Appendix 2-9.
The working group meetings and community engagements have inspired a number of the commitments that Sands has made for the development of the proposed Integrated Resort as well as the commitments it has made to the community. While these measures are discussed in the various impact and mitigation sections of this DEIS, examples include developing a training hub at NCC; collaborating with NCC and LIU to develop hospitality degree programs; partnering with Minority Millennials to build a diverse local talent pipeline; partnering with Empower, Assist, Care (EAC) Network to support local community recruitment plans; providing mentoring and

leadership development for best-in-class team member advancement and retention strategies; offering a comprehensive employee benefits package, including childcare (through the YMCA), healthcare, on-site meals, and wellness programs; all electric heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; installation and use of photovoltaic panels; achieving LEED certification; increasing impervious area and stormwater recharge; design and construction of a new public water supply well; provision of shuttles to the Hempstead LIRR station; provision of coach bus connections from New York City and potential other locations to the proposed Integrated Resort; providing over $150 million in roadway improvements; and myriad of other commitments.
‌Required Permits and Approvals

To implement the proposed project, the following permits, approvals, funding and/or reviews are required.

‌Table 4 Permits, Approvals, Funding and Review*

Agency	Permit/Approval/Funding/Review
Town of Hempstead Town Board	Adoption of new zoning district; Rezoning of subject property to new zoning district or relief from/amendments of MFM Zoning District; Approval of Conceptual Master Plan; Site Plan Approval
Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals	Potential Variance(s)
Town of Hempstead Building Department	Building Permits
Town of Hempstead Water Department/Uniondale Water District	Water Connection, Water Availability
Town of Hempstead Highway Department	Curb Cuts/Highway Work Permits
Nassau County Executive and Legislature	Lease Approval
Nassau County Department of Health	Backflow prevention devices, Swimming pools, Plans for Public Water Supply Improvement
Nassau County Department of Public Works	239-f Review, Sewer Connection/Availability for Discharge to Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, Stormwater, Curb Cuts, Highway Work Permits
Nassau County Planning Commission	Lease referral, 239-m Referral, Subdivision (potential)
Nassau County Open Space & Parks Advisory Committee	Lease referral
Nassau County Industrial Development Agency	Lease Assignments and/or Lease and PILOT Agreement Amendments/Restatements in connection with Potential Grants of Financial Assistance Pursuant to General Municipal Law, Art.18-A
Nassau County Fire Marshal	Site Plan Approval, Oxidizer Storage (for Water Treatment Chemicals)
New York State Department of Transportation	Curb Cuts/Highway Work Permits

Agency	Permit/Approval/Funding/Review
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation	SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for Construction Activities, Long Island Well Permit, Chemical Bulk Storage for Water Treatment Chemicals, Water Withdrawal Permit (Potential for Dewatering), and Potential Article 24- Freshwater Wetlands and Section 401-Water Quality Certification (potential associated with off-site traffic mitigation)
New York State Department of Health	Plans for Public Water Supply Improvement
New York State Gaming Facility Location Board	Gaming License
New York State Gaming Commission	Gaming License
PSEG Long Island	Utility Connection and Substation Expansion/New Substation**
National Grid	Utility Connection
Engie (Nassau Energy Corp.)	Utility Connection/Disconnect
Federal Aviation Administration	Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation
United States Army Corps of Engineers	Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Project) (potential associated with traffic mitigation)
During the scoping process, a comment was raised regarding the potential need to modify deed restrictions and encumbrances. Greenberg Traurig LLP reviewed and compiled all available deed restrictions and encumbrances as Schedule A (Deed Restrictions and Encumbrances), which is included in Appendix 2-10*. The current plans for the proposed Integrated Resort do not contemplate modifications to the existing deed restrictions and encumbrances.

**The proposed expanded or new PSEG LI substation may require review by the Nassau County Open Space & Parks Advisory Committee and the Nassau County Planning Commission, and approval by the Nassau County Legislature, if it is constructed on land owned by Nassau County. If the substation is constructed/expanded on property under the control of Nassau Community College, approvals would also be required from the Board of Trustees of Nassau Community College and the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York.

The development of the proposed Integrated Resort is dependent upon, among other approvals, the award of a gaming license from the New York State Gaming Commission, based on a selection made by the New York State Gaming Facility Location Board, as noted in Table 4 and further described below. As previously detailed, the Gaming Facility Location Board issued a RFA in January 2023 for up to three downstate casino licenses, under authorization of Section 1306 of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law (PML) CHAPTER 47-A, ARTICLE 13, TITLE 1. PML Section 1306 authorizes the Gaming Facility Location Board to, among other things:

› Issue a Request for Applications

› Assist the New York State Gaming Commission in identifying the information required in response to the RFA

› Develop criteria, in addition to those specified in the PML, to assess which applications provide the highest and best value

› Determine the license fee

› Determine, with the assistance of the Gaming Commission, the sources and total amount of an Applicant's proposed capitalization to develop, construct, maintain and operate a proposed gaming facility

› Issue detailed findings of facts and conclusions demonstrating the reasons supporting its decisions to select Applicants for Gaming Commission licensure

› Promulgate rules and regulations

› Administer oaths and examine witnesses

› Review criminal and background history information of entities applying for a gaming facility license.

The Gaming Facility Location Board has established a two-stage process for applications that contain the following major components:

› Stage 1:

Issue RFA
Receive and Respond to First Set of Applicant Questions
Receive and Respond to Second Set of Applicant Questions
Establish Return Date (due date) for Applications (currently set at 30 days from the
Gaming Facility Location Board’s response to the second set of Applicants’ questions)
Commencement of Community Advisory Committee (CAC) review process 116
Applicant Submits Revisions/Updates to Application, based on CAC suggested changes (if applicable)
CAC vote on Application.
› Stage 2:
Completion of zoning approvals
Gaming Facility Location Board Announces Remaining Applicants
Remaining Applicants Submit Supplements to Applications (e.g., Supplemental Returns)
Applicant Public Presentations to Gaming Facility Location Board
Gaming Facility Location Board Public Comment Event(s)
Gaming Facility Location Board Selection of Applications to Proceed to Licensure Consideration by Gaming Commission.

Once the Gaming Facility Location Board selects the applications to proceed to licensure consideration, the Gaming Commission is charged with determining whether those applications meet the minimum licensing thresholds in the PML. It is not within the Gaming Commission’s purview to:

‌116 The RFA indicates that a CAC will be formed for each application received, and that CAC must review the application and approve same with a two-thirds majority vote in order for the Gaming Facility Location Board to commence evaluation of the application.

will not decide whether it thinks the Board made the correct selections, nor will it exercise any review of the selection decisions the Board made. The Commission has no authority to select Applicants for gaming facility licensure consideration. The law gives the Board the sole power and authority to make those selections. The Commission is not an appellate body exercising review of the Board’s processes or decision-making.

‌Table 5 RFA Schedule

Timeline	Date
RFA Issued	January 3, 2023
Applicants’ first set of questions due by 4:00 p.m.	February 3, 2023
Board responses to first set of questions	August 30, 2023
Applicants’ second set of questions due by 4:00 p.m.	October 6, 2023
Board responses to second set of questions	To be announced
Return Date: Applications due by 4 p.m. CAC process begins	June 27, 2025*
Applicant submits revisions/updates based on CAC suggested changes (if applicable)	To be announced
CAC vote deadline	September 30, 2025
Applicant submits proposal to applicable zoning authorities	To be announced
Zoning completion deadline*	To be announced
Board announces remaining Applicants	To be announced
Supplement Return Date: Supplements due by 4 p.m.	To be announced
Applicant public presentations to Board	To be announced
Board public comment event(s)	To be announced
Board selection of Applications to proceed to licensure consideration by the Commission	December 1, 2025
Commission licensure consideration	December 31, 2025

‌117 New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Request for Applications to Develop and Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State

(issued January 3, 2023), Pages 2 through 5. Available at: https://nycasinos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/01/01.03.23.rfa_.pdf .

Accessed August 2024.

‌118 New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Request for Applications to Develop and Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State, Addendum #2 (June 27, 2024). Available at: https://nycasinos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/06/06.27.24addendum.pdf

Accessed August 2024.

*While the information in the REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A GAMING FACILITY IN NEW YORK STATE, ADDENDUM #2, June 27, 2024 indicates that the zoning completion deadline has not yet been announced, the New York Gaming Facility Location Board webpage discussing Required Approvals - Entitlements & Community Advisory Committees (https://nycasinos.ny.gov/required-approvals-entitlements-community-advisory-committees, accessed August 15, 2024, states in pertinent part: By the June 27, 2025 Application Deadline, potential applicants must have all land-use entitlement processes substantially complete, as significant components of a proposal will most likely change during the required environmental and zoning approval processes.

‌Existing Conditions, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation Measures

‌Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions

‌Existing Conditions
1. Soils
  In order to identify and assess on-site soils, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey was consulted as to general soil conditions and engineering limitations. To evaluate site-specific conditions, geotechnical investigations (including soil borings) from previously-proposed developments at the Coliseum property were also reviewed and additional geotechnical investigations were conducted for the proposed Integrated Resort.
  The USDA Web Soil Survey119 identifies the subject property as lying within an area characterized by both Urban Land and Urban Land-Hempstead association soils, with 89± percent of the overall subject property comprised of Urban Land (Ug) and the remaining 11± percent composed of Hempstead Silt Loam (He). The He soils are confined to the southeastern portion of the property (east and west of the MSKCC property) and a sliver along the eastern portion of the Coliseum property adjacent to the Marriott Hotel (Figure 6).
  
  ‌119 United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm .
  Accessed March 2024.
  
  Figure 6: USDA Soils
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  
  N
  
  0
  
  800 Feet
  
  ‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  College
  d
  
  Blv
  
  7th St
  
  d
  
  He Uh
  UdA Ug W
  
  Merrick
  
  r R
  
  es Lindb
  
  mete
  
  er
  
  gh
  
  ri
  
  e
  
  P
  
  Davis Ave
  
  He
  
  Ch
  
  arles Lindberg
  
  Ave
  
  arl
  
  Ch
  
  PlB
  
  h Blvd
  
  He
  
  Mitchel County Park
  Meadowbrook
  Park Um
  
  Ea
  
  Ug
  
  Ovington B
  
  rle
  
  He Nassau
  Veterans
  erg
  
  D
  
  lvd
  
  vd
  
  h Bl
  
  Memorial Coliseum
  
  d
  
  e R
  
  om
  
  N Hofstra Ave
  
  He
  
  Hempstead Tpke
  
  Hofstra Pg
  University
  He
  
  Gle
  
  nn
  
  Curt
  
  Gilroy Ave
  
  Pg
  
  Manor Pkwy
  
  Walton Ave
  
  Marvin Ave
  
  Uh Kellenberg
  Memorial High
  School
  UdA
  
  iss
  
  Blvd
  
  At
  
  He Uu
  
  Subject Property USDA Soils
  At, Atsion loamy sand He, Hempstead silt loam
  Ug, Urban land
  Uh, Urban land-Hempstead complex Um, Urban land-Mineola complex
  * Boundaries are approximate
  Pg, Pits, ground-water recharge
  PlB, Plymouth loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes
  UdA, Udipsamments, nearly level
  Uu, Urban land-Udipsamments complex W, Water
  
  Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, USDA, Nearmap
  
  The Soil Survey of Nassau County120 was reviewed to define the general characteristics of the soil types that are representative of the subject property. According to the Soil Survey of Nassau County:
  [t]he objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes of soils, but rather to separate the landscape into segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such landscape segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans, but onsite investigation is needed to plan for intensive uses in small areas.
  A description of soils on the site from the Soil Survey of Nassau County is presented below, followed by a summary of relevant planning limitations according to the Soil Survey.
  Urban Land (Ug)
  This mapping unit consists of areas where at least 85 percent of the surface area is covered with asphalt, concrete or other impervious building material. These areas are mostly parking lots, shopping centers, industrial parks or institutional sites. Many are in the business centers in villages and cities. Most areas are nearly level and some are gently sloping. Many areas are rectangular or long and narrow and are mainly adjacent to local main thoroughfares. The areas range from about three acres to as much as several hundred acres. Rapid and very- rapid runoff often prevents adequate discharge of runoff from intense rainstorms to safe outlets. A few areas are in low spots where seasonal wetness sometimes causes temporary flooding of the surface or frost heaving.
  Hempstead Silt Loam (He)
  This soil is very deep and well drained. It is mostly on plains or along the edges of broad terraces. The areas conform to land use boundaries in most instances. They range in size from five acres to several hundred acres. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. These soils are moderately permeable in the surface layer, subsurface layer and upper part of the subsoil, rapid in the lower part of the subsoil and very rapid in the substratum. Available water capacity is high and surface runoff is slow. Most of these areas are in parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, golf courses and rights-of-way along parkways. Grass covers most of these areas and shrubs and trees are on a few areas.
  The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service website and the Soil Survey of Nassau County were consulted for information regarding the potential limitations to development that each of the soils may possess. This information is useful for preliminary assessments and presents guidelines to the soil characteristics to depths of approximately five feet. The Soil Survey provides recommendations for most soil types regarding the possible avoidance or minimization of identified limitations.
  Based on a review of the Soil Survey, as the characteristics of Urban Land are too variable to estimate and the underlying soils have been disturbed, limitations for use and development are not provided. The He soils have only slight limitations for most types of development, but moderate limitations for the development of local roads and streets. The Soil Survey indicates
  
  ‌120 Wulforst, John P. Soil Survey of Nassau County, New York. United States Department of Agriculture and Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (1987).
  
  that the He soil has few limitations for small commercial buildings, but frost action is a hazard to sidewalks and driveways. Replacing the surface layer with coarse-grained material would help to reduce the frost action. Furthermore, the soil is generally suitable for landscaping.
  The Soil Survey of Nassau County explains that soils mapped are not depicted in exact locations or boundaries. Furthermore, the survey indicates that it has limitations, noting that the soils information:
  is not site-specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works.
  Approximately 90.4 percent of the subject property is composed of impervious surfaces and the remainder of the site is landscaped. Therefore, the underlying soils have been disturbed, and there are no naturally-occurring soils in the upper layers of the soil horizon. To determine site- specific soils characteristics, various geotechnical investigations were performed for previous development projects as well as for the proposed Integrated Resort. As explained below and demonstrated in the geotechnical reports included in Appendix 3.1-2, the subsurface conditions reported for a prior application, in the 2014 Soil Mechanics Drilling Corp., and those reported in the 2023 Langan investigations, conducted for the proposed Integrated Resort, are generally consistent.
  As part of a prior application, a subsurface investigation of the Coliseum property was performed in 2014 by Soil Mechanics Drilling Corp. to determine the nature and extent of the underlying soil deposits and to determine the structural engineering characteristics of the soil. Twenty-six
  (26) test borings were drilled at depths of 35 feet, 50 feet (B-11 and B16) and 100 feet (B-5 and B-30). Two borings (B-36 and B-37) were drilled in the lower exposition hall of the existing Coliseum building (Appendix 3.1-1). The results revealed that the areas drilled are generally
  blanketed by 2 feet to 13 feet of asphalt and loose to moderate dense soil fill, underlain primarily by moderately dense to dense naturally bedded sands with traces of gravel and silt extending to the deepest depths drilled. The report indicated that no groundwater was encountered to a depth of 26.3 to 30.1 feet (Appendix 3.1-1).
  Soil borings were conducted, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report was prepared for Sands by Langan between August and October 2023 (Appendix 3.1-2).121 The subsurface investigation included 52 total geotechnical test borings with in-situ testing and sampling of soil, 6 total groundwater observation wells, and laboratory testing on representative soil samples. The borings were drilled to depths between 52 feet and 102 feet. The general subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the borings consists of fill underlain by sand with variable gravel, silt, and clay content; in some cases, layers of clay were present within the sand strata. These fill layers were found at all boring locations and ranged from 3 to 9.5 feet deep. Groundwater was measured in
  
  ‌121 The Geotechnical Engineering Report performed by Langan was conducted in three phases and combined into one appendix. Phase 1A evaluates alterations to the existing Coliseum property, Phase 1B evaluates the proposed Parking Garage A, and Phase 2 evaluates building and site improvements not included in Phase 1A and 1B.
  
  six of the borings and stabilized groundwater levels varied from a depth of approximately 46.7 to
  50.4 feet below grade.122
  Overall, the groundwater table on the subject property ranges between elevation 46 feet to 51 feet. No potentially expansive, deleterious, chemically active or corrosive materials or conditions, or presence of gas were found during this investigation.
2. Topography
  To identify and assess the topography of the subject property, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Topographic Map for the subject property was reviewed for general conditions.
  Additionally, site specific topographic information was evaluated based on the American Land Title Association (ALTA) survey performed for the subject property in March 2023, included in Appendix 3.1-3.
  As illustrated on the USGS Topographic Map, Freeport Quadrangle (Figure 7), generally flat topography is exhibited across the majority of the property, mainly due to prior
  land development activities associated with the existing on-site buildings, parking areas and roadways. The subject property does not contain any distinctive topographical features.
  Site-specific topography is shown on the ALTA survey prepared by Langan in March 2023 (Appendix 3.1-3). Spot elevations included on the ALTA survey show that the Marriott property is generally flat, sloping downward at 0.3± percent from an elevation of 80± feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the parking area north of the Marriott building to approximately 75-76 feet amsl near Hempstead Turnpike. The Coliseum property generally slopes downward from the northern border (80-81± feet amsl) near Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to the southern border (76-77± feet amsl) along Hempstead Turnpike. The central portion of this parcel, around the Coliseum building and veterans memorial plaza, is slightly higher with an approximate elevation of 82-83± feet amsl. At the southwest corner of this parcel, around the intersection of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike, the elevations are slightly lower at approximately 75-76 feet amsl.
3. Subsurface Conditions
  In order to assess the existing subsurface and environmental conditions of the subject property, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were conducted by Langan for both the Coliseum property (May 2023) and the Marriott property (February 2023). Phase II Environmental Site Investigations (ESI) were performed by Langan for the Coliseum property (August 2023) and for the Marriott property (May 2023) (Appendix 3.1-4 [Coliseum Phase I and Phase II reports] and Appendix 3.1-5 [Marriott property Phase I and Phase II reports]).
  
  ‌122 Groundwater levels may vary seasonally and with changes in precipitation. Some of borings were taking in the subterranean loading dock of the Coliseum building from a floor elevation of 54.6 feet and from the existing surface parking lot northwest of the Coliseum building from an existing grade of 81.2 feet, so groundwater was recorded at 4.2 feet and 34.5 feet, respectively.
  
  Figure 7: Topography
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  
  N
  
  0
  
  600 Feet
  
  ‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  
  60
  
  80
  
  80
  80
  
  80 80
  80 90 80
  
  90
  
  60
  70 70
  
  70
  
  70
  70
  
  60 70
  
  Subject Property 10-foot Contours
  60
  * Boundaries are approximate 70 80
  90
  
  Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, USGS
  
  Coliseum Property
  The Findings, Opinions and Conclusions section of the Phase I ESA for the Coliseum property prepared by Langan in May 2023123 are summarized below and the entire document is included in Appendix 3.1-4.
  Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), which refer to the verified or potential presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property as a consequence of environmental release incidents, which could possibly bring about constraints on its future use, were identified in the Phase I ESA. They are described below with detailed information provided in Appendix 3.1-4:
  › REC-1: Historical Use of the Subject Property - The subject property and several adjoining and surrounding properties were occupied by the Mitchel Air Force Base from the 1910s through 1961. The use prior to 1910 also included military facilities dating back to the Revolutionary War. According to a December 2009 Site Inspection Report for Mitchel Field, prepared for the USACE, the northeastern corner of the subject property is within former Munitions Response Site (MRS) 2 - Skeet Range, and the southwestern portion of the subject property is within former MRS 5 -Machine Gun Range. Soil samples collected during a 2009 investigation by the USACE found iron above the USEPA Residential Direct Contact Soil Screening Level and lead above the USEPA Interim Ecological Screening Levels; however, no samples were collected from the subject property. Additionally, sewage disposal ponds affiliated with the base were present on the southwestern portion of the subject property from at least 1955 to the mid-1970s. The most recent publicly available information indicates that the Mitchel Air Force Base site (identified by the NYSDEC as Mitchel Field, Site ID 130112) is classified by the NYSDEC as a “Class P”124 (potential) Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site (SHWS). Due to the preliminary nature of the Class P listing, NYSDEC does not recommend significant conclusions or decisions be based solely upon this information.
  › REC-2: Historical Petroleum Bulk Storage at the Subject Property - According to Nassau County Fire Commission – Hazardous Materials Division Department records, a 1,000-gallon diesel fuel underground storage tank (UST) was installed on the subject property on January 1, 1973 and abandoned on December 8, 1987 after failing a tank tightness test. A second 1,000-gallon UST was installed in September 1987. Municipal records list both USTs as having been removed; however, UST closure documentation was not provided. The absence of UST closure documents is considered a REC.
  › REC-3: Active Hydraulic Oil Release - During site reconnaissance on February 2, 2023, Langan was advised of an on-going hydraulic oil leak within one of the elevator pits associated with the freight elevator. Pooled hydraulic oil was observed in the elevator pit. According to information provided by Vito Corbo, Chief Engineer for the Coliseum, at the
  
  ‌123 Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Sands, 1255 Hempstead Turnpike Uniondale, New York (May 15, 2023).
  ‌124 Class P (Potential) classification is used for properties where contamination may exist that makes the site eligible for placement on the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites (State Superfund or SHWS), but further site characterization is needed to determine if the site qualifies. Retrieved from NYSDEC. Classification for “Registry” Sites. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/site-cleanup/database-search/site-classifications. Accessed June 2024.
  
  time of the site reconnaissance, the release had been ongoing and oil recovery and leak repairs were pending.
  › To confirm the condition of the hydraulic shaft associated with the elevator, on February 8, 2024, Otis Elevator inspected and tested the elevator shaft to determine if the shaft and/or its seal was compromised, which could allow hydraulic fluid to leak. Neither the shaft nor its seal was compromised in any way, and the shaft, seal, and the hydraulic recovery pump were determined to be in good operational condition. Further investigation by Otis Elevator regarding the source of the water observed indicated that the shaft is situated in a sleeve that allows groundwater to enter and exit that sleeve (see Appendix 3.1-6). Accordingly, investigation of the elevator confirmed that no hydraulic oil leak has occurred.
  › Current and Historical Use of the Adjoining and Surrounding Properties - The subject property is proximate to an active gasoline service station (1983 to present) to the south and the Nassau Energy Corporation property (Engie) (1960s to present) to the north. Multiple UST and NY Spills listings are associated with the gas station; however, spills have been closed by the NYSDEC. The Engie facility is listed in the RCRA generator databases for generation of corrosive-, silver- and halogenated-hazardous wastes and houses multiple aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) containing solvents, acids and waste oil. Undocumented spills or releases of solvents, chemicals, or other hazardous substances associated with these current and historical operations may have adversely affected groundwater, and/or soil vapor on the subject property.
  › The Purex-Mitchel Field site, located about 5,061 feet northwest of the subject property (hydraulically upgradient), operated as an industrial facility for chemical distribution from 1955 to 1977. Information on the facility indicates that a chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site is related to former chemical distribution operations. Remediation to date has included contaminant recovery wells, air stripping, and a slurry wall constructed to restrict migration of groundwater contaminants. The results of a 1992 soil investigation indicated the soil clean-up objectives had been met; however, groundwater remediation is ongoing and soil vapor has not been evaluated. Based on proximity, contaminant extents and solubility, migration of contaminants in groundwater, and absence of information regarding impacts to soil vapor, this historical operation may have adversely affected groundwater, and/or soil vapor on the subject property.
  › REC-5: Known Area-Wide Groundwater Contamination - The Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Groundwater Area (USEPA ID No. NYSFN0204234) and New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination (USEPA ID No. NY0001095363), are two National Priorities List (NPL) sites located over 4,000 feet north and upgradient of the subject property. Operations at the two sites include aviation activities (from 1911 to 1955) and various industrial operations (time unknown), respectively. Both sites are considered to have contributed to a chlorinated solvent groundwater plume that has impacted public supply wells in the area.
  Contaminants of concern include carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-DCE, PCE, and TCE. The exact source of the contamination is unknown and the USEPA is considering various alternatives for remediation. Documented chlorinated solvent impacts to groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is considered a REC.
  An Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the
  
  property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meets unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). The following HREC was identified at the Coliseum property, as described below and in Appendix 3.1-4:
  › HREC-1: Historic Spills on the Subject Property - Four closed spills are associated with the subject property and are identified as a HREC:
  - NYSDEC Spill Nos. 87-01759 and 87-02169 were assigned on June 2 and June 16, 1987, respectively after a 1,000-gallon diesel tank failed a tank tightness test. The tank and about five yards of contaminated soil were subsequently removed. Both spills were closed by the NYSDEC on February 24, 1989.
  - NYSDEC Spill No. 11-08003 was assigned on September 22, 2011 after a leaking truck released approximately 2,000-gallons of asphalt emulsion onto the asphalt parking area. Released material spilled into one storm drain during the event. Clean up of the spill was completed and the spill was closed by NYSDEC on April 5, 2012.
  - NYSDEC Spill No. 01-25233 was assigned on October 22, 2001 after approximately 700 gallons of ethylene glycol was released from a cooling system as the result of equipment failure. The spill was remediated and closed by the NYSDEC on October 22, 2001.
  or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. The following BERs were identified at the Coliseum property, as described below and in Appendix 3.1-4:
  › BER-1: NYSDEC SHWS “Class P” - The former Mitchel Field military airbase, which is inclusive of the subject property, is listed in the State Hazardous Wastes Site (SHWS), which is the New York State Superfund database. The listing has a Class P (potential registry site) classification, indicating that that there is a potential for concern about site contamination. Due to the preliminary nature of the Class P listing, NYSDEC does not recommend significant conclusions or decisions be based solely upon this information. While no regulatory requirement currently exists for the subject property, NYSDEC may require investigation and reporting to determine if the site is eligible for the Superfund program.
  › BER-2: Possible Military Munitions - The 2009 USACE investigation of the former Mitchel airfield also addressed potential munitions, including unexploded ordnances (UXO).
  According to the 2009 USACE report, the explosive risk for MRS 2 and MRS 5, which extend onto the northeastern corner and southwestern portions of the subject property, respectively, is low to nonexistent, as only small arms were known to be used in these areas.
  › BER-3: Historic Fill at the Subject Property - The subject property is underlain by a layer of historic fill. Historic fill found in urban environments typically contains ash, demolition debris, and/or municipal waste products and may contain contaminants (e.g., Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds [SVOCs] or metals) at concentrations above applicable regulatory standards. The likely occurrence of historic fill does not trigger any regulatory obligations or reporting requirements, but may require implementation of soil handling and management procedures during site redevelopment to address excavation, re-use, handling, and off-site disposal.
  
  Based upon the results of Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESI was conducted for the Coliseum property and documented in an August 2023 report prepared by Langan.125 The Phase II ESI included a geophysical survey; subsurface observations; and soil, groundwater and soil vapor sampling and analyses (Appendix 3.1-4).
  Sampling was conducted at 11 locations throughout the Coliseum property at depths ranging from approximately 15 – 40 feet bgs (Figure 8). Langan visually classified the soil samples from borings for soil type, grain size, texture, and moisture content, and screened each soil sample for visual, olfactory, and instrumental evidence of a chemical or petroleum release. Soil sample analyses included investigation for the following:
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs by USEPA method 8260
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL SVOC by USEPA method 8270
  › Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) by USEPA method 8082
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL Pesticides by USEPA method 8081
  › Target Analyte List (TAL) metals (including hexavalent and trivalent chromium and cyanide) by USEPA methods 6010, 7196, 7470, 9010 and 9012.
  Soil sample analytical results were compared to the NYSDEC Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 375 Unrestricted Use (UU) and Restricted Use Restricted- Residential (RURR) Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs). These results indicated that the concentration of one VOC, acetone, exceeded the UU SCO in one sample. Furthermore, the concentration of one pesticide, 4,4’-DDD, exceeded the UU SCO in one sample. Soil concentrations did not exceed RURR SCOs. As no concentrations exceeded the RURR SCOs, there is no indication that soil impacts associated with the concerns identified in the Phase I ESA are present at concentrations that exceed standards applicable for the proposed subject property usage. The results for soil samples are shown in Table 2 within the Phase II ESI in (excerpt in Appendix 3.1-4a).
  Four temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the subject property during Langan’s Phase II ESI. Two groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the following:
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL VOCs by USEPA method 8260
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL SVOC by USEPA method 8270
  › PCBs by USEPA method 8082
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL Pesticides by USEPA method 8081
  › TAL metals (total and dissolved, including hexavalent and trivalent chromium and cyanide) by USEPA methods 6010, 7196, 7470, 9010 and 9012.
  
  ‌125 Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. Phase II Environmental Site Investigation for Sands, 1255 Hempstead Turnpike Uniondale, New York. (August 15, 2023).
  ‌Figure 8: Phase II ESI Soil Boring Locations for the Coliseum Property
  
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  N
  0 1 2 3 Miles
  
  1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  Groundwater analytical results were compared to NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1 (TOGS) Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values (AWQSGVs).
  Groundwater results, as shown in Table 2 within the Phase II ESI (excerpt in Appendix 3.1-4a), did not report VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides or PCBs at concentrations above NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1 AWQSGVs with the exception of two SVOCs in one groundwater sample and total metals.
  Langan’s Phase II ESI attributed the exceedances to sediment within the groundwater samples and naturally occurring metals, and indicated that the results are not considered indicative of a groundwater condition at the subject property. Thus, there is no indication that impacts associated with the concerns identified in the Phase I ESA are present in groundwater beneath the subject property.
  Five temporary soil vapor points were installed at the subject property for the collection of soil vapor samples. Soil vapor samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs. Soil vapor results reported petroleum-related and chlorinated VOCs, as shown in Table 4 within the Phase II ESI (excerpt in Appendix 3.1-4a). Langan’s Environmental Considerations Memorandum, dated October 25, 2023, states that the petroleum-related and chlorinated VOCs detected in soil vapor are not at concentrations likely indicative of an on-site release and recommends no further action associated with soil vapor prior to or during construction (Appendix 3.1-4).
  
  Marriott Property
  The Findings, Opinions and Conclusions section of the Phase I ESA for the Marriott property prepared by Langan in February 2023126 are summarized below and the entire document is included in Appendix 3.1-5.
  The following RECs were identified at the Marriott property, as described below and in Appendix 3.1-5:
  › REC-1: Historical Use of the Subject Property - The subject property and several adjoining and surrounding properties were occupied by Mitchel Air Force Base from the 1910s through the mid-1960s. Use prior to 1910 also included military facilities dating back to the revolutionary war. According to a December 2009 Site Inspection Report for Mitchel Field, prepared for the USACE, the northeastern portion of the subject property is within former MRS 2 – Skeet Range and the former MRS 5 – Machine Gun Range crosses the southwestern boundary of the subject property. Soil samples collected during a 2009 investigation by the USACE found iron above the USEPA Residential Direct Contact Soil Screening Level and lead above the USEPA Interim Ecological Screening Levels; however, no samples were collected from the subject property. The most recent publicly available information indicates that NYSDEC classifies the site as a “Class P” SHWS site. Due to the preliminary nature of the Class P listing, NYSDEC does not recommend significant conclusions or decisions be based solely upon this information.
  › Undocumented spills or releases of solvents, chemicals, and/or other hazardous substances associated with this historical use may have adversely affected soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor on the subject property.
  
  ‌126 Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Sands, 101 James Doolittle Boulevard Uniondale, New York (February 3, 2023).
  › REC-2: Historical Petroleum Bulk Storage at the Subject Property - According to Nassau County Fire Marshal records, a UST of unknown size was installed on December 17, 1982 on the subject property. The UST is listed as removed; however, UST closure documentation was not provided. The absence of UST location information and closure documents is considered a REC.
  › REC-3: Current and Historical Use of the Adjoining and Surrounding Properties - Nassau Energy Corporation, located about 570 feet north of the subject property (hydraulically up gradient), has operated as a power plant facility since the 1960s. The Engie facility is listed in the RCRA generator databases for generation of corrosive-, silver- and halogenated-hazardous wastes and houses multiple ASTs containing solvents, acids and waste oil. Undocumented spills or releases of solvents, chemicals, or other hazardous substances associated with these current operations may have adversely affected groundwater, and/or soil vapor on the subject property.
  › The Purex-Mitchel Field site, located about 5,061 feet northwest of the subject property (hydraulically up gradient), operated as an industrial facility for chemical distribution from 1955 to 1977. Information on the facility indicates that a chlorinated solvent plume near the site is related to former chemical distribution operations. Remediation to date has included contaminant recovery wells, air stripping, and a slurry wall constructed to restrict migration of groundwater contaminants. The results of a 1992 soil investigation indicated the soil clean-up objectives had been met; however, groundwater remediation is ongoing and soil vapor has not been evaluated. Based on proximity, contaminant extents and solubility,
  migration of contaminants in groundwater, and absence of information regarding impacts to soil vapor, this historical operation may have adversely affected groundwater, and/or soil vapor on the subject property.
  › REC-4: Known Area-Wide Groundwater Contamination – The Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Groundwater Area (USEPA ID No. NYSFN0204234) and New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination (USEPA ID No. NY0001095363), are two NPL sites located over 4,000 feet north and upgradient of the subject property. Operations at the two sites include aviation activities (from 1911 to 1955) and various industrial operations (time unknown), respectively. Both sites are considered to have contributed to a chlorinated solvent groundwater plume that has impacted public supply wells in the area. Contaminants of concern include carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-DCE, PCE, and TCE. The exact source of the contamination is unknown and the USEPA is considering various alternatives for remediation. Documented chlorinated solvent impacts to groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is considered a REC.
  The following HREC was identified at the Marriott property, as detailed in Appendix 3.1-5:
  › HREC-1: Historic Spills on the Subject Property - One closed spill is associated with the subject property, and is identified as a HREC:
  - NYSDEC assigned Spill No. 00-01783 to the subject property on May 11, 2000, after contamination was encountered during the removal of a 550-gallon underground fuel oil storage tank. Cleanup of the spill was completed and NYSDEC closed the spill on October 30, 2000.
  › BER-1: NYSDEC SHWS “Class P” - The former Mitchel Field military airbase, which is inclusive of the subject property, is listed in the SHWS database, which is the New York State Superfund database. The listing has a Class P (potential registry site) classification, indicating that there is a potential for concern about site contamination. Due to the preliminary nature of the Class P listing, NYSDEC does not recommend significant conclusions or decisions be based solely upon this information. While no regulatory requirement currently exists for the subject property, NYSDEC may require investigation, remediation and reporting.
  › BER-2: Possible Military Munitions - The 2009 USACE investigation of the former Mitchel airfield addressed potential munitions, including UXO. According to the 2009 USACE report, the explosive risk for MRS 2, which extends onto the northeastern portion of the subject property, and MRS 5, which crosses the southwestern corner of the subject property, is low to nonexistent, as only small arms were known to be used in these areas.
  Based on the results of Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESI was conducted for the Marriott property and documented in a May 2023 report prepared by Langan.127 The Phase II ESI included a geophysical survey; subsurface observations; and soil, groundwater and soil vapor sampling and analyses (Appendix 3.1-5).
  Sampling was conducted at 10 boring locations throughout the Marriott property at depths ranging from approximately 15 – 35 feet bgs (Figure 9). Langan visually classified the soil samples from borings for soil type, grain size, texture, and moisture content, and screened each soil sample for visual, olfactory, and instrumental evidence of a chemical or petroleum release. Soil samples were analyzed for the following:
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL VOCs by USEPA method 8260
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL SVOC by USEPA method 8270
  › PCB by USEPA method 8082
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL Pesticides by USEPA method 8081
  › TAL metals (including hexavalent and trivalent chromium and cyanide) by USEPA methods 6010, 7196, 7470, 9010 and 9012.
  Soil sample analytical results were compared to the NYSDEC Title 6 of the New York Codes, NYCRR Part 375 UU and RURR SCOs. VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals were not reported at concentrations above UU or RURR SCOs. As no concentrations exceeded the RURR SCOs, there is no indication that impacts associated with the concerns identified in the Phase I ESA are present at concentrations that exceed standards applicable for the proposed subject property usage. The results for soil samples are shown in Table 2 within the Phase II ESI (excerpt in Appendix 3.1-5a).
  
  ‌127 Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. Phase II Environmental Site Investigation for Sands, 101 Jame Doolittle Boulevard Uniondale, New York. (May 18, 2023).
  ‌Figure 9: Phase II ESI Soil Boring Locations for the Marriott Property
  
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  N
  0 1 2 3 Miles
  
  1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  Two temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the subject property during Langan’s Phase II ESI. Groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the following:
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL VOCs by USEPA method 8260
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL SVOC by USEPA method 8270
  › PCBs by USEPA method 8082
  › NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL Pesticides by USEPA method 8081
  › TAL metals (total and dissolved, including hexavalent and trivalent chromium and cyanide) by USEPA methods 6010, 7196, 7470, 9010 and 9012.
  Groundwater analytical results were compared to NYSDEC TOGS AWQSGVs. Groundwater results, as detailed in Table 2 within the Phase II ESI (excerpt in Appendix 3.1-5a), did not report VOCs, pesticides or PCBs at concentrations above NYSDEC TOGS AWQSGVs. SVOCs and metals were reported above TOGS AWQSGVs. Langan’s Phase II ESI attributed the exceedances to sediment within the groundwater samples and indicated that the results are not considered indicative of a groundwater condition at the subject property. Thus, there is no indication that impacts associated with the concerns identified in the Phase I ESA are present in groundwater beneath the subject property.
  Four temporary soil vapor points were installed at the subject property for the collection of soil vapor samples. Soil vapor samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs. Soil vapor results, as detailed in Table 4 within the Phase II ESI (excerpt in Appendix 3.1-5a), reported petroleum-related and chlorinated VOCs, with tetrachloroethylene (PCE) detected. Langan’s Environmental Considerations Memorandum, dated October 25, 2023, states that the petroleum- related and chlorinated VOCs detected in soil vapor are not at concentrations likely indicative of an on-site release and do not indicate a need for mitigation based on the USEPA Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISLs), and recommends no further action associated with soil vapor prior to or during construction (Appendix 3.1-5).
  Based upon the results of the Phase II ESI reports summarized above and the Environmental Considerations Memorandum dated October 25, 2023, minor soil impacts below the applicable standards were identified, groundwater impacts were limited to naturally occurring metals, and soil vapor is not likely indicative of an on-site release and does not require further action. The standard potential for unanticipated contamination to be encountered during development exists, and soil which is found to be unsuitable to remain on-site may require off-site disposal.

‌Potential Impacts

Soils
As described above, the majority of the subject property contains Urban Land, the limitations of which are not specifically defined in the Soil Survey. As the name suggests, Urban Land has previously been disturbed and is not pristine. Due to its composition, the only limitation of Urban Land appears to be that rapid and very rapid runoff could prevent adequate discharge of runoff from intense rainstorms.
Based on the results of the geotechnical investigations, a summary of the design and construction considerations associated with foundations that relate to soils follow. The design and construction recommendations/requirements are detailed in the complete reports included in Appendix 3.1-2.
› For the construction proposed in Phase 1, the granular soil below the building footprint is suitable for supporting the proposed alterations using a shallow foundation system (e.g., isolated spread footings and strip footings). For Phase 2 areas, the granular soil below the footprint of the proposed structures is suitable for supporting low-rise structures using a shallow foundation system (e.g., isolated spread footings and strip footings) and is suitable for supporting high-rise structures using a deep foundation system (e.g., driven or drilled piles).
› Support of excavation (SOE), underpinning, or other means of ground support would be required where sufficient lateral clearance cannot be provided to permit Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliant sloped/benched excavations.
The site-specific geotechnical investigations noted the presence of soils exhibiting good leaching properties beneath the upper levels. Drainage structures would involve excavation of materials to install drywells that would be backfilled with clean material around these structures. This would provide capacity within the leaching structure and good percolation through the side walls and bottom of these systems. Any unsuitable soil encountered would be removed and replaced with well drained material. The depth to groundwater, system design and relatively well-drained soils ensure that these drainage systems would function properly. Any overflow of stormwater would flow to an on-site piping system that would transport stormwater runoff to an existing off-site Nassau County recharge basin (see Section 3.2, Water Resources for further detail). Thus, based on the geotechnical investigations conducted, the soils are suitable for the proposed drainage system.
Imported topsoil used for landscaping and other construction fill materials would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers. Also, as part of a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) being prepared as part of this application, erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion and the transport of materials off-site, as detailed in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources; Section 3.15, Construction; and Appendix 2-2. These control measures would assist in ensuring that implementation of the proposed action would minimize impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation during the construction phase, through implementation of the following measures:
› Installation of perimeter silt fencing to minimize/prevent sediment from washing into adjacent streets and properties.
› Installation of stabilized construction entrances consisting of stone and filter fabric to prevent tracking of debris and sediment onto public rights-of-way.
› Incorporation of truck washdown and tire wash facilities at construction access points.
› Clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the size of exposed areas and the length of time areas are exposed.
› Use of inlet protection on drainage inlets to prevent sedimentation in the structures.
› Implementation of a dust control and watering plan during construction to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas.
› Daily inspection and maintenance of erosion control measures by the contractor prior to the start of construction for the day and after heavy or prolonged storms to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the measures in place.
› Cleaning of sediment from basins or traps.
› Cleaning and repair of sediment barriers, berms and diversions and inlet protection, as necessary.
› Erosion and sediment control measures would be maintained until the site is permanently stabilized.
› After permanent stabilization, all paved areas would be swept and the drainage system flushed, as necessary.
Based on the foregoing, with implementation of the recommendations from the geotechnical investigations and the erosion and sediment control measures, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to soils.

Topography

As described above, the site is relatively flat, with the slopes between 0 and 10 percent. Therefore, although grading would be undertaken on the of the subject property to accommodate site development, as depicted on the Grading and Drainage Plans in Appendix 2- 2, the overall topographic profile would not be significantly altered from the existing condition. Certain areas on the subject property would be graded for aesthetic purposes, including along Hempstead Turnpike. As detailed in Table 6 below, a total cut of 660,000 cy is anticipated.

‌Table 6 Proposed Cut and Fill Estimates

Area of Development	Cut (cy)	Fill (cy)
Parking Garage A (Phase 1)	153,000	0
Building and Garages (Phase 2)	508,000	0
Site Grading	54,000	73,000
Subsurface Drainage and Utility Infrastructure	18,000	0
Total	733,000	73,000
Net Surplus	660,000
Source: H2M

The following equipment is expected to be used for on-site excavation and infill activities: excavators, dump trucks, pan scrapers and bulldozers. For on-site excavated soils, the contractor would mass excavate and transport the material to an on-site sorting area. The soil would be tested per applicable requirements. Unusable materials would be identified for either off-site shipping or re-use in another capacity (such as sand), and re-usable materials for on-site use would be sorted. The material to be re-used would be crushed on-site and stockpiled on the site for use as foundation backfill.

Additional discussion of excavation and earthwork is presented in Section 3.15, Construction.

Overall, while the proposed action would require grading, there would only be slight modifications to the topographic characteristics of the Coliseum property, as the site is relatively flat. These slight modifications are associated with the proposed landscape and hardscape design. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed action is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on topographic conditions.

Subsurface Conditions
Based upon the results of the Phase II ESI reports and the Environmental Considerations Memoranda dated October 25, 2023 for the Coliseum property and Marriott property, minor soil impacts below the applicable standards were identified, groundwater impacts were limited to naturally occurring metals, and soil vapor is not likely indicative of an on-site release and does not require further action. As there is still a potential unanticipated contamination may be encountered, and as soil which is suitable to remain on-site may still require off-site disposal and may not meet the definition of “clean fill,” recommendations below would be addressed by Sands as part of the development of the proposed Integrated Resort (Appendix 3.1-4 and Appendix 3.1-5):
› Excess soil generated during redevelopment would be handled, transported and disposed of or recycled in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations and the requirements of recycling and disposal facilities to which the soils are being transported. Soil and/or non- native material would be characterized in accordance with the testing requirements of the proposed permitted disposal or recycling facility prior to removal from the site.
› Uncontaminated soil and non-native material that is derived from the subject property that is not observed to be petroleum-impacted and exhibits no signs of staining or odor, would be reused. Reuse of on-site soil or non-native material would be conducted in accordance with applicable agency requirements.
› If any USTs and/or associated appurtenances (e.g., fill lines, vent line, and electrical conduit) are encountered during redevelopment of the subject property, decommissioning, removal and off-site disposal would occur in accordance with NYSDEC and Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH) UST closure requirements. Previously unidentified USTs would be registered with the NYSDEC and NCDH, as necessary, prior to decommissioning or removal.
› A Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) would be prepared that would identify the known and potential on-site contaminants and outline procedures and guidelines to be followed to mitigate exposure risks and protect the health of on-site workers during construction activities.
Should contaminated soil be encountered (though not anticipated, based upon on-site investigations), all on-site contractor and sub-contractor personnel and any other persons visiting or working at the project site who may have the potential for contacting contaminated soil would be required to read, review, and comply with the CHASP. See Section 3.15.4, Hazardous Regulated Materials, for more information.
With respect to potentially impacted soils, as the soil results did not exceed standards applicable to the proposed project (e.g., RURR SCOs and Commercial SCOs), the soil impacts do not have a direct impact to the proposed project, and the soil may remain on-site, provided that no
evidence of petroleum impacts are observed during redevelopment. With respect to the groundwater analytical results, as the groundwater table on the subject property ranges between elevation 46 feet to 51, groundwater is not expected to be disturbed during the proposed development with the exception of the grease interceptor pit excavation and elevator pit within Parking Garage A, which would likely extend about 12 feet and 6 feet below the groundwater table respectively. Excavated materials (e.g., soils) to be disposed of off-site would be sampled prior to excavation to determine the appropriate location for transport and disposal. All excavated material would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations (a more detailed description of soil excavation and handling of potentially impacted soils is included in Section 3.15, Construction).
Although the soil is considered suitable to remain on-site based upon the site investigations (Appendix 3.1-4 and Appendix 3.1-5), excess excavated soils may require off-site disposal. As these soils may not meet the definition of “clean fill,” waste characterization sampling may be required by a disposal or recycling facility prior to or in conjunction with redevelopment activities. In addition, any impacted soils, if encountered, would require additional sampling. An environmental consultant may be warranted to monitor construction activities occurring within impacted portions of the subject property, if identified.
According to the proposed lease with Nassau County, the Lessee is obligated to control and fund any investigation, remediation, management, handling, abatement or disposal of materials and environmental conditions at the site, including the excavation, characterization, management and disposal of hazardous substances or environmental media containing hazardous substances, provided they do not relate to the responsibility of the landlord.
Additionally, the proposed lease with Nassau County acknowledges the presence of ACM in the Coliseum building and the potential presence of lead-based paint and other hazardous substances. The Lessee would assume responsibility for the remediation, clean-up, and other handling and management of the ACM and for the cost of such during the term of the proposed lease.
As described in in more detail Section 3.15.4, Hazardous Regulated Materials and in Appendix 3.15-3, ACM was identified the within the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum during a limited asbestos inspection performed in February 2024 by Airtek Environmental Corp. The report indicated that if ACM would be disturbed by the activities associated with the proposed action, asbestos abatement is required prior to demolition or renovation. Since disturbance would occur as part of the proposed action, asbestos abatement would be conducted in accordance with the applicable prevailing federal, state, and local regulations.
ACM was also identified in the Marriott’s surveyed areas. As there are no plans to alter the Marriott, no action with respect to ACM is required. Similar to above, if renovations were to be undertaken at some future time, identified ACM in the area of the renovation would be removed by a certified asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations prior to being disturbed. Generally, sampled building materials did not contain detectable concentrations of lead and PCBs above applicable standards.
Overall, based on the results of and recommendations of the Phase I ESAs and Phase II ESIs, as well as the requirements of the proposed lease, the Lessee would address the
subsurface/environmental conditions within the Coliseum property and the Marriott property, if warranted based on conditions actually encountered during development, as described above.
Proposed Off-Site Traffic Mitigation Locations
As described in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1, various improvements are proposed along the Meadowbrook State Parkway and at its interchange with the Northern State Parkway to support off-site traffic mitigation efforts. These improvements would be expected to involve ground disturbance to install the additional travel lanes, associated road shoulder/guards, and improve three existing highway overpasses at Old Country Road, the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) bridge and Westbury Avenue (see Appendix 3.1-7 and Attachment P in Appendix 3.5-1). Additional improvements are proposed at the interchange of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and the Meadowbrook State Parkway as well as at the interchange of Hempstead Turnpike at the Meadowbrook State Parkway, including the extension of deceleration and acceleration lanes on existing ramps and the widening to extend the length of a two-lane section of ramp. Based on the conceptual layout of these improvements and an analysis of existing topography in these areas, an estimated total of approximately 6.4 acres of ground disturbance beyond the existing roadway edges would result from implementation of the off-site highway improvements.
As depicted in Attachment P in Appendix 3.5-1 and the approximate limits of disturbance identified thereon, the soil disturbances would be concentrated within a relatively narrow band along the existing edge of the roadway. These areas occur within the established highway and roadway rights-of-way, and currently contain paved and grassed shoulders and limited vegetated areas along the existing roadside. The horizontal width of disturbance varies, with the greatest widths occurring where the grade must increase or decrease from the limits of the widened roadway to meet overpass grades. Throughout the length of the widenings, other than at overpasses, the width of disturbance would generally be limited to within 15-to-30± feet of the existing roadway edge. The precise limits of disturbance would be confirmed by survey and engineering design during the detailed design review process and permitting process administered by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT).
The soil disturbances associated with all the off-site highway improvements (e.g., within the total of approximately 6.4± acres) would be temporary, and it is expected that the disturbed areas would be paved or established in permanent ground cover as soon as practical following disturbance to allow roadway and shoulder areas to resume normal highway operation. All construction would be performed in accordance with a permit(s) to be issued by the NYSDOT and applicable construction and maintenance policies (e.g., the NYSDOT Transportation Environmental Manual [TEM]). Erosion control measures (e.g., stockpile stabilization, drainage inlet protection, dust suppression) would be implemented during construction in accordance with any required SWPPP and associated Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Overall, as the area of disturbance would be limited to a narrow band along the existing roadway edge within an established highway right-of-way, the disturbance would be of limited duration, and controls would be implemented as required by NYSDOT and SPDES permits, no significant adverse soil erosion impacts are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed
off-site highway improvements.

‌Proposed Mitigation
To mitigate potential impacts to soils, topography and subsurface/environmental conditions, the following measures are incorporated into the project design to minimize the effects of the proposed project on these resources:
› Erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented in accordance with the SWPPP to minimize potential impacts to soils and groundwater, which would be monitored through the construction period. These measures would be maintained until the site is permanently developed.
› Each work site on the subject property would be secured by construction fencing, at the time that work site is under construction, in order to prevent unauthorized personnel coming into the site and coming into contact with potentially impacted materials.
› Excavated materials (e.g., soils) to be disposed of off-site would be sampled for waste characterization based upon the acceptance criteria and permitting requirements of the proposed recycling and/or disposal facilities. Transportation and disposal would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360.
› During construction activities, potentially contaminated soils, if encountered, would require separate segregation, and additional sampling and investigation would be required.
› Imported topsoil used for landscaping and other construction fill materials would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers.
› Recommendations from the Phase II ESIs would be implemented, including:
- Reuse of on-site soil or non-native material would be conducted in accordance with the proposed site use and with NYSDEC regulations, including NYSDEC Part 360.13 for soil reuse, NYSDEC Part 375 and NYSDEC DER-10.
- If any USTs and/or associated appurtenances (e.g., fill lines, vent line, and electrical conduit) are encountered during redevelopment of the subject property, decommissioning, removal and off-site disposal would be done in accordance with NYSDEC and NCDH UST closure requirements. Previously unidentified USTs would be registered with the NYSDEC and NCDH, as necessary, prior to decommissioning or removal.
- Prior to renovation activities, ACM abatement plans would be developed to ensure the proper handling, removal, and disposal of ACM in accordance with applicable regulations. Appropriate engineering controls and best management practices to minimize asbestos exposure would be implemented during any activities that could result in the disturbance of ACM. Asbestos air monitoring would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.
- Lead-based paint and other hazardous substances, if encountered, would be remediated in accordance with the lease.
- A CHASP would be prepared that would identify the known and potential on-site contaminants and outline procedures and guidelines to mitigate exposure risks and protect the health of on-site workers during construction activities. With respect to the Coliseum property, the Lessee would remediate ACM, lead-based paint or other hazardous substances encountered during demolition and would pay the expenses associated with its remediation, removal and disposal.

‌Water Resources

‌Existing Conditions

Groundwater
Long Island is considered a sole source aquifer region, which means the groundwater is the single water supply source. Thus, land uses have the potential to impact the aquifer and the quality of the water supply. There are three major aquifers under Long Island – the Upper Glacial, the Magothy and the Lloyd. The Upper Glacial and Magothy are the significant water supply sources for most of Long Island. In recent years, suburbanization has caused contamination in areas of the Upper Glacial aquifer, since it is closest to the surface. A fourth aquifer, known as the Jameco, provides a small amount of water to both Southern Queens and Southern Nassau Counties.
Groundwater flow is typically topographically influenced, as shallow groundwater tends to originate in areas of topographic highs and flows toward areas of topographic lows, such as rivers, stream valleys, ponds, and wetlands. A broader, interconnected hydrogeologic network often governs groundwater flow at depth or in the bedrock aquifer. Groundwater depth and flow direction are also subject to hydrogeologic and anthropogenic variables such as precipitation, evaporation, extent of vegetation cover, and coverage by impervious surfaces. Other factors influencing groundwater include depth to bedrock, the presence of artificial fill, and variability in local geology and groundwater sources or sinks.
According to the USGS Long Island Depth to Water Viewer,128 the depth to water at the subject property is estimated at between approximately 27 feet and 34 feet bgs, with the greatest depth to groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Coliseum building. According to this website, there are no USGS groundwater monitoring wells proximate to the subject property. As part of the preliminary geotechnical engineering analysis, in October 2023, as discussed in Section 3.1, Soils Topography and Subsurface Conditions and included in Appendix 3.1-2, Langan installed groundwater observation wells around the subject property and reported stabilized groundwater levels of generally between Elevation +46 and +51, which, with a ground surface elevation of
+80, translates to groundwater located at between 29 feet and 34 feet bgs, similar to what was found on the Depth to Water Viewer. However, groundwater levels may vary seasonally and with changes in precipitation. Based on the local topography and proximity to nearby surface water features, the inferred groundwater flow direction at the subject property is to the east-southeast towards East Meadow Brook.
The sole source of groundwater replenishment for Long Island’s aquifers is precipitation. Between 2013 and 2022, the area around the subject property received a yearly average of 44.3 inches of precipitation. About half of this (22.2 inches) is returned to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration of plants, surface evaporation and direct runoff. The remainder enters the groundwater system to recharge the aquifers. This equates to a safe yield of water recharge into

‌128 ESRI. Long Island Depth to Water and Hydrologic Conditions Viewer. Available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/81dc041e5331461e942787bed9ce084b. Accessed September 2024.
the aquifers under the Town’s five water districts129 (five-district aggregate) plus the Mitchel Field Water Supply Area (MFWSA) boundary of approximately 7.3 billion gallons per year (bgy).
Between 2013 and 2022, the average withdrawal for the five-district aggregate (which includes the Coliseum and the Marriott properties that are located in the Uniondale Water District) averaged about 6.56 bgy. The only MFWSA withdrawal is for three irrigation wells located in Eisenhower Park, which is limited by NYSDEC to 0.06 bgy. Therefore, based on the balance between groundwater recharge (7.3 bgy) and groundwater withdrawal (6.56 bgy) (i.e., the water balance), there is more water being recharged than being withdrawn within the five-district aggregate plus MFWSA boundary.
With respect to groundwater quality, the Phase I ESAs performed by Langan for the Coliseum property and the Marriott property describe subsurface conditions associated with these sites and the surrounding area, including groundwater (see Section 3.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions, of this DEIS for a detailed discussion of the findings and Appendix 3.1-4 and Appendix 3.1-5 for the Coliseum and Marriott Phase I ESAs and Phase II ESIs, respectively). The former Mitchel Field military airbase, which includes the subject property, is listed in the State Hazardous Wastes Site (SHWS) (the New York State Superfund database). The listing has a Class P (potential registry site) classification, indicating that that there is a potential for concern about site contamination. Information regarding a Class P site is preliminary in nature and unverified because a full investigation of the entire Mitchel Field airbase was not completed (Appendix 3.2-1). The above-referenced Phase I ESAs also noted that the Purex-Mitchel Field site, which is located about 5,061 feet northwest of the subject property (hydraulically upgradient), operated as an industrial facility for chemical distribution from 1955 to 1977.
Information on the facility indicates that a chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site is related to former chemical distribution operations. Remediation to date has included contaminant recovery wells, air stripping, and a slurry wall constructed to restrict migration of groundwater contaminants. The results of a 1992 soil investigation indicated the soil clean-up objectives had been met; however, groundwater remediation is ongoing and soil vapor has not been evaluated. The Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Groundwater Area (USEPA ID No.
NYSFN0204234) and New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination (USEPA ID No. NY0001095363), are two National Priorities List (NPL) sites located over 4,000 feet north and upgradient of the subject property. Operations at the two sites include aviation activities (from 1911 to 1955) and various industrial operations (time unknown), respectively. Both sites are considered to have contributed to a chlorinated solvent groundwater plume that has impacted public supply wells in the area. Contaminants of concern include carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-DCE, PCE, and TCE. The exact source of the contamination is unknown and the USEPA is considering various alternatives for remediation. Documented chlorinated solvent impacts to groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is considered a REC. The Phase I ESAs also noted various closed spills on the subject property and on nearby properties.
To assess groundwater conditions at the subject property, Langan conducted groundwater sampling (Section 3.1.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions and Appendices 3.1-4a and 3.1-5a). Two temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the subject property, and groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the following:

‌129 Uniondale, Bowling Green Estates, East Meadow, Levittown and Roosevelt Field Water Districts.
› NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL VOCs by USEPA method 8260
› NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL SVOC by USEPA method 8270
› PCBs by USEPA method 8082
› NYSDEC Part 375 list and TCL Pesticides by USEPA method 8081
› TAL metals (total and dissolved, including hexavalent and trivalent chromium and cyanide) by USEPA methods 6010, 7196, 7470, 9010 and 9012.
Groundwater analytical results were compared to NYSDEC TOGS AWQSGVs. Groundwater results, as detailed in Table 2 within the Phase II ESIs for the Coliseum property and the Marriott property (excerpts in Appendix 3.1-4a and Appendix 3.1-5a, respectively), did not report VOCs, pesticides or PCBs at concentrations above NYSDEC TOGS AWQSGVs. SVOCs and total metals were reported above TOGS AWQSGVs. Langan’s Phase II ESIs attributed the exceedances to sediment within the groundwater samples and naturally-occurring metals and indicated that the results are not considered indicative of a groundwater condition at the subject property.
Thus, based on the sampling conducted by Langan, there is no indication that impacts associated with the potential concerns identified in the Phase I ESAs are present in groundwater beneath the subject property.

Critical Environmental Areas and Special Groundwater Protection Areas
The subject property is not located within nor does it adjoin a state-listed critical environmental area. As identified in the Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (hereinafter the “SGPA Plan,” LIRPB, 1992), SGPAs are significant, largely undeveloped or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide recharge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. Nine SGPAs are located on Long Island: North Hills; Oyster Bay; West Hills/Melville; Oak Brush Plains; South Setauket Woods; Central Suffolk; Southold; South Fork; and Hither Hills. The subject property is not located within a special groundwater protection area.

Nassau County Public Health Ordinance
Article X of the Nassau County Public Health Ordinance (NCPHO) entitled “Groundwater Protection and Regulation of Sewage and Industrial Wastewater,” exists to “preserve the quality of the aquifers receiving recharge from areas which have been designated as Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs).” As indicated above, the subject property is not situated within an SGPA, and thus, activities on the site are not regulated under Article X.
Article XI of the NCPHO, entitled “Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage, Handling and Control,” was prepared to “…safeguard the water resources of the County of Nassau from contamination by toxic and hazardous materials including petroleum products by preventing pollution from the more than 100 million gallons of toxic and hazardous materials currently being stored, transferred or used by various residential, commercial and industrial facilities. The discharge of these toxic and hazardous materials is caused by leaking tanks, improper storage and handling, as well as accidental spills. The potential for these discharges would be effectively reduced by requiring that proper storage and handling are provided; that new tanks meet rigid standards; and that all tanks are routinely tested and inspected to ensure compliance.” The subject property is subject to Article XI of the NCPHO. As explained in Section 3.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface/Environmental Conditions, the Coliseum property formerly had two 1,000-gallon USTs,
which municipal records list as having been removed. Additionally, two spills occurred on the property in 1987 after a diesel tank failed a tank tightness test. The tank was removed and the spills were closed in 1989. The Marriott property formerly contained a 550-gallon underground fuel oil storage tank, which experienced a spill in 2000. That tank was removed and the spill was closed in 2000. Additionally, a UST of unknown size was installed in 1982 and listed as subsequently removed.
If any undocumented USTs are encountered during construction, they (and any associated appurtenances) would be decommissioned and off-site disposal would be done in accordance with NCDH UST closure requirements. The proposed project would adhere to these recommendations, and therefore, no significant adverse impacts to groundwater from USTs would result from implementation of the proposed action.

Water Supply 130

Potable water to existing on-site facilities is supplied through water mains that traverse the subject property north to south in the eastern portion of the subject property. These mains are located between the Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel and are looped around each facility.

Connection points exist to a 16-inch water main within Hempstead Turnpike and 24-inch water main within Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.

Additionally, the Coliseum property is served by one six-inch domestic water service, two six-inch fire services and two eight-inch sprinkler services from the Engie facility, located just north of the subject property along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. Each service is provided with backflow prevention devices, and the water service is metered.

The Coliseum uses domestic water heat exchangers that extract heat from the HVAC supply water loop that originates at the Engie facility. Therefore, the Coliseum’s thermal needs are met with a supply and return of hot water and chilled water from Engie. For the Marriott, the HVAC supply water loop that originates at the Engie facility supports thermal needs only. Engie also supplies hot water and chilled water for the Nassau Community College, Cradle of Aviation Museum, Long Island Children’s Museum, and the Long Island Firefighters Museum.131

Based on calculations provided by H2M, potable water consumption from the municipal water supplier is assumed to equal sewage generation, which was conservatively estimated at approximately 230,000 gallons per day (gpd) utilizing the NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates for sewered areas, based on the uses on the subject property (Table 7).

‌130 Sands contracted with H2M Architects + Engineers (H2M) to serve as its civil and water engineer, and H2M has provided the technical information used for the DEIS analysis of water supply, public supply well, sewage disposal, stormwater management and related issues.

‌131 Based on information discussed during a March 26, 2024 meeting with representatives of Engie, NCDPW, Sands and various consultants.

‌Table 7 Existing Potable Water Demand

Existing Facilities	Quantity	Unit	NC Facility Category	NC Rate	Rate Unit	Flow (gpd)
Marriott Hotel	618	rooms	Motel Unit >400 sf	150	gpd/room	92,700
Marriott Ballroom	1,027	seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	30,810
Marriott Restaurant	310	seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	9,300
Coliseum	17,686*	seats	Theater + Cafeteria	5.5	gpd/seat	97,273
				Total (design gpd)		230,083
Source: Nassau County Department of Public Works Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates at www.nassaucountyny.gov/1874/Permits-Fees *Number of seats in the Coliseum is based on information from The Lighthouse at Long Island Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Findings Statement.

Portions of the subject property are located within the Mitchel Field Water Supply Area (MFWSA). The remainder of the subject property is located within the Uniondale Water District (UWD), which is operated and maintained by the Town of Hempstead Water Department, and which adjoins the MFWSA to the southwest (Figure 10).

The UWD shares a common boundary with the MFWSA along Oak Street, west of the subject property, and there is also a common boundary to the south, which passes through the subject property. The purpose of the MFWSA, created in the 1980s, was to provide water for the commercial development of portions of the former Mitchel Field airbase, as well as Eisenhower Park. The NCDPW maintains the MFWSA132 and the majority of the distribution system, which is located within and around the subject property, is owned by Nassau County and maintained by NCDPW. Potable water from the UWD to the MFWSA is primarily conveyed through interconnections located north of Hempstead Turnpike in the general vicinity of the Coliseum parking lot and Earle Ovington Boulevard. The largest mains of this system are located on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard. Currently, the three UWD interconnections with MFWSA are being used as the daily source of water to MFWSA and are integral to the water supply to MFWSA.

‌132 The MFWSA also shares a common boundary with Roosevelt Field Water District (RFWD) along Stewart Avenue north of the project site, and the East Meadow Water District (EMWD) and Bowling Green Water District (BGWD), all of which are operated and maintained by of the Town of Hempstead Water Department, border the eastern portions of MFWSA.

‌Figure 10: Water Supply Service Areas

Sands New York Integrated Resort

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

UNIONDALE WD (TOH)

Each of the four Town of Hempstead water districts that border the MFWSA (UWD, Roosevelt Field Water District [RFWD], East Meadow Water District [EMWD] and Bowling Green Water District [BGWD]) derives its supply of water from public water supply wells, which tap the Magothy aquifer, and the MFWSA derives its potable water from public supply wells within the UWD and EMWD. Wells are located in Eisenhower Park that provide water to the park for irrigation, but these wells do not supply potable water. The UWD provides potable water west of the Meadowbrook State Parkway, while the EMWD provides potable water east of the Parkway. The UWD owns six public water supply wells, summarized in Table 8 All six of these wells are operational potable water supply wells. Cumulatively, they are capable of producing 7,010 gallons per minute (gpm) or 10.09 million gallons per day (mgd) (with an original rated design capacity of 7,500 gpm or 10.8 mgd).

‌Table 8 Uniondale Water District Existing Water Supply Wells

District Well No.	NYSDEC Well No.	Location	Year Installed	Depth (feet)	NYSDEC Authorized Capacity (GPM)	Current Pumping Capacity (GPM)	Pumping Capacity w/Major Facility Out of Service (GPM)	Pumping Capacity w/Backup Power (GPM)
1*	N-4756	Dead end of Hempstead Blvd. at Meadowbrook Road	1955	638	1,100	1,250	1,250	1,250
2	N4757	Dead end of Hempstead Blvd at Meadowbrook Road	1955	635	1,200	1,050	1,050	0
3	N-4758	Dead end of Hempstead Blvd. at Meadowbrook Road	1956 Redrill- 1980	630	1,200	1,050	1,050	0
4*	N-4759	Dead end of Hempstead Blvd., at Meadowbrook Road	1955 Redrill- 1980	630	1,100	1,060	1,060	1,060
5**	N-8474	Oak Street N/O Westbury	1970	652	1,450	1,200	1,200	1,200
6**	N-8475	Oak Street N/O Westbury	1970	487	1,450	1,400	0	1,400
			TOTAL (GPM)		7,500	7,010	5,610	4.910
			TOTAL (MGD)		10.80	10.09	8.08	7.07
			80% Op. (MGD)				6.46	5.66
Notes: GPM – Gallons Per Minute MGD – Million Gallons Per Day * Diesel engine with right angle gear drive provides backup power. ** Diesel generator provides backup power. This table is compiled from data supplied by NYSDEC, Town of Hempstead Water Dept. and H2M’s (the project engineer) records.

Treatment for pH adjustment and disinfection is provided for each potable water well. Lime is used for pH adjustment, and disinfection is by sodium hypochlorite into the well discharge piping. Well Nos. 5 and 6 utilize granular activated carbon adsorption to remove volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), and air stripping and advanced oxidation treatment are currently under construction at the Oak Street facility. No other treatment is provided for UWD wells.

The MFWSA currently has no operating potable water supply wells; only irrigation wells in Eisenhower Park. There are no water storage facilities or booster stations in the MFWSA system. Also, since there are no potable water supply wells in the MFWSA, there are no treatment facilities. Additionally, as the topography of the UWD and the MFWSA is relatively flat, they operate as a single pressure zone. The UWD operates a single 1.25 million gallon (mg) elevated water storage tank, with high water level of 233.0 feet.

The historical water pumpage and consumption statistics between the period of 2013 and 2022 are presented in Table 9 , below, and include five-district annual pumpage,133 the annual pumpage and consumption data for the UWD, as well as average day demand and maximum day demand. An analysis of these statistics is the basis used to establish a projection of future water demands on the District’s supply system. The numbers in bold and red represent either the average of the average day pumpage (3.68 mgd) over the last decade, or the highest pumpage over the analysis years (7.84 mgd maximum day in 2014) and 8.47 mgd for maximum day, plus fire flow, also in 2014).

‌Table 9 Uniondale Water District Total Consumptive Water Use (2013 to 2022)

	Town of Hempstead Pumpage (MG)(1)	UWD Annual Pumpage (MG)(1)	UWD Average Day (MGD)(1)	UWD Maximum Day		UWD Maximum Day Plus 3,500 GPM Fire Flow (MGD)(2)
Year	Town of Hempstead Pumpage (MG)(1)	UWD Annual Pumpage (MG)(1)	UWD Average Day (MGD)(1)	Date	(MGD)(1)	UWD Maximum Day Plus 3,500 GPM Fire Flow (MGD)(2)
2013	6,753.8	1,298.1	3.56	7/11	7.22	7.85
2014	6,814.1	1,472.4	4.03	6/18	7.84	8.47
2015	7,075.4	1,451.2	3.98	7/29	7.00	7.63
2016	6,686.2	1,596.5	4.36	6/22	7.48	8.11
2017	6,209.4	1,394.1	3.82	7/22	6.48	7.11
2018	6,299.7	1,308.7	3.59	7/11	7.05	7.68
2019	6,291.3	1,260.6	3.45	7/14	6.52	7.15
2020	5,985.0	1,093.1	2.99	7/30	5.82	6.45
2021	6,381.8	1,283.2	5.52	6/30	6.38	7.01
2022	6,424.3	1,291.2	3.54	7/15	6.60	7.23
Average	6,492.1	1,344.9	3.68	--	6.84	7.47
Notes: MG – Million Gallons MGD – Million Gallons Per Day 1 Based on records provided by the Town of Hempstead Water Department 2 3,500 GPM for three hours, 0.63 MG

Between 2013 and 2022, annual pumpage and average day demand in UWD were relatively constant, as demonstrated in the table above. Average day demand ranged from 2.99 mgd in 2020 to 5.52 mgd in 2021. The maximum day demand for a given year varied from 5.82 mgd in

‌133 Including Bowling Green Estates, East Meadow, Uniondale, Levittown and Roosevelt Field.

2020 to a high of 7.84 mgd in 2014. This demand is directly related to the weather conditions and County restrictions on irrigation.

Historically, from 2013 – 2022, the average gallons per capita per day demand (average daily demand) ranged from 103 to 150 gpd per capita for the UWD. This per capita demand falls within the general island-wide average daily demand per capita, which was between 100 and 200 gpd over the same time period, according to H2M.

During 1987, the NYSDEC introduced pumpage caps to all Nassau County public water suppliers. These caps were predicated on a then-current five-year running pumping average and a maximum volume in any one year, while still maintaining the five-year running average. They were based on assumptions that over-pumping would deplete the water supply aquifer. Thus, NYSDEC’s purpose for the pumpage caps was to establish the long-term preservation of Long Island’s underground water supply for future generations by maintaining existing water levels and reducing the impact on surrounding water bodies – streams and ponds. During the late 1980s, several water suppliers challenged the pumpage caps due to inadequacies with NYSDEC’s pumpage cap methodology.134 The challenges to the caps related to, for example, the fact that no allowance was given for water conservation programs that may have been implemented before the caps, and no consideration was given to safe permissible yield. Moreover, issues were raised regarding the NYSDEC’s calculation methodology for the caps. Based on the legal challenges and issues raised, the NYSDEC pumpage caps are not being widely enforced.

Exceedances of the cap do not prohibit the NYSDEC from seeking enforcement action if the Governor requests such action. It should also be noted that this NYSDEC initiative has promoted water conservation awareness and the virtues of reducing water waste. Many water suppliers have clearly demonstrated that conservation is a vital and effective water resource management tool.

According to a study by the NCDH,135 the Town of Hempstead five-district aggregate annual cap was 6,759 mgy, with a five-year average cap of 5,947 mgy. As indicated in Table 9, five-district aggregate annual pumpage ranged from 5,985.0 mg in 2020 to 7,075.4 mg in 2015 (316.4 mgy above the annual cap), with a five-year average (2018-2022) of 6,276.4 mgy (329.4 mgy above the five-year average cap). Both the five-district aggregate annual and five-year average caps have been recently exceeded.

With respect to the MFWSA, the original Water Supply Application for that supply area limited pumpage to 3.5 mgd, which equates to 1,277 mgy. However, the total annual pumpage from the MFWSA is currently limited by NYSDEC to 60 mgy, according to H2M.

The UWD, as part of the Town’s Water Department, implemented Nassau County’s mandatory water conservation regulations in an effort to minimize water use. These regulations limit the hours of lawn sprinkling, prohibit water-cooled air conditioning (unless the water is recycled)

‌134 New York Times. Water Suppliers Fighting Cap Edict by Michael F. Barry (January 29, 1989). Available

at: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/water-suppliers-fighting-cap-edict.htm l. Accessed September 2024; New York Times. State Water-Pumping Caps Under Fire by Ellen K. Popper (January 6, 1991). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/06/state- water-pumping-caps-under-fire.htm l. Accessed September 2024; New York Times. Commissioner Explains His Caps on Water – Letter to the Editor from Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, NYSDEC (March 24, 1991). Available

at: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/24/commissioner-explains-his-caps-on-water.htm l. Accessed September 2024.

‌135 Nassau County Department of Health. Ground Water and Public Water Supply Facts (June 1991).

require that all car/fleet car washes recycle water, and require that suppliers monitor non-fire protection uses for their fire hydrants. In 2017, NYSDEC required that each water supplier submit a Water Conservation Plan, and subsequent annual updates, which include usage statistics and conservation methodology for NYSDEC review.

To determine the current and future supply and storage capacity needs of a water district, average day, maximum day, peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow statistics are continuously reviewed and analyzed. Average daily demand represents the total yearly pumpage uniformly distributed or averaged over the entire calendar year. This statistic provides a basis to forecast estimated revenues for budgetary purposes and is utilized in long-range water resources planning with respect to safe yield. Average day demand as it relates to system capacity assessment is used to establish the base need for minimum standby power pumping capacity during short-term regional electrical power outages.

Maximum day pumpage statistics are reviewed to evaluate available supply well capacity, assuming one major well out of service while peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow demand is used to analyze combined supply well and storage facility capacity requirements. Supply sources must be designed and maintained to satisfy average and maximum day demand.

Storage facilities and excess well capacity are required to be capable of providing an adequate supply of potable water to satisfy peak hour and fire flow demands on the maximum day.

Inadequate supply well and/or storage capacity under maximum day, peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow demand conditions can result in system pressures that are below normal operating requirements.

Supply well capacity would tend to decrease over time based on the age and condition of the well pump and well screen. To fully assess storage capacity requirements, the hourly demand for a typical maximum day is evaluated to compute the required operating or equalization storage. Common practice in the United States is to provide enough equalization storage to allow water supply facilities to operate at a uniform rate at all hours of the day of peak consumption. The current supply well capacity at 100 percent operational efficiency is 10.09 mgd. Operating the wells at 80 percent efficiency (since all facilities are not at maximum pumping volume at a specific time) reduces the capacity to 8.08 mgd. Removing Well No. 6 (the largest producing well) further reduces the capacity to 6.46 mgd at 80 percent efficiency.136

The Average Day Demand for the UWD (from 2013-2022) was 3.68 mgd, as shown on Table 8. The Peak Maximum Day Demand (June 2014) was 7.84 mgd. Therefore, even with backup power (assumed 80 percent efficiency), available capacity is 5.66 mgd, which is sufficient to meet the average day demand (3.68 mgd), but not for peak maximum day demand (7.84 mgd). Thus the UWD is considered to be in deficit. Under this scenario, it is expected UWD would rely on its 1.25 mg storage tank and interconnections with adjacent water suppliers.

The UWD has a 1.25 mg storage tank that can help supplement the supply. For “Maximum Day plus Fire Flow” (shown in Table 8) assessment, the 1.25 mg storage tank volume is converted to a uniform flow rate over 24 hours which adds to the maximum-day supply well capacity. Current maximum-day plus fire-flow capacity is 7.71 mgd (6.46 mgd available well capacity + the uniform

‌136 “Ten States Standards” (of which New York State is a member state) recommends that source capacity “shall equal or exceed the design maximum day demand with the largest producing well out of service.” Great Lakes – Upper Mississippi River Road of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. Recommended Standards for Water Works, 2022 Edition

storage flow). The required fire flow is 3,500 gpm for three hours, equivalent to 0.63 mg storage.137 Adding the fire flow requirement to the peak maximum day demand (7.84 mgd) yields a requirement of 8.47 mgd. Current maximum-day plus fire-flow capacity (7.71 mgd) is insufficient compared to the demand plus fire flow (8.47 mgd), indicating a deficit. Currently, the UWD relies on interconnection with the EMWD distribution system to mitigate this deficit.

Sanitary Flow/Sewage Disposal

The subject property is situated within the Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District, which currently includes the Marriott Hotel and the Coliseum. While the Marriott Hotel is actively operating, at this time, the Coliseum is not very active. Discharges from on-site facilities are conveyed to a 36-inch main that traverses the subject property from north to south, then connects to a 48-inch interceptor within Hempstead Turnpike. All sanitary flow from the subject property is directed to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), located along the south shore of Nassau County in the hamlet of Wantagh.

Metered sewage discharge data is not available for the existing facilities at the subject property. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, historic sewage flows were estimated from the site, including an active Coliseum facility, using NCDPW minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates for sewered areas. It is noted these same factors were used for the potable water demand calculation in Section 3.2.1.2, above. The historic design sewage flow is estimated at approximately 230,000 gpd for both the Marriott Hotel and the Coliseum, as shown in Table 10 .

‌Table 10 Estimated Historic Sewage Generation – Coliseum and Marriott Hotel

Nassau County Design STD
Existing Facilities	Quantity	Unit	NC Facility Category	NC Rate	Rate Unit	Flow (gpd)
Marriott Hotel	618	rooms	Motel Unit >400 sf	150	gpd/room	92,700
Marriott Ballroom	1,027	seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	30,810
Marriott Restaurant	310	seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	9,300
Coliseum	17,686	seats	Theater + Cafeteria	5.5	gpd/seat	97,273
				Total (design gpd)		230,083
Source: Nassau County Department of Public Works Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates at

www.nassaucountyny.gov/1874/Permits-Fees

As noted above, all sanitary flow from the subject property is directed to the Cedar Creek WPCP, which treats approximately 63.8 mgd,138 operating at approximately 88.6 percent of its permitted capacity of 72 mgd.

‌137 American Water Works Association. Manual M31, 4th edition

‌138 Average flow based on monthly Discharge Monitoring Report data recorded between 2/19/2021 and 12/26/2023, according to the H2M. Flow Data was collected from: https://echo.epa.gov/effluent-charts#NY0026859

With respect to conveyance capacity from the subject property, NCDPW representatives, at meeting with H2M in February 2023, indicated that NCDPW would require sanitary flow monitoring data to confirm existing flows upstream and downstream of the subject property prior to confirming sewer availability for any new development. In accordance with the NCDPW requirements, H2M conducted flow monitoring between April 19 and June 1, 2023 (43 days), measuring sanitary flows upstream and downstream of the proposed facilities and provided the results to NCDPW in support of its request for confirmation of sewer availability (see Section 3.2.2.3, below).

Floodplains
Although located over the Nassau-Suffolk sole source aquifer (as is all of Long Island), the subject property is not located within a floodway, the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain. More specifically, according to Nassau County’s online GIS viewer and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Maps 36059C0227G and 36059CO229G (effective 9/11/2009), the subject property is located within Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain). The southwestern-most portion of the subject property, near the intersection of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike is shown on Flood Maps 36059C0226G and 36059CO228G, which are not printed, indicating the area is not within a flood zone or special flood hazard area.

Stormwater Management

The subject property is an approximately 86.3-acre parcel located in a 269-acre overall watershed. The site, as well as the remainder of the watershed, are tributary to an existing Nassau County stormwater infiltration basin (Nassau County Basin No. 537) located just south of Hempstead Turnpike, on the west side of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. A map prepared by NCDPW showing the extent of the watershed and location of the recharge basin is included in Appendix 3.2-2.

There is an extensive existing storm drainage collection system that traverses the subject property, and exits the site via twin 66-inch diameter pipes on the north side of Hempstead Turnpike, opposite Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. From there, the twin 66-inch diameter drain lines connect into twin 72-inch culverts, and then into a box culvert system located in Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. The box culvert system conveys stormwater from the watershed directly into Nassau County Basin No. 537. Other large properties that comprise the 269-acre watershed include a large portion of the Hofstra University campus (west side of Earle Ovington Boulevard), the Mitchel Field Athletic Complex and the Omni office building properties, as well as a portion of the Nassau Community College property (north side of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard). In addition, there are several properties located on the south side of Hempstead Turnpike that are served by Nassau County Basin No. 537. Based on information obtained from NCDPW, Basin No. 537 was designed to store the runoff from a five-inch rain event (2,085,000 cubic feet [cf] of storage). In addition, the County basin is equipped with an emergency overflow into East Meadow Brook (also see the preliminary stormwater pollution prevention plan [SWPPP] discussion later in this section).

Under existing conditions, based on a five-inch rain event, an overall impervious area of 78.0± acres and a landscaped area of 8.3± acres result in a stormwater runoff volume of 1,459,419 cf, as shown on Table 11.

‌Table 11 Stormwater Generation under Existing Conditions

Land Use	Area (sf)	Runoff Coefficient	Five-Inch Runoff Volume (cubic feet)
Building Coverage	230,767±	1.0	96,153±
Parking Structure(s)	0	1.0	0
Rooftop Open Space	0	0.5	0
Other Impervious Area	3,162,662±	1.0	1,317,776±
Landscaped Area	364,698±	0.3	45,587±
TOTAL	3,758,127±	Weighted C= 0.9321	1,459,516± cf

Surface Water
There are no surface water bodies located on the subject property. The closest surface water body is the East Meadow Brook, located approximately 850 feet east of the Marriott Hotel parking lot on the subject property, adjacent to the Meadowbrook State Parkway. Additionally, there are no wetlands located on or directly adjacent to the subject property, as shown on Figure 13, and discussed in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, of this DEIS.

‌Potential Impacts

Groundwater
As a result of development such as that considered for the proposed Integrated Resort, groundwater impacts generally result from water use, sanitary discharge, and stormwater runoff. As described in the subsections below, the Integrated Resort is being designed to minimize potential impacts to groundwater.
The proposed project would reduce existing impervious area by 7.4+ acres and result in an increase in pervious surfaces of approximately 89 percent, from 8.3± acres in the existing condition to 15.7± acres in the proposed condition, and the Integrated Resort is proposed to include additional green roofs/landscaped terraces. As discussed in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, there would be substantial new plantings installed on the subject property as part of the proposed action. However, the majority of these plantings would be native or native- adaptive species, and no-mow lawns would be installed, all of which require less maintenance (e.g., less irrigation, less [or no] use of fertilizers and pesticides) than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, the impact to groundwater resources from landscaping maintenance would be minimal.
As the subject property is not located within an SGPA, implementation of the proposed project would not impact such resources and would not be regulated under Article X of the NCPHO (i.e., as the subject property is not located in an SGPA, as noted above).

The property is subject to Article XI of the NCPHO entitled Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage, Handling and Control, which regulates the storage of toxic or hazardous materials (including petroleum products). The Integrated Resort would be, with the exception of the natural gas-fueled commercial kitchens and emergency diesel-fueled generators, an all-electric facility. Therefore, there would be no storage of petroleum products on the site for heating purposes. Should the Integrated Resort require the storage of other materials regulated under Article XI, Sands would comply with all applicable provisions of Article XI of the NCPHO. Sands has no plans for the storage of significant quantities of toxic or hazardous materials. In the event that such materials are to be stored on the site in the future, Sands would comply with all applicable provisions of Article XI of the NCPHO.

Water Supply

To date, Sands’ civil and water engineer, H2M, has had several consultations with the Town of Hempstead Water Department with respect to the existing water supply conditions and projected water demand, as well as infrastructure needs related to the proposed project. The Integrated Resort would disconnect from the Engie facility as a source for both chilled/hot water supply or to meet thermal needs; however, the Marriott Hotel is proposed to remain connected for such services. No changes to Marriott water supply would result from implementation of the proposed action.

Phase 1 of the proposed Integrated Resort includes the renovation of the existing Coliseum into a casino, with Parking Garage A, CUP-1 and Parking Lot E to support this casino, as previously described. As shown on Table 12 , H2M has calculated the anticipated water demand in Phase 1 at 109,792± gpd, which is only 12,500± gpd (12.9± percent) more than under the existing condition (97,273 gpd for the Coliseum, excluding irrigation139). Based on this, H2M has indicated that water demand for the Coliseum property would be generally unchanged by implementation of Phase 1 of the Integrated Resort, and this is in the process of being confirmed with the Town of Hempstead Water Department (Appendix 3.2-3).

‌Table 12 Total Projected Domestic Water Demand for Phase 1 of the Integrated Resort, based on NCDPW Design Sewage Flows1

Building

Proposed Program

Nassau County Design Sewage Flows NC Facility

Component Quantity Unit Category NC Rate Rate Unit Flow (gpd)

Food & Beverage	1,173	Seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	35,190
Retail	1,200	Sf	Market	0.05	gpd/sf	60
Gaming	215,480	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	64,644
Support Areas	154,435	Sf	Dry Store	0.03	gpd/sf	4,633
MEP Facilities	175,484	Sf	Dry Store	0.03	gpd/sf	5,265

Total 109,792 gpd

1 While the Coliseum currently uses potable water, no credit was taken for the existing use thereby resulting in a conservative analysis.

‌139 Irrigation in Phase 1 is projected to be approximately 14,600 gpd. The current amount of irrigation at the Coliseum property is unknown.

As shown on Table 13 , below, total anticipated domestic water usage for the Full Build condition of the Integrated Resort is assumed to match sewage generation (Table 14), which is estimated at approximately 701,400 gpd using NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates.140 This represents an increase of approximately 604,127 gpd compared to the historical estimated water demand (based on the design flow) of approximately 97,273 gpd for the Coliseum.141 By utilizing high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, the proposed project would be expected to realize a minimum reduction of 25 percent in water consumption below the NCDPW water factors.

Appliances that use water, such as dishwashers and washing machines, would be energy efficient, including Energy Star-certified, with the most energy and water efficient operation. Based on the foregoing, a reduction at a minimum 25 percent for potable water would result in a potential decrease in potable water use of over 202,000 gpd, as compared to the projected water use based on the County’s design factors.

The water demand imposed by landscape irrigation must also be added to the domestic projection. To irrigate a landscaped area of 681,892± sf (15.7± acres), as proposed, assuming an irrigation rate of one inch per sf per week, the average demand during the growing season would be 62,000± gpd. This is a conservative assumption, as Sands is evaluating the use of captured stormwater runoff from roof areas to reduce the demand on the potable water supply for the anticipated drip irrigation system. Such stormwater capture and reuse could reduce the demand, depending upon season and availability of stormwater.

‌Table 13 Total Projected Domestic Water Demand for Integrated Resort Full Build, based on NCDPW Design Sewage Flows1

Proposed Program			Nassau County Design Sewage Flows
Building Component	Quantity	Unit	NC Facility Category	NC Rate	Rate Unit	Flow (gpd)
Hotels	1,670	rooms	Motel Unit ≥400 sf	150	gpd/room	250,500
Food & Beverage	3,337	Seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	100,110
Retail (31,200 net sf)	55,507 142	Sf	Market	0.05	gpd/sf	2,775
Gaming (393,726 net sf)	693,922 143	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	208,177
Meeting and conference space	213,000	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	63,900
Entertainment
Performance Venue	4,500	Seats	Theater + Cafeteria	5.50	gpd/seat	24,750
Public Attraction	60,000	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	18,000
Support Areas	688,068	Sf	Dry Store	0.03	gpd/seat	20,642

‌140 As no changes to the use of the Marriott Hotel are proposed, no changes to the existing water demand would result. Thus, the Marriott Hotel would not require additional water supply as a result of implementation of the proposed action.

‌141 As explained Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, the entire facility would be supported with air-source heat pumps for both heating and cooling. A primary chilled water and hot water system would be provided in each proposed CUP. Overall, the proposed energy strategy would, among other things, avoid significant water consumption associated with cooling towers, which have typically been used to generate chilled water for air conditioning on similar developments.

‌142 Total gross floor area.

‌143 Ibid.

MEP Facilities

416,874

Dry Store

0.03

gpd/sf

12,506

Total

701,360

(Rounded to 701,400)

Source: Nassau County Department of Public Works Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates at www.nassaucountyny.gov/1874/Permits-Fees

1 While the Coliseum currently uses potable water, no credit was taken for the existing use thereby resulting in a conservative analysis

Based on the foregoing, the total new water demand would be 763,400 gpd (701,400 gpd of potable water use plus 62,000 gpd for irrigation), without taking credit for water conservation measures.

In addition to potable and irrigation water demand, fire protection systems are proposed to include individual building fire sprinkler systems supplied by a booster pump located at the CUP. As indicated in the request for Water Availability letter (Appendix 3.2-3), the peak instantaneous fire protection system demand is anticipated to be up to 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). More specifically, according to JB&B (MEP), the fire pump would be rated for 1,250 gpm to support the required standpipe flow of the tallest buildings on the site. The pump can also support the higher sprinkler demand at the EV charging areas. The anticipated flow rate to support EV charging is approximately 1,750 - 2,000 gpm.

As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, based on the existing condition maximum day plus fire-flow analysis above, the UWD has a current capacity of 7.71 mgd, and a demand of 8.47 mgd, and therefore, is operating under a 0.76 mgd theoretical deficit for meeting this demand.144 The UWD deficit currently exists and does not include the projected water demand for the proposed Integrated Resort of 0.763 mgd, including irrigation (no credit was taken for the use of water conservation measures). To address the existing deficit (0.76 mgd), as well as the impact from the Integrated Resort (0.763± mgd during the growing season), a new supply well (discussed in detail below) is proposed, which would increase the UWD available capacity to cover the demand for the proposed Integrated Resort also provide excess capacity, which would increase the resiliency of the public water supply system within the UWD and mitigate the theoretical water supply deficit. A letter requesting water availability, based on the projections included in has been prepared and submitted to the Commissioner of the Town of Hempstead Water Department (Appendix 3.2-3). As explained in greater detail below, Sands and H2M are continuing to work with the Town on the proposed supply.

As described above, the water demand figure included in Table 13, which contains the information and figures that are included in the request for water availability, is conservative and does not take credit for existing Coliseum water use nor does it include the incorporation of water conservation measures. Sands understands the importance of water efficiency and conservation. Sands has set global potable water reduction targets to strategically integrate water conservation into operations at the proposed Integrated Resort. The proposed project design is centered around water efficiency and conservation. To achieve this, Sands has outlined a plan that includes design strategies, as well as monitoring and maintenance of the system over its lifetime.

‌144 As indicated above, currently, the UWD relies on interconnection with the EMWD distribution system to mitigate this deficit.

With respect to water balance, as explained in Section 3.2.1.1, under the existing condition, the balance between groundwater recharge (7.3 bgy) and groundwater withdrawal (6.56 bgy) (i.e., the water balance), demonstrates that there is more water being recharged than being withdrawn within the five-district aggregate plus MFWSA boundary. In the post-development condition, conservatively adding continuous use of the proposed well (i.e., 0.72 bgy)145 to existing groundwater withdrawal (6.56 bgy), there would be sufficient recharge to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed well.

All plumbing fixtures in the Integrated Resort are proposed to be high-efficiency water- conserving fixtures meeting all water-conserving statutes in accordance with the New York State Plumbing Code, Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended, as well as the current LEED rating system for water efficiency.146 By utilizing high-efficiency plumbing fixtures,147 the proposed project would likely realize a minimum reduction of 25 percent in water consumption below the NCDPW water factors. Appliances that use water, such as dishwashers, washing machines would be energy efficient, including Energy Star-certified, with the most energy and water efficient operation. Based on the foregoing, a reduction at a minimum 25 percent for potable water would result in a potential decrease in potable water use of over 202,000 gpd, as compared to the projected water use based on the County’s design factors.

Also, differences exist between how buildings are designed to operate and how they actually perform once they are constructed. Numerous factors may be responsible such as inaccurate assumptions about occupant behavior or the everyday operation of building systems. By collecting and analyzing water-consumption data, the Integrated Resort would compare water consumption across other Sands facilities to identify common traits among water use in an effort to improve building performance. To further improve efficiency and performance, the Integrated Resort is proposing to install water submeters for all large incidental-use areas to track water consumption. The incidental-use areas include each individual restaurant, irrigation system, rainwater harvesting system, and other similar occupancies. Water meter data would be compiled into monthly and annual summaries for analysis to understand water use and whether additional water savings can be achieved.

In addition, Sands proposes the use of a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters and stores rainwater for reuse. This system (for no-contact irrigation use, decorative fountains and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable, based on consultations with the appropriate agencies of Nassau County [NCDPW and/or NCDH]) would be a sustainable source of non-potable water use in the project and, therefore, would reduce the demand for potable water.

‌1451.98 mgd x 365 days/year = 723+ mgy = 0.72+ bgy. While the proposed well is being designed for a capacity of 1.98 mgd, the proposed Integrated Resort is projected to use 763,400 gpd of that capacity.

‌146 USGBC. Conserving Water for All People Through LEED v4.1. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/conserving-water-all-people- through-leed-v41. Accessed September 2024.

‌147 Such conservations measures may include use of WaterSense products like high-efficiency toilets which can reduce indoor water use by more than six percent and when compared to low-flow (1.6 gpf) toilets, and high-efficiency urinals which can reduce indoor water use by six-to-eight percent and when compared to low-flow (1.0 gpf) urinals. Alternatively, dual-flush toilets could save as much as 10 percent of total indoor water use. Other water conservation measures such as sensor-operated faucets may save as much as 1.6 percent of total indoor water use when compared to standard faucets, depending on product characteristics. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts

Also, the Integrated Resort would not use cooling towers for air conditioning heat rejection (which utilizes substantial amounts of water),148 representing a significant water conservation measure.

Proposed Water Supply Well and Associated Infrastructure Improvements

As explained above, reuse/renovation of the Coliseum building as a casino within Phase 1 of the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to create minimal additional water supply demand (an additional 12,500± gpd), such that existing water supply infrastructure is expected to be sufficient to accommodate the Phase 1 program (which is in the process of being confirmed with the Town of Hempstead Water Department).

A new water supply well, with a capacity of 1.98 mgd, as well as associated treatment systems, backup power generation, and transmission water main, are proposed to support the Full Build- out of the proposed Integrated Resort, with excess capacity provided as a public benefit.

Locations for the water supply well and treatment facilities to enhance UWD capacity are currently under investigation. A potential well site on Nassau County-owned property situated within the right-of-way median at the intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard is currently being investigated. Sands has formally engaged a well driller, and H2M has prepared a work plan for the test well in coordination with the well driller. The work plan was presented to the NCDPW and the Town of Hempstead Water Department. A road opening permit application for formal approval for construction of the test well was submitted to NCDPW on September 4, 2024, and the permit was issued on September 11, 2024. With respect to coordination with the NYSDEC, an application for test well drilling was submitted to NYSDEC, and NYSDEC issued an Approval to Sink Well on September 13, 2024. As explained above, an application will be submitted to the NYSDEC for the proposed water supply well and further coordination with NYSDEC will be conducted at that time.

Should results of this investigation support further pursuit of a public water supply well at this location,149 an application to NYSDEC would be prepared for a water withdrawal permit for public water supply. This application would include an engineering design report that considers, among other things, the effect of the proposed aquifer withdrawal on known contamination plumes/toxic sites identified within a one-mile radius of the subject property, including the National Priority List (NPL) New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination site (for which the EPA has prepared a clean-up plan)150 and Mitchel Field Air Base, 425 Merrick Avenue, Purex-

‌148 According to the EPA WaterSense “Water Efficiency Management Guide Mechanical Systems”, EPA 832-F-17-016c dated November

2017, “By design, cooling towers use significant quantities of water.”

‌149 If the test well at this location determines that a public supply well at this location would not be feasible, additional well sites would be identified and investigated. Whatever the location, the process described after identification of the public supply well connection would be the same.

‌150See https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/718470.pdf . The EPA released a Clean-up Plan in April 2024, which involves a “plan is to install underground wells and pipes in the area to remove contaminated groundwater and treat it at a water treatment facility. This would prevent people from potentially being exposed to the contaminated groundwater in the future, minimize the spread of the contaminated groundwater, and treat the groundwater to meet strict federal and state standards. The plan also requires that the groundwater is monitored and uses existing county and state restrictions to ensure that drinking water wells are not installed on site without a permit” and https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0203974, which provides the discussion outline for EPA’s public meeting held in June 2024 regarding the superfund process, the operable units and the clean-up plan for operable unit (OU) 3, which is located in the Eisenhower Park, Salisbury area, east of the subject property. Both accessed July 11, 2024.

Mitchel Field and Award Packaging Corp., which were identified on the NYSDEC Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Registry (Appendix 3.2-4).

The engineering design report would use the well characteristics identified during the test well investigation phase and include calculations of the cone of depression151 and zone of capture for the proposed production well. The report would consider the influence of the proposed well on the water bearing formation, groundwater migration, saltwater interface, nearby surface water bodies and wells. Upon submission and review, the NYSDEC would determine what, if any, additional analysis/investigation would be necessary for issuance of a permit to construct the permanent well.

Under the assumption that the test well confirms that the proposed location is appropriate for a new water supply well, H2M conducted a preliminary analysis of potential impacts to saltwater intrusion and plume migration. As an island that utilizes an underground freshwater aquifer system, there exists a natural freshwater/saltwater interface. This interface has been studied over the years, most notably by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) – with its north and south shore designations typically found along the coastlines. In general, the freshwater/saltwater interface occurs at a point of pressure equilibrium between the freshwater of the aquifer system and the saltwater of the surface water system. During periods when the aquifer system is in a “positive” pressure condition, whereby recharge exceeds withdrawal, the freshwater/saltwater interface may push outland. Similarly, when the aquifer system is in a “negative” pressure condition, the freshwater/saltwater interface may push inland. In relation to the aquifer system used for drinking water, the positive pressure condition can cause freshwater exfiltration, and the negative pressure condition can cause saline water infiltration, or saltwater intrusion A negative effect on the movement of the freshwater/saltwater interface can be due to close-proximity groundwater pumping, which creates a cone of depression and a localized negative pressure condition that can potentially draw-in saline water. Thus, in essence, the further away groundwater pumping moves from the freshwater/saltwater interface, the lower the potential to induce saltwater intrusion.

The USGS, in collaboration with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) recently completed two comprehensive scientific investigation reports related to saltwater intrusion. The first report (2024-5044) is called Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Long Island, New York Regional Aquifer System for Pumping and Recharge Conditions from 1900 to 2019. This report was based primarily on updated hydrologic and hydrogeologic modeling performed by USGS on the Long Island aquifer system. The second report (2024-5048) is called Hydrogeologic Framework and Extent of Saltwater Intrusion in Kings, Queens, and Nassau Counties, Long Island, New York. This report was based primarily on geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic, water-use and water quality data, both historic and current. These reports provide a strong understanding of the effects on and the current conditions of the freshwater/saltwater interface on both the north and south shore of Long Island. The south shore freshwater/saltwater interface is currently represented in the USGS reports as beneath Long Beach for the Magothy aquifer, which is the expected screen zone for the new well. The proposed well site is approximately 8.5 miles north of the freshwater/saltwater interface.

‌151 A depression in the water table that develops around a pumped well. NYSDEC. Glossary of Environmental Cleanup Terms. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/regulations/glossary-of-environmental-cleanup-terms#C. Accessed September 2024.

The proposed water supply well site is just northwest of the project site. Hydrologically, the well site is located south (downgradient) of the high-water table elevation represented in the USGS reports, with gradient contours indicating natural groundwater flow though the proposed well site from the middle of the island (north) towards the south shore (south-southwest). Generally (the detailed analysis of which would be conducted and further expressed as part of the engineering report for the new supply well), the water supply to the new well during pumping would be primarily contributed from the north based on the water table gradient. As such, the cone of depression for the well is expected to extend further north than south. Although the cone of depression would also extend south, it is expected to be no more than 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the site. Given the 8.5-mile distance from the current understanding of the freshwater/saltwater interface and the expected extent of the cone of depression from pumping the new well, the well is expected to have no negative impact on saltwater intrusion.

With regard to groundwater contamination plumes in the vicinity of the proposed public supply well, two further investigations and impact analysis would be conducted as part of the well application process. First, available documentation would be reviewed to understand where the plume limits are currently located and their relationship to the capture zone of the proposed well. The proposed well is currently conceptualized with advanced treatments to address solvent related contaminants typically detected in industrial plumes to be protective of public health and meet all regulatory agency requirements. For example, H2M has reviewed available PFAS information from the investigation of the New Cassel Superfund site provided by NCDPW.152 As PFAS could be a contaminant of concern for the new well, PFAS treatment has been included as part of the advanced treatment process being planned for the well. Second, as there is the possibility that the new well could influence existing plume flow, coordination would be conducted with involved regulatory agencies to identify potential impacts to currently ongoing remediation processes and address modifications that may be required to mitigate impacts, should such impacts be identified. The engineering report to be prepared as part of the permitting process for the proposed supply well would also assess safe permissible yield. This analysis would evaluate the impacts of well withdrawal on the aquifer to confirm that the proposed well would not impact the safe permissible yield of the aquifer.

To address potential contamination that could impact the new water supply well, it is anticipated that water treatment systems, based on other public supply facilities in the vicinity of the subject property, would include ion exchange for nitrate removal, air stripping for volatile organic compounds (VOC) removal, advanced oxidation for 1,4-dioxane removal, and granular activated carbon for filtering of potentially harmful chemicals.

In addition to the water supply well, a new water main is proposed to connect the new well site primarily to the UWD, with mains looping to the MFWSA mains for the purposes of eliminating dead ends and providing redundancy in emergency situations (e.g., main breaks and other service interruptions). The water supply infrastructure would be initiated, designed and constructed by Sands153 to the standards and approval of the Town of Hempstead Water

‌152 United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Record of Decision, New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Nassau County, New York." Region 2, New York, New York, March 2024

‌153 Sands has committed to funding the construction of the new well and associated facilities. However, if significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

Department and the UWD, and dedicated to the Town of Hempstead to be operated by the UWD. All water mains would be constructed in easements for accessibility and maintenance, also to be operated and maintained by the Town of Hempstead Water Department.

In addition to the above-described water infrastructure components, the water main on the subject property would be replaced, resized, and relocated as necessary to supply the proposed Integrated Resort and for water supplier accessibility, service, and maintenance.

H2M has estimated that the total cost related to the new supply well would be approximately

$18± million, with $3± million in new well construction, $10± million in treatment construction and $5± million in water main construction. Sands has committed to funding this new well.

However, if significant additional users of the well are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

Permitting for a new water supply well is anticipated to take up to two years, prior to well construction and subsequent water quality treatment system construction, based on recent experience. It is estimated the additional source capacity could be online in early 2030, consistent with the timing of the Full Build condition. There are numerous municipal agencies that would be involved in the approval and development of the new supply well, including New York State, Nassau County, and the Town of Hempstead. In addition to local governmental approvals required for well siting and water district boundaries, implementation of wellhead water treatment systems and water main extensions would require New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and NCDH review and approvals under “Application for Approval of Plans for Public Water Supply Improvements” (NYSDOH 348) and “Application for Approval of Backflow Prevention Devices” (NYSDOH 347), NYSDEC review and approval for chemical bulk storage of substances listed in 6 NYCRR Part 597 in aboveground storage tanks larger than 185 gallons, and Nassau County Fire Marshal (NCFM) review and approval for oxidizer storage permits.

In selecting a site for a new well, there are also specific requirements with respect to the well location. The primary siting requirements are established in Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. These requirements are enforced by the NYSDOH and NCDH. The NYSDEC also has additional regulations, which require that an engineering report be prepared and submitted for approval, and that a permit to drill the well be obtained, as discussed above.

Regulatory authority for supply well withdrawals is based in Article 15, Title 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), and administered through 6 NYCRR Part 601 (Water Supply Applications) and Part 602 (Long Island Wells). NYSDEC is responsible for the quantity and quality aspects of groundwater (in the environment), while NYSDOH, under Part 5 of the State Sanitary Code (noted above), is responsible for quantity and quality aspects of water from the well casing, through the treatment and distribution system, to the consumer's tap.

Withdrawal applications for public supply wells are reviewed jointly by both departments for public necessity, alternate sources, proper and safe construction, sanitary control, watershed protection, and adequacy of supply. Well permit applications, for Long Island supply wells, are based on the NYSDEC memorandum “Division of Water, Technical and Operational Guidance Series (3.2.2), Engineer’s Reports; Application for Water Supply and Long Island Well Permits.” These regulations require that a 200-foot radius around the new well be protected from potential sources of pollution, which can be accommodated at the proposed supply well location.

It is expected the new well would require primary connection to the UWD with mains looping to the MFWSA mains for the purposes of eliminating dead ends and providing redundancy in emergency situations (main breaks and other service interruptions), as noted above.

As noted above, on behalf of Sands, H2M has submitted a request letter for water availability to the Town of Hempstead Water Department on October 5, 2023 (Appendix 3.2-3). The Water Department is responsible for reviewing and approving the proposed connection to the public water supply distribution system, and it is anticipated that a determination regarding water availability would not be made until there has been a determination regarding the location of the new well and treatment facilities. To that end, H2M met with the Town of Hempstead Water Department and NCDPW with respect to the new water supply well and its potential location.

Based on the water demand analysis, there has been a long-standing water deficit in the UWD. Accordingly, under the Full Build condition, the proposed Integrated Resort could not be provided with public water until the proposed water supply well and associated infrastructure. It is anticipated that water could be provided for Phase 1 of the proposed Integrated Resort, since the Phase 1 water requirements are only slightly higher than the existing condition. As indicated above, Sands has committed to funding this new water supply well (with the potential for cost- sharing if a significant additional user(s) is identified).

During the public scoping process, the issue of potential impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with the proposed water supply well was raised. As explained in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, the issue of potential drawdown impacts from groundwater withdrawal was raised during the preparation of the 2009 DGEIS for the prior Lighthouse at Long Island project (see discussion in Section 2.3.2, Site Development and Application History, Prior Applications).

The DGEIS for the Lighthouse at Long Island explained that the East Meadow Brook in the vicinity of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange area (where traffic mitigation had been proposed for that project), has been impacted and significantly altered by development, and that the hydrology of the stream is driven by stormwater rather than groundwater influences, as follows:

A review of Figure 3.4-3 (NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands, Nassau County Map 10 of 15, Freeport Quadrangle) indicates the presence of a freshwater drainage channel, identified as East Meadow Brook (“F-1”), occurring adjacent to the subject property along the eastern boundary of the RexCorp Plaza East Parcel. This wetland area is highly compromised and primarily functions as a conduit for stormwater runoff from the surrounding urban upland following rain events…The East Meadow Brook channel is located approximately seven feet east of the southeast corner of the subject property at the nearest point, and the amount of water flowing within it varies

widely depending upon rainfall events and stormwater discharges to the system…This brook is a conduit for stormwater and has been historically altered by development in the area including the construction of Meadowbrook Parkway.

To confirm whether conditions have changed since the time of that analysis, four seasonal field inspections of the East Meadow Brook were conducted, including the section of the stream channel located to the north of Hempstead Turnpike (i.e., within the Hempstead Plains South) and from the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange southward to the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass. The field inspections occurred during the summer and winter seasons (September 14, 2023, December 14, 2023, August 6, 2024, and August 23, 2024), in order

to capture potential seasonal variations in stream hydrology. Dry stream bed conditions with no surface water flow were observed within the section of East Meadow Brook channel to the north of Hempstead Turnpike during the four field inspections. Evidence of periodic high-water events, including sediment deposits, drift lines, and drainage patterns, were observed within the dry stream channel and adjacent floodplain. To the south of Hempstead Turnpike, low-to-moderate surface water flows were observed within portions of the East Meadow Brook channel, along with similar evidence of periodic high-water events. These field observations support the earlier conclusion that the hydrology of the East Meadow Brook is controlled by stormwater rather than groundwater influences. Therefore, potential water table drawdown impacts due to groundwater withdrawal for the proposed action would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the East Meadow Brook.

Sanitary Flow/Sewage Disposal

Projected Sewage Generation

Based on the proposed program and using the NCDPW Design Sewage Flow Rates, the Integrated Resort is expected to generate a total of approximately 701,400 gpd of sewage, (Table 14), taking no credit for the existing Coliseum sewage generation. This represents an increase of approximately 604,127 gpd as compared to historical estimated design flow of approximately 97,273 gpd for the Coliseum. Similar to the water demand, the sewage generation from the Marriott Hotel would remain unchanged.

‌Table 14 Total Projected Sewage Generation from the Integrated Resort

Proposed Program			Nassau County Design Sewage Flows
Building Component	Quantity	Unit	NC Facility Category	NC Rate	Rate Unit	Flow (gpd)
Hotels	1,670	Rooms	Motel Unit ≥400 sf	150	gpd/room	250,500
Food & Beverage	3,337	Seats	Restaurant	30	gpd/seat	100,110
Retail (31,200 net sf)	55,507 154	Sf	Market	0.05	gpd/sf	2,775
Gaming (393,726 net sf)	693,922 155	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	208,177
Meeting and conference space	213,000	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	63,900
Entertainment
Performance Venue	4,500	Seats	Theater + Cafeteria	5.50	gpd/seat	24,750
Public Attraction	60,000	Sf	Country Club	0.30	gpd/sf	18,000
Support Areas	688,068	Sf	Dry Store	0.03	gpd/seat	20,642
MEP Facilities	416,874	Sf	Dry Store	0.03	gpd/sf	12,506
					Total	701,360 (Rounded to 701,400)

‌154 Total gross floor area.

‌155 Ibid.

As noted above, sanitary flow from the site is directed to the Cedar Creek WPCP, which is currently treating 63.8± mgd of sewage and operating at approximately 88.6 percent of its permitted capacity of 72 mgd. With the projected increase in sewage flow from the Integrated Resort of 701,400± gpd (0.70± mgd),156 it would increase the amount of sewage treated at the Cedar Creek WPCP from 63.8± mgd to 64.5± mgd, well within the capacity of the Cedar Creek WPCP.

Based on the projected sewage flow and the results of the flow monitoring described above, a Letter of Sewer Availability was requested from the NCDPW on April 30, 2024, based on the NCDPW Design Flow factors. In a letter dated May 10, 2024, the NCDPW indicated that there is sufficient capacity in the sewer and treatment facilities (Appendix 3.2-5).

With regard to infrastructure improvements, the most evident improvement required to accommodate sanitary flow on-site is the relocation of the 36-inch main, which traverses the site from north to south, and would service all of the facilities on the subject property, which, as noted above, was found to be feasible. Following consultation with the NCDPW, the existing connection to the 48-inch interceptor would be maintained following the on-site relocation in order to avoid construction within Hempstead Turnpike. The estimated capital cost of the sewer main relocation is $3.5 to $5.0 million, which would be borne by the Sands.

In addition, a new network of on-site sewer laterals and branches would be required throughout the subject property to accommodate the conveyance of sanitary discharges from the new facilities to the 36-inch main. Based on the proposed Site Plans in Appendix 2-2, there is ample space for installation of the pipework necessary to accommodate the anticipated flows. The cost of construction of this on-site network would also be borne by Sands.

As noted above, Sands intends to relocate the 36-inch main within a new access road to be constructed between the existing Marriott Hotel and the proposed Integrated Resort. This location would provide accessibility for maintenance as required by NCDPW.

As part of the proposed project, Sands would contribute up to $8,750,000 for General Municipal Law 239-f review by the NCDPW, which includes review of proposed sewers and sewer connections, as well as drainage/stormwater management.

Based on the foregoing, no significant adverse impacts to sewage disposal or sewer infrastructure are anticipated due to the implementation of the proposed action.

Floodplains
As the subject property is not located within a floodway, the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain, there would be no impact to or from such features, and the proposed action does not require floodproofing.

Stormwater Management

Under current conditions, the subject property has little capacity for stormwater retention and absorption on-site, due to the substantial amount of impervious surface. As part of the development of the Integrated Resort, the amount of Sands proposes to design and construct a

‌156 This figure does not take credit for the sewage flow from the existing Coliseum.

variety of new stormwater management facilities to reduce the potential for impacts to existing drainage systems, neighboring properties, and nearby waterways. The design would substantially improve the on-site stormwater management to reduce the burden to the County system and minimize future vulnerabilities from flooding events. While upgrades are proposed to be made on-site and the amount of stormwater runoff generation reduced, Sands proposes to maintain collection and conveyance to the Nassau County recharge basin and incorporate infiltration structures (catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys) into the collection and conveyance design, as described in more detail below. Stormwater management practices associated with the project, including the preparation of a SWPPP, which would be developed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001), have been designed to comply with the requirements of the Town of Hempstead (BZO Article XXXVIII, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control), as part of the Town of Hempstead 305 Site Plan review and NCDPW under New York State General Municipal Law § 239-f. The preliminary SWPPP prepared by H2M, is discussed in more detail, below.

Implementation of the proposed action would result in a decrease of impervious surface on the subject property from 78.0± acres to 70.6± acres. As such, the amount of stormwater runoff generated on-site would decrease from a volume of 1,459,516± cf to 1,344,267± cf (a reduction of close to eight percent), as noted on the Conceptual Drainage Master Plan (Appendix 2-2) and shown on Table 15 .

‌Table 15 Stormwater Generation Under the Proposed Action

Land Use	Area (sf/Acres)	Runoff Coefficient	Five-Inch Runoff Volume (cubic feet)
Building Coverage	1,122,067±/25.76±	1.0	467,528±
Parking Structures	267,193±/6.13±	1.0	111,330±
Rooftop Open Space	109,125±/2.51±	0.5	22,734±
Other Impervious Area	1,577,850±/36.22±	1.0	657,438±
Landscaped Area	681,892±/15.65±	0.3	85,237±
TOTAL	3,758,127± sf/ 86.27±	Weight C = 0.8446	1,344,267± cf

The proposed redevelopment would continue to use the existing positive drainage network on the subject property. As shown on the Overall Drainage Site Plan (Appendix 2-2), the main on- site drainage piping system runs along the proposed Sands Boulevard (north-south) and also around the western side of the proposed Integrated Resort. As part of the stormwater management system, Sands would install a total of approximately 120 12-foot diameter drywells with a cumulative effective depth of 1,865 linear feet, plus five-foot effective depth leaching galley, which amounts to 195,821 cf of storage capacity. This equates to a runoff reduction of

0.67 inches of a five-inch storm event, based on the installation of this stormwater infrastructure.

Drywells and catch basins are proposed to be located within the southwestern parking lot (at the corner of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike), and there would be new drainage overflow connections from the southwest parking lot drywell drainage system. The system would connect a new culvert (east of MSKCC) to the existing drainage chamber (and remove existing culverts) and re-route/reconstruct several existing drainage lines, as well as the re-route a box

culvert that enters the site from Earle Ovington Boulevard (near South Drive) to accommodate the proposed redevelopment.

The drainage plan also includes the installation of drywells in a portion of the southeast parking lot (near James Doolittle Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike), the northeast parking lot (at James Doolittle Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard), and a parking garage supplemental drainage system (at the northwest corner of the site) with drywells connecting into the new positive drainage conveyance system to Nassau County Basin No. 537. A new drainage chamber for connection to the existing twin pipes is proposed to be installed in the southern portion of the site, near Hempstead Turnpike and Glenn Curtiss Boulevard.

The newly updated stormwater collection system would continue to outfall into the existing Glenn Curtiss Boulevard conveyance system, and ultimately into Nassau County Basin No. 537, with an emergency overflow to East Meadow Brook (Appendix 2-2 and Appendix 3.2-6). There would be no direct discharges to any surface waters from stormwater runoff. Also see the preliminary SWPPP discussion later in this section.

The installation of numerous drywells, catch basins and leaching galleys at the subject property would promote local infiltration, and the decrease in impervious areas at the subject property would cause a corresponding reduction to the stormwater load imposed on the County basin (approximately 136,908 cf less), thereby improving an already permitted condition. In addition, the local infiltration would be increased (as described above); therefore, the runoff reduction equates to a runoff from a 1.13-inch storm event, and a reduction in the site-wide weighted runoff coefficient (weighted C) from 0.93± (Table 11) to 0.86 (Table 15). The updated stormwater management system would ensure that stormwater runoff would be properly captured and conveyed, precluding stormwater from running overland to adjacent properties or nearby surface waters.

Design measures have been incorporated to minimize stormwater runoff impacts. Both the architectural and landscape designs have incorporated low-impact development techniques that reduce the impact of stormwater runoff. These include the installation of landscaped terraces/ green roofs and gardens. Such green roofs/landscaped terraces would provide increased potential for evapotranspiration, thereby decreasing the amount of site-generated runoff.

Additionally, as described above, the site would include local infiltration through the installation of catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys. These techniques slow down the rate of runoff and allow the water to infiltrate the ground or to be captured for reuse in the proposed development.

Sands plans to use a central rainwater capture and reuse (a.k.a., rainwater harvesting) system that collects, filters and stores rainwater for reuse. The stormwater system would include the aforementioned low-impact design techniques as well as retention and treatment structures that store and filter stormwater runoff. This system would be a sustainable source of non-potable water use in the project and, therefore, would reduce the demand for potable water. This recovery and reuse system would only be for no-contact irrigation use, and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable based on consultations with the appropriate agencies of Nassau County (NCDPW and/or NCDH). The goal, subject to County approval, is to design and implement these water features as part of initial construction. Figure 11, depicts the proposed stormwater management system.

‌Figure 11 Stormwater Management System

Sands would perform regular monitoring and maintenance of the stormwater management system. This monitoring includes water quality testing, flow monitoring, and equipment maintenance. Implementing these stormwater management techniques would reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, increase water efficiency, and demonstrate a commitment to sustainable infrastructure design. The implementation of these practices, as well as reducing impervious surfaces and employing the green infrastructure technologies discussed above (increased local infiltration, green roof technology, rain harvesting), using the existing Nassau County drainage infrastructure, and preparing and implementing a SWPPP would create a more sustainable environment for the Integrated Resort, resulting in a positive impact on overall stormwater management of the subject watershed.

A preliminary SWPPP has been prepared that details the measures and best management practices to be undertaken to ensure there would be no significant off-site adverse impacts from construction-related erosion and sediment transport, as well as post-construction stormwater management (Appendix 3.2-6). The preliminary SWPPP, including erosion and sedimentation control measures, which is discussed herein and in Section 3.15.5, Construction, has been developed by H2M in accordance with the specifications set forth in the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001) and requirements of

Article XXXVIII of the Town BZO, entitled, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control, which requires that land development activities conform to the substantive requirements of NYSDEC’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. The preliminary SWPPP identifies erosion and sediment control practices designed in conformance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and post- construction stormwater management practices designed in conformance with applicable sizing criteria of the NYSDEC SPDES GP-0-20-001 and the performance criteria of the technical standards of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual and the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.

As part of the preliminary SWPPP, temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures would be installed and maintained by the general contractor (or subcontractor) in accordance with the engineering plans and details, and the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. The erosion and sediment control measures, as shown on the Overall Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in Appendix 2-2, would be installed and implemented prior to any ground disturbance on the subject property. The Overall Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shows the locations of the proposed silt fencing (around the entire perimeter of the Coliseum property), the new inlet sediment protection bags, the new curb inlet sediment bags, the concrete washout areas and the temporary soil stockpile areas, along with the temporary stabilized construction entrances.

A qualified inspector would conduct regular site inspections of all erosion and sediment control practices and pollution prevention measures, post construction stormwater management practices, areas of disturbance, points of discharge to surface waters within or immediately adjacent to the construction site, and points of discharge from the construction site.

Based on the foregoing, there would be no increase in either discharge volume or peak discharge rates from the proposed project from the 1-, 10- or 100-year storm events.

The preliminary SWPPP notes that Sands would maintain, clean, repair and continue the stormwater control measures to ensure optimum performance of the measures to design specifications. Maintenance of all permanent stormwater controls and drainage structures would be performed by Sands upon completion of construction activities, and Sands would be responsible for all expenses related to the maintenance and inspection of the stormwater control measures.

The preliminary SWPPP would be finalized for formal review by the Town of Hempstead at a later stage in the process, prior to the issuance of building permits.

Overall, to minimize the impacts related to stormwater runoff, the following measures have been incorporated into the project design:

› There would be a reduction in impervious surfaces on the subject property upon development of the proposed Integrated Resort. Local infiltration would be enhanced by the elimination of 7.4+ acres of impervious landcover.

› Stormwater runoff would be reduced and local infiltration would be increased by the strategic installation of drywells, catch basins and leaching galleys on the subject property.

› There would be continued connection to (and use of) Nassau County Recharge Basin No.

537.

› There would be no direct discharges to surface waters.

› Green roofs/landscaped terraces would be installed, which would increase the potential for evapotranspiration, thereby decreasing the amount of site-generated runoff. Sands is also planning for rainwater harvesting and re-use for irrigation purposes (if approved by the appropriate Nassau County agency [NCDPW and/or NCDH]).

› A Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared, which would become part of the SWPPP, which would be finalized in accordance with the prevailing regulations of the Town of Hempstead and the NYSDEC.

H2M has met with NCDPW to discuss stormwater management requirements and continued connection to the County recharge basin. Additionally, a letter was sent to NCDPW, dated April 3, 2024, regarding the proposed stormwater management concepts for the proposed Integrated Resort (Appendix 3.2-7). A response was received on April 3, 2024 from NCDPW indicating that the project is subject to 239-f review and approval, and that “NCDPW does concur with H2M’s assessment as it relates to NCDPW Drainage Requirements.” Furthermore,

The design criteria for the basin called for a storage volume based on a five (5) inch rainfall with ability to overflow to another positive system. This office does not object to a continuation of this condition as part of the proposed redevelopment. It is also understood that the proposed redevelopment will include stormwater management practices that will reduce as well as improve water quality of the runoff from the site. (Appendix 3.2-7).

Implementation of the proposed stormwater management system and design measures described above would result in a project that conforms to prevailing regulations described above, and would not result in significant adverse stormwater impacts. By reducing impervious surfaces and employing the water conservation and green infrastructure technologies discussed above (e.g., increased local infiltration, green roofs, rainwater capture, use of low-flow fixtures), implementation of the proposed action is expected to have a positive impact on the overall water use and stormwater management within the subject watershed.

Surface Water
As no natural surface waters were identified on or directly adjacent to the subject property, and no direct discharge to surface waters are proposed, implementation of the proposed project would not impact such resources.

‌Proposed Mitigation
A number of measures have been incorporated into the project design to minimize the impacts related to water use, sewage disposal and stormwater runoff impacts.
› A new 1.98 mgd water supply well, associated treatment systems, backup power generation, and transmission water mains would be constructed to support the Full Build-out of the Integrated Resort, which is expected to have a water demand of approximately 0.763 mgd during the growing season. Construction of the new well would result in a benefit to the greater community by increasing the capacity and resiliency of the public water supply in the UWD. Sands has committed to funding this new well and associated facilities. However, if significant additional users of the well are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

› Water conservation techniques, including the use of Energy-Star appliances and installation of high-efficiency water-conserving fixtures would be incorporated into the project design.
› The Integrated Resort would not use cooling towers for air conditioning heat rejection (which utilizes substantial amounts of water), representing a significant water conservation measure.
› There would be a reduction in the amount of impervious surface on the site by approximately 7.4 acres.
› Implementation of the proposed action would result in reduction in stormwater runoff and its impacts on Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537 by increasing local infiltration by the strategic installation of drywells, catch basins and leaching galleys on the subject property.
› Use of a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters and stores rainwater for reuse. This system (for no-contact irrigation use and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable to NCDPW and/or NCDH) would be a sustainable source of non-potable water use in the project and, therefore, would reduce the demand for potable water.
› Use of low-impact development techniques that reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, including green roofs/landscaped terraces and various landscaping areas and gardens. Such green roofs/landscaped terraces would provide increased potential for evapotranspiration, thereby decreasing the amount of site-generated runoff. Use of these techniques slows down the rate of runoff and allows the water to infiltrate the ground or to be captured for reuse in the proposed development.
› Sands would include regular monitoring and maintenance of the stormwater management system. This monitoring includes water quality testing, flow monitoring, and equipment maintenance, which would reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, increase water efficiency, and demonstrate a commitment to sustainable infrastructure design.
› No direct discharges of stormwater runoff to surface waters would occur.
› Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures would be installed and maintained by the general contractor (or subcontractor) in accordance with the engineering plans and details, and the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.
› A preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and a final SWPPP would be developed in accordance with the prevailing regulations of the NYSDEC and the Town of Hempstead to address potential stormwater runoff impacts during and post construction.

‌Ecological Resources

‌Existing Conditions

Existing ecological conditions at the subject property and vicinity were assessed through desktop review of government and non-government agency maps, databases, and records, as noted throughout the text, as well as seasonal field surveys of the subject property and surrounding areas conducted by a Certified Ecologist (Ecological Society of America) and Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists) on September 14, 2023, December 14, 2023,

August 6, 2024, and August 23, 2024.

Habitats and Vegetation

As observed during VHB’s ecological field surveys, the vast majority of the subject property is developed with the Coliseum, Marriott Hotel, and associated paved parking lots. The subject property contains approximately 78 acres of impervious surfaces (90.4± percent of the existing site) and approximately 8.3 acres of landscaped areas (9.6± percent of the existing site), located primarily along road frontages, fence lines, and within a series of vegetated islands situated in the pedestrian areas surrounding the Coliseum and the foundation of the Marriott Hotel. These areas contain planted ornamental vegetation consisting of various species of trees, shrubs, and maintained turf grasses that are commonly installed as landscape plantings. The paved parking lots on the subject property are largely unvegetated, with flora limited to various pioneering vegetative species growing within pavement cracks and along fence lines.

In order to further characterize the observed site conditions described above, the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) publication Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition (ECNYS) was consulted. This guidance document provides detailed descriptions, global and state rarity rankings, and geographic distributions for many habitats found within New York. Using ECNYS, five ecological communities were identified at the subject property during the field survey, as detailed in Table 16 below and shown in Figure 12 .

‌Table 16 Existing Ecological Communities

ECNYS Community	Global/NYS Rarity Ranking	Community Distribution
Paved Road/Path	Unranked Cultural Community	Throughout NYS
Urban Structure Exterior	Unranked Cultural Community	Throughout NYS
Mowed Lawn	Unranked Cultural Community	Throughout NYS
Mowed Lawn with Trees	Unranked Cultural Community	Throughout NYS
Flower/Herb Garden	Unranked Cultural Community	Throughout NYS

Figure 12: Ecological Communities

Sands New York Integrated Resort

Charles Lindbergh

Boulevard

mes Doolittle

Boulevard

Earle

vington Boulevard

erimeter

Road

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

enna Place

Parkway

Avenue

Wal

nningham Avenue

Gilroy Avenue

on Avenue

Marvin

oul

lenn Curtiss B

niondale

venue

Hempstead Turnpike

0 400 Feet

Subject Property Ecological Communities

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, Nearmap

Flower / Herb Garden

Mowed Lawn / Mowed Lawn with Trees Urban Structure Exterior

Paved Road / Path

Significantly, all of the ecological communities that occur at the subject property have not been assigned rarity rankings by the NYNHP. Instead, they are designated by the NYNHP as unranked cultural communities, due to their artificial origins, disturbed/developed conditions, and/or wide distribution throughout New York. Moreover, based on qualitative field observations of various key ecological indicators, including overall degree of disturbance, vegetative community structure, species diversity, non-native/invasive species abundance, wildlife habitat value, and other relevant factors, the five ecological communities identified at the subject property do not provide a significant degree of vegetated habitat or associated functional benefits.

The following descriptions are based upon their respective ECNYS community definitions and are supplemented with qualitative habitat and vegetative species evaluations.

The ECNYS Paved Road/Path and Urban Structure Exterior communities describe the paved surfaces and built structures that occur across the majority of the subject property, respectively. Vegetation is limited to weedy herbaceous plants that occur within pavement cracks and along the edges of paved surfaces, including the non-native/invasive species Mugwort (Artemesia vulgaris). The two largely unvegetated cultural communities do not function as substantial habitat areas for plants and most wildlife, and, therefore, are insignificant from an ecological perspective.

The landscaped areas at the subject property are described by the ECNYS Mowed Lawn, Mowed Lawn with Trees, and Flower/Herb Garden communities. The Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Trees communities include all areas that have been planted with turf grasses, either with or without landscape trees, and ornamental shrubs. The Mowed Lawn community is defined in ECNYS as:

Residential, recreational, or commercial land, or unpaved airport runways in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and there is less than 30% cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing and broadleaf herbicide application.

The Mowed Lawn with Trees community is defined in ECNYS as:

Residential, recreational, or commercial land in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and forbs, and is shaded by at least 30% cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing and broadleaf herbicide application.

As observed during the field survey, Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Trees communities occur at various locations throughout the subject property, including within parking lot islands and borders, and adjacent to buildings. These areas are subject to regular mowing, pruning, and other landscaping practices. The observed trees include street tree species that are commonly planted in urban and suburban areas and other developed settings, including Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), Japanese Zelkova (Zelkova serrata), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), River Birch (Betula nigra), Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), and non-native/invasive Norway Maple (Acer plantanoides). The groundcover layer is dominated by common turf grass species, including Bluegrasses (Poa spp.), Ryegrasses (Lolium spp.), Fescues (Festuca spp.), and Crabgrasses (Digitaria spp.), as well as common “weedy” herbaceous plants.

The Flower/Herb Garden community encompasses the ornamental landscaped areas adjacent to the Marriott Hotel building. This area is characterized by ECNYS as:

Residential, commercial, or horticultural land cultivated for the production of ornamental herbs and shrubs. This community includes gardens cultivated for the production of culinary herbs.

As observed during the field survey, this community consists of flower and shrub beds that have been installed to enhance the aesthetic appearance of areas that are otherwise dominated by unvegetated conditions, such as the area surrounding the Marriott Hotel building. The observed species within this ecological community include ornamental shrubs such as Euonymus (Euonymus sp.), Yew (Taxus spp.), Hydrangea (Hydrangea spp.) and others, as well as annual herbaceous plants that are installed seasonally during the growing season.

The three landscaped ecological communities described above are artificially created and maintained areas composed of fragmented habitats that support a low-diversity flora of common turf grasses, ornament trees and shrubs, and annual flowering plants. As the three communities represent the only vegetated habitats within an area that is otherwise dominated by pavement and buildings, they provide a minimum degree of vegetated habitat functional benefits. However, due to low species diversity and the overall scarcity of vegetation, as well as the absence of naturally vegetated communities and native plant associations, the subject property is not a locally or regionally significant source of vegetated habitats.

An inventory of the vegetative species identified at the subject property during the field survey is included in Appendix 3.3-1.

Wildlife
Considering the existing cultural habitat conditions and scarcity of vegetated habitats described above, as well the subject property’s location within a largely developed and densely populated portion of central Nassau County, the subject property is not a significant source of wildlife habitat, and the observed and expected wildlife fauna at the subject property is comprised primarily of a limited number of species adapted to disturbed/developed conditions and high levels of human presence and activity.
Birds are the most commonly observed and expected form of wildlife at the subject property. A total of 10 bird species were observed (e.g., seen and/or heard) at or over the subject property during the field survey. The majority of the observed species are songbirds and similar species commonly associated with developed and landscaped habitats in suburban settings Appendix 3.3-1. Seasonal species richness at the subject property is likely highest during the spring and early autumn, when warblers and other migratory birds move through the area.
To investigate other avian species that may occur at the subject property, the 2000-2005 NYS Breeding Bird Atlas (NYSBBA) was reviewed.157 The subject property is located within NYSBBA Block 6150A, an approximately nine-square-mile survey block that is roughly bounded by Stewart Avenue to the north, Westminster Road to the west, the Southern State Parkway to the south, and the Meadowbrook State Parkway to the east. This data is included in Appendix 3.3-1.

‌157 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html. Accessed September 2023.

A total of 48 bird species were identified between 2020 and 2023 within NYSBBA Block 6150A (Freeport NW). Of these species, 29 were confirmed as breeding, 14 are listed as probable breeders, and 5 are listed as possibly breeding within Block 6150A. It is important to note that, in contrast to the developed and largely unvegetated conditions that characterize the subject property, New York State Breeding Bird Atlas Block 6150A includes a number of undeveloped, naturally vegetated community types that do not occur at the subject property, including native grasslands, woodlands, and wetland/surface water habitats. Therefore, the number of avian species that were observed or are expected to occur at the subject property with regularity are substantially lower than the number of species that have been documented within Block #6150A. Bird species obligately associated with the aforementioned natural habitats are not expected to occur at the subject property, except perhaps as transient visitors or during migratory stopovers. As a result, avian species richness at the subject property is significantly lower than that of Block #6150A overall. Within the limited vegetated areas, viable avian habitat opportunities occur most often in association with trees located within parking lot islands and adjacent to internal roadways, which provide perching, foraging and and/or nesting habitat opportunities for resident birds.
No mammal species were observed onsite during the field survey. A limited number of mammals are expected, including species adapted to developed conditions and high levels of human presence including squirrels, Norway rat, and several other small rodent species.
Due to the prevalence of largely unvegetated and impervious conditions, its location within a densely developed area, and a lack of permanent or semi-permanent surface water habitats, the subject property does not provide habitat area for herpetofauna (amphibian and reptiles), and none are expected to occur on site.
In summary, the subject property is located within a largely developed and densely populated portion of central Nassau County and is characterized by developed conditions, with the vast majority of the site consisting of unvegetated impervious surfaces. Vegetated habitat is limited to fragmented patches of landscaping that have been installed in association with site development. Based on these factors, the observed and expected wildlife fauna described above is comprised of a limited number of species adapted to disturbed/developed conditions and high levels of human presence and activity.

Rare/Protected Species

No federal or New York State listed species or species habitats were observed at the subject property during the field survey. As detailed below, due to largely unvegetated and developed conditions, as well as the subject property’s location within a densely populated portion of Nassau County characterized by high levels of human presence and activity, the subject property does not provide potential habitat for federal or New York State listed species known to occur regionally.

The federal Endangered Species Act provides for the protection of federally designated Endangered and Threatened species and the habitats on which these species depend for survival. Project reviews under the federal Endangered Species Act are administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For projects that are carried

out by federal agencies or that include federal funding, permits, or approvals, project reviews are conducted under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act.

New York State Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern wildlife species are listed in 6 NYCRR Part 182, which prohibits the taking, import, transport, possession, or selling of these species. Taking is further defined in the regulations to include not only the direct killing of listed species, but also actions that are expected to result in harm to individuals, including adverse impacts to habitats occupied by listed species. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182.8, consultations and potential permitting with the NYSDEC are required for any action that might result in incidental take of Endangered or Threatened wildlife species.

Listed plants in New York State are divided into four categories (Endangered, Threatened, Rare, and Exploitably Vulnerable) that are protected under the Protected Native Plants Program and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR 193.3). Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 193.3(e), it is a violation to remove, cut or otherwise damage listed plants without the permission of the landowner.

Desktop reviews of rare/protected species and community records included the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Environmental Resource Mapper and Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Mapper databases, and site-specific correspondence from the NYNHP (see Appendix 3.3-1).

The USFWS IPaC Resources List158 includes one federally listed plant, three animal species and one insect listed as a Candidate species that are known to occur in the general region of the subject property, and, therefore, have the potential to occur at the subject property, if suitable species habitat exists. The inclusion of species on the IPaC list for a particular site does not necessarily indicate the actual presence of the species on or near the site. According to the IPaC resources list:

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence for species are also considered…Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. 159

A summary of the USFWS IPaC federally listed species is provided in Table 17 .

‌158 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information Planning and Consultation Online System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Accessed August 2021.

‌159 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information Planning and Consultation Online System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Accessed June 2023.

‌Table 17 USFWS IPaC Species

Scientific Name

Common Name

Listing 1

Habitat 2, 3

Field Survey/Desktop Review Results

Agalinus acuta

Sandplain Gerardia

Federal (E) NYS (E)

Native grasslands with sandy, nutrient-poor soils.

Species not observed.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

No NYNHP species records exist.

Charadrius melodus

Piping Plover

Federal (T) NYS (T)

Annual migrant that breeds and forages during spring and summer on sandy coastal beaches.

Species not observed.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

No NYNHP species records exist.

Calidris canutus rufa

Red Knot

Federal (T) NYS (T)

Uncommon, transient visitor to sandy coastal beaches during migratory stopovers.

Species not observed.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

No NYNHP species records exist.

Myotis Septentrionalis

Northern Long- eared Bat

Federal (E) NYS (E)

Summer roost habitat includes live trees or snags (standing dead trees) ≥3 inches diameter, with exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities.

Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas) are unsuitable habitat.4 According to the EAF Mapper and NYNHP

correspondence, the subject property does not occur in occupied species habitat.

Danaus plexippus

Monarch Butterfly

Federal C

Adults lay eggs and larvae feed on obligate Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) host plants.

Species not observed.

Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) host plants do not occur at the subject property.

1 E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate Species

2 New York Natural Heritage Program. Online Conservation Guides. Available at: https://guides.nynhp.org/ Accessed February 2024.

3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Long Island Recovery Efforts. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/lirecovery.htm Accessed February 2024.

4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Range-Wide Indianan Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines.

As summarized in Table 17 based on site-specific field observations, suitable habitat for Sandplain Gerardia (Agalinus acuta), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and Red Knot (Calidris

canutus rufa), does not occur at the subject property, and there are currently no NYNHP records of these species for the subject property or in its vicinity.

Summer roost habitat for Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) includes live trees or snags (standing dead trees) that are three inches diameter or greater and have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities. However, according to the USFWS Northern Long-eared bat survey guidelines, unsuitable habitat for Northern Long-eared Bat includes “Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas).”160 Furthermore, according to the USFWS Final Listing for Northern Long-eared Bat, activities that are unlikely to result in “take” (e.g., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) of this species include “tree removal that occurs at any time of year in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas).” 161 Based on the above USFWS guidance, the street trees and developed conditions at the subject property render it unsuitable for Northern Long-eared bat summer roost habitat. Moreover, according to the NYSDEC EAF Mapper and NYNHP correspondence, the subject property does not occur within occupied Northern Long-eared Bat habitat.

As a Candidate Species, Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) does not have a federal listing status and is currently not proposed for federal listing.162 The Monarch Butterfly’s common milkweed host plants were not observed within the landscaped vegetation that occurs at the subject property. Other flowering plants at the subject property are potential feeding habitat for Monarch Butterfly adults. However, given the limited vegetation and lack of species host plants, the subject property does not represent a significant habitat for Monarch Butterfly.

Regarding New York State records, according to the EAF Mapper summary report and NYNHP correspondence for the subject property, records for five rare/protected species exist for the vicinity of the subject property. A summary of the five species records is provided in Table 18 .

‌Table 18 New York State Species Records

Scientific Name

Common Name

Listing 1

Habitat 2

Field Survey Results

Bartramia longicauda

Upland Sandpiper

Federal (NL) NYS (T)

Obligate bird species of native grasslands (including the Hempstead Plains grasslands).

Species not observed.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

Callophrys irus

Frosted Elfin

Federal (NL) NYS (T)

On Long Island, Frosted Elfin butterfly occurs in woodland or shrubby habitats that include the species

host plant Wild Indigo (Baptisia spp.).

Species host plants not observed at the subject property.

‌160 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Range-Wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines (2023).

‌161 87 FR 73488. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat (November 30, 2022).

‌162 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Monarch Butterfly. Available at: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/7XA476NVZVBWZG4N2HKVICN5QY/resources. Accessed August 2023.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Listing 1

Habitat 2

Field Survey Results

Scleria pauciflora

Few- flowered Nut Sedge

Federal (NL) NYS (E)

Disturbed open grasslands and along sand roads within pitch pine-oak forest or pitch pine scrub oak barrens. Historical records exist from the Hempstead Plains grasslands.

Species not observed.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

Desmodium ciliare

Hairy Small- leaved Tick Trefoil

Federal (NL) NYS (T)

Dry, open habitats, including oak openings, and roadsides within

pitch-pine forests, and sandy or rocky summit grasslands.

Species not observed.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

Datana ranaeceps

A Hand- maid Moth

Federal (NL) NYS (NL)

Xeric pinelands. In New York State, this moth species has been documented in a degraded remnant of a Hempstead Plains grassland.

Species habitat does not occur at the subject property.

1 E = Endangered T = Threatened NL = Not Listed

2 New York Natural Heritage Program. Online Conservation Guides. Available at: https://guides.nynhp.org/ Accessed February 2024.

As summarized in Table 18, habitat for the five New York State rare/protected species does not occur at the subject property. The confirmed sources for the five records are the Hempstead Plains Grassland, where suitable species habitats occur.

The Hempstead Plains Grassland Significant Natural Community is noted in the NYNHP letter (Appendix 3.3-1). The Hempstead Plains Grassland does not occur at or adjacent to the subject property, but occurs beyond James Doolittle Boulevard to the east of the subject property, and to the north-northeast within NCC, beyond Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. A discussion of the Hempstead Plains Grassland is provided in Section 3.3.2.3, Hempstead Plains, below.

In summary, the subject property does not provide habitat for the Endangered, Threatened, or rare plant or wildlife species, know to occur locally or regionally, nor does it contain or directly adjoin any Significant Natural Communities, including the Hempstead Plains Grasslands.

Wetlands and Surface Waters
Wetlands or surface waters were not observed at or directly adjoining the subject property during the field survey.
Based upon a review of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, as well the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper and EAF Mapper databases, the subject property does not contain any wetlands or surface waters, nor is the subject property located within 500 feet of any such feature (Figure 13). The nearest NYSDEC-regulated wetlands are located along the Meadowbrook State Parkway (East Meadow Brook), near the easternmost boundary of the Hempstead Plains South. These wetland features are separated from the subject property by paved roadways and large transportation corridors and are located over 500 linear feet from the subject property. As a result, the subject property neither contains nor directly adjoins any wetlands or regulated wetland buffer areas.

Figure 13: Wetlands
Sands New York Integrated Resort

d

mete

Ave

East Rd

Ellington A

ilroad Av

e

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Merrick

r d

R

West Rd

le

s Lind

be

rg

h B

a

R

Miller Ave

7th St

lvd

5th St

Davis Ave

Nassau Community College

dbergh Blvd

Ave

Char

Mitchel County Park
Meadowbrook Park

D

om

Ovington

e

Bl

Earl

vd

H

empste

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Gle

nn

Curt

iss

Manor Pkwy

M

d

e R

Hofstra University

Blvd

Gilroy Ave

errick Ave

Hempstead Tpke

Kellenberg Memorial High School

Walton Ave

Marvin Ave

Laclede Ave

Fron

t St

Front St

n St

Tulsa St

Braxto

N
Ham

St

l

St

0 800 Feet

Subject Property
State Regulated Freshwater Wetlands

* Boundaries are approximate
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond
Riverine

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, USDA, NYSDEC, USEPA

Hempstead Plains

The Hempstead Plains are a grassland community located in central Nassau County that is a remnant of a much larger native grassland prairie that once occurred across central Nassau County.163 The Hempstead Plains do not occur at or adjacent to the subject property, but occur beyond James Doolittle Boulevard to the east of the subject property, and to the north-northeast within NCC, beyond Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.. Due to the absence of grasslands or other suitable habitat on the subject property, none of the rare/protected species associated with this community (as described below) were observed or are expected to occur at the subject property. As such, the summary of the Hempstead Plains provided below is included for informational purposes only, since it is recognized that this rare community occurs in the vicinity of the subject property..

The Hempstead Plains Grassland community is described in ECNYS as:

A tall grassland community that occurs on rolling outwash plains in west-central Long Island. This community occurs inland, beyond the influence of offshore winds and salt spray.

Historically this community covered approximately 38,000 acres (15,400 ha) of western Long Island; less than 30 acres (12 ha) remain today, and most of these are severely degraded.

The Hempstead Plains are designated by the NYNHP as a Significant Natural Community. The Significant Natural Community designation has been developed by the NYNHP to identify specific natural communities that are either considered rare in New York State or because the community is considered to be a high-quality example of an otherwise common community that meets specific, documented criteria for State significance in terms of size, undisturbed/intact condition, and the quality of the surrounding landscape. The Significant Natural Community designation was developed for informational and planning purposes and does not carry any regulatory protections (either New York State or federal).

The Hempstead Plains are comprised of two non-adjoining properties. The 19±-acre property located on the NCC campus (the “Hempstead Plains North”) is actively managed by the Friends of Hempstead Plains at Nassau Community College, Inc., which constructed an educational center in a small area at the southern portion of the site.164 The 26± acres of the Francis T. Purcell Preserve (the “Hempstead Plains South” or the “Purcell Preserve”), is owned by Nassau County.

The Friends of Hempstead Plains at Nassau Community College, Inc. began a restoration project of the Hempstead Plains South in 2018. Although not part of the Hempstead Plains South, two additional undeveloped Nassau County-owned parcels totaling 42± acres that are located to the west of the Meadowbrook State Parkway adjoin the Hempstead Plains South to the east (the “Eastern Parcels”). The Eastern Parcels are predominantly wooded but also contain fragmented grassland habitats located along foot trails within the woodlands.

NYSDEC/NYNHP records for the Hempstead Plains North, Hempstead Plains South, and the Eastern Parcels include two animal species and twelve plant species that are listed as either

‌163 Friends of Hempstead Plains. About the Plains. Available at: http://friendsofhp.org/friends-plains.htm l. Accessed June 2024.

‌164 According to http://friendsofhp.org/friends-plains.htm l, Friends of Hempstead Plains at Nassau Community College, Inc., is dedicated to the protection, preservation, restoration and management of approximately 19 acres of College-owned land known as the Hempstead Plains through sustained and planned stewardship for educational purposes. The site is part of a 65±-acre remnant of the Hempstead Plains, the remainder of which is located between James Doolittle Boulevard and the Meadowbrook State Parkway, south of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.

Threatened or Endangered in New York State (one plant species is also listed as federally Endangered), as summarized in Appendix 3.3-1. Due to the absence of grasslands or other suitable habitat on the subject property, none of the rare/protected species associated with Hempstead Plains were observed or are expected to occur at the subject property.

As noted during VHB’s ecological field survey, despite the prevalence of native grassland plants at the Hempstead Plains North and the Hempstead Plains South, non-native invasive plant species such as Mugwort, Asian Bush Clover (Lespedeza cuneata), Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and others are present at both properties and occur as dominant species in some areas.

Under existing conditions, the Marriott property hotel building casts afternoon shadows onto the Hempstead Plains, affecting the northwestern border of the preserve. An analysis of existing and potential future impacts to the Hempstead Plains from shadows is provided in Section 3.3.2.3, Hempstead Plains and in Appendix 3.3-2. Table 19 below details the existing shadow impact duration on the Hempstead Plains from the Marriott Hotel building.

‌Table 19 Existing Shadow Impact Duration on Hempstead Plains

Analysis Day	Shadow Period	Maximum Length of Impact (Hours per Day)
December 21 (Winter Solstice)	Start: 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. End: 4:30 p.m.	3.5± hours
June 21 (Summer Solstice)	Start: 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. End: 8:28 p.m.	3.5± hours
March 21/September 21 (Vernal/Autumnal Equinox)	Start: 4:00 – 5:00 p.m. March 21 End: 7:07 p.m. September 21 End: 6:53 p.m.	3± hours
May 6/August 6 (Halfway Between Summer Solstice and the Equinoxes)	Start: 6:00 – 6:00 p.m. May 6 End: 7:55 p.m. August 6 End: 8:04 p.m.	3± hours

‌Potential Impacts

Habitats, Vegetation and Wildlife
The primary impact of the proposed action on habitats, vegetation, and wildlife would be removal and replacement of the existing unvegetated/impervious surfaces at the subject property due to redevelopment of the site. As detailed in Table 25, implementation of the proposed action would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces from 78± acres (90.4 percent of the site) to 70.6± acres (82 percent of the site), with a corresponding increase in pervious/vegetated coverage from 8.3± acres (9.6 percent of the site) to 15.7± acres (18.2 percent of the site). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in an approximately seven-acre increase in vegetated habitat at the subject property.
As summarized in Section 3.3.1.1, Habitats and Vegetation, the subject property is characterized by development, with the vast majority of the site consisting of unvegetated impervious surfaces. Vegetated habitat is limited to fragmented patches of landscaping that support a low-diversity

flora of common turf grasses, ornamental trees and shrubs, and annual flowering plants, as defined by the ECNYS Mowed Lawn, Mowed Lawn with Trees, and Flower/Herb Garden communities. The subject property does not support naturally vegetated communities or native plant associations and is not a locally or regionally significant source of vegetated communities, associated habitat functional benefits, or wildlife habitat opportunities. By comparison, the proposed 15.7± acres of vegetated areas to be installed under the proposed action would consist of a greater variety of habitat types characterized by high species diversity, including meadow habitats planted with native herbaceous plants and grasses, vegetated public parks, plazas, and gardens, as well as parking lot islands/borders, medians, shaded planters, and streetscapes planted with native trees, shrubs, forbs (e.g., all herbaceous plants with the exception of grasses), and no-mow grasses. Additionally, the proposed action includes the installation of terraced landscaping/ green rooftop open space. As such, the proposed action would result in the introduction of ecological communities that do not currently occur at the subject property and would substantially increase the abundance and diversity of native vegetation, as compared to exiting conditions.
Specifically, as detailed on the proposed landscape plan, dated March 15, 2024 (Appendix 3.3- 3), native trees to be planted within the various vegetated habitat types to occur throughout the subject property include Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis), Pitch Pine (Pinus rigida), Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus), Gray Birch (Betula populifolia), Serviceberry (Amelanchier x Grandiflora), Red Maple (Acre rubrum), Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Pin Oak (Quercus palustris), Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor).
The meadow habitats to be installed along northern and southern site perimeters and at other locations within the central portions of the subject property would consist of communities of native grasses, forbs, and flowering perennials, interspersed with communities dominated by no mow Fescue grasses (Festuca spp.), to form a patchwork mosaic of early successional habitats.
Scattered trees and shrubs, including the native species listed above, would be installed within both communities, and low-growing Inkberry (Ilex glabra) hedge borders would occur between the two communities. Native grasses, forbs, and shrubs within the two meadow communities would include Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pensylvanica), Early Goldenrod (Solidago juncea), Prairie Blazing Star (Liatris Pycnostachya), Butterfly Weed (Asclepias tuberosa), Purple Cone Flower (Echinacea pallida), Blue-wood Aster (Symphyotrichum cordifolium, and Bloodtwig Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea).
The creation of the meadow habitats described above would introduce the ECNYS Successional Old Field community to the subject property, which is a community that describes meadows dominated by forbs and grasses that occur on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed for development, farming, or other purposes, and then abandoned. It is anticipated that the introduction of this community and its resident flora to the subject property would attract a variety of pollinator species (e.g., butterflies, bees, hummingbirds, and other organisms that move pollen between flowering plants, thereby facilitating plant reproduction and biodiversity) that do not currently occur at the subject property or occur with low frequency or density due to the paucity of existing vegetated habitat. It is further anticipated that the introduction of meadow habitats would attract many bird species that currently do not occur at the subject property due to unavailability of suitable habitat, including birds adapted to grasslands and similar early successional habitats. Significantly, the meadow habitats include

plant species that occur commonly within the nearby Hempstead Plains grassland community, including Little Bluestem, Goldenrods, Butterfly Weed, Purple Cone Flower, Asters, and others. As compared to existing conditions, the proposed meadow communities would increase habitat availability for several small mammal species that occur in the area of the subject property, including Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Other proposed vegetated habitats include streetscapes, parking lot islands/borders, and street medians to be installed throughout the subject property and planted with numerous native trees. The ground level flora beneath the trees would be planted with the native shrubs, forbs, and grasses including native Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), Bloodtwig Dogwood, Fragrant Sumac (Rhus aromatica), Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pensylvanica), Little Bluestem, and Northern Prairie Dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepsis).
The creation of the habitats described above would provide substantial new acreage of native plant-dominated habitats with associated wildlife habitat opportunities, particularly for pollinator species and birds. With respect to birds in particular, within the limited vegetated areas that currently exist on the subject property, viable avian habitat opportunities are restricted primarily to trees, which provide perching, foraging and and/or nesting habitat opportunities for resident birds. Therefore, the proposed significant increase in the number and variety of trees proposed would result in substantial increase in the availability of perching, foraging and and/or nesting habitat for both migratory and non-migratory bird species.
The installation of low growing shrubs and forbs and no mow grasses throughout the subject property instead of high maintenance turf grasses that require regular mowing, fertilizer, and pesticide/herbicide applications, represents a significant departure from traditional landscape practices that would result in substantial ecological benefits to wildlife, as well as air quality and groundwater improvements. Additionally, as part of the landscaping plan no ecocides or neonicotinoids would be used as part of the proposed action.
As noted above, the proposed landscape plan is composed of native and native-adaptive plant species that would provide various habitat improvements and wildlife benefits, both at the subject property and beyond. Significantly, the landscape plan does not include any non- native/invasive species included on the New York State Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Plants list.165 As such, to the extent that seed dispersal from the landscaped areas to off-site vegetated habitats via wind, birds, or other wildlife transpires, colonization by non-native/invasive plants would not result.
As noted during VHB’s ecological field survey, despite the prevalence of native grassland plants at the Hempstead Plains North and the Hempstead Plains South, non-native/invasive plant species such as Mugwort, Asian Bush Clover, Spotted Knapweed, Multiflora Rose, Japanese Honeysuckle, and others are present or even dominant within portions of both properties. Such occurrences present ongoing management concerns for the Hempstead Plains. Significantly, any potential seed dispersal from the proposed landscaping to the two Hempstead Plains properties would occur primarily through wind dispersal of seeds from the proposed native grasses and forbs to be installed within the landscaped habitats, including the proposed substantial acreage of meadow habitat. Given that the meadow habitats and other landscaped habitats would be

‌165 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS department of Agriculture and Markets. 2014. New York State Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Plants

composed of many characteristic grassland plants of the Hempstead Plains community, including Little Bluestem, Crinkled Hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), Goldenrods, Butterfly Weed, Rough Blazing Star (Liatris pycnostachya), Purple Cone Flower, Asters, and others, any potential impacts from seed dispersal may serve to increase native plant abundance within the Hempstead Plains and would not exacerbate exiting non-native invasive species issues and associated management concerns. Additionally, it is expected that the anticipated increase in pollinator birds and insects at the subject property resulting from the quantitative expansion of meadow habitats and native flowering plant abundance would expand the use of the Hempstead Plains and other vegetated habitats in the surrounding area by these species.
With respect to potential impacts to resident wildlife during construction due to habitat disturbance and displacement, it is noteworthy that many factors influence wildlife population densities other than habitat availability, including development and other human disturbances, disease, parasites, predation, and other factors. One or more of these limiting factors could lower the theoretical carrying capacity of a habitat. As detailed previously, the subject property is located within a largely developed and densely populated portion of central Nassau County and is characterized by developed conditions, with the vast majority of the site consisting of unvegetated impervious surfaces. Vegetated habitat is limited to fragmented patches of landscaping that have been installed in association with site development. Based on these factors, the availability of viable habitat for wildlife is well below the theoretical carrying capacity of the subject property, and the observed and expected wildlife fauna include a limited number of avian species adapted to disturbed/developed conditions and high levels of human presence and activity.
Notwithstanding the above, in the short-term, it is anticipated that properties in the general surrounding area of the subject property would experience a temporary increase in wildlife populations during clearing, grading, and construction activities associated with the proposed action. Subsequently, it is anticipated that inter- and intra-specific competition for available resources within these habitats would result in a net decrease in local population size for most species, until equilibrium between wildlife populations and available resources is achieved. Given that the availability of vegetated habitat at the subject property would increase by over seven acres as compared to existing conditions, and taking into account the substantial qualitative improvements to vegetated habitat that would occur under the proposed action, it is anticipated that population sizes of most resident wildlife species at the subject property would increase following construction.
Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration provides detailed analyses of existing noise levels at the subject property and surrounding area, as well as projected noise levels during construction activities. As summarized in Section 3.7, the existing noise environment for the subject property and nearby receptors, including the Hempstead Plains South, includes sound levels from vehicular traffic on the Meadowbrook State Parkway, Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and other local roadways, as well as noise from the surrounding commercial, institutional activities, and residential development that have characterized the subject property and surrounding areas for 50+ years. As such, the current wildlife fauna of the Hempstead Plains exists within an environment with high ambient noise levels from surrounding roadways and dense development.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in sound levels to nearby receptors, including the Hempstead Plains South, due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction. The temporary noise impacts would cease upon completion of construction activities. To minimize noise impacts to surrounding receptors, a Construction Management Plan would also be developed to facilitate compliance with applicable noise regulations. Where possible, construction equipment would be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible, including the Hempstead Plains South. Also, perimeter construction fencing and hoarding walls would be installed around the locations of construction activities at the subject property. Both of these fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding areas. Based on these mitigation measures, and taking into account that the existing wildlife fauna of the Hempstead Plains is adapted to high ambient noise levels from surrounding roadways and dense development, no significant adverse impacts to wildlife due to temporary construction-related noise levels are anticipated.
With respect to potential fugitive dust emissions, as detailed in Section 3.15, Construction, the SWPPP to be implemented during construction would include a dust control and watering plan to prevent dust from impacting the Hempstead Plains and other surrounding areas. The dust control and watering plan would include various dust suppression measures for trucks used for the transport of construction materials and equipment, diesel equipment reduction, use of ultra- low sulfur diesel fuel, restrictions on vehicle idling, and siting of large dust emissions sources and activities away from the Hempstead Plains and other sensitive receptors to the extent practicable. Accordingly, no significant adverse impacts to the Hempstead Plains and its resident fauna are anticipated due to construction-related fugitive dust are anticipated.

Birds Collision Potential
Buildings, especially those with expansive glass facades and excess lighting, possess potential to negatively impact bird populations by posing collision hazards and disrupting migratory patterns. This is due primarily to the fact that the highly reflective or transparent surfaces prevalent in modern architectural designs can disorient birds, often leading to fatal collisions.
Additionally, artificial lighting from buildings often confuses and disrupts the migratory patterns of numerous bird species that navigate by celestial cues.166 Many of the existing structures at the subject property and in the surrounding area were constructed prior to the widespread recognition of these issues and the subsequent introduction of bird-friendly construction measures. Consequently, bird collision avoidance measures were not incorporated into the design of these structures.
In recognition of the potential for adverse impacts to bird populations associated with building design, including resident bird species of the Hempstead Plains, the proposed action would

‌166 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Threats to Birds: Collisions. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds-collisions .
Accessed January 2024.

incorporate the following structural and non-structural bird collision avoidance and minimization measures recommended by the USFWS and NYC Audubon project: 167, 168
› The minimization of the amount of high-risk glazed areas throughout the project
› On the hotel towers, where glass is present at high altitudes, exterior opaque vertical louvers and treated frit patterns would be installed to reduce the risk of bird collisions
› Exterior screens, grilles, shutters, blinds, and aesthetic and privacy options such as etching, sandblasting, or texturing would be used to help make transparent site elements more evident to birds
› Strategic placement of shrubs and trees away from the glazed faces of the towers
› The lighting plan has been designed to avoid or minimize glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill (see light analysis below).
Based on the proposed bird-friendly construction measures, the proposed action would conform with USFWS and NYC Audubon recommendations to avoid or minimize the potential for bird collisions. Accordingly, no significant adverse impacts to local/regional bird populations (including birds utilizing the Hempstead Plains) or migratory behaviors are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
In summary, as compared to existing conditions, implementation of the proposed action would result in substantial improvements to the quantity and quality of vegetated habitat, wildlife habitat, habitat diversity, and plant and wildlife species richness. As a result, the proposed action would result in a net ecological benefit to habitats, vegetation, and wildlife, and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
Rare/Protected Species
As detailed in Section 3.3.1.3, Rare/Protected Species, no federal or New York State listed species or species habitats were observed at the subject property during the field survey. Furthermore, due to largely unvegetated and developed conditions, as well as the subject property’s location within a densely populated portion of Nassau County characterized by high levels of human presence and activity, the subject property does not provide potential habitat for federal or New York State listed species known to occur locally or regionally. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to rare/protected species are anticipated due to implementation of the proposed action.

Hempstead Plains

The meadow habitats to be created under the proposed action would include a number of native forbs and grasses that occur within the Hempstead Plains grassland community, thereby establishing plant associations in common with this community, and creating potential habitat for some of the birds, pollinator species, and other fauna that inhabit the Hempstead Plains.

‌167 NYC Audubon. Bird-Friendly Building Design. Available at: https://www.nycaudubon.org/our-work/conservation/project-safe- flight/bird-friendly-building-design?gclid=CjwKCAiAt5euBhB9EiwAdkXWO-BmLTN5OXxa905eGEVGWHy6kB6gZi6bEwg4LB- Ygd3RrdRpamsBcBoCzTkQAvD_BwE. Accessed February 2024.

‌168 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reducing Bird Collisions with Buildings and Building Glass Best Practices. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reducing-bird-collisions-with-buildings.pdf. Accessed February 2024.

As described in the Existing Conditions section, the proposed action would not physically disturb or result in any other direct impacts to the Hempstead Plains, which are located beyond James Doolittle Boulevard to the east of the subject property, and to the north-northeast within NCC.

Potential indirect impacts from light, noise, and shadows that have the potential to impact the Hempstead Plains are analyzed below.

Light Analysis

As detailed in Section 3.11 Aesthetic Resources, the lighting plan for the proposed action has been designed to be respectful of the natural environment and surrounding area, including the Hempstead Plains. As a result, the lighting plan design supports the goals of reducing energy consumption, and eliminating or minimizing glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill. With respect to light trespass in particular, the proposed lighting has been designed to comply with the U.S. Green Building Council’s recommendation to not exceed 0.10 fc of vertical illuminance at the project boundary. Based on review of the Lighting and Photometric Plans (Appendix 3.11-4), lighting levels reduce to zero at and near the site boundaries, and at other locations throughout the site where illumination is not required for key functions and security (e.g., walking paths and parking areas). As such, the proposed action would not result in light trespass beyond the boundaries of the subject property. Therefore, no direct impacts to the Hempstead Plains or other vegetated habitats located beyond the subject property from exterior lighting sources are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.

The potential negative impacts of light pollution on insect populations, including cascading effects to birds and other organisms that use insects a food source has been documented in the scientific literature.169 Given the existing land uses at the subject property and prevalence of paved/impervious surfaces, the subject property does not represent a significant source of vegetated habitat for insects. Moreover, it is likely that the existing levels of light from this area, which includes surrounding dense commercial development, local parkways, and other major thoroughfares (e.g., the Meadowbrook State Parkway, Northern State Parkway, Hempstead Turnpike, James Doolittle Boulevard, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, etc.), have reduced the subject property’s theoretical carrying capacity for insects. In recognition of these factors, the lighting plan for the proposed action has been designed to avoid or minimize further impacts to insect populations that may already be depleted due to existing development and light pollution at the subject property and within central Nassau County in general. Specifically, As described in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources, the lighting plan incorporates a variety of light pollution avoidance and minimization measures, including, but not limited to, concealed and integrated exterior building lighting, fully shielded lighting systems to mark access points, pole-mounted full-cutoff luminaires at surface parking areas, soft, indirect cove lights at the hotel entry drop-off points, perimeter walking paths illuminated with low-level bollards, in-grade paver lights at the proposed veterans memorial plaza, parking garage interiors lit with non-directional, shielded, surface-mounted cylinders that would directs light downward to minimize potential light-spill, and vertical mullions at windows to baffle interior lighting as

‌169 Earth Island Journal. Dim Those Lights: Bright Streetlights Decrease Insect Populations. Available at: https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/dim-those-lights-bright-streetlights-decrease-insect- populations/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=tfd_dsa&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIg53Q9oPriA MVYmNHAR1WPDpkEAAYAiAAEgLlhfD_BwE. Accessed September 2024.

viewed from exterior areas. Significantly, these strategies for reducing light to the minimum amount needed and shielding and filtering light sources at locations where lighting is necessary are supported by the results of recent studies that recognize such strategies as the most effective measures to minimize lighting impacts to insects.170 Based on the foregoing, no significant adverse impacts to existing insect populations, or potential cascading impacts to avian populations, are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.

Noise Analysis

The noise analysis (Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration) demonstrates that existing daytime and nighttime sound levels at the subject property meet the NYSDOT/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway and NYSDOT non-highway noise criteria, as well as the Town of Hempstead, SEQRA and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise impact criteria for the majority of the receptor locations. The construction of the proposed development, with appropriate mitigation measures, is not anticipated to result in any long-term adverse noise impacts. In the short term, construction noise may result in temporary increases in ambient noise at some sensitive receptor locations. Sound levels would be evaluated at each phase of construction to determine if additional construction noise mitigation measures are necessary (Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration).

James Doolittle Boulevard is not part of the subject property, as it is a Nassau County roadway and exists on the periphery of the subject property. With the development of the Integrated Resort James Doolittle Boulevard would remain unchanged from existing conditions, e.g., two lanes in width along the same alignment. Proposed improvements would be limited to pavement repairs and striping, as necessary. The roadway would continue to allow only right-turns in and out at both its north and south ends and only provide access to two surface parking fields (that are also accessed primarily from the main site entry points and would be the least used parking areas at the subject property) and the existing Marriott Hotel, similar to existing conditions. As such, any increases in traffic volumes on the roadway and associated noise due to the Integrated Resort would be minor. No intrusion into the Hempstead Plains Preserve to improve the roadway beyond its current alignment are proposed.

Shadow Analysis

Sunlight sensitive resources are those resources that depend on sunlight or for which direct sunlight is necessary to maintain the resource’s usability or architectural integrity.171 The Hempstead Plains South portion of the Hempstead Plains, which is located beyond James Doolittle Boulevard to the east of the subject property, is considered a sunlight sensitive resource, as it contains resident plant communities that could be hindered if access to sunlight is significantly altered through incremental shading due to new development.

To assess the potential for the proposed development to result in adverse effects to the Hempstead Plains, a shadow assessment was conducted using a combination of three-

‌170 UCLA Institute for the Environment and Sustainability. Study reveals which outdoor lighting minimizes harm to insects. Available at: https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/article/study-reveals-which-outdoor-lighting-minimizes-harm-to-insects/ Accessed September 2024.

‌171 City Environmental Quality Review. Technical Manual (January 2021). Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/downloads/pdf/ceqr/CEQR_Manual_06_2013/2012_ceqr_tm_revised_06_05_13.pdf. Accessed November 2023.

dimensional modeling (3D) and publicly-available spatial data to provide a graphic representation of the shadows generated from the proposed structures in the project area (Appendix 3.3-2). The shadow assessment included the following representative analysis days: December 21 (winter solstice), June 21 (summer solstice), March 21/September 21 (vernal/autumnal equinox), and May 6/August 6 (halfway between summer solstice and the equinoxes). Each analysis day considers the incremental shadows (e.g., those shadows that would occur as a result of the proposed development) occurring between 1.5 hours after sunrise and

1.5 hours before sunset in the absence of intervening buildings or foliage. A detailed discussion of the shadow analysis methodology and expected range of effects are provided in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources. A summary of the shadow assessment is provided in Table 20 below, which provides the duration of shadow effect to the Purcell Preserve on each of the representative analysis days.

‌Table 20 Shadow Impact Duration on Hempstead Plains

Analysis Day	Shadow Period	Maximum Length of Impact (Hours per Day)
December 21 (Winter Solstice)	Start: 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. End: 4:30 p.m.	2.5± hours
June 21 (Summer Solstice)	Start: 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. End: 8:28 p.m.	3.5± hours
March 21/September 21 (Vernal/Autumnal Equinox)	Start: 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. March 21 End: 7:07 p.m. September 21 End: 6:53 p.m.	2± hours
May 6/August 6 (Halfway Between Summer Solstice and the Equinoxes)	Start: 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. May 6 End: 7:55 p.m. August 6 End: 8:04 p.m.	2± hours

December 21 Analysis Day (Winter Solstice)

As a result of the proposed development, in addition to the existing Marriott property shadows that would not change, incremental shadows would occur on the northwestern portion of the Purcell Preserve on the December 21 representative analysis day. As shown in Appendix 3.3-2, incremental shading would begin between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. and remain on the property until the sun has set for the day at around 4:30 p.m. As such, incremental shading of a limited portion of the Purcell Preserve would occur for maximum of 2.5± hours during the winter solstice analysis day. The longest shadow that a structure can cast at the latitude of the Town of Hempstead occurs on the morning of the winter solstice and is approximately 4.1 times the height of the structure casting the shadow. As such, the winter solstice analysis day would experience the largest incremental shading of the Purcell Preserve by area, but shorter duration of impact compared to the other analysis days. Significantly, the winter solstice occurs outside of the growing period, when the sunlight needs of resident vegetation for photosynthesis and other biological processes are minimal to non-existent. As such, incremental shadows on limited portions of the Purcell Preserve for a maximum of 2.5± hours during the non-growing season are not anticipated to result in negative effects to the existing flora.

June 21 Analysis Day (Summer Solstice)

As a result of the proposed development, in addition to the existing Marriott property shadows that would not change, incremental shadows would occur during the evening hours on the southwestern most corner of the Purcell Preserve on the June 21 analysis day. On the June 21 analysis day, as shown in Appendix 3.3-2, incremental shading would begin between the hours of 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. and remain on the property until the sun has set for the day at around 8:28

p.m. As such, incremental shading of a limited portion of the Purcell Preserve would occur for a maximum of 3.5± hours during the latter portions of the summer solstice analysis day. As compared to the other analysis days, the summer solstice analysis day contains the smallest shadow encroachment onto the Purcell Preserve by area. Moreover, vegetation within the affected area would still receive direct sunlight for the majority of the analysis day (morning through late afternoon), which occurs during the height of the growing season. Given the limited areal extent of incremental shadows, and taking into account that shading of the affected area would be limited to the evening hours, no significant negative effects to the existing flora of the Purcell Preserve are anticipated.

March 21/September 21 Analysis Day (Vernal/Autumnal Equinox)

As a result of the proposed development, in addition to the existing Marriott property shadows that would not change, incremental shadows would occur on the westernmost portions of the Purcell Preserve on the March 21/September 21 analysis day, which occurs during the early and latter stages of the growing season (Appendix 3.3-2). Incremental shading on the analysis day would begin between the hours of 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. and remain on the property until the sun has set for the day at around 7:07 p.m. on March 21st and around 6:53 p.m. on September 21st. As such, incremental shading of a limited portion of the Purcell Preserve would occur for maximum of 2.0± hours during the analysis day and would be limited to the evening hours only, thereby allowing for extended periods of direct sunlight to the vegetation within the affected areas during the morning and afternoon hours. Given the limited areal and temporal extent of incremental shadows, no significant negative effects to the existing flora of the Purcell Preserve are anticipated.

May 6/August 6 Analysis Day (Halfway Between Summer Solstice and the Equinoxes)

As a result of the proposed development, in addition to the existing Marriott property shadows that would not change, incremental shadows would occur within a limited perimeter area at the southwestern corner of the Purcell Preserve on the May 6/August 6 analysis day (Appendix 3.3- 2). Incremental shading on the analysis day would begin between the hours of 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. and remain on the property until the sun has set for the day at around 7:55 p.m. on May 6th and 8:04 p.m. on August 6th. As such, incremental shading of a limited portion of the Purcell Preserve would occur for maximum of 2.0± hours during the analysis day and would be limited to the evening hours only, thereby allowing for extended periods of direct sunlight to the vegetation within the affected areas during the morning and afternoon hours of this growing season analysis day. Given the limited areal and temporal extent of incremental shadows, no significant negative effects to the existing flora of the Purcell Preserve are anticipated.

Conclusions

The shadow analysis indicates that, similar to the existing condition where the Marriott Hotel building casts shadows during limited periods, incremental shadows would be cast onto limited areas of the westernmost portions of the Purcell preserve for periods of up to 3.5± hours. The location of incremental shadows would change throughout the year, and the largest areal extent of shading would occur during the December 21 analysis day, during the period when the sunlight needs of resident vegetation for photosynthesis and other biological processes are minimal to non-existent, as the aboveground portions of the herbaceous vegetation that predominates within the Hempstead Plains/Purcell Preserve have died back or are dormant during the non-growing season months 172 . In all analysis days, shadow impacts are limited to the evening or late afternoon hours, thereby allowing for substantial periods of direct sunlight to vegetation within the affected areas, particularly during the growing season, when shadow impacts would occur for as little as 2.0± hours and would not exceed 3.5± hours on any of the representative analysis days. As such, the affected areas would receive six hours or more of direct sunlight, which would meet or exceed the minimum sunlight requirements for most resident grassland plant species that occur within the Hempstead Plains.173

Moreover, as described in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources, the presence of shadows on the Purcell Preserve from the subject property is not a new occurrence. The existing Marriott property casts afternoon shadows onto the Hempstead Plains, affecting the northwestern border of the preserve. Impacts from shadows on limited portions of the Purcell Preserve under proposed conditions would be similar to those that currently occur to limited portions of the Purcell Preserve from the Marriott Hotel building. Significantly, the shadow analysis (figures in Appendix 3.3-2) indicates that shadows from the existing Marriott property would intersect with those of the proposed development on the December 21 analysis day, thereby avoiding any incremental impact from the proposed development at this location during this time of year.

With the exception of the westernmost portions of the Purcell Preserve, the remainder of the Hempstead Plains, including those portions of the Hempstead Plains located to the north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, would be unaffected by incremental shadows from the proposed development.

Based on the foregoing, the areal and temporal extent of incremental shading from the proposed development would be negligible and would not result in significant adverse effects to the Hempstead Plains.

‌172 Bauerle, W., Oren, R., Way, D., ad Reynolds, R.F. Photoperiodic regulation of the seasonal pattern of photosynthetic capacity and the implications for carbon cycling (May 14, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1119131109 . Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119131109. Accessed February 2024.

‌173 Boston College Dyck Arboretum of the Plains. Defining Sun Requirements for Native Plants. Available at: https://dyckarboretum.org/defining-sun-requirements-for-native-plants/#! Accessed January 2024.

Proposed Off-Site Mitigation Locations
Proposed Roadway Improvements

Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway
As described in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1, various improvements are proposed along the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway to support off-site traffic mitigation efforts. The off-site traffic mitigation sites consist of narrow, linear areas totaling approximately 6.1 acres located beyond the existing roadway edges of the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway (see Figure 38 in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking). As observed in the field, these areas include paved surfaces, grass- dominated roadway shoulders, and tree-dominated roadway borders. These conditions are representative of the ECNYS Paved/Road Path, Mowed Lawn, and Successional Southern Hardwoods communities. The former two communities are designated unranked cultural communities, while the latter community is ranked by the NYNHP as G5/S5 “demonstrably secure,” both globally and in New York State. Where vegetation occurs, it is dominated by mowed/maintained turf grasses with associated weedy herbaceous vegetation within the Mowed Lawn community, and common trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants within the Successional Southern Hardwoods community. The vegetation within the latter community includes a number of dominant, non-native/invasive species, including Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Norway Maple, Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Multiflora Rose, Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus), Mugwort and others.
Based on the existing conditions described above, the approximately 6.1 acres of roadway improvements would result in disturbance to unvegetated, impervious surfaces (ECNYS Paved Road/Path community), while clearing of vegetated habitat would be limited to the ECNYS Mowed Lawn (unranked cultural community) and Successional Southern Hardwoods (demonstrably secure globally) communities. As such, the vegetation to be cleared would consist of mowed/maintained turf grasses within the roadway shoulders, and common trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants within edge portions of the wooded parkway borders, in areas dominated by non-native/invasive trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. As such, the overall limited clearing of vegetation to occur within the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway traffic mitigation sites would not result in removal of sensitive habitat or significant native plant associations. Moreover, in areas where edge portions of wooded habitat would be cleared, portions of the wooded borders would remain unaffected and continue to serve as vegetated buffers between the roadways and adjacent properties.
Due to the presence of non-native invasive plant species, low overall plant species diversity, disturbed conditions, and high levels of vehicular activity occurring along the adjoining busy parkway corridors, the vegetated portions of the proposed Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway traffic mitigation sites have low overall wildlife habitat value. Therefore, the limited clearing of vegetation to occur within the proposed traffic mitigation sites would not result in significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations or habitats.
According to the EAF Mapper summary report and NYNHP correspondence, there are no records for New York State rare/protected plant or wildlife species or Significant Natural Communities within the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway traffic mitigation sites or

vicinity. The traffic mitigation sites do not include suitable habitat to support the federally listed species included on the IPaC Resources List (Piping Plover, Red Knot, Sandplain Gerardia, and Northern Long-eared Bat, see Appendix 3.3-1). With respect to the latter species, based on the USFWS guidance cited in Section 3.3.1.3, the densely developed conditions with high levels of human activity, vehicle traffic, and associated noise within the traffic mitigation areas render its resident trees largely unsuitable as Northern Long-eared bat summer roost habitat. Moreover, according to the NYSDEC EAF Mapper and NYNHP correspondence, the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway traffic mitigation sites are not situated within occupied Northern Long-eared bat habitat. Based on the above analyses, records for federal or New York State listed species do not exist for the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway traffic mitigation sites, and the pavement, linear roadway shoulder, and border areas that comprise the sites do not represent suitable habitat for listed species known to occur locally and regionally. As such, the required clearing would not result in adverse impacts to listed species.
According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, as well the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper and EAF Mapper databases, there are no wetlands or surface waters located within or adjacent to the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway traffic mitigation sites (see Appendix 3.3-1). A recharge basin located within the Meadowbrook State Parkway/Northern State Parkway interchange occurs within approximately 100 feet of the traffic mitigation sites. As such, clearing, grading, ground disturbance, or other direct impacts to the recharge basin would not occur as a result of the proposed action, and indirect impacts would be avoided due to implementation of erosion and sediment controls and stormwater best management practices to occur under an approved Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan (SWPPP). As the recharge basin is not shown on the Environmental Resource Mapper, it is currently not subject to NYSDEC Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Act regulation.
Based on the foregoing, no significant adverse impacts to habitats and vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, surface waters, or other ecological resources are anticipated.
Hempstead Turnpike and Meadowbrook State Parkway
As detailed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1, proposed improvements to the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange to support off-site traffic mitigation include an approximately 500 linear foot extension of the existing Hempstead Turnpike eastbound deceleration lane by removing the existing road shoulder and installing a new lane and shoulder. Additionally, an approximately 400 linear foot extension of the existing Meadowbrook State Parkway southbound acceleration lane would be accomplished by removing the existing road shoulder and installing a new lane and shoulder. Disturbance would occur primarily within unvegetated, impervious surfaces (i.e., the ECNYS Paved Road/Path community), while clearing of vegetated habitat would be limited to the ECNYS Mowed Lawn (unranked cultural community) and Successional Southern Hardwoods (demonstrably secure globally) communities. The vegetation to be cleared would be limited to mowed/maintained turf grasses within the roadway shoulders and minimal portions of the adjoining Successional Southern Hardwoods community, which is dominated by a number of non-native/invasive tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant species. As such, the limited clearing of vegetation to occur within the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area would not result in removal of sensitive habitat or significant native plant associations. Moreover, in areas where edge portions of wooded habitat would be cleared, the majority of the wooded

borders would remain unaltered and continue to serve as vegetated buffers between the roadways and adjacent properties.
Due to the presence of non-native invasive species, low overall plant species diversity, disturbed conditions, and high levels of vehicular activity occurring along the adjoining busy surface road and parkway corridors, the vegetated portions of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area have low overall wildlife habitat value. Therefore, the limited clearing of vegetation to occur within the proposed traffic mitigation area would not result in significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations or habitats.
According to the EAF Mapper summary report and NYNHP correspondence, records for New York State rare/protected plant or wildlife species and Significant Natural Communities exists for the vicinity of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area (see Appendix 3.3-1). As summarized on Table 18 in Section 3.3.1.3, the records are associated with the Hempstead Plains native grassland community, located 0.35±mile to the north. The traffic mitigation area does not include native grasslands, nor does it support the requisite habitats for the species listed in Table 18. Further, the traffic mitigation area does not include suitable habitat to support the federally listed species included on the IPaC Resources List (Piping Plover, Red Knot, Sandplain Gerardia, and Northern Long-eared Bat, see Appendix 3.3-1). With respect to the latter species, based on the USFWS guidance cited in Section 3.3.1.3, the densely developed conditions with high levels of human activity, vehicle traffic, and associated noise renders its resident trees largely unsuitable as Northern Long-eared bat summer roost habitat. Moreover, according to the EAF Mapper and NYNHP correspondence, the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area is not situated within occupied Northern Long-eared bat habitat (see Appendix 3.3-1).
Based on the analyses provided above, the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area, inclusive of the pavement, landscaped roadway shoulders and bordering successional vegetation that comprise the area, does not represent suitable habitat for federal or New York State listed species known to occur locally and regionally. As such, disturbance to the traffic mitigation area would not result in adverse impacts to listed species.
Improvements within the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area would occur proximate to the East Meadow Brook. The East Meadow Brook is a stream that has been highly impacted by development, including significant alterations to the stream channel due the construction of the Meadowbrook State Parkway, as well as impacts from the dense commercial, institutional, and residential development that characterize the general surrounding area. The portion of the East Meadow Brook in the area of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange functions primarily as an intermittent conduit for stormwater runoff from the surrounding roads and development. The East Meadow Brook flows southward along the west side of the Meadowbrook State Parkway and crosses beneath the parkway via three box culverts located just south of the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass and within the proposed Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area. Surface flow from the East Meadow Brook ultimately discharge to the tidal waters of Stadium Park Canal and Merrick Bay, located 4.75± miles to the south.
Grading in areas adjacent to the East Meadow Brook and potential culvert improvements may be necessary to accomplish the proposed mitigation work. Direct or indirect impacts to the East

Meadow Brook would be avoided due to implementation of erosion and sediment controls, stormwater best management practices to occur under an approved SWPPP, and adherence to potential NYSDEC permitting requirements, as described below.
Pursuant to the NYSDEC Protection of Waters Program and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 608):
A NYS Protection of Waters Permit is required for the disturbance of the bed or banks of a protected stream, which includes water bodies in the course of a stream of 10 acres or less, with a classification of AA, A or B, or with a classification of C with a standard of (T) or (TS).
According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, the East Meadow Brook is a Class C stream with no corresponding Standard of (T) (indicating that it may support a trout population), or (TS) (indicating that it may support trout spawning). Therefore, based on the above regulation, the East Meadow Brook at and in the vicinity of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area is not regulated under the Protection of Waters Program. As such, permitting under this NYSDEC program would likely not be required.
The Environmental Resource Mapper further indicates that freshwater wetlands associated with the Meadow Brook and subject to NYSDEC regulation under Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 663) occur in the vicinity of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area.
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 663.2(b), a Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required for regulated land uses and activities that occur within 100 feet of regulated freshwater wetlands. However, until the specific mitigation measures are designed, in coordination with the NYSDOT (which has jurisdiction over these roadways), the precise limits of disturbance cannot be determined.
Nevertheless, any proposed work occurring within NYSDEC jurisdictional areas would be subject to review, permitting, and any applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the protection of regulated resources, as determined by the NYSDEC. The precise limits of disturbance would be determined upon completion of the mitigation design, and formal consultations would be undertaken with the NYSDEC at that time to obtain an Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit, if necessary.
It should be noted that, as part of the 2009 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Lighthouse at Long Island project, more extensive traffic mitigation with a greater degree of potential impacts to regulated freshwater wetland resources was contemplated for this area.
During a July 15, 2008 pre-application meeting for the Lighthouse at Long Island project, the NYSDEC indicated that significant impediments to the issuance of a Freshwater Wetlands permit for the project were not anticipated, provided that drainage and water quality improvements required under the NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities were implemented (see Appendix 3.3-1). The currently proposed traffic mitigation measures would result in fewer impacts to regulated resources than those proposed under the Lighthouse at Long Island project and would be conducted in accordance with all applicable requirements and conditions of the NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities.
Under the current definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ the East Meadow Brook is subject to potential U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction as a “relatively permanent” tributary to waters that are “subject to the ebb and flow of the tide” (Stadium Park Canal and Merrick Bay,

located several miles to the south). The proposed Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation area work described above appears to be below the impact thresholds for USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation Projects), and therefore is anticipated to be eligible for coverage under this NWP, if necessary.
The issue of potential drawdown impacts from groundwater withdrawal was raised during the preparation of the 2009 DGEIS for the prior Lighthouse at Long Island project (see discussion in Section 2.3.2, Site Development and Application History, Prior Applications), and Nelson Pope Voorhis (NPV) investigated this issue on behalf of the then-applicant.
The DGEIS for the Lighthouse at Long Island explained that the East Meadow Brook in the vicinity of the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange area (where traffic mitigation had been proposed for that project), has been impacted and significantly altered by development, and that the hydrology of the stream is driven by stormwater rather than groundwater influences, as follows:
A review of Figure 3.4-3 (NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands, Nassau County Map 10 of 15, Freeport Quadrangle) indicates the presence of a freshwater drainage channel, identified as East Meadow Brook (“F-1”), occurring adjacent to the subject property along the eastern boundary of the RexCorp Plaza East Parcel. This wetland area is highly compromised and primarily functions as a conduit for stormwater runoff from the surrounding urban upland following rain events…The East Meadow Brook channel is located approximately seven feet east of the southeast corner of the subject property at the nearest point, and the amount of water flowing within it varies
widely depending upon rainfall events and stormwater discharges to the system…This brook is a conduit for stormwater and has been historically altered by development in the area including the construction of Meadowbrook Parkway.
To confirm whether conditions have changed since the time of this analysis, a VHB Professional Wetland Scientist conducted four seasonal field inspections of the East Meadow Brook, including the section of the stream channel located to the north of Hempstead Turnpike (i.e., within the Hempstead Plains South) and from the Hempstead Turnpike/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange southward to the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass. The field inspections occurred during the summer and winter seasons (September 14, 2023, December 14, 2023, August 6, 2024, and August 23, 2024), in order to capture potential seasonal variations in stream hydrology. Dry stream bed conditions with no surface water flow were observed within the section of East Meadow Brook channel to the north of Hempstead Turnpike during the four field inspections. Evidence of periodic high-water events, including sediment deposits, drift lines, and drainage patterns, were observed within the dry stream channel and adjacent floodplain. To the south of Hempstead Turnpike, low-to-moderate surface water flows were observed within portions of the East Meadow Brook channel, along with similar evidence of periodic high-water events. These field observations support the earlier NPV conclusion that the hydrology of the East Meadow Brook is controlled by stormwater rather than groundwater influences. Therefore, potential water table drawdown impacts due to groundwater withdrawal for the proposed action would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the East Meadow Brook.

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Meadowbrook State Parkway
As described in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and Appendix 3.5-1, proposed improvements to the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange to support off-site mitigation efforts entail an extension of the two lane section of the ramp from eastbound Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 350 feet), and an extension of the acceleration lane from the same ramp onto the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 450 feet) (Attachment P of Appendix 3.5-1). The 0.29±-acre work area occurs within two portions of the roadway median situated between the C-D Road and the Meadowbrook State Parkway that consists of paved road shoulders and adjacent mowed/maintained grass borders. These conditions are representative of the ECNYS Paved Road/Path and Mowed Lawn communities, both of which are designated as an unranked cultural communities, due to their artificial origin, disturbed/developed conditions, and wide distribution throughout New York. The former community consists of unvegetated impervious surfaces and therefore is largely insignificant from an ecological perspective. The latter community consists of turf grasses and common herbaceous plants that are subject to periodic mowing. Based on these existing conditions, the minimal proposed disturbance within the roadway median would occur partially within unvegetated areas and would not result in removal of sensitive habitats or significant native plant associations. Moreover, the existing tree- and shrub-dominated portion of the median located adjacent to the area to be cleared would remain unaltered.
Due to disturbed/developed conditions and high levels of vehicular activity occurring along the adjoining busy roadway corridors, the wildlife habitat value of the roadway median at the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Meadowbrook Parkway interchange is extremely limited. Therefore, removal of minimal portions of this area to support proposed traffic mitigation efforts would not result in significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations or habitats.
According to the EAF Mapper summary report and NYNHP correspondence, offsite records for New York State rare/protected plant or wildlife species and Significant Natural Communities exist for the vicinity of the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange (see Appendix 3.3-1). As summarized on Table 18 in Section 3.3.1.3, Ecological Resources, the offsite records are associated with the Hempstead Plains native grassland community, located beyond C-D Road to the west of the roadway median where traffic mitigation is proposed. The roadway median does not include native grasslands, nor does it support the requisite habitats for the species listed on Table 18. Therefore, these species are not expected to occur. Further, the roadway median does not include suitable habitat to support the federally listed species included on the IPaC Resources List (Piping Plover, Red Knot, Sandplain Gerardia, and Northern Long- eared Bat, see Appendix 3.3-1) and these species are not expected to occur in the general surrounding area. Based on the foregoing, the proposed offsite traffic mitigation at the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange would not result in adverse impacts to listed species.
According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, as well the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper and EAF Mapper databases, there are no wetlands or surface waters located within or adjacent to the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard/Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange traffic mitigation site (Appendix 3.3-1). NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland F-1 is located beyond the C-D Road to the west of the roadway median where traffic mitigation is proposed. The

anticipated limits of disturbance for the proposed traffic mitigation work occur beyond the regulated 100-foot adjacent area associated Freshwater Wetland F-1. As such, the work would not be subject to NYSDEC Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Act regulation.174
Based on the foregoing, no significant adverse impacts to habitats and vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, surface waters, or other ecological resources are anticipated.

‌Proposed Mitigation
The proposed action includes the following mitigation measures:
› Site design that would decrease impervious surfaces from approximately 78 acres to 70.6 acres and increase pervious area/vegetation from approximately 8.3 acres to 15.7 acres.
› Implementation of a landscape plan that would substantially increase the quantity and quality of native vegetation, wildlife habitat potential, and native plant diversity at the subject property, through installation of meadows and other vegetated habitats featuring native trees, shrubs, grasses, and other herbaceous plants. The landscape plan would replace the existing low diversity, fragmented landscaped areas dominated by non-native species with a diverse array of habitat types, including meadows, vegetated public parks, plazas, gardens, parking lot islands/borders, medians, and streetscapes planted with native flora.
› The landscape plan includes the establishment of large, contiguous blocks of meadow habitats planted with native herbaceous plants and grasses that replicate the plant species assemblages found within the nearby Hempstead Plains grassland community, including native grassland species such as Little Bluestem, Pennsylvania Sedge, Goldenrods, Butterfly Weed, Purple Cone Flower, Asters, and others.
› The landscape plan includes no-mow lawns, reducing or eliminating the need for maintenance practices, watering, and fertilizer applications.
› Implementation of bird safe building designs to minimize the potential for bird collisions, including the minimization of the amount of high-risk glazed areas, as well as the installation/use of exterior opaque vertical louvers, treated frit patterns, exterior screens, grilles, shutters, blinds, etching, sandblasting, texturing, and other recognized measures to make transparent site elements more evident to birds. To further reduce the potential for bird collisions, the landscape plan includes strategic placement of shrubs and trees away from the glazed faces of the towers.
› To avoid potential adverse impacts to avian navigation and migrator behavior, the lighting plan design avoids or minimizes the potential for glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill. The lighting plan design would not result in light trespass beyond the boundaries of the subject property, thereby avoiding light pollution impacts to the Hempstead Plains and its resident fauna, including birds.

‌174 Any potential future modification of the limits of work resulting in regulated activities within NYSDEC jurisdictional areas associated with Freshwater Wetland F-1would be subject to review, permitting, and any applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the protection of wetland resources, as determined by the NYSDEC. The precise limits of disturbance would be determined upon completion of the traffic mitigation design, and formal consultations would be undertaken with the NYSDEC at that time to obtain an Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit, if necessary.

› The lighting plan incorporates a variety of measures to mitigate potential light pollution and avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to local insect populations. These include concealed and integrated exterior building lighting, fully shielded lighting systems to mark access points, pole-mounted full-cutoff luminaires at surface parking areas, soft, indirect cove lights at the hotel entry drop-off points, perimeter walking paths illuminated with low-level bollards, in-grade paver lights at the proposed veterans memorial plaza, parking garage interiors lit with non-directional, shielded, surface-mounted cylinders that would directs light downward to minimize potential light-spill, and vertical mullions at windows to baffle interior lighting as viewed from exterior areas.
› The landscape plan is composed of native and native-adaptive plant species, including many characteristic native grassland plants of the Hempstead Plains community. As such, seed dispersal from the proposed landscaped areas to off-site vegetated habitats via wind, birds, or other wildlife may serve to increase native plant abundance within the Hempstead Plains and would not exacerbate exiting non-native invasive species issues and associated management concerns. It is further expected that the anticipated increase in pollinator birds and insects at the subject property resulting from the quantitative expansion of meadow habitats and native flowering plant abundance would expand the use of the Hempstead Plains and other vegetated habitats in the surrounding area by these species.

‌Land Use, Zoning and Community Character

‌Existing Conditions

The subject property is located within the hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, which is near the geographic center of Nassau County. It is situated approximately eight miles east of the New York City border and 10 miles west of the Suffolk County border (Figure 14).

For purposes of the analysis conducted in this section, a Study Area has been defined (see Figure 15), which includes the subject property, as well as the area generally bounded by Stewart Avenue/Meadowbrook State Parkway to the north, Merrick Avenue to the east, Front Street to the south and Oak Street to the west.

Land Use

Observations of land uses on the subject property and in the surrounding area were performed in July and August 2024. The Study Area is approximately three square miles and encompasses land uses that are important to the community, such as NCC, Hofstra University, Museum Row, Mitchel Athletic Complex, commercial and industrial corridors, and single-family residential uses (Figure 16).

Subject Property

The site is proximate to major New York State highways, including the Meadowbrook State Parkway, situated to the east of the site with ramps at both Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike. It is also within three miles of the Hempstead Branch of the LIRR, which, as described in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, Sands would provide regular connecting shuttle service to and from the Hempstead LIRR station, as well as several airports including both John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia Airports (both approximately 15 miles to the west) and Long Island MacArthur Airport (approximately 25 miles to the east). It is also about nine miles west of Republic Airport, which is a medium-sized regional general and business aviation airport (Section 2.2, Summary of Existing Site Conditions).

‌Figure 14: Local Context

Sands New York Integrated Resort

Long Island Expressway

Northern

State

Parkway

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Wantagh

State

Parkway

Meadowbrook

State Parkway

Grand

Central

Parkway

8± miles

7± miles

Southern

State

Parkway

Queens County Nassau County

Suffolk County

Southern State Parkway

0 2 Miles

Subject Property County Boundaries

Long Island Rail Railroad Major Highways

* Boundaries are approximate

t Ave

te D

Sali

sbury

‌Stewar

uster Park

ust St ar St

Mer

Davis Ave

Nassau Community College

rick

Oak St

Grove St

Boylston St

Mitchel County Park

indb

les L

Char

Ave

James Doolittle Blvd

lvd

bury

ergh

Eis Park

n B

gto

Ovin

est

Hofstra University

Earle

Hempst

ead T

Blv

pke

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Meadowbrook Park

Glenn

Curt

iss

Blvd

rrick Ave

nia Ave

verly

olly

Cedar St

Front St

Ave

e Ave

Califor

Lenox

Fenimor

Maple A

Front St

0 1,500 Feet

Subject Property Study Area

Boundaries are approximate

C

h

rles Lindbergh

a

B

lvd

r

Me

a

a

do

w

P

broo

k

Sta

t

e P

k

wy

Merri

ck Ave

Oak

St

‌Stewart Ave

t

lenn C

u

S

rtis

G

nt

Fro

N

s

Blv

d

onda

Uni

l

e A

ve

He

mpstead Tpke

0 0.3 Miles

Subject Property Study Area
Boundaries are approximate

Commercial Industrial

Community Services and Instutional Single-Family Residential

Multifamily Residential Open Space and Recreation Vacant Land

View looking northeast towards the existing Coliseum building and surface parking lot.

View looking south towards the existing Marriott Hotel and surface parking lot.

The subject property is comprised of two major parcels – the Coliseum property (71.6 acres) and the Marriott Hotel property (14.7 acres). The Coliseum parcel contains the existing 416,000-sf, 57±-foot- tall Coliseum (which was renovated and re-opened in 2017), the surrounding veterans memorial plaza and the associated lighted parking fields with fee collection booths (containing approximately 5,800 surface parking spaces). The Coliseum building contains an arena, concessions, a restaurant, and exhibition space.

As described in Section 2.2, Summary of Existing Site Conditions, after the Mitchel Air Base was decommissioned, the federal government turned it over to Nassau County. Shortly after the Coliseum was constructed and opened in 1972, the building became home to the New York

Islanders of the National Hockey League until the team permanently moved out in 2021. Coliseum has been a concert venue, as well as home to various other events and exhibitions. While still hosting some events, use of the Coliseum as an event space and sporting arena has substantially diminished, as described in Section 2.2.4, Historical and Current Level of Activity on the Site.

The Marriott Hotel property includes the 539,000± sf, 618-key, 11-story hotel with a full-service restaurant/bar and meeting, banquet and exhibition spaces, as well as approximately 1,600 parking spaces, with minimal landscaping adjacent to the building and parking areas. Together these parcels make up the subject property, and include the following land coverages:

‌Table 21 Existing Land Coverages of the Subject Property

Type of Coverage	Existing Coverage in Acres (Percent)
Buildings	5.3± acres (6.2±%)
Surface Parking Areas	55.5± (64.3±%)
Roadways	7.6± (8.8±%)
Walkways/Plazas/Other Hardscape	9.6± (11.1±%)
Landscaping, Lawn and Pervious Surfaces	8.3± (9.6±%)
Total:	86.3± acres (100%)

Surrounding Land Uses

The subject property is surrounded by roadways, including Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) to the south, Earle Ovington Boulevard to the west, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to the north, and James Doolittle Boulevard to the east. Land uses within the identified Study Area are diverse, including commercial with educational, institutional, utility, open space preserve and residential. The Study Area is defined by its major land uses, located in a suburban setting, with portions known as the Nassau Hub. With such features as the Coliseum, Marriott Hotel, large office buildings and higher educational institutions, uses in the Study Area attract large groups of people involved in multiple activities (e.g., educational, business/work-related, entertainment, recreational). Additional photographs of the subject property and surrounding land uses are contained below and within Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources, of this DEIS. Generally, the land uses located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property include:

North: The land uses to the north include Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, followed by NCC, Nassau Energy Corp. (Engie), the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) Center for Training and Intelligence (situated on the campus of NCC) and Museum Row.

East: The land uses to the east, beyond the Marriott Hotel property, include James Doolittle Boulevard, the Purcell Preserve (a portion of the Hempstead Plains), East Meadow Brook, and the Meadowbrook State Parkway.

Representative photos of the existing land use throughout the Study Area and more detailed descriptions are provided throughout this section of the DEIS. Figure 17, shows the locations of the photos referenced herein.

‌Figure 17 Photograph Location Key Map for Site and Surrounding Areas

North of the Subject Property (north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to Stewart Avenue/Meadowbrook State Parkway)

Nassau Community College/Officers and NCO Housing/Nasssau Energy Corp. (Engie Co-Generation Plant)

1: View looking northeast towards the NCC Student Services Center and Tower (Administration) Building from the NCC West Parking Lot.

NCC is located directly north of the site, across Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. The college campus encompasses approximately 225 acres and has a total enrollment of close to 14,000 students,175 including students who attend full-time, part-time, days, evenings and weekends. NCC is the largest of the 30 State University of New York (SUNY) community colleges. The college offers over 60 fields of study. The buildings within the main portion of the campus are newer and tend toward a more modern campus architectural style. The Tower (Administration) Building, near the center of

campus is approximately 12 stories,146 feet in height, making it one of the tallest buildings in the area, and a distinctive feature.176 The amount of area devoted to educational purposes makes this a defining factor in the character of the community. However, as a number of the buildings within the campus were formerly part of the military housing to the north, the northern portion of campus tends toward a residential character.

The NCC campus is mainly situated within the Town’s Edu-Cultural District, although a portion is in the Residence B zoning district. The Edu-Cultural District permits the following uses: college or university, public school, parochial school or private school, public park, playground or other public recreational use, public library, museum, art or historical building, health center, concert hall, auditorium, firehouse, police station or governmental building, place of worship, and public, philanthropic, charitable or other nonprofit golden age housing.

A recent addition to the NCC campus is the NCPD Center for Training and Intelligence (NCPD Training Center). This facility is not under the control of NCC. The NCPD Training Center is used to train officers from police departments throughout Nassau County. The Center is a resource for the entire law enforcement community, ensuring that the police training, intelligence and counter-terrorism have access to the best technology, tools and high-tech data analytics required in order to proactively address the threats facing the region now and in the future. The NCPD Training Center is located in the Residence B District.

‌175 New York State Department of Education. Nassau Community College Enrollment (2020-21). Available at: https://data.nysed.gov/highered-enrollment.php?year=2021&instid=800000049411. Accessed December 2023.

‌176 Nassau Community College. Available at: https://www.ncc.edu/aboutncc/ourpeople/administration/facilities/. Accessed August 2024.

Nassau Hub Innovation District, Expanded Environmental Assessment, November 2021.

As shown on photo 9 in Figure 18, the Engie facility and PSEG Long Island electrical substation are located just north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, across from the Coliseum property/Marriott property.

Museum Row

Museum Row is located south and west of NCC and north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, at Davis Avenue. This area is situated northwest of the subject property and across from the Mitchel Athletic Complex and the Omni office building.

Museum Row is home to the Cradle-of- Aviation Museum, the Long Island Children’s Museum and the Nassau County Firefighters Museum and Education Center. The museums are part of the Mitchel Field area, and some of the facilities are housed in former airplane hangars and barracks.

2: View looking north towards the Nassau County Firefighters Museum and Cradle of Aviation Museum within Museum Row from the eastern parking lot.

Museum Row’s location in the central part of the Study Area makes its physical contribution to the landscape of the community less dominant. However, it is a significant cultural attraction and contributor to the character of the Study Area.

Mitchel Field Military Housing

According to the Environmental Assessment – Privatization of Family Housing, Mitchel Complex, Hempstead, New York ,177 the Mitchel Field military housing development, which is located north of the subject property, is bounded on the north by Stewart Avenue, on the south by Davis Avenue, on the west by West Road and on the east by East Road. The area is approximately 47

acres in size and contains approximately 90 buildings. The housing units are laid out in a rectilinear grid pattern, and this area is composed of single-family homes, semi- detached units and communal military buildings. The LIRR tracks bisect the property. Some of the buildings are currently leased to NCC for use as part of its campus.

The character in this area is dominated by its residential nature. The residences are brick,

3: View looking west on Wheeler Avenue within the Mitchel Field military housing development.

attached and generally grouped around central open spaces.

‌177 Environmental Assessment: Privatization of Family Housing Mitchel Complex, Hempstead New York (December 2004). Prepared for the Department of the Navy Engineering Field Activity Northeast Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Figure 18: Major Land Uses

Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

10: Nassau Community College

1: Museum Row

9: Nassau Energy Corporation

8: Eisenhower Park

2: The Omni

7: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

3: Mitchel Athletic Complex

4: Hofstra University

5: Hempstead Turnpike Corridor

6: RXR Plaza

0 2,000 Feet

Subject Property Study Area

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI

Stewart Avenue/Meadowbrook State Parkway North

The area between the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Stewart Avenue to the north and the former Mitchel Field Officer's Quarters and NCC to the south contains a mix of uses. The eastern portion of the area (from approximately Endo Boulevard to Merrick Avenue) is a mix of office buildings, medical office buildings, retail establishments, light industrial facilities, residences and utility uses. The former Mitchel Field Officer’s Quarters are now used for housing.

4: View looking east along Stewart Avenue within the western portion of the Study Area.

5: View looking west towards the ReworldTM Hempstead Facility from Merchants Concourse.

The north side of Stewart Avenue to the Meadowbrook State Parkway contains a variety of uses including office buildings, hotel, car wash, restaurants, public storage facility, multifamily residential, light industrial uses and a bowling alley.

The westernmost portion of this area (west of South Street/Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard) includes a mix of retail uses, including the Roosevelt Field Mall, office and utility uses on the south side of Stewart Avenue. The north side, to the Ring Road of Roosevelt Field Mall, also contains a mix of retail and office uses and a recharge basin.

The major uses in this portion of the Study Area include the ReworldTM Hempstead facility (formerly Covanta) (the stack of which is approximately 382 feet in height), Syosset Trux, TRACON, Lifetime Brands, and Ametek Hughes-Treitler Aerospace and Defense offices. The Avalon multifamily residential development is located south of Stewart Avenue, west of Endo Boulevard. Also, west of Endo Boulevard, past the residential development, are several large office buildings and a United States Postal distribution facility on the south side of Stewart Avenue. The 382-foot stack for the ReworldTM Hempstead facility is a dominant feature in this part of the Study Area. While residential development is located in this area, the character is driven by commercially- and industrially-oriented land uses.

South of the Subject Property (south of Hempstead Turnpike)

Meadowbrook State Parkway East to Merrick Avenue, south of Hempstead Turnpike

6: View looking southwest towards the 90 Merrick Avenue office building from the northeast corner of the parking lot.

7: View looking northwest from Glenn Curtiss Boulevard towards the Sunrise of East Meadow assisted living facility.

The land uses in this area (hamlet of East Meadow) are a mix of both residential and non- residential establishments. A restaurant, bank and office building are situated along the south side of Hempstead Turnpike. To the south of these facilities are several assisted living facilities (the Bristal, Sunrise Assisted Living and Fulton Commons Care Center), a senior apartment complex (the Bel Aire), and a large office building. Among the residential facilities lie the East Meadow Baseball/Softball Association fields -- a County-owned facility, as well as a nine-story, 250,000+-sf office building with surrounding surface parking. South of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard is a large Golden Age community -- The Meadows at Mitchel Field, a multifamily apartment complex, and Mitchel Manor, a multifamily housing development along Front Street.

The predominant use and defining character in this portion of the Study Area is multifamily housing (senior independent living and assisted living facilities).

8: View looking north towards the Fulton Commons Care Center at 60 Merrick Avenue.

9: View looking north on Cunningham Avenue towards the single-family residential homes south of Hempstead Turnpike.

Meadowbrook State Parkway West to Uniondale Avenue, South of Hempstead Turnpike

10: View looking southwest on Hempstead Turnpike from the southern boundary of the subject property, north of the Kellenberg High School field.

11: View looking east on Front Street at the intersection of Newport Avenue.

From the Meadowbrook State Parkway west to Uniondale Avenue (known as Earle Ovington Boulevard north of Hempstead Turnpike), the uses are generally medium-density, single-family residential development and small businesses. The dominant use in this portion of the Study Area is single-family residential development. A mix of businesses occupy Hempstead Turnpike from the Meadowbrook State Parkway west to Uniondale Avenue, including fast-food restaurants, gun shop, liquor store, automotive-related uses (including a gas station) and small professional offices. Athletic Fields associated with Kellenberg Memorial High School are located along Hempstead Turnpike situated between the small businesses and RXR Plaza, two 175-foot- tall, 15-story office buildings surrounded by surface and structured parking. The Kellenberg Memorial High School complex is located south of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard, west of the Meadowbrook State Parkway. Single-family homes dominate the area adjacent to the High School complex.

The rights-of-way along Meadowbrook State Parkway provide a significant buffer between the roadway and Kellenberg High School and residential uses (i.e., approximately one unit per 4,000 sf) to the west. Along the north side of Front Street (the southern extent of the Study Area) is a mix of mostly business with some single-family and two-family homes. The businesses include a laundromat, delicatessens, salon, restaurants and an automotive repair shop, as well as several strip retail centers, with a mix of uses. Other uses along this street include professional offices (e.g., real estate, medical) and multifamily developments. This area along the north side of Front Street contains a mix of typical downtown businesses in the western segment of the Study Area and residences in the eastern portion of the Study Area. These uses are local contributors to the Study Area character.

Uniondale Avenue West to Oak Street/Hofstra University (South), South of Hempstead Turnpike

To the west of Uniondale Avenue, extending west to the boundary of the Study Area, the south side of Hempstead Turnpike is comprised of a mix of uses. Although there are several restaurants and other eating/drinking establishments, the majority of uses are associated with Hofstra University. The athletic facilities associated with the University (including Shuart Stadium) are located in this area south of Hempstead Turnpike. The northwesternmost portion of this part of

the Study Area is situated within the Incorporated Village of Hempstead (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Hempstead Village”). Hofstra University is the only use within Hempstead Village in this section of the Study Area.

12: View looking northwest on Uniondale Avenue at the intersection of Fayette Street.

South of the University facilities, the predominant use is single-family residential (i.e., approximately one unit per 4,000 sf) with an elementary school and fire department interspersed therein. The west side of Uniondale Avenue is predominantly residential with a large church and several small businesses. The north side of Front Street contains a number of restaurants as well as strip retail uses. Other uses along Front Street include single-family residences, two-family residences and residences with

accessory apartments, office buildings and small retail shops.

Although there is a large single-family neighborhood within this area (as well as small, scattered retail uses), the dominant land use in this segment of the Study Area is Hofstra University.

East of the Subject Property (east of James Doolittle Boulevard to Merrick Avenue)

Hempstead Plains/Purcell Preserve

The Hempstead Plains is located northeast and directly east of the Coliseum property/Marriott property in the vicinity of NCC. Hempstead Plains vegetation and other vegetation extends east to the Meadowbrook State Parkway. See Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, of this DEIS for a complete description of these areas.

Merrick Avenue, North of Hempstead Turnpike

Beyond the Meadowbrook State Parkway is Merrick Avenue, the west side of which forms the eastern border of the Study Area. The uses along the west side of Merrick Avenue include office

13: View looking east toward the Hempstead Plains/Purcell Preserve from within the Hempstead Plains/Purcell Preserve.

14: View looking north on Merrick Avenue towards 425 Merrick Avenue, west of Eisenhower Park.

buildings, multi-family residence/hotel, Nassau BOCES, retail facilities, and an indoor athletics center.

West of the Subject Property (from Earle Ovington Boulevard to Oak Street)

Earle Ovington Boulevard

Earle Ovington Boulevard is a north-south road running from NCC to Hempstead Turnpike. The Omni office building, a 625,000±-sf, 10 story, 122-foot-tall office building, is located on the corner of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard. Aside from the Coliseum on the east side of the street, the Omni is the main feature along this roadway (photo 2, Figure 18). It adjoins the eastern border of the Hofstra University campus, north of Hempstead Turnpike.

Mitchel Athletic Complex

According to the Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation and Museums, the Mitchel Athletic Complex is a 49-acre facility centrally located just west of the Omni office building and Coliseum and opposite Museum Row (photo 1, Figure 18). The complex hosts a variety of amateur athletic events (high school, collegiate, local sports leagues) and includes a track and field stadium and athletic fields. There are four fields available for softball, two for baseball, and these fields can also be used for soccer, football and lacrosse. The facility also includes a field house.

15: View looking east on the corner of Oak Street and Hempstead Turnpike towards the southeastern campus entrance of Hofstra University.

Hofstra University

The Mitchel Athletic Complex was built in 1984 and renovated in 1997. It hosted track and field events during the 1998 Goodwill Games. The stadium has a seating capacity of close to 10,000 people.178 The Nassau County Rifle and Pistol Range, located in the Mitchel Athletic Complex, is the only such facility open to the public in the County.

There are six ranges and 30 individual shooting points available. This facility, as the home to many sporting events, is a significant contributor to the community’s character.

Hofstra University, founded in 1935 and located southwest of the subject property, consists of approximately 240 acres, both north and south of Hempstead Turnpike. The private, nonsectarian, co-educational institution has an approximate enrollment of over 10,000 students, 6,100 undergraduates, over 2,800 graduates, close to 900 law students and over 400 medical students.179 The campus is comprised of academic buildings, dormitories, sports facilities and

‌178 Nassau County. Mitchel Athletic Complex. Available at: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/2642/Mitchel-Athletic-Complex. Accessed December 2023.

‌179 Hofstra University. All About Hofstra. Available at: https://www.hofstra.edu/about/glance.htm l. Accessed September 2024.

support buildings. Three pedestrian bridges over Hempstead Turnpike (unispans) link the northern and southern portions of the campus. Dormitories and many of the athletic facilities, as well as a bird sanctuary, are located on the north side of Hempstead Turnpike. Most of the academic buildings and some of the athletic facilities (including Shuart Stadium) are located on the south side of Hempstead Turnpike. Hofstra contains some of the tallest buildings in the area including several dormitories, which are approximately 170 feet in height, Axinn Library, which is approximately 140 feet in height, and several academic buildings, which extend to a height of approximately 184 feet. Hofstra University, including the unispans and tall buildings, play a significant role in defining the character of the community.180

16: View looking northwest towards the newly constructed Meadowbrook Logistics Center from the

southeastern corner of the parking lot.

17: View looking north towards the UPS Distribution Facility from the southwestern corner of the parking

lot.

Oak Street Area/Commercial Avenue/Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard

The area along Oak Street, Commercial Avenue and Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, which is located west of the subject property and generally comprises the western portion of the Study Area, expresses two different land use characteristics. The southern portion of this area is comprised of segments of the Hofstra University campus. The northern portion of the area contains a mix of office, light industrial and warehouse/distribution uses. Major uses in the northern portion of the Study Area include the Garden City Center, the Academy Charter School, NICE Bus, UPS distribution facility, Lockheed Martin, Frequency Electronics, Nassau County Department of Health and Human Services, New York State offices and smaller office buildings. The Oak Street area is a more localized contributor to community character, given other more dominant uses in the Study Area.

Major Land Uses Outside the Study Area

Several notable land uses are located just beyond the boundaries of the Study Area (Figure 18). These uses include the 930-acre Eisenhower Park (a Nassau County facility)181 to the east of the

‌180 Hofstra University. All About Hofstra. Available at: https://www.hofstra.edu/about/glance.htm l. Accessed September 2024.

‌181 Eisenhower Park contains a number of recreational facilities including an aquatic center, three golf courses, miniature golf, Safety Town, baseball/softball fields, batting cage, lighted tennis courts, fitness trails, playgrounds, picnic areas, Harry Chapin Lakeside Theater, dining and several memorials, including a 9/11 memorial.

Meadowbrook State Parkway and Merrick Avenue, as well as Roosevelt Field Mall at Old Country Road and the Meadowbrook State Parkway, containing over 270 stores in over 2.2 million sf of building area, located northwest of the Study Area. The 428,000+ sf Roosevelt Raceway Center retail development is located north of the ReworldTM Hempstead and TRACON facilities, along Corporate Drive. This center includes several big box retailers, such as Home Depot, PGA Tour Superstore and Food Bazaar supermarket. The Avalon at Westbury apartment complex and Meadowbrook Pointe senior development are located north of the Meadowbrook State Parkway in the vicinity of the site. Beyond the Study Area to the southeast, south and southwest, are single-family residential neighborhoods with neighborhood commercial development situated along the major roadways.

Relevant Land Use Plans
Nassau County Comprehensive Plan (1998)
The adopted Nassau County Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1998, and there have been several updates to this plan since that time, including an update in 2003 and with the latest in 2008 (discussed below). The 2003 Update provides a status report on issues identified in 1998, but is superseded by the 2008 Update for the purposes of this document. Nassau County also began preparing a new comprehensive plan in 2010, but this plan is in draft format and has not been adopted by the County. A discussion of the 1998 Nassau County Comprehensive Master Plan (the “Comprehensive Plan”) follows.
The Comprehensive Plan is:
... a policy document which outlines a vision for the future of Nassau County. It focuses on the protection of the County’s quality of life, and provides guidance to decision makers, residents and organizations. The Plan is comprehensive because it blends and prioritizes the various factors and issues relevant to the subject matters of: interagency planning and coordination, land use, environmental resources, transportation, housing, the economy, cultural and recreation and community facilities and services. (Page P-1)
The Comprehensive Plan is divided into a number of topic sections including land use, environmental resources, transportation, housing, the economy and culture and recreation, which are the sections that are relevant to the proposed action. The Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document for the County in its efforts to achieve the goals and objectives that have been set forth therein. A discussion of the Comprehensive Plan, by relevant subsection, follows.
Land Use
There are four main components of the land use section of the document – the comprehensive land use plan, natural resources and open space, redevelopment and transit-oriented development.
The Comprehensive Plan discusses general ranges of development intensities expressed in terms of floor area ratio (FAR). There are five recommended FARs as follows:

›
High:
0.40 FAR and over
›
Moderate:
0.20 to 0.40 FAR
›
Suburban:
0.10 to 0.25 FAR

›
Low:
0.05 to 0.15 FAR
›
Very Low:
0.05 FAR and below.
Page II-2 of the Comprehensive Plan notes that the FAR categories have been designed to overlap because they only represent general ranges of development intensity. It also recognizes the wide variation in existing development intensities and zoning in the County. Figure 3 in the Comprehensive Plan presents the generalized development for the year 2020. The subject property is shown in an area of high density, which is classified as having an FAR of 0.40 and over. The Comprehensive Plan also divides the County among five different types of centers: Neighborhood, Local, Intermediate, Major and Regional. The area of the subject property is shown as the only regional center in the County, and is designated as forming part of the “Nassau Hub.” According to the Comprehensive Plan, this area has a concentration of uses that attract people from outside Nassau County, and:
[t]here is a potential for traffic and pedestrian improvements, as well as more development in the Nassau Hub, including proposed plans for entertainment, cultural and recreational
activities as well as housing. A critical component of the ‘Nassau Hub’ is transit service and the
integration of new development with existing uses and services in the area (Page II-4).
According to Page II-8 of the Comprehensive Plan “open space consists of areas with significant environmental features, permanently protected natural resources and properties which are not intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional uses (i.e., properties which are not totally built out and have some undeveloped land).” Open space provides a variety of functions including groundwater protection, habitat for various plant and wildlife species, outdoor recreation opportunities, provision of natural buffers between uses, educational opportunities, etc. Open space areas “contribute to the quality of life in Nassau County by adding much needed diversity to a predominantly suburban landscape” (Page II-9). The “Nassau Hub,” in which the subject property is designated, is surrounded by open spaces such as the Hempstead Plains, Francis T. Purcell Preserve, Mitchel Athletic Complex and the rights-of-way of the Meadowbrook State Parkway.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that Nassau County has a variety of sites with significant potential for redevelopment. The plan notes that “one of the opportunities to create new housing and mixed uses is in the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized parcels” (Page II-10). Among the sites identified in this category is the Coliseum property.
An important aspect of the plan is transit-oriented development (“TOD”). The idea behind TOD is to incorporate a mix of land uses proximate or connected to a transit stop, and provide pedestrian amenities, open space and alternative transportation opportunities. The mix of uses (residential, commercial, office, public, recreation, etc.), along with pedestrian design features and activities, encourages transit use.
The primary objective of TOD is to directly connect land uses with transit services convenient shopping, services and access to housing and employment sites. There are often more housing options and types of residential development, along with a strong mixture of retail and services in TODs (Page II-12).
The overall land use goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to “promote a balanced pattern of land
use that encourages the concentration of future development in established areas with adequate
infrastructure and facilities, so as to make efficient utilization of the transportation network, preserver the County’s environmental and scenic resources, and revitalize existing downtowns and Center” (Page II-12). One of the policy recommendations is to identify model zoning provisions that could be adopted to allow mixed land uses, including housing in downtown areas or center. Another policy is to “advocate land use patterns and development densities which better support mass transit use and minimize congestion on County roadways” (Page II-15).
Environmental Resources
In order to preserve and protect the County’s natural resources, one policy recommendation is for the County to assist developers and communities in planning for development that minimizes impacts to the environment while using available infrastructure and satisfying the needs of specific land uses. The County is also seeking to reduce contamination of water bodies and stormwater runoff from non-point sources.
Economy
The overall economic goal set forth in the Comprehensive Plan is to “strengthen the economy of Nassau County by encouraging economic development activities which would provide jobs, increase the tax base, ensure a stable land use pattern, and diversify the County’s employment sectors” (Page VI-4). This can be accomplished in many ways including encouraging businesses to locate in existing centers, planned developments, etc. that already have the available infrastructure, access, and supporting services. Additionally, Page VI-11 indicates that the County should “support efforts to provide training and education which would produce skills required of the present and future labor.”
Several other economic policies focus on developing and enhancing existing centers within the County. For example, Page VI-15 states that the County should “reinforce downtowns and Centers by encouraging the provision of additional housing and mixed-use development, pedestrian and design improvements, and other amenities which create an ambiance conducive to shopping, entertaining, working and residing in such areas.”
In addition, Page VI-18 indicates that the County should “support the role of the Nassau Hub as the County’s regional center by helping to coordinate new development activities, creating better transportation linkages and pedestrian improvements, as well as promoting business and cultural events.”
Culture and Recreation
Page VII-1 of the Comprehensive Plan notes that “the quality of life for local residents and visitors is enhanced by the museums, cultural programs, historic sites and organizations, art galleries, theaters and nightclubs, parks, preserves, and recreational facilities which can be found throughout Nassau County.” One of the ways to enhance cultural resources is to “support new businesses, facilities, programs and events which accommodate the needs and cultural interests of the County’s residents and tourists” (Page VII-5).

Nassau County Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008)
The Nassau County Master Plan Update, Trends Analysis (the “2008 Update”) was undertaken in 2008, approximately five years after the 2003 Update (and 10 years after Nassau County’s
Comprehensive Plan, discussed above) to address changes in the economy and outline the County’s vision for a “New Suburbia.” Relevant to the subject property, the 2008 Update outlined the targeted development growth areas including the Nassau “Hub” which was identified as at the core of the County’s economy and said redevelopment is one of the County’s major economic development goals. The 2008 Update indicates “the redevelopment of the Hub is a mega project aimed at jumpstarting the County’s economy, redefining ’suburbia,’ and generating new high-skill and high-tech jobs” (page 38). Additionally, a major focus of the Hub initiative was to improve transit within the area and to the site. As the 2008 Update is a trend analysis, rather than a goals-oriented document, there are no specific recommendations with respect to land use.
Nassau County Open Space Plan (2001)
The Nassau County Open Space Plan (hereinafter the “Open Space Plan,” NCPC, 2001) is an inventory of existing open space resources throughout the County. This plan was compiled from information collected from local, county, state and federal offices as well as from meetings with various organizations, groups and residents. Included in the Open Space Plan is information on important natural resources as well as recommendations on potential open space options, techniques and funding sources and the process for evaluation of open space priorities.
The open space inventory for Nassau County is comprised of 21 categories and 15 features. The land comprising each category consists of land owned by public, private and non-profit entities.
According to Figure 5 of the Open Space Plan, there are approximately 12,567 acres of preserves in Nassau County. They are owned by both public and private entities, and they were created for a variety of reasons – to protect significant habitats, other natural resources, wildlife, etc. A County preserve (encompassing the Hempstead Plains) is located on the north side of Hempstead Turnpike, directly east of the Coliseum property/Marriott property.
According to Figure 6 of the Open Space Plan, the adjoining Hempstead Plains property is shown as “Long Island Grass Habitat,” and also contains an “Extant Species Location.” The Open Space Plan notes that “each of the identified habitats … are not described in detail since the purpose is to identify those lands that are known to be significant.”
Also, the Open Space Plan contains a map of forested cover, which was prepared by Nassau County as part of its Geographic Information System (“GIS”). The forested cover is shown in Figure 7 of the Open Space Plan and is useful for identifying undeveloped or partially-developed parcels of land that may have retained their native forested vegetation. Protection of these forested lands can preserve native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Links between these lands can also provide a wildlife corridor to facilitate the movement of wildlife. The subject property is not shown as a forested parcel or a wildlife corridor link.
According to the Open Space Plan, no portion of the subject property is considered open space (as shown on Figure 1 of the Open Space Plan). Moreover, the subject property is not depicted on the Potential and Existing Open Space figure (Figure 15 of the Open Space Plan) as a “potential open space.” Additionally, the subject property is not listed by the Town of Hempstead (or any other entity addressed in the Open Space Plan) as a parcel designated for preservation.
HUB Major Investment Study (2006)
A review of the Nassau Hub Major Investment Study Final Report (hereinafter “Hub MIS,” STV Incorporated, 2006) was undertaken. According to Page 1-2 of this study, the intent of the Hub MIS was to develop both cost-effective transportation alternatives and land use development concepts that respond to various concerns and problems:
› high levels of roadway congestion
› missing transportation linkages
› disjointed land use patterns
› automobile-oriented land development
› unrealized economic potential
› lack of north-south transit connectivity.
A previous Nassau Hub Study was prepared in 1998, which served as the basis for this later document.
Page 1-3 of the Hub MIS indicates that the Study Area is approximately 10.2 square miles with the following boundaries: north – LIRR Port Jefferson Branch; south – south of Hempstead Turnpike; west – Rockaway Avenue and Cathedral Avenue; and east – Merrick Avenue/Post Road (and Eisenhower Park).
The evaluation in the Hub MIS focused on the land use concerns and concepts. According to page 1-12, there is no unified or overriding land use pattern in the Study Area. Areas reflect periods in which they were created. Such patterns include development around LIRR stations, and after World War II, decentralized land development. The need to drive to destinations was the overriding concept. Roosevelt Field and Mitchel Field areas were intentionally designed for automobile access as they are served by major roadways.
Planning decisions in the last half of the 20th Century produced land uses that were highly segregated and located far apart. Furthermore, the strict regulatory separation of land uses has produced a pattern of large, single-user areas. Distances between uses are often too far for walking trips and necessitate automobiles for local trips. In addition, the orientation of buildings within commercial and employment centers with large setbacks from the street and different uses separated by vast fields of surface parking only serve people arriving by car. Finally, the lack of pedestrian linkages and unattractive pedestrian environments discourage pedestrian mobility.
Therefore, the prevailing land use pattern does not support modes of travel other than automobile, and the lack of density and distances between buildings generally discourages travel by transit, bike or foot.
According to Page 1-14 of the Hub MIS, there are large vacant or underutilized parcels in the Study Area, whose status is likely to change in the near future. The Hub MIS identified enormous unrealized economic potential that can be addressed through redevelopment. Mitchel Field, Roosevelt Field, Hofstra, and County-owned properties have such potential, including the Nassau County Government Complex and the Coliseum, both of which were considered for redevelopment at the time the Hub MIS was developed. The major redevelopment goals involve transportation, land development, design and economic growth.
Pages 1-16 through 1-19 of the Hub MIS include a discussion of specific goals and objectives:
Land Use Development Goals: Develop Transit Supportive Land Use Plans and Policies for the Nassau Hub Corridor
› Promote compact mixed-use development in downtown centers to reduce automobile dependence
› Encourage redevelopment of underutilized parcels, including the Coliseum
› Maximize transit ridership by supporting efficient (transit-friendly) growth patterns
› Accommodate anticipated growth in the area
› Develop properties to their highest and best use and to an intensity that could better support a transit-oriented development scenario
› Promote mixed-use development
› Discourage large areas of single land use
› Encourage shared parking.
Economic Development Goal: Sustain the local economy and promote new development
› Link key government, employment and population centers
› Promote uses that would create new jobs opportunities and support existing businesses
› Redevelop the Coliseum site as a significant generator of economic activity
› Expand the labor pool for employment centers by providing access to workers without automobile transportation.
In support of the County’s “New Suburbia” development vision and the prior Hub Study (1998), an analysis of the specific land uses within the Nassau Hub Study Area was undertaken (Page 7-1 of the Hub MIS). According to the Hub MIS, the continuation of current land use patterns would constrain the viability and vitality of the Hub. A mutually supportive balance between transportation and land use must be established.
In addition to the land use analysis, a development potential study of “soft parcels” was also conducted in the Hub MIS study. The Coliseum Area, including Coliseum and NCC, is one of three “soft sites” identified.
As indicated on Page 7-13 of the Hub MIS, two conceptual development scenarios – a minimum development scenario and a maximum development scenario – are possible for the area. Both include significant redevelopment of the Coliseum property/Marriott property, among others, and would be part of the Nassau Centre concept that would create a new central business district for Nassau County and a new regional destination for a live/work/entertainment/shop center.
According to Page 7-18, the proposed development of the Nassau Centre:
would build upon the existing uses with a focus on the expansion of the current expansion of the current entertainment uses and the strengthening of the office anchors already in place. Hofstra University to the west…is envisioned as the western boundary of this precinct. New uses could include a lively mix of ground floor designation entertainment retail uses with upper level residential to complement the existing Coliseum and Marriott Hotel, thereby creating an expanded 24/7 activity center. The existing office nodes are reinforced with the additional office
uses organized around open space to create distinct business environments within a greater mix of uses…Structured parking will replace existing surface lots which will be redeveloped with the entertainment/office/retail/residential program…
Overall, the Hub MIS concluded that Nassau County should further study potential transit and related land use improvements, within the context of the Federal Transit Administration’s project development process. As such, the Nassau Hub Transit Initiative created the Nassau Hub Study to address transportation issues in the Nassau Hub area.182 The goal of the Nassau Hub Study is to define new transportation options and identify land use strategies that would help promote economic development, create jobs, and improve access and mobility within the area. As part of the environmental review process , the study is expected to result in the preparation of a DEIS for public review and comment.

Uniondale Hamlet Vision Plan (2012)
The Uniondale Vision Plan (the “Vision Plan”) was designed and organized to provide decision- making framework for the local government; existing organizations, clubs, and groups; public agencies; and community members and residents. Goals for the Vision Plan were developed by obtaining community feedback from a community participation process. The Vision Plan contains six chapters: plan introduction and overall context; historical background of Uniondale; existing conditions; description of community participation and identification of challenges and opportunities, goals and provision of a Vision Statement; the Vision and discussion of goals, objectives and vision elements; and implementation strategies. It should be noted that the Vision Plan is more focused on the downtown area of Uniondale, around Front Street and not the subject property, although the Vision Plan recognizes the importance of the subject property to the overall Uniondale community.
As noted in the introduction:
[a]s an unincorporated area within the Town of Hempstead, Uniondale does not make its own laws or elect its own administration. As a result, the Uniondale community has recognized that the best way to create change and improvement is to work with the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County to develop a community vision reflecting local objectives, coordinated with the various governmental entities that have the authority and fiscal responsibilities necessary for such a vision to succeed.
Based on a community engagement process undertaken as part of the Vision Plan, key vision plan elements were proposed, as follows:
› Beautification of the Community
- Improve the streetscape along the community's commercial corridors
- Urge property owners to upgrade commercial facades and signage in order to improve architectural character in Uniondale through façade improvements and by upgrading signage
  › Transportation Options
  
  ‌182 The Nassau Hub Transit Initiative. Study Overview. Available at http://www.nassauhubtransit.com/about/StudyOverview.htm. Accessed October 2023.
- Support bus service and routes through Uniondale
- Improve access to bus stops
- Upgrade sidewalk facilities
- Enhance the pedestrian experience by providing a safe, effective, and visually appealing pedestrian circulation system
  › Economic Development
- Brand Uniondale as a global village in order to attract regional consumers to Uniondale as a unique destination within Nassau County and Long Island
- Reinforce Uniondale as a "college town" by building upon the presence of Hofstra university, as well as Nassau Community College
- Attract new, high quality commercial uses
  › Sustainability of the Residential Neighborhoods
- Provide additional recreational/open space opportunities
- Identify specific measures to reduce crime
- Promote environmental sustainability.
The Vision Plan recognizes the Hub, including the Coliseum property as a major sports center on Long Island and details the history of the Hub over the past 40 years. It is also noted that there have been redevelopment efforts of the Hub in recent years (Page II-9). While the Hub is located within the hamlet of Uniondale, it is not a part of the downtown. The Hub contains some of the community’s major commercial and institutional land uses, but is not a part of the residential or downtown community (Figure 18).
The Vision Plan notes that the Hub serves as an entryway to the community and that “marketing package[s] should include a plan to draw visitors to area destinations, such as the Coliseum and Marriott Hotel, into Uniondale (Page V-21).” The Vision Plan notes that Hub area" is not the focus of this Vision Plan, which is concentrated on Uniondale's residential neighborhoods and local commercial areas that serve the community. However, the Hub area is acknowledged as having a major impact on many of the Plan's conclusions and recommendations due to its impact on factors such as the local economy and traffic levels. Although the Vision Plan focuses on the area south of Hempstead Turnpike, it includes analysis, recommendations, and items that pertain to the areas to the north (Page I-8).

Long Island Regional Economic Development Council: A Strategic Economic Development Plan For The Long Island Region (2011)
In 2011, the Long Island Regional Economic Development Council’s (LIREDC) Strategic Economic Development Plan for the Long Island Region (the “LIREDC Plan”) was developed to outline a vision for long-term economic growth on Long Island. The LIREDC Plan outlines Transformative
Primary Projects that “promote the highest return on investment, scored highly on criteria developed by the LIREDC, addressed multiple regional objectives, and best supported the implementation of job creation strategies (Page 4).” The redevelopment of the Hub was identified in the LIREDC Plan as a project that is “Important for Long Island’s Future.” As the LIREDC Plan notes:
Potentially Long Island’s most transformative of places, the 77 acres anchored by Coliseum should feature an exciting Smart Growth, TOD mix of business, education, sports, entertainment and affordable and market housing that could be a regional and national model for suburban development. Mostly a sea of asphalt serving a badly aging Coliseum, the site requires both a large parking garage and added bus service connected to nearby LIRR stations, to free up land for more productive purposes, including a state-of-the-art indoor sports arena, an exhibition
center, a minor league baseball field and research facilities connected to Hofstra’s new medical and engineering schools. The 77 acres is part of a broader swath, including one of the nation’s largest malls and the county’s most expensive commercial real estate. So we urge Nassau County, which owns the 77-acres, and Hempstead Town, which controls what can be built on it, to prioritize an imaginative plan for development that can catalyze the transformation of this site into an engine of growth for the entire region (Page 7).
The LIREDC Plan sees the redevelopment of the Hub, including the location of the project site, as an opportunity to create a vibrant center of economic activity. As noted in the LIREDC Plan, “the development of Nassau County’s Hub area is a unique opportunity to create a vibrant mixed-use downtown…. The Hub’s location should enable it to become a major economic engine that creates quality jobs” (Page 29). The LIREDC Plan also stated that the Hub would be an ideal location for entertainment venues and should integrate a mix of daytime and night-time uses.
Furthermore, it is expressed that it is critical to develop parking garages within the Hub to provide more productive use of space in the area.
Long Island on the Rise: A Region Reaching for New Heights of Innovation and Inclusion: The Strategic Economic Development Plan for Long Island (2016)
The LIREDC Strategic Economic Development Plan for the Long Island Region of 2016 (the “2016
Update”) builds upon the topics discussed in the LIREDC Plan mentioned above. The 2016 Update
outlines key strategies for stimulating economic growth on Long Island, including the following:
› Identify and support industry clusters, especially biotechnology, that possess the potential to bring together researchers, educators, investors, manufacturers and others in a collaborative effort to accelerate the commercialization of technical and scientific discovery and generate jobs at every rung of the employment ladder.
› Create a cohesive education and workforce training strategy through partnerships among a range of stakeholders - business, trade groups, labor, government agencies, educational institutions, parents and students - with the goal of ensuring that workers from all of Long
Island’s communities are prepared to take advantage of new job opportunities in key economic
growth sectors.
› Develop innovation and industry clusters in transformative locations across the region - including downtowns, brownfields and university, research and medical centers - by integrating the smart growth principles of transit-oriented development and vibrant community life.
› Enhance and develop multi-faceted, interdisciplinary facilities aimed at incubating and accelerating the commercialization of innovative products generated at the region’s premier research institutions, by linking scientists, engineers, and health and medical professionals to entrepreneurs and small businesses.
› Reinvigorate Long Island’s manufacturing sector through continued transformation from traditional defense and aerospace work to advanced technology products, creating skilled, high- value jobs and a network of nimble companies that can develop synergistic partnerships with companies in other regions of the state.
› Produce a new generation of sustainable, well-paying jobs in the legacy sectors of agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and tourism by enhancing the economic value of our parks, historic places, and arts venues and organizations, and expanding export opportunities, infrastructure, recreation facilities, research partnerships and workforce training.
› Rebuild and expand infrastructure to improve job access, revitalize downtowns and transit HUBs, speed trade, and attract and retain dynamic regional businesses and highly-skilled workers.
› Protect Long Island from the perils of climate change at the same time we encourage new “cleaner, greener” industries by leading collaborative regional efforts to harden our infrastructure, businesses and homes against the next major storm and to encourage
transportation, energy and construction policies that reduce our vulnerability, as well as our carbon footprint.
› Revitalize Long Island’s poorest places by targeting the region’s collective resources on new community-driven initiatives that can create jobs, homes and businesses and ensure that all communities are participating fully in the state’s economic revitalization.
› Augment the export capacity of Long Island companies and attract foreign direct investment in the region by bringing together experienced exporters, relevant government agencies and our world class education and research institutions to identify and pursue potential business opportunities overseas.
› Unleash the economic potential of unemployed and underemployed military veterans with creative new ways to provide information, job training and other skills that will honor their service and aid the region by helping them succeed as employees and entrepreneurs.
› Attract travelers from across the globe by leveraging Long Island’s unique heritage and tourism
assets to convey our rich contributions to American history, the arts, and culture.
With respect to the Hub, the 2016 Update notes several project updates that have occurred since the development of the LIREDC Plan. Specifically, the 2016 Update discusses the development of the MSKCC, which at the time was beginning construction. Additionally, the reconstruction of the Coliseum was noted as being underway. The 2016 Update also notes that greener access to the Hub should be achieved. “Nassau would like to build three pedestrian bridges to the Hub over busy thoroughfares to cut down on the number of cars at the Coliseum and bio-medical facilities, as well as nearby museums and parks. The ‘green’ bridges also would connect more communities to the Hub – and to each other – and meet the desire of more and more residents to bike and walk (Page 11).” Sustainability is a major theme throughout the 2016 Update and proposing solutions that stimulate economic growth whilst protecting sensitive resources on Long Island is frequent.
The Hub is noted as one of the major focuses for progress in infrastructure planning. LIREDC recognized the 77-acre parcel of land surrounding the Coliseum as being “one of the most significant redevelopment opportunities in the region (Page 73).” The LIREDC had supported previous efforts to develop the Hub and continued to recommend funding for infrastructure work on the site. The 2016 Update highlights the Coliseum property, as well as the greater Hub area, as areas for great potential for development.
Overall, the history of relevant land use plans demonstrates that there has always been a priority for a mix of uses and entertainment destination on the subject property that activates the surrounding area and is an economic driver for the region.

Zoning

According to the Town of Hempstead Zoning Maps (Map Nos. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 48, and 49) and the Town of Hempstead BZO, the entirety of the subject property is situated within the Mitchel Field Mixed-Use (MFM) District, which is part of the overall Planned Development Districts (PDD) at Mitchel Field (Article XIII of the Town of Hempstead BZO) (Figure 19). It is noted that prior to 2011 [see below], the Coliseum site was within the Town’s Residence B District and the Marriott Hotel was classified Mitchel Field Hotel [MF-H], part of the PDD.

The MFM Zoning District is limited to only the subject property and the outparcel containing the MSKCC facility. The MFM Zoning District permits arenas, hotels, offices, restaurants, research and development facilities and residential uses among other uses described below and noted in Appendix 2-3. The potential impacts of the creation of the MFM Zoning District were analyzed within the MFM FGEIS that formed the basis of the MFM Findings Statement (Appendix 2-3).

The MFM Findings Statement indicates that the creation of the MFM Zoning District would encourage redevelopment of the underdeveloped Coliseum site and allow for mixed-use development. Subsequent to the adoption of the Finding Statement, the MFM Zoning District was adopted by the Town of Hempstead Town Board by resolution and became effective June 28, 2011.183 There have been several attempts to redevelop the Coliseum property under the MFM Zoning District zoning without success, and all approved development required some level of relief from MFM Zoning District requirements as explained in Section 2.3, Site Development and Application History.

‌183 Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field, § 146.1 Mitchel Field Mixed- Use District. Available at: https://ecode360.com/15284366. Accessed January 2024.

Figure 19: Study Area Existing Zoning

Sands New York Integrated Resort

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

NC Recharge Basin

Residence B

Business

Mitchel Field Office

Residence B

Industrial

Mitchel Field Office

Edu-Cultural

Industrial

Residence B

Mitchel Field Office II

Residence B

‌Edu-Cultural

Mitchel Field Mixed Use District

Business

Mitchel Field Office

Villa Sites

Residence B

Edu-Cultural

Residence B

Golden Age Residence

Business

0 800 US Feet

Subject Property Study Area

* Boundaries are approximate

Residence B Business Edu-Cultural

Golden Age Residence

Industrial

Mitchel Field Mixed Use District Mitchel Field Office

Mitchel Field Office II

Villa Sites

NC Recharge Basin

A full description of these zoning districts can be found in the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance

Source: Nassau County GIS; Town of Hempstead Zoning Commission and Planning Board 1929 Town of Hempstead Zoning Map (updated 1997-2011)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Sands New York Integrated Resort

As indicated in §146.1,B of the BZO, the MFM Zoning District was designed, in pertinent part, to “. . . promote the desirable and suitable use of land within the greater Mitchel Field area and provide opportunities for development or redevelopment of land surrounding the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum in a manner consistent with sound planning principles.” Additionally, the MFM Zoning District was established to “encourage and achieve the highest- quality sustainable development that preserves, protects and enhances the environmental, economic and human resources of the Town of Hempstead” and “to create an attractive physical environment…for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations.”

The MFM Zoning District was established in 2011 ostensibly to facilitate the renovation of the Nassau County Veterans Memorial Coliseum which was the home of the New York Islanders, as well as the redevelopment of the overall Coliseum property for mixed-use purposes. With the exception of renovation of the Coliseum and the development of the MSKCC along Hempstead Turnpike, no other development has taken place. Also, since 2011, the New York Islanders have relocated to UBS Arena in Elmont, and the utilization of the Nassau County Veterans Memorial Coliseum has significantly decreased, threatening its overall viability. Moreover, the MFM Zoning District presumed that development on the Coliseum property would take place around an active Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum building, as the “Permitted Uses” indicated, in pertinent part: “. . .In addition to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, a lot or premises shall be used for at least two or more of the following purposes. . .” (emphasis added).

Permitted uses within the MFM Zoning District include: arenas and other entertainment uses; hotel/conference center, offices, medical/dental offices or clinics; retail stores; restaurants, café or luncheonette; personal service establishments; research and development facilities; hospital; schools; congregate care/nursing home facilities; day-care facilities; health club/spa; clubs, fraternal organizations, lodges or philanthropic uses; townhouses/multifamily dwellings; municipal buildings; religious uses, non-commercial park, open space or recreational facilities; and public transportation facilities.

The bulk and dimensional regulations of the MFM Zoning District are listed in §146.1 of the BZO184 and include the following:

‌184 Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field, § 146.1 Mitchel Field Mixed- Use District. Available at: https://ecode360.com/15284366. Accessed January 2024.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌Table 22 MFM Bulk and Dimensional Requirements

BZO Code Section	Item	Required/Permitted/Modified
§ 146.1.F	Floor Area Ratio (FAR)	1.6
§ 146.1.H(1)	Building Height Non-Residential Buildings >2 Ac. & 100' Lot Depth Residential & Mixed-Use Bldgs.	4 stories / 60 ft max. 4 stories / 60 ft max.
§ 146.1.H(2)	Hotel Building Height	100 ft max.
§ 146.1.H(3)	Parking Structure Height	40 ft max.
§ 146.1.I(1)	Front Yard Setback - For buildings up to 60 ft high	10 ft.
§ 146.1.J	Rear Yard Setback	10 ft. + 5 ft for each addt'l. 10 ft above 40 ft in hgt.
§ 146.1.K	Yards: For buildings greater than 60 ft high For buildings greater than 80 ft high For buildings greater than 100 ft high	20 ft. + 1 ft. for each addt'l. 3 ft above 60 ft in hgt. 26 ft – 8 in. 33 ft- 4 in.
§ 146.1.L(1)	Parking Provided	13,488 Spaces (total of individual Code requirements based on uses)
§ 146.1.L(2)	Parking Provided within 300 ft of parcel
§ 146.1.L(6)	Parking Setback	15 ft.
§ 146.1.M	Loading Required	13 spaces
§ 146.1.N(1)	Number of Residential Units	500 units
§ 146.1.N(2)	Percentage of affordable and/or next generation/workforce housing units	20% (100 units)
§ 146.1.N(3)	Residential Building Area	35% of Area
§ 146.1.N(10)	Residential Open Space	500 sf per unit = 250,000 sf
§ 146.1.O(2)	Public Open Space	3% of Net Land Area = 78,978 sf
§ 146.1O(3)(a)	R.O.W.: East Drive	120 ft wide required N-S, Glen Curtiss Blvd to Charles Lindbergh Blvd (Easterly N/S Road)/ 90 ft. Granted - TBR 642-2015
§ 146.1.O(3)(b)	R.O.W.: North Drive	120 ft wide required E-W, Earl Ovington Blvd to James Doolittle Blvd (Northerly E/W Road)/ 60 ft. Granted - TBR 642-2015
§ 146.1.O(3)(c)	R.O.W.: South Drive	80 ft wide required E-W,(Easterly N/S Road to Earl Ovington Blvd (Southerly E/W Road)/ 60 ft. Granted - TBR 642-2015
§ 146.1.O(3)(d)	R.O.W.: West Drive	80 ft wide required N-S, Hempstead Tpke. to Northerly E/W Road (Westerly N/S Road)/ 60 ft. Granted – TBR 642-2015

The MFM Zoning District provides for green site and building requirements, including sustainable site and building practices relating to design, construction methods and post- construction operation and maintenance. Additionally, guidelines for building and landscaping design are set forth within the MFM Zoning District. This section notes that:

[i]n general, building design shall consider building facade elements and significant design features, such as color, exterior materials and treatments, roof structure, aesthetic treatment of exposed mechanical equipment, lighting, and service and storage areas. Building materials and methods of construction shall be used in a creative manner to ensure aesthetically pleasing architectural design.

Finally, with respect to the application procedure, any application for development pursuant to the MFM Zoning District must originate as an application to the Town Board and include a conceptual master plan for the MFM Zoning District. This section of the Code (§ 146.1Q) allows for relaxation of provisions of the MFM Zoning District, as follows:

[i]n the event that the Town Board approves said application, it may attach certain conditions to said approval, which conditions shall become an integral part thereof. The Town Board may, by resolution, dispense in part with conformity with the provisions applicable to the Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District and may impose safeguards and conditions as it may deem appropriate, necessary or desirable to promote the spirit and objectives of this section, including but not limited to restrictive covenants pertaining to any area within the district that is the subject of an application, including the site plan submitted on behalf of the application, together with other agreements, if any, in recordable form and running with the land.

As explained in Section 2.3, Site Development and Application History, the Coliseum and Marriott properties (and other proximate properties) have been the subject of prior proposals and SEQR processes. In early 2006, LDG was identified by Nassau County to redevelop approximately 150 acres including and surrounding the Coliseum (including the Long Island Marriott, RXR Plaza and The Omni properties). In 2009, a DGEIS for The Lighthouse at Long Island was prepared by LDG and evaluated the potential impacts of a new zoning district that would allow the development consisting of a new/transformed coliseum for the New York Islanders NHL team (total of 1.2 million sf), 2,306 residential units, 500,000 sf of retail and entertainment retail (including a cinema), 1,000,000 sf of new office space, 118,000 sf of new convention/exhibition space, 300 new hotel rooms and structured parking.

Subsequent to public review of the aforesaid DGEIS, an FGEIS was prepared by the Town’s consultant and filed by the Town of Hempstead Town Board for the then newly-proposed MFM Zoning District, which significantly reduced the development potential at and around the Coliseum and surrounding sites from that proposed by LDG.185

A Findings Statement for the Lighthouse/MFM Zoning District (formally known as the Findings Statement for the Application for Building Zone Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning of Certain Parcels and Approval of a Comprehensive Master Plan for Development of the Lighthouse at Long Island, Hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead New York and cited herein as “MFM Findings

‌185 The Lighthouse/MFM DGEIS and FGEIS assessed the Coliseum property (including the site that MSKCC now owns), the Marriott Hotel, RXR Plaza and Omni properties.

Statement”), was adopted by the Town Board on June 9, 2011, and the Town of Hempstead

adopted the MFM Zoning District, which became effective in June 2011.

It is relevant to analyze the feasibility of development in strict compliance with the MFM Zoning District. To that end, Sands’ civil engineer, H2M, prepared a plan that maximizes potential density based on uses that can feasibly be developed, while fully complying with all requirements of that District, as shown in Table 23 and in depicted on the MFM-Compliant Plan in Appendix 3.4-1 and Figure 20.

That plan includes the following development, and all components are permitted uses as set forth in §146.1 C. of the Town of Hempstead BZO:

› Coliseum, with Exhibition Space: 416,000 sf

› Residential: 428 units (535,000 sf)

› Retail: 192,000 sf

› Restaurant: 60,000 sf

› Hotel: 1,000 keys (627,000 sf)

› Multiplex Cinema: 1,400 seats (19,600 sf)

› Conference/Meeting Space: 145,000 sf

› Office: 100,000 sf.

SITE DATA

NCTM: SEC. 44, BLK. F, LOT 351, 411, 412, & 415

ZONING: MFM: MITCHEL FIELD MIXED-USE DISTRICT

TOTAL LOT AREA: 3,118,981 SF (71.60 AC)

PUBLIC R.O.W. AREA: 677,021 SF (15.54 AC)

NET LOT AREA: 2,441,960 SF (56.06 AC)

EXISTING BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA: 416,000 SF (COLISEUM / EXHIBITION HALL)

PROPOSED BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA: 2,223,309 SF (EXCLUDING BASEMENTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES FOR COLISEUM) FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.91

BUILDING AREAS:

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

USE (EXCLUDING STRUCTURED PARKING FOR COLISEUM) BASEMENT AREA ABOVE GRADE AREA UNITS

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION SYMBOL

PARKING GARAGE

COLISEUM

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

MULTIPLEX CINEMA

OFFICE BUILDING

MIXED-USE

COLISEUM EXHIBITION HALL RESIDENTIAL	163,776 SF 88,448 SF 0 SF	163,776 SF 0 SF 535,000 SF	13,000 SEATS 428 UNITS	CONFERENCE SPACE	RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE	‌538 Broad Hollow Road, 4th Floor East Melville, NY 11747 631.756.8000 ƒ www.h2m.com
RETAIL	0 SF	192,500 SF
RESTAURANT	0 SF	60,000 SF
HOTEL MULTIPLEX CINEMA	0 SF 0 SF	627,000 SF 19,600 SF	1,000 KEYS 1,400 SEATS	HOTEL TOWER	PUBLIC OPEN SPACE	CONSULTANTS:
CONFERENCE	0 SF	145,000 SF
PARKING GARAGE OFFICE	333,061 SF 0 SF	380,433 SF 100,000 SF		RESTAURANT
TOTAL FLOOR AREA	585,285 SF	2,223,309 SF
PARKING STRUCTURES FOR COLISEUM	1,607,805 SF*
* INCLUDES BASEMENT, GROUND LEVEL PARKING AREAS PARKING REQUIREMENTS:	, AND ABOVE GRADE PARKING STRUCTURES		MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
USE (CODE SECTION)	AREA / UNITS	PARKING RATE	PARKING REQUIREMENT
RESIDENTIAL (§146.1.N(9))	428 UNITS	4 SPACES PER 3 UNITS	571 SPACES
RETAIL (§319.A(8))	192,500 SF	1 SPACE PER 200 SF	963 SPACES
COLISEUM (§319.A(4))	13,000 SEATS	1 SPACE PER 3 SEATS	4,333 SPACES
RESTAURANTS (§319.A(16))	60,000 SF	1 SPACE PER 100 SF	600 SPACES
HOTEL (§319.A(2))	1,000 KEYS	1 SPACE PER KEY	1,000 SPACES
MULTIPLEX CINEMA (§319.A(4))	1,400 SEATS	1 SPACE PER 3 SEATS	467 SPACES
OFFICE BUILDINGS (§319.A(12))	100,000 SF	1 SPACE PER 200 SF	500 SPACES
MEETING SPACE (§319.A(5))	233,448 SF	1 SPACE PER 200 SF	1,168 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED			9,602 SPACES

HOTEL

(627,000 SF GFA)

(1,000 ROOMS, 100 FEET)

RESTAURANT

(40,000 SF GFA)

120.0'

PARKING

CONFERENCE /

MEETING ROOMS

(22,000 SF GFA)

(1 STORY)

PARKING GARAGE "A"

(3 STORIES)

(4 LEVELS)

OFFICE

(100,000 SF GFA)

(4 STORY)

Boulevard

Charles Lindbergh

PROVIDED PARKING:

(2 STORY)

GARAGE "B"

(Nassau County

RESIDENTIAL ON-GRADE PARKING 747 SPACES

(3 STORIES)

Roadway)

PARKING GARAGE "A" 890 SPACES

(5 LEVELS)

PARKING GARAGE "B" 1,100 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE "C" 5,400 SPACES

MULTIPLEX

ADDITIONAL BELOW GRADE PARKING 1,400 SPACES

CINEMA

120.0'

ON-STREET PARKING (ON-SITE, ALONG NEW R.O.W.S) 145 SPACES

(1,400 SEATS / 19,600 SF)

(1 STORY)

TOTAL ON-SITE PARKING PROVIDED: 9,642 SPACES

LOADING REQUIREMENTS:

TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL USE 1,560,100 SF (PARKING STRUCTURES EXCLUDED)

FIRST 40,000 SF 1 LOADING SPACES

CONFERENCE

/ RETAIL

Earle Ovington Boulevard

NEXT 80,000 SF 1 LOADING SPACES 1 SPACE PER EACH ADDITIONAL 200,000 SF 8 LOADING SPACES

CONFERENCE / RETAIL

(80,000 SF GFA)

TOTAL LOADING REQUIREMENT 10 LOADING SPACES (12' X 30')

(235,500 SF GFA)

(4 STORIES)

120.0'

80.0'

120.0'

(Nassau County Roadway)

ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE:

MFM - MITCHEL FIELD MIXED-USE CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROVIDED FLOOR AREA RATIO §MFM 1.60 MAX. 0.91

BUILDING HEIGHT (NON-HOTEL) §MFM 4 STY / 60' MAX. 4 STY / 60' MAX. HOTEL BUILDING HEIGHT §MFM 100' MAX. 100' MAX. PARKING STRUCTURE HEIGHT §MFM 40' MAX. 40' MAX. FRONT YARD (BLDGS UP TO 60' HT) §MFM 10' MIN. 20' FRONT YARD (BLDGS > 60' HT) §MFM 20' + 1'/3' ADD'L HT

33.3' (FOR 100' HT BLDG) 54.5'

REAR YARD §MFM 10' MIN. NA

LOADING ZONES §MFM 10 SPACES 24 SPACES

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE §MFM 3.0% (73,259 SF) MIN. 3.2% (78,000 SF) RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE §MFM 500 SF / UNIT (214,000 SF) MIN. 237,700 SF

PUBLIC

OPEN

SPACE

EXISTING

COLISEUM

PUBLIC OPEN

SPACE

(36,000 SF)

RESIDENTIAL

12/31/2023

R. JOEL RICHARDSON, P.E. EXP. DATE

NY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Lic. No. 099970

(42,000 SF)

OPEN SPACE

(59,000 SF)

LOT COVERAGE TABLE:

CHECKED BY: REVIEWED BY:

RESTAURANT

(20,000 SF GFA)

JMT JMT/MRO BJM RJR

LAND USE AREA (SF / AC) PERCENTAGE

BUILDING COVERAGE 655,151.09 SF / 15.04 AC 21.00% DETACHED PARKING STRUCTURE COVERAGE 427,853.77 SF / 9.82 AC 13.72% IMPERVIOUS AREAS - ROADWAYS, PARKING & WALKWAYS 751,284.13 SF / 17.25 AC 24.09% LANDSCAPE AREA - EXCLUDING ROOFTOP OPEN SPACE 1,284,692.01 SF / 29.49 AC 41.19%

TOTAL 3,118,981 SF / 71.60 AC 100%

(1 STORY)

EXISTING MARRIOTT HOTEL

PROJECT No.: DATE:

LVSC 2301 12/6/2023

128 RESIDENTIAL UNITS

CLIENT

SCALE:

AS SHOWN

PARKING GARAGE "C"

(3 STORIES)

(5 LEVELS)

132 RESIDENTIAL UNITS

East Gate Road

(Private Roadway)

80.0'

C:\Users\molsen\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_23940\Conceptual Master Plan - MFM Alternate.dwg Last Modified: May 01, 2024 - 6:02pm Plotted on: May 01, 2024 - 6:55pm By molsen

James Doolittle Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

Sands New York

168 RESIDENTIAL UNITS

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE

(86,000 SF)

80.0'

120.0'

1255 Hempstead Turnpike,

Uniondale, NY 11553

(92,700 SF)

NCTM: Sec. 44, Block F, Lots 351, 401, 402, 411, 412, & 415

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE

CONTRACT

STATUS

Hempstead Turnpike

(NYS Route 24)

SHEET TITLE

Glenn Curtiss

Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

MFM COMPLIANT

GRAPHIC SCALE

CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN

Figure 20: MFM-Compliant Plan

100

0 50 100

( IN FEET )

1 inch = 100 ft.

DRAWING No.

CMPA 2.0

The parking garages shown on the MFM-Compliant Plan total 380,344 sf. As demonstrated in the table below, this MFM-Compliant Plan conforms to all dimensional requirements of the MFM Zoning District, as follows:

‌Table 23 MFM-Compliant Plan Zoning Compliance

Zoning Parameter	Code Section	Permitted/Required	Provided in MFM- Compliant Plan
Floor Area Ratio	146.1-F	1.6 max.	0.91
Building Height (Non- Hotel)	146.1-H(1)	4 sty/60 ft max.	4 sty/60 ft
Hotel Building Height	146.1-H(2)	100 ft max.	100 ft
Parking Structure Height	146.1-H(3)	40 ft max.	40 ft
Front Yard (Building up to 60 ft in height)	146.1-I(1)	10 ft. min.	20 ft
Front Yard (Building >60 ft in Height)	146.1-K	20 ft. + 173 ft additional height 33.3 ft (for 100 ft bldg.) min.	54.5 ft
Rear Yard	146.1-J	10 ft min.	NA
Loading Zones	146.1-M	10 spaces	24 spaces
Number of Residences	146.1-N(1)	500	428
Residential Open space	146.1- N(10)	500 sf/unit (214,000 sf) min.	237,700 sf
Public Open Space	146.1-O(2)	3.0% (73,259 sf) min.	3.2% (78,000 sf)
Note: Additionally, the proposed public rights-of-way conform to those established in Section 146.1-O(3) of the MFM Zoning District.

Table 24 compares the generated MFM-Compliant Plan to the Lower-Density MFM Zoning District Alternative from the Lighthouse Findings Statement.186

‌186 This is the alternative in the Town’s FEIS that formed the basis for the adoption of the MFM Zoning District.

‌Table 24 Comparison of MFM-Compliant Plan to Lower-Density MFM Zoning District Alternative in the MFM Findings Statement

Program Component1	MFM-Compliant Plan	Lower-Density MFM Zoning District Alternative (MFM Findings Statement)2	Difference between MFM Compliant Plan and MFM Zoning District Alternative
Office Space	100,000 sf	150,000 sf	-50,000 sf
Hotel	1,000 keys	1,353 keys	-353 keys
Conference/Meeting Space	145,000 sf	207,000 sf	-62,000 sf
Restaurants	60,000 sf	90,500 sf	-30,500 sf
Retail	192,500 sf	275,000 sf	-82,500 sf
Multiplex Cinema	1,400 seats (19,600 sf)	2,012 seats (28,000 sf)	-612 seats (-8,400 sf)
Residential	428 units	468 units187	-40 units
Coliseum	416,000 sf	416,000 sf	0
1 The MFM Zoning District analyzed in the FGEIS included 2,269,322 SF of structured parking. 2There were inconsistencies in the programs evaluated in the FGEIS and the Findings Statement. The traffic study included in the Lower- Density MFM Zoning District Alternatives Analysis within the FGEIS did not include the 207,000 SF of conference/meeting space and included 60,000 SF of restaurants.

It is noteworthy that when reviewing the aforesaid MFM-Compliant Plan, the level of actual permissible development is much less than that represented in the FGEIS and Findings Statement that were the basis for the Town’s adoption of the MFM Zoning District.

As detailed in Section 2.2, Summary of Existing Site Conditions, about four years after the adoption of the MFM Zoning District, NEC prepared a CMP for the redevelopment of the Coliseum and the surrounding 77 acres owned by Nassau County. The NEC CMP proposed renovations to the Coliseum and the development of a 60,000 SF, 1,500-seat cinema; 200,000 SF of restaurant space; 385,000 SF of retail space; 675,000 SF of office and research and development space; 350,000 SF of convention/banquet/recreation space; 466,350 SF of additional hotel space (number of rooms was undefined); and structured parking. The Town conducted an environmental review of the NEC CMP based on an Expanded Environmental Assessment that NEC prepared. Subsequently, the Town Board issued a negative declaration, which determined that the proposed NEC project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

The NEC CMP was approved by the Town of Hempstead Town Board in May 2015 under Town Board Resolution (TBR) 642-2015. The approved NEC CMP required the modification of conformity with Article XIII, Section 146.1(O)(3) “Establishment of Public rights-of-way” and Section 146.1(O)(4) “Complete Streets” of the BZO of the Town of Hempstead. In other words, the widths of the rights-of-way established in the MFM Zoning District were substantially narrowed in order to allow for the requested development pursuant to the NEC CMP application.

The approval stated that all development proposed in the future for site plan approval or otherwise must be consistent with the adopted NEC CMP, but if inconsistent, would be subject to the approval of an amended CMP by the Town Board, with additional SEQRA review, if deemed

‌187 468 residential units (468,000 sf) were analyzed in the FGEIS and incorporated into the Findings Statement, although 500 units are permitted by the MFM Zoning District. Thus, the FGEIS dd not evaluate maximum potential residential density.

appropriate by the Town Board. To date, the only the only improvement that has occurred pursuant to this approval was the renovation of the Coliseum.

As further detailed in Section 2.2, Summary of Existing Site Conditions, above, in 2019, RXR submitted an application for a mixed-use development, including offices (including research and development space), retail, housing, hotels, meeting space, and various entertainment venues pursuant to the MFM Zoning District. No further action on that application has occurred.

It is noteworthy that all CMP applications made to the Town Board under the MFM Zoning District relating to the property on which the Coliseum is situated required relaxations of various provisions of the MFM, and none of these developments came to full fruition. As explained above, to understand what the actual development potential of the Coliseum property would be if a development was to be proposed in strict conformance with the MFM Zoning District, a conceptual plan was developed (See Appendix 2-1) to demonstrate possible development of the subject property under the MFM requirements.

It is evident from the above analysis that there has never been a development proposed or completed under the MFM Zoning District that did not require some sort of zoning relief from the requirements of that District, and it is not possible to prepare a fully-compliant plan that achieves the level of development contemplated in the FGEIS and/or Findings Statement that were the basis of the adoption of the MFM Zoning District.

Surrounding Area

To understand the pattern of development in the surrounding area, it is essential to understand the surrounding zoning within the Study Area, as depicted on the Town of Hempstead zoning maps. As illustrated in Section 3.4.1.3, Study Area Existing Zoning, above, the zoning of the parcels within the Study Area is reflective of the uses in the area including, but not limited to:

North

The zoning districts directly north of the subject property, north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, include Residence B and Mitchel Field Office (MFO) districts. Just north of the Residence B District, parcels are zoned Edu-Cultural and house NCC and Hofstra. The Hofstra campus was rezoned from Y Industrial District and B Residence District to Edu-Cultural District in 1963. These districts include Nassau Energy Corp. (Engie), the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) Center for Training and Intelligence (situated on the campus of NCC) and Museum Row.

East

The Residence B District is the primary zoning east of the subject property within the Study Area, which is then bounded by the Meadowbrook State Parkway.

South

There is a mix of zoning districts south of the subject property. The frontage along Hempstead Turnpike, just south of the subject property, is zoned X Business, MFO, Edu-Cultural, with a small amount of Residence B. This zoning has been in place since the 1970s. The Residence B District becomes more prominent further south. To the south of this area is MFO zoning that was designated in the early 1980s and early 1990s. The zoning in Hempstead Village is AA Residence

District, which permits single-family detached dwellings; public and parochial schools; churches and similar places of worship; parish houses; convents; libraries; colleges or universities; transient dwellings; lodging houses; community residences; homeless shelters; halfway houses; and group family day-care centers. The baseball/softball fields are zoned B Residence. Finally, south of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard, the zoning was changed from B Residence District to Golden Age Residence District circa 1995/1996. A small area of CA Residence District (multifamily) is located along the north side of Front Street.

West

The parcels located west of the subject property are zoned Edu-Cultural, MFO, and Residence B, with an Industrial District further west. The area around Endo Boulevard, to the east, has been zoned within the Y Industrial District since the mid-1950s. A small area of X Business District is located north of the railroad tracks and south of Stewart Avenue. The area to the north of Stewart Avenue is zoned B Residence District, while the zoning along Merrick Avenue, north of Stewart Avenue is also generally X Business District. South of Stewart Avenue, along Merrick Avenue, zoning is mixed with MFO-II (since 1983) and Y Industrial (since the mid-1950s).

Community Character
As explained in The SEQR Handbook, “generally, through the exercise of their zoning and planning powers, municipalities are given the job of defining their own character.”188 Therefore, the desired character for the subject property and the surrounding area was set forth by the intent and regulations of the Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field, including the MFM Zoning District, the surrounding zoning districts, as well as the adopted planning documents that address the site and nearby community.
The planning principles for this area of the Town are set forth in the PDDs at Mitchel Field, which were created in 1971 to address the federal government’s allocation of the military land at Mitchel Field to various institutions, including NCC and Nassau County, generally. From that allocation, the Edu-Cultural District was created and adopted by the Town to accommodate NCC.
The legislative purpose (§135 of the BZO) also recognized that since the Coliseum was nearing completion, the construction of a hotel on the adjoining land was appropriate and thus created the MFH District. At that time, the Town also understood that planning for all of the land would extend over a period of time and would involve future factors that were currently unknown. The Town also identified the need for “coordinating plans and designs of different developers. It is essential that streets, easements, utilities, building sites, site plans, building floor plans and evaluation of all construction types as intended to be sited, located, erected, constructed and used be related to each other” and that “each phase of development, as it progresses, should support and enlarge the use and enjoyment of prior development.”
The PDDs at Mitchel Field offers a framework for non-standard zoning districts that allow multiple types of uses and provides “a zoning mechanism responsive to the comprehensive process of planning for such development.” The PDDs at Mitchel Field set forth a number of

‌188 NYSDEC. The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, March 2020, page 198 (2020). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.
districts that permit a variety of uses, and are grouped into several key categories – hotel, office and mixed-use. These subdistricts comprise the subject property and much of the surrounding area and set forth the desired character of this area.
As described above, the existing character of the area is defined the diverse mix of commercial, educational, institutional, industrial, community facility and residential uses within the surrounding community, as does the density and scale of development, reflecting the area’s zoning regulations, including those of the PDDs at Mitchel Field. A detailed discussion of the visual characteristics of the area, along with representative photographs area are presented in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources, of this DEIS.
A major contributing factor to the existing community character is the subject property, which is defined by the Coliseum building surrounded by a sea of parking and relatively low level of activity. The parking lots are generally flat and barren with scattered landscaping and lighting fixtures throughout. Additionally, the Marriott Hotel is distinctive due to its height within the sea of parking surrounding it to the north (associated with the Coliseum) and to the south.
The Town envisioned a more diverse character for the subject property when it adopted the MFM Zoning District in 2011. The legislative purpose of the MFM Zoning District, as described in detail above, and its permitted uses, allowed for design flexibility, mixed use, and environmental sustainability, among other features, to complement the Coliseum. For more than a decade, this vision for the subject property and surrounding has not been achieved, even though several attempts to develop the site pursuant to the MFM Zoning District have been made. Additionally, many of the relevant land use plans have called for and promoted the redevelopment and revitalization of the Coliseum and surrounding area (the Nassau Hub).
Much of the character envisioned by the Town (through its Mitchel Field PDDs) and planning studies of other entities is that of a vibrant and active mixed-use area with a mix of commercial, office, hospitality, educational, institutional, cultural, retail and entertainment uses, with residences on the outskirts of the “hub.” When one reviews the Study Area, much of the vision has been realized by the actual developed character of the area, with the exception of the underutilized Coliseum property, whose vitality has significantly decreased over the past decade- plus, and is nowhere near the level of activity from its heyday in the 1980s, when it was the home of the multi-year Stanley Cup champion New York Islanders.
The character of the area surrounding the Coliseum property reflects the visions of the Town’s zoning and above-discussed planning studies as contains an active mix of uses that are visited/occupied by a significant number of people. The area is defined by a number of dominant land uses such as colleges (including NCC, which was formed out the Mitchel Field Air Base and is governed by the Edu-Cultural District, and Hofstra University), office buildings (many of which are situated within the MFO District) and commercial uses (including the Marriott Hotel, which was imagined early on as part of the original PDDs and Coliseum development).
Many of the larger buildings are surrounded by surface parking lots, containing little-to-no vegetation. The land is primarily flat due to prior land development activities associated with the former military base, the existing buildings, parking areas and roadways, and views are expansive from the surrounding roadways. The large, multi-story office buildings along with the larger buildings associated with NCC and Hofstra University, surrounding the subject property, contribute to the general and visual character of the area. The surrounding community is
composed of predominantly one-to-two story buildings punctuated by taller buildings of up to 15 stories and 175± feet (RXR Plaza) and The Omni (10 stories, 122 feet), which are permitted in the MFO District. The size, height, shape and reflective materials of these buildings make them a prominent feature within the landscape and a significant contributor to the community character.
Business zoning along the Hempstead Turnpike corridor has dictated the commercial character along a small stretch opposite the subject property, and the Residence B zoning to the south of the business corridor has led to one-to-two-story, densely developed single-family residential uses to the south forming the residential character of the area within Uniondale.
The uses within the Study Area contribute to the character that has been planned and designed to attract a significant number of people to the area to work, live and play in vibrant and active environment, served by major roadways. The one significant site that has not, despite various attempts, been able to realize its full potential is the Coliseum property, which, due to its reduced activity and underutilization, has not achieved the character envisioned in the Town’s Mitchel Field PDDs or the various other planning studies described earlier.

‌Potential Impacts

Land Use

Implementation of the proposed action would result in redevelopment of the Coliseum property and reconfiguration of parking on the Marriott Hotel property, as depicted on the site plan in Appendix 2-2. Sands is proposing a dynamic entertainment and hospitality destination, featuring four- and five-star hotels, an entertainment venue, meeting and convention space, swimming pools and health club, as well as outdoor community spaces and a variety of entertainment programming – all in addition to world-class gaming facilities. Weaving through the casinos, hotels, meeting and conference space and the entertainment venue would be a “lifestyle complex” that would serve as the spine for circulating throughout the proposed Integrated Resort. It would contain continuous attractions and experiences, including a wide variety of food and beverage establishments and limited retail shops, which connect the Integrated Resort’s major facilities (e.g., casinos, hotels, entertainment venue, and meeting and conference space).

The proposed project would repurpose the underutilized Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and create a lively resort at the subject property. The proposed development is expected to transform the subject property into a next-generation, mixed-entertainment destination that fosters a sense of community and connectivity within its surroundings and draws people together. As detailed in Table 25, the proposed development would increase the land coverage on the subject property.

‌Table 25 Existing and Proposed Land Coverages as Depicted on the Dimensional Site Plan*

	Existing Coverage (Proposed Action) in Acres (Percent)	Proposed Coverage In Acres (Percent)
Type of Coverage	Existing Coverage (Proposed Action) in Acres (Percent)
Buildings	5.3 acres (6.2%)	28.3 acres (32.7%)
Parking Structures	0.0 (0.0%)	6.1 (7.1%)
Surface Parking Areas	55.5 (64.3%)	20.0 (23.2%)
Roadways	7.6 (8.8%)	5.4 (6.3%)
Walkways/Plazas/Other Hardscape	9.6 (11.1%)	10.8 (12.5%)
Landscaping, Lawn and Pervious Surfaces	8.3 (9.6%)	15.7 (18.2%)
Total:	86.3 acres (100%)	86.3 acres (100%)
During the scoping process, a comment was raised regarding the potential need to modify deed restrictions and encumbrances. Greenberg Traurig LLP reviewed and compiled all available deed restrictions and encumbrances as Schedule A (Deed Restrictions and Encumbrances), which is included in Appendix 2-10*. The current plans for the proposed Integrated Resort do not contemplate modifications to the existing deed restrictions and encumbrances.

Overall impervious surface would decrease under the proposed development from the current

90.4 percent to 81.8 percent. The areas of surface parking would be reduced from 64.3 percent to

23.2 percent of the subject site under the proposed development. Furthermore, the area of landscaping, lawn and pervious surfaces would increase under the proposed development from

9.6 percent to 18.2 percent of the subject site, representing almost double the area of green space.

The proposed development would take place in two phases, as summarized below. These land use components are detailed and illustrated in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action (Figure 16).

Phase 1: (January 2026 – December 2027)189

Repurposed Coliseum (Coliseum Casino)

The existing Coliseum is currently used as a two-level sports arena with an exposition area on the lower level. As part of Phase 1, the existing Coliseum facility would be repurposed to include a multi-level gaming area, with a gaming floor at grade, and a second gaming floor below grade. Each level would also include back of house space, office areas, retail, and food and beverage areas. The new casino would be connected to Parking Garage A via an overhead pedestrian bridge, as well as a tunnel under North Drive, as described below and in Appendix 2-2.

Although gaming would be a central component of the Integrated Resort, the proposed 393,726 net sf gaming area (included in both Phase 1 and Phase 2, described below) represents less than 10 percent of the project’s total square footage.

‌189 Construction commencement is dependent upon actual timing of gaming license awards, and if a gaming license is awarded, timing of all zoning and land use approvals. The application process for the gaming license, and the ultimate license, if awarded to Sands, may impact the level of development. However, the scale of development would not exceed that evaluated as part of this SEQR process.

Parking Garage A and CUP-1

Parking Garage A would be constructed in Phase 1 and located in the northern portion of the proposed development to initially serve the Coliseum Casino. It would be connected to the Coliseum Casino, and ultimately the South Casino, Restaurants and Supportive Retail (lifestyle complex) and Hotels to the south, by an overhead pedestrian bridge spanning North Drive, a lower lobby pedestrian tunnel under North Drive and by vehicles from North Drive. Parking Garage A would contain over 4,300 parking stalls for general use (including self-parking) and accommodate trucks/coach buses and LIRR shuttle buses to the Hempstead LIRR station. A dedicated site roadway is provided from Earle Ovington Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site that enters and exits Garage A on the north side. Deliveries and buses would be accommodated in the underground level of the parking garage with a pedestrian tunnel provided into the casino building under North Drive. This dedicated roadway would also facilitate the egress of emergency vehicles from Parking Garage A, which would be staged on the east side of the ground floor. Valet service for patron passenger cars is provided in a dedicated area on the ground floor of Parking Garage A, as is ridesharing such as Uber and Lyft. A portion of the garage’s stalls would accommodate electric vehicle charging stations.

The initial central utilities plant (CUP-1) is proposed to be constructed within the footprint of Parking Garage A. CUP-1 is proposed to be a multi-story structure that would support all of the central utilities (including the air source heat pumps used for heating and cooling, situated on the roof of the CUP) for Phase 1 and for half of Phase 2, when additional air source heat pumps would be installed. A second CUP (CUP-2) would be constructed in Phase 2 to support the remainder of the development. See Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, of this DEIS for additional discussion.

As described in Section 3.10.2, Community Facilities and Services, Sands would construct a 1,500-SF police sub-station on the subject site, with police vehicles maintained on-site. This substation would be located on the ground level within Parking Garage A, along with a 344±-SF fire/EMT substation and K-9 unit kennel, adjacent to various utility rooms within CUP-1.

Ambulance/EMT and other first responder vehicles would be stationed adjacent to the substations, within the footprint of CUP-1, within the footprint of Parking Garage A, to provide immediate emergency services to patrons in need at the proposed Integrated Resort.

Parking Lot E

Parking Lot E is proposed to contain over 500 surface parking spaces and be located in the northeast corner of the subject property, north of the Marriott Hotel and east of Parking Garage A and west of James Doolittle Boulevard. Access to this surface parking lot would be from James Doolittle Boulevard, and internally, via Sands Boulevard.

Outdoor Spaces and Landcaping

The proposed Integrated Resort’s outdoor public spaces are a primary feature and attraction for the property, providing both gathering spaces for entertainment and activities, as well as an inviting setting to welcome guests. Outdoor spaces are strategically located within the property and complement the resort’s architecture. The diverse outdoor experience would include larger plazas along with intimate manicured gardens.

The Central Plaza, along with other landscape and hardscape elements, would be installed in Phase 1. The Central Plaza located between the Coliseum Casino and the existing Marriott Hotel on the east side of the subject property would be similar in size to the western lawn at Bryant Park in Manhattan. It would provide the community with space to host neighborhood events, winter festivals, summer markets, art shows, outdoor music performances and other community activities.

As part of the Central Plaza, Sands would develop a veterans’ memorial to honor the site’s origins. Sands would engage Nassau County veterans in the design of a memorial wall and water feature, which would be situated within a grove of trees and flanked by permanent seating for quiet reflection. Berms and low walls would shelter the memorial from roadway traffic to create an area of honor and respect. In addition, the veterans memorial space would be able to accommodate veterans’ events.

Site Improvements and Utilities

By the end of Phase 1, both Sands Boulevard and North Drive would be completely constructed and operational. It is noted that West Drive and South Drive (the roadways around MSKCC) already exist.

Site improvements in this phase include the utility work required to upgrade incoming and outgoing services to the Coliseum Casino, including upgraded drainage systems in the northeast surface parking area. Sewer and water service connections would be modified and upgraded as necessary. Existing utility services from Engie would be disconnected from the Coliseum, and new electric service and gas lines would be provided.

Back-of-House Areas

Back-of-house areas, which are included in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 uses, primarily encompass employee and business segment work spaces and other supportive facilities such as loading docks, security centers, kitchens, warehouse spaces and offices. These areas are fundamental to providing safe and efficient operation of the proposed Integrated Resort. Sands would be thorough and diligent in creating safety for the proposed Integrated Resort’s points of entry and how people and goods are moved throughout the property. Sands’ focus on designing secure and efficient back-of-house operations begins at the building perimeter and extends to all areas where employees would conduct behind-the-scenes work or transport and remove items.

Phase 2: (July 2026 – December 2030)

As explained in Section 3.15.1, Construction Schedule, Phasing and Logistics and depicted on the Construction Logistics Plans (Appendix 3.15-1), construction of Phase 2 components would overlap with Phase 1 construction, and is expected to commence approximately six months after commencement of Phase 1.

South Casino

As part of Phase 2 of the proposed Integrated Resort, a new “South Casino” would be constructed adjacent to the Coliseum Casino. A variety of food and beverage offerings would be located in the areas surrounding the casino floor, providing a wide range of dining options and

cuisines from food hall bites to fine dining. Sands envisions the casino’s dining attractions would become a destination for Long Island and the region.

Restaurant and Supportive Retail (Lifestyle Complex)

As indicated above, throughout the lifestyle complex (including part of Phase 1), the proposed Integrated Resort would offer a wide range of food and beverage options. The lifestyle complex, housing the restaurant and retail offerings would serve as connectors throughout the resort, providing easy access to the casino, hotel, meeting and conference space, the entertainment venue, as well as outdoor spaces. The food and beverage program would be a major feature of the proposed Integrated Resort, driving visitation and enhancing the overall guest experience. The food and beverage venues would be integrated within the casino as well as other areas of the hotels/spa. Providing access to a wide range of cuisines and price points from the gaming floor is extremely important to the overall customer experience.

CUP-2

The CUP-2 is proposed to be located west of the South Casino, between Parking Garage B to the northwest and Parking Garage C to the south. The CUP-2 is a multi-story structure that would support the central utilities for the second half of Phase 2 building components.

Hotel Towers

Phase 2 of the proposed Integrated Resort would include two hotels – a 946-key, five-star luxury hotel and a 724-key boutique hotel.

The 5-star luxury hotel would be located on the east side of the property, directly adjacent to the South Casino and proximate to the entertainment venue. The 724-key boutique hotel would be smaller in size with an intimate feel. This hotel would be positioned between the Coliseum Casino and the meeting and conference space.

Entertainment Venue

Honoring the legacy of the live events at the Coliseum, the proposed Integrated Resort would include an entertainment venue as a major attraction. This venue would be able to accommodate a wide range of events, from small intimate performances to larger-scale concerts and shows.

Although the performance venue would be multi-purpose in its functionality, it would be designed and optimized for live entertainment, with a focus on optimized acoustics and viewing angles that bring the audience closer to the action. Sands is proposing to invest in state-of-the- art technology to enhance production value and guest experience. The proposed venue would also accommodate other large-scale events, such as corporate keynote speeches, large-format presentations, and comedy shows.

Meeting and Conference Space

The meeting and conference space would encompass about 213,000 sf, as well as associated outdoor space, capable of accommodating a variety of functions from business Meeting and conferences to parties and celebrations. As such, the meeting spaces would target conference travel, local business organization meetings, and other events.

The proposed Integrated Resort would be a premier destination through providing functional and flexible conference spaces, ballrooms and pre-function areas that can be configured as needed. Each space would feature views of the surrounding area, and design elements would provide productive and inspiring environments for meetings and events. The meeting and conference space would be equipped with advanced information technology systems and high- speed connectivity to deliver state-of-the-art capabilities.

Outdoor Space (West Plaza), Landscaping and Other Attractions

The proposed West Plaza, situated near the meeting and conference space and the boutique hotel, would be a smaller intimate garden. This area would have landscaped zones providing guests outdoor space for relaxation and contemplation. Additional plantings would occur across the site as part of the comprehensive landscaping plan, both internally and around the perimeter.

The proposed Integrated Resort would seek to provide approximately 60,000 sf of space for high-quality experiential attractions. Since customer tastes and preferences change, Sands is proposing to wait until closer to property opening to finalize a specific attraction.

Other Site Improvements

As with Phase 1, new utilities would be installed and connected to serve the building components constructed in Phase 2.

Parking Garage B

Parking Garage B would be located south of the proposed Integrated Resort’s meeting and conference center and west of the casinos and lifestyle complex. Parking Garage B is situated north of the off-site MSKCC parcel, in the western portion of the subject site and adjacent to Earle Ovington Boulevard. Garage B would have four points of access - at the intersection of West Drive and South Drive a northbound, entrance only access is provided for employees from Hempstead Turnpike. A central signalized access point is provided for entering vehicles only from either direction while the westerly access point provides for exiting vehicles to the west only. On Earle Ovington Boulevard, an exit-only to the northbound direction is provided in the location of an existing exit from what is now a surface parking field. This additional exit would allow for travel to the north only. Garage B would accommodate personal vehicles of the employees of the proposed Integrated Resort, as well as an employee drop-off/pick-up area. A valet parking area for Hotel Tower 2 guests (via the drop-off loop adjacent to that hotel) and for the meeting and conference space would be located below grade within this garage.

Parking Garage C

Parking Garage C would be located in the southern portion of the proposed Integrated Resort, north of Hempstead Turnpike, west of the proposed entertainment venue and south of the casinos and hotels/spa complex. Vehicular access to Parking Garage C would be from three access points -- West Drive, which runs north-south from Hempstead Turnpike to South Drive and an internal roadway. This garage would accommodate delivery vehicles to the site via a separate access point on West Drive. It would also contain a drop-off/valet for the live performance venue, as well as a rideshare drop-off/pick-up area. A drop-off loop adjacent to

Hotel Tower 1 would serve hotel guests wishing to valet their vehicles, which would then be stored via underground connections to Garage C.

Parking Lot F

Parking lot F is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the site, south of the Marriott Hotel property, east of the proposed entertainment venue. This lot is proposed to contain over 800 parking spaces and be used for general guest parking for all resort amenities.

Parking Lot G

Parking Lot G would be located near the intersection of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike, west of the off-site MSKCC. This parking lot would be used primarily as an employee parking area and would contain approximately 700 parking stalls. Access to this parking lot would be internal from South Drive, off Earle Ovington Boulevard. An additional point of egress is provided on Earle Ovington Boulevard, where an exit-only to the northbound direction is provided in the location of an existing exit from what is now a surface parking field. This additional exit would allow for travel to the north only.

Marriott Hotel 190

Other than the proposed parking reconfiguration at the southern end of the Marriott property (Lot F), there are no plans for any changes to the Marriott Hotel. While Sands has not negotiated a lease with Nassau County for the Marriott Hotel, it has a purchase and sale agreement with the Marriott operator (Appendix 2-8). If the Lessee ultimately secures a lease and exercises its option with the Marriott operator, the Lessee may renovate the property, but such renovation would not include an expansion or change in operations. The Marriott contributes 614 existing parking spaces to the overall surface parking of the proposed Integrated Resort.

Overall, the Integrated Resort is being designed as a cohesive development that brings together gaming with hotel, convention facilities, entertainment, spa, dining and supportive retail. The existing flat landscape, almost totally devoid of vegetation and covered with asphalt, is proposed to be transformed into a lively, premier destination that would enhance the attractiveness of the subject property, and bring people together from the community, the region and the world.

As detailed above, the subject property and its surrounding uses were born from a former military facility and, over the last 50 years, grew into a destination entertainment and hospitality venue. The subject property is surrounded by three multi-lane roadways. Therefore, with the exception of the Marriott Hotel and the MSKCC, it is physically separated from existing neighboring uses, which include NCC to the north, Hofstra University to the west and southwest, major office buildings to the northwest, west and southwest, and neighborhood commercial and residential development to the south. The land uses within the surrounding area are diverse and have been influenced by the decades long use of the site and adjacent property as an entertainment/ hospitality venue.

‌190 If Sands ultimately secures a lease and exercises its option with the Marriott operator, it may renovate the property, but such renovation would not include an expansion or change in operations. If an expansion or change in operations were proposed by Sands (or any party), it would require its own SEQR and land use review processes.

The proposed uses complement those in the surrounding area by redeveloping the underutilized Coliseum and its barren parking lots on the subject property. Accordingly, with respect to land use, the proposed Integrated Resort provides of a mix of land uses (that have been identified as desired and important for the area’s vitality, as demonstrated through recent zoning history) that are both internally integrated and complement the surrounding community.

As detailed above, with the exception of the Marriott Hotel and the MSKCC, the proposed development would be physically separated from existing neighboring uses, including NCC to the north; Hofstra University to the west and southwest; major office buildings to the northwest, west and southwest; and neighborhood commercial and residential development to the south. Furthermore, the location of the subject site within the regional context is appropriate for attracting local and regional visitors within 50 miles for downstate New York. As detailed in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits, New York State approved a constitutional amendment authorizing up to seven commercial casinos, and subsequently the New York State Gaming Commission awarded licenses to four upstate casinos. Other gaming destinations (video gaming) within the 50-mile catchment area for the proposed development, as shown on Figure 21, include:

› Empire City Casino (MGM) in Yonkers, New York – This facility is situated within a predominately residential area

› Results World New York in Jamaica, New York – This facility is situated within an area defined by a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, and entertainment

› Jake’s 58 Casino Hotel, Islandia, New York – This facility is situated within an area that consists of residential, commercial, industrial, and undeveloped parcels.

These existing gaming facilities, all located along a major interstate or thoroughfare and adjacent to a mix of uses, demonstrate a similar condition to the proposed development.

Figure 21: Other Gaming Destinations

‌Sands New York Integrated Resort

8 Miles

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Ridgewood

Paterson

kla

White Plains

Greenwich

Scarsdale

Rye

Yonkers

Empire City Casino (MGM) - Yonkers, New York

Clifton

Congressman Lester Wolff Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Commack

Jake's 58 HotCeol r-amIslandia, New York

Ronkonkoma

Medford

Shirley

East Orange

Resorts World New York City - Jamaica, New York

vington

New York Brooklyn

Bayonne

Elizabeth

Ir Newark

Flushing

Jamaica

Valley Stream

Woodmere

Hempstead

Freeport

Hicksville

Levittown

North Babylon West Babylon

Brentwood

East Patchogue

Fire Island National Seashore

Gateway National Recreation Area

Long Beach

Jones Beach State Park

Gilgo State Park

Robert Moses State Park

Other Gaming Destinations Subject Property

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS; Nearmap; Esri

Federal Aviation Administration Regulations
As explained in greater detail below, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires review to determine whether a structure that is proposed to be built or altered and is 200 feet above ground level would pose a hazard to the airspace.191 As the proposed Integrated Resort has structures that meet this screening threshold, such review is required.
14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 establishes:
› “The requirements to provide notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction, or the
alteration of existing structures;
› The standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation, and navigational and communication facilities;
› The process for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation or navigational facilities to determine the effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, air navigation facilities or equipment; and,
› The process to petition the FAA for discretionary review of determinations, revisions, and
extensions of determinations.”192
The FAA uses the concept of “imaginary surfaces” to define volumes of airspace that surround an airport that are not visible. The purpose of imaginary surfaces is to identify objects (natural or man-made) that could potentially affect aircraft operations. An object that penetrates these imaginary surfaces may be identified as a potential obstruction and could present a potential hazard to air navigation as determined by the FAA.
Not all objects that exceed an obstruction height are considered hazards to air navigation. The FAA conducts aeronautical studies on proposed development projects that meet the requirements as defined in 14 CFR Part 77 (described below). As part of this aeronautical study, the FAA examines the effects the proposed development may have on factors such as aircraft operational capabilities, navigational aids, and procedural requirements to determine the impact the proposed development could have on navigable airspace. If the study shows that the proposed development, when evaluated against these standards, poses no adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, then the development is not considered to be a hazard to air navigation.
In administering Title 14 CFR Part 77, the prime objectives of the FAA are to promote air safety and the efficient use of the navigable airspace. To accomplish this, an evaluation of aeronautical studies with respect to structure heights are conducted based on information provided by project proponents to complete an FAA Form 7460‐1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. 14 CFR Part 77.9 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of

‌191 The FAA is the subdivision of the United States Department of Transportation (hereinafter “USDOT”) that regulates all aspects of civil aviation in the United States. On May 1, 1965, the FAA implemented The Federal Aviation Regulations, which govern all aviation activities in the United States.
‌192 Code of Federal Regulations. 14 CFR Part 77: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Available at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?rgn=div5&node=14:2.0.1.2.9. Accessed September 2024.

the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA, by submitting the above-identified form:
› Construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level
- Within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet
- Within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet
- Within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface
- Any highway, railroad or other traverse way whereas the prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards
  › When requested by the FAA
- Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location
An analysis for the project area was performed using the FAA’s Notice Criteria Tool for the proposed site location assuming a building height of 298-feet above ground level (agl) and approximately 77-feet ground elevation. Appendix 3.4-2 includes the results of the FAA Notice Criteria Tool based on these assumptions. The Notice Criteria Tool requested the Proposed Project to be filed with the FAA due to proximity to a navigation facility and it exceeds 14 CFR Part 77.9(a), any construction or alteration that is more than 200-feet agl at its site.
In addition to the FAA’s Notice Criteria Tool, the proximity of nearby airports and heliports to the
project site was assessed to understand potential impacts to approach and departure paths. Airports and heliports were assessed within a 50,000-foot radius from the project site as that is the largest potential area for an airport with an instrument approach, as shown on the figure, below.

Figure 22 Airports and Heliports in Proximity to Subject Site

‌As a result of the assessment, there were no airports within a 50,000-foot radius that would provide conflict with the subject site. Republic Airport is the closest airport to the subject property; however, its runways are not oriented in the direction of the proposed Integrated Resort. There was a total of 10 helipads within the 50,000-foot radius analyzed, however; only one helipad was within 4,000 feet of the site, which is the length of a helipad approach/departure path. Thus, only the helipad within 4,000 feet of the proposed Integrated Resort requires further investigation. The assessment identified one, private-use helipad located less than 0.5 Nautical Miles (NM) from the proposed Integrated Resort (i.e., EAB Plaza [now known as RXR Plaza] Helipad; FAA LOC ID: NK92).
Based on a desktop review of the NK92 helipad site and site observations, while the helipad is
listed as “active” in the FAA’s database, physical evidence of the helipad was not detected.
As the proposed Integrated Resort includes structures in excess of 200 feet, and there is a registered helipad within 0.5 NM mile of the subject property, Sands would file FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction/Alteration a minimum of 45 working days prior to the start of construction. Sands or its responsible contractor would also require such form(s) for the use of temporary construction equipment (e.g., cranes) if they are within the FAA review thresholds.

With respect to the helipad registered at RXR Plaza, Sands is pursuing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RXR to document that the approach and departure paths for the helipad are directed away from the proposed Integrated Resort, which would allow a new FAA Form 7480-1, Landing Area Proposal to be filed with the FAA that indicates the agreed-upon approach/departure path information. Once the FAA reviews this information and finds it acceptable, the FAA would provide an updated determination letter confirming that the approach/departure path is adequate. This filing would also be done at least 45 days prior to construction commencement on any structures in excess of 200 feet in height. Accordingly, no impacts to aviation are expected from implementation of the proposed action.
Relevant Land Use Plans
The proposed redevelopment of the property into the Sands Integrated Resort aligns with the recommendations and goals of the relevant land use plans, detailed in Section 3.4.1.2 above, as it would serve as a regional hub, concentrating a variety of uses, including entertainment, lodging, and recreational in a central location, attracting a wide range of people from Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York City and beyond.
These plans encourage balanced land uses that leverage existing infrastructure and mass transit connections. Various sections in this DEIS (Section 3.10, Community Facilities and Services, and Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action) demonstrate the adequacy of the existing infrastructure to serve the proposed Integrated Resort, the development's ability to provide sufficient infrastructure on-site, or the ability of the project to provide for enhanced off-site infrastructure (e.g., new water supply well, traffic/roadway improvements) to minimize potential impacts.
In compliance with the recommendations of the various plans, the proposed action would prioritize sustainable transportation options, including coach buses and ride-sharing programs, and connections, via shuttle bus, to the nearby Hempstead LIRR station. Bicycle accommodations and electric vehicle charging stations would be included within the Integrated Resort. Pedestrian- friendly design strategies, such as wide sidewalks and dedicated pedestrian crossings, would be incorporated into the design to encourage walking and reduce reliance on private automobiles.
In addition, consistent with recommendations set forth in the various relevant land use plans, the creation of the MF-IRD zoning district would facilitate the transformative revitalization of the Coliseum and nearby properties. This would encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field and allow the property to develop into a vibrant, active, and successful Long Island destination.
The proposed Integrated Resort would re-establish the area as the County's premier entertainment and hospitality center, offering gaming, hotels, meeting spaces, a live performance venue, immersive attractions, and retail and restaurant experiences. As discussed in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, the proposed Integrated Resort would provide economic benefits to Long Island communities through job creation, increased tax revenue, and increased tourism. Tax revenue generated from gambling is substantial, as described in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits, and Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, of this DEIS. The Integrated Resort would also add entertainment and cultural features (e.g., gaming, live performances, public attractions, an

enhanced veterans memorial) that would revive the Coliseum property, as well as the surrounding area.
According to the Nassau County Open Space Plan, no portion of the subject property is considered open space. Furthermore, the subject property is not depicted as a “potential open space” on the Potential and Existing Open Space figure, nor is it listed by the Town of Hempstead (or any other entity addressed in the Open Space Plan) as a parcel designated for preservation. However, the proposed redevelopment of the subject property would increase the amount of usable open/green space on the subject property. Whereas presently, the subject property contains approximately 8.3 acres of landscaping along the property edges and scattered throughout, based on the proposed landscape design, the amount of landscaping would increase to approximately 15.7 acres, including areas that would function as public gathering spaces and would increase biodiversity on the site.
The Hub MIS speaks directly to the redevelopment of the Coliseum and its surrounding property, promoting uses that would create new job opportunities and support existing businesses. The creation of new entertainment, hotel, restaurant and retail spaces, among other uses, would provide new jobs and career opportunities, many of which would be filled by area residents.
Furthermore, Sands has proposed a robust procurement process that would provide increased opportunities for local businesses. Additionally, Sands proposes to fulfill supply chain needs from local businesses. Sands has also established a partnership with Minority Millennials to assist minority and underrepresented populations with jobs and procurement for the proposed Integrated Resort.
Some of the relevant land use plans focus on how to attract travelers from across the globe by leveraging Long Island’s unique heritage and tourism assets. The proposed Integrated Resort is designed to be a transformative tourism destination that positively impacts the local community. Specific attractions, such as celebrity chef restaurants, experiential events and venues, flexible meeting and convention spaces, high-quality casino gaming, a day spa, a swimming pool and health club, and a variety of other entertainment programming would help attract tourists from across the country and across the world to the area.
The proposed Integrated Resort would also assist with achieving plan goals regarding creating cohesive education and workforce training through partnerships. As described in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits, Sands has committed to partnering with NCC and LIU to create a new, comprehensive hospitality program for Long Island’s college students. The strategic partnership would generate new career opportunities for students and graduates interested in hospitality management and culinary arts industries, both of which are expected to see significant local job growth if the proposed Sands Integrated Resort is built. This collaboration would support sustainable job growth, economic development, and new career opportunities for students on Long Island and throughout the New York metropolitan region. Sands is also partnering with Minority Millennials, a non-profit group, regarding jobs and procurement for the proposed Integrated Resort. According to Sands, and as noted in the Long Island Business News (2/9/23), the company is working with this “group to build a talent pipeline for future jobs and create a list of businesses that might be able to supply goods and services to the proposed” Integrated Resort. Development of the proposed project would create thousands of union jobs during construction and thousands more long-term career opportunities for Long Island residents.

In conclusion, the proposed MF-IRD zoning and the proposed Integrated Resort align with the recommendations and objectives of relevant land use plans. The redevelopment of one of the most visible and central parcels within Nassau County, as a reimagined regional hub conforms to the envisioned direction for the County's future and is consistent with the overarching themes of the relevant land use plans. The proposed action, among the first of its kind in the region, would create an appealing gateway into the community and enhance the local economy by generating tax revenue and new jobs, as well as offering advantages through the proposed community benefits programs.

Zoning

When initially evaluating zoning consistency of the proposed Integrated Resort with the Town of Hempstead BZO, it was clear that the proposed development concept would either require relaxation from various provisions of the prevailing MFM Zoning District, amendments to that district, or the establishment of a new zoning district. Sands prefers and has proposed a new zoning district, the MF-IRD. The ultimate determination regarding the zoning strategy lies with the Town of Hempstead Town Board, as the entity with zoning authority. This DEIS section evaluates the various zoning options.

The proposed action consists of three components related to zoning: the creation of a new zoning district (the MF-IRD); rezoning of the tax parcels that comprise the subject property into the MF-IRD; and development of the Integrated Resort in accordance with the proposed MF-IRD.

Arena, convention center, exhibition facility or theater(s), and similar entertainment uses as may be approved by the Town Board.

It is the Lessee’s position that a casino is an entertainment use. This is supported by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,193 which indicates that a casino use is part of the subsector entitled “Amusement, Gambling, Recreation Industries,” and is part of the ”Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Sector,” and further explains, in pertinent part:

About the Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries subsector

The amusement, gambling, and recreation industries subsector is part of the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector.

Industries in the Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries subsector (1) operate facilities where patrons can primarily engage in sports, recreation, amusement, or gambling activities and/or (2) provide other amusement and recreation services, such as supplying and servicing amusement devices in places of business operated by others; operating sports teams,

‌193 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industries at a Glance: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation: NAICS 71. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag71.htm. Accessed March 22, 2024.

clubs, or leagues engaged in playing games for recreational purposes; and guiding tours without using transportation equipment.

North American Industry Classification System

The amusement, gambling, and recreation industries subsector consists of these industry groups:

Amusement Parks and Arcades: NAICS 7131
Gambling Industries: NAICS 7132
Other Amusement and Recreation Industries: NAICS 7139 (emphasis added)
Review of the Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Sector194 explains, in pertinent part:

About the Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector
The arts, entertainment, and recreation sector is part of the leisure and hospitality supersector.195
The Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector includes a wide range of establishments that operate facilities or provide services to meet varied cultural, entertainment, and recreational interests of their patrons. This sector comprises (1) establishments that are involved in producing, promoting, or participating in live performances, events, or exhibits intended for public viewing; (2) establishments that preserve and exhibit objects and sites of historical, cultural, or educational interest; and (3) establishments that operate facilities or provide services that enable patrons to participate in recreational activities or pursue amusement, hobby, and leisure-time interests.
Some establishments that provide cultural, entertainment, or recreational facilities and services are classified in other sectors.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
The arts, entertainment, and recreation sector consists of these subsectors:
Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries: NAICS 711
Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions: NAICS 712
Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries: NAICS 713 (emphases added)

The Securities and Exchange Commission

also refers to casinos as entertainment, as in its

Gaming Regulatory Overview, it specifically states that:

General

The ownership and operation of casino entertainment facilities are subject to pervasive regulation under the laws, rules and regulations. . .(emphasis added)

‌194 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industries at a Glance: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation: NAICS 71. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag71.htm. Accessed March, 2024.

‌195 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industries at a Glance: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation: Leisure and Hospitality. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag70.htm. Accessed October 2024.

‌196 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Exhibit 99.3: Gaming and Regulatory Overview. Available

at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/858339/000119312512115625/d268435dex993.htm. Accessed September 2024.

Thus, the Lessee submits that the casino component of the proposed Integrated Resort is an entertainment facility. As specifically noted in the MFM Zoning District, the permitted use categorized as [a]rena, convention center, exhibition facility or theater(s), and similar entertainment uses would all require Town Board approval, as specified in §146.1 C. (1) of the Town of Hempstead BZO. Accordingly, the Lessee’s position is that a casino could reasonably be interpreted as a “similar entertainment use, as may be approved by the Town Board.”

It is also noteworthy that before listing the actual permitted uses in the MFM Zoning District

§146.1 C. thereof indicates that:

Permitted uses. A building or structure may be erected, altered or used for one or more of the following purposes, and for no other. In addition to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, a lot or premises shall be used for at least two or more of the following purposes. . .

Even though the Coliseum has been a failing operation for many years, as explained in Section 2.2.4, Historical and Current Level of Activity on the Site, in compliance with that requirement, Sands is proposing to retrofit the Coliseum building and incorporate it into the casino.

Development of the proposed Integrated Resort would not comply with various dimensional requirements of the existing MFM Zoning District; however as previously noted and explained in Section 2.3.2, Prior Applications for Development, there has never been a development or a proposal within the MFM Zoning District that has not required relief from various dimensional requirements.

It should also be understood that the financial feasibility of development proposals under the MFM Zoning District with no relief and no additional authorized usages would be questionable, due to the significant debt that had to be satisfied to allow the transfer of the ground lease.

Nassau Live partnered with RXR on its Nassau Hub Innovation District project that controlled the site, and Sands paid$241 million to acquire the lease and improvements on the site. This is in addition to the payments made by Sands to Nassau County as part of the lease agreement (see Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits). Given the actual density allowed in the MFM Zoning District, any development in full conformance with that District with no relief whatsoever would not be expected to generate the economic return necessary to satisfy that debt.

If the proposed Integrated Resort were to be developed under the MFM Zoning District, as demonstrated in Figure 20 , and assuming the Town Board would approve the casino as a “similar entertainment use,” the following provisions of the existing MFM Zoning District would have to be amended or relief would have to be granted, as shown in Table 26 .

‌Table 26 Table of Required Relief for Proposed Integrated Resort Pursuant to MFM Zoning District

Code Section

Parameter

Permitted/Required

Proposed

§ 146.1.F

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

1.6 Maximum

1.96

(The area of the public rights-of-way specified in § 146.1.O[3]

have been deducted from the lot area)

§ 146.1.H(1)

Nonresidential Building Height

60 feet maximum

95 feet

§ 146.1.H(2)

Hotel Height

100 feet maximum

298 feet (top of parapet exceeding three feet in height)

§ 146.1.H(3)

Freestanding Parking Structure Height

for nonresidential and mixed uses

40 feet maximum

95 feet

§ 146.1.K

Yards for buildings heights greater than 60 feet

20 feet for the first 60 feet of building height

one foot for each three feet of height above 60 feet

0 feet (From the rights-of- way specified in § 146.1.O[3]. Minimum requirement satisfied for all other street frontages and

lot lines.)

§ 146.1.L(4)

Off-street and

on-street parking for nonresidential uses

Freestanding, nonresidential parking structures and structured ground- floor parking provided in the same building(s) as a permitted nonresidential use(s) with frontage on a new 120-foot right-of-way within the district shall locate retail or service uses along the ground floor street frontages of the building.

Not Provided

(120 foot rights-of-way are not proposed for dedication)

§ 146.1.O(3)(a)

East Drive R.O.W.

A north/south right-of-way 120 feet wide shall be created to connect

Glenn Curtiss Boulevard to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.

Right-of-way not proposed for dedication.

§ 146.1.O(3)(b)

North Drive R.O.W.

An east/west right-of-way 120 feet wide shall be created to connect Earle Ovington Boulevard to James Doolittle Boulevard.

Right-of-way not proposed for dedication.

North Drive extends only to East Drive rather than James Doolittle Boulevard.

§ 146.1.O(3)(c)

South Drive R.O.W.

An east/west right-of-way 80 feet wide shall be created to connect the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Charles Lindbergh Boulevard connecting

Right-of-way not proposed for dedication.

South Drive extends only to

Code Section	Parameter	Permitted/Required	Proposed
		right-of-way to Earl Ovington Boulevard.	West Drive rather than East Drive.
§ 146.1.O(3)(d)	West Drive R.O.W.	A north/south right-of-way 80 feet wide shall be created to connect Hempstead Turnpike with the east/west right-of-way connecting Earl Ovington Boulevard with the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Charles Lindbergh Boulevard connecting right-of-way.	Right-of-way not proposed for dedication. West Drive extends only to South Drive rather than North Drive.
Note: The proposed public rights-of-way conform to those established in Section 146.1-O(3) of the MFM Zoning District.

Accordingly, even though the proposed action incorporates uses permitted in the MFM Zoning District, like all prior developments and proposals under that District, either relief would have to be granted or the MFM Zoning District would have to be amended to allow development of the proposed Integrated Resort. While zoning authority rests entirely with the Town of Hempstead Town Board, in the event that the Town Board would prefer to adopt a new zoning district, the Lessee has prepared the draft Mitchel Field-Integrated Resort District (MF-IRD) for consideration.

Proposed Mitchel Field Integrated Resort District (MF-IRD)

The MF-IRD is proposed to be created and applied to the Coliseum and Mariott Hotel properties, as implementation of the proposed action would necessitate significant relief from the existing MFM Zoning District, in which these properties are currently situated.

Based on the foregoing, as part of the proposed action, a new zoning district, the Mitchel Field Integrated Resort District (MF-IRD) is proposed for the subject property (Appendix 2-7 and Section 3.4.2.4, Proposed Zoning). The MF-IRD would become part of Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field of the Town’s BZO, which was adopted in 1971 when the Coliseum was still under construction. The MF-IRD is being proposed to facilitate the transformative redevelopment of the Coliseum property to encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field and to permit the development of the property in accordance with proposed lease between Nassau County and the Lessee. The purposes of the proposed MF-IRD are similar to those outlined in the MFM Zoning District (which was used as a base in drafting of the proposed MF-IRD), and consist of the following:

› To preserve and protect the special character of the greater Mitchel Field area and those of surrounding neighborhoods

› To promote, encourage and achieve sustainable development that preserves, protects and enhances the environmental, economic and human resources of the Town of Hempstead

› To create an attractive physical environment that provides daily amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations

› To achieve harmonious visual and functional use relationships within the district and with adjacent neighborhoods

Permitted uses in the proposed MF-IRD are very similar to those in the existing MFM Zoning District, and include the following (see Appendix 2-7 for the full text of the proposed MF-IRD):

› Arena, convention center, exhibition facility, casino/gaming, theater, movie theatre, golf entertainment, miniature golf, bowling, and similar entertainment uses as may be approved by the Town Board

› Hotel or conference center

› Office, bank, financial institution or brokerage service

› Medical or dental office or clinic

› Store for the sale, at retail, of articles to be used on or off the premises

› Supermarket

› Restaurant, cafe or luncheonette, excluding a drive-in restaurant, drive-in luncheonette, drive- in counter or drive-in refreshment stand

› Personal service retail, such as retail hand laundry, custom tailoring, hand dressmaking or shoe repairing

› Research and development facilities (including medical research and laboratories)

› Hospital and medical center

› Public school, parochial school, private school; college or university; trade school or training facilities; music, dancing or other instructional school; dormitory for educational institutions

› Senior citizen congregate-care facility, assisted living facility or nursing home

› Day-care facility

› Health club or spa

› Cultural facilities, museums, performing arts venues, memorials

› Club, fraternal organization, lodge or philanthropic use

› Townhouses or multiple-family dwellings

› Post office, library, emergency services or other municipal buildings or governmental uses

› Religious uses

› Park, recreational or open space uses, including outdoor entertainment uses

› Public and private transportation facilities. Accessory uses include, but are not limited to:

› Clubhouse and meeting rooms

› Outdoor in-ground or indoor swimming pools and tennis courts

› Utility and energy facilities, including renewable energy facilities

› Open surface parking and parking structures.

Figure 23: Proposed Zoning - MF-IRD

Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Mitchel Field Office II

Residence B

Mitchel Field Integrated Resort District

Edu-Cultural

Mitchel Field Office

Business

Villa Sites

0 600 Feet

Subject Property

Nassau County Parcels

Proposed Mitchel Field Integrated Resort District

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, USGS

Existing Town of Hempstead Zoning

Residence B Business Edu-Cultural

Mitchel Field Office Mitchel Field Office II Villa Sites

The entire list of permitted and accessory uses is included in Appendix 2-7.

Below are the key components of the proposed MF-IRD. Specific requirements and exceptions to same are set forth in the proposed zoning code (Appendix 2-7).

‌Table 27 Proposed MF-IRD Bulk and Dimensional Requirements

Item	Required/Permitted
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)*	1.6
Building Height Non-Residential & Mixed-Use Buildings	250 feet maximum
Hotel Building Height	280 feet maximum
Freestanding Parking Structure Height	95 feet maximum
Minimum Front Yard Setback - For Non- Residential & Mixed-Use Buildings	10 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback- For Non- Residential & Mixed-Use Buildings	10 feet
Required Parking	12,411 spaces based on proposed development program
Landscaped Islands	Located at the ends of each parking bay containing 10 or more spaces and separating opposing rows of parking spaces at least every third parking bay. The minimum width of landscaped islands shall be five feet where located at the ends of parking bays and eight feet where separating opposing rows of parking spaces or adjacent to circulation aisles.
Vegetative Buffer	A minimum 15-foot-wide vegetative buffer shall be provided to screen off-street surface parking areas along adjoining public roadway frontages. Where off-street parking areas are situated opposite residential uses that adjoin a public roadway frontage, such vegetative buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width.
Off-street Loading	24 spaces based on proposed development program
Number of Residential Units	No more than 500
Percentage of affordable and/or next generation/workforce housing units	20%
Residential Building Height	250 feet maximum
Residential Front Yard	Minimum of 25 feet (note: front yard requirements do not apply to internal rights-of-way created as part of a conceptual master plan approved under the MF-IRD). In the case of a corner lot, a front yard shall be required on each street.
Residential Rear Yard	Minimum of 25 feet (note: rear yard requirements do not apply to internal rights-of-way created as part of a conceptual master plan approved under the MF-IRD).
Residential Side Yard	Minimum twenty-foot side yard on each side of the building, except where there are two or more buildings on a lot. In such a case, the minimum side yard requirement of 20 feet shall apply only along the side lot lines of the entire lot (note: side yard requirements do not apply to internal rights-of-way created as part of a conceptual master plan approved under the MF-IRD).

Item	Required/Permitted
Fences and walls	No fence or wall more than six feet in height may be erected without a permit and except when authorized by the Board of Appeals pursuant to Article XXVII hereof.
Public Open Space	At least 3% of the total land area of the MF-IRD shall be set aside as public open space. Required building setbacks, parking areas and driveways shall not be counted toward required public open space.
*The following portions of a building or structure shall be excluded from the calculation of floor area: (1) a basement or cellar located entirely below grade. Such basement or cellar may be used all or in part for required parking spaces; (2) parking structures; (3) an arcade, covered plaza, porte cochere, or atrium; (4)a pedestrian mall or plaza; and (5) an open-air park, recreational area or outdoor entertainment area. Also, the FAR calculation does not require a deduction for road rights-of- way, existing or proposed, as part of the formula for determining lot area.

Additional regulations/requirements associated with the following include design guidelines, which were patterned after the existing MFM Zoning District, for the following (Appendix 2-7 for details):

› Green site features and sustainability

› Building design

› Landscape design.

With respect to design, this section of the proposed MF-IRD indicates:

[a]ll development proposals shall include detailed plans as part of the application for conceptual master plan approval for architectural, streetscape and landscape design to ensure an efficient development of uses that is architecturally and visually appealing. The guidelines included in this article are intended to encourage master plan elements that provide appropriate location, arrangement and design of buildings, parking areas and parking structures, and open space and site amenities to promote quality site, building and landscape design, and to integrate the architecture, landscape architecture and streetscape of the MF-IRD.

There would be a review and approval process by a Design Review Board for new development, redevelopment, building expansions that result in a ten percent or greater increase in a building's floor area, and/or amendments to Town Board-approved CMPs and the associated site plan(s) and signs in the MF-IRD. In reviewing applications, the Design Review Board shall substantially follow the criteria of the MF-IRD Design Guidelines.

Furthermore, the proposed MF-IRD requires:

› At least 3% of the total land area of the MF-IRD shall be set aside as public open space.

The application procedure for development in accordance with the MF-IRD is as described herein.

› Any application made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall originate by an application to the Town Board. Such application shall include a conceptual master plan for the MF-IRD

› In the event that the Town Board approves said application, it may attach certain conditions to said approval, which conditions shall become an integral part thereof.

Though not outlined in the proposed MF-IRD, should the proposed MF-IRD zoning and Conceptual Master Plan be approved, the next steps would involve final site plan approval through the Town’s Section 305 process. The site plan approval process under Section 305 requires the submission of a site plan to the Town Board, which in its discretion, may refer such plan to the Town Planning Board.197

The proposed MF-IRD, as described above, furthers the intent and goals of Article XIII of the BZO, Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field by providing a new zoning district that promotes the development of innovative, attractive sites that provide benefits to the Town and larger region. As indicated in the legislative purpose of the PDD, there was an understanding of the dual responsibilities associated with Mitchel Field (County ownership and Town zoning, community services and local tax structure). The PDD recognizes that “the synergistic influence of creative design and quality construction at each step [of development] would promote the ultimate ideal of environmental quality.” The proposed MF-IRD embraces this focus on environmental quality through the required green site features and sustainability.

The proposed action involves changing the zoning classification of certain parcels designated on the Nassau County Land and Tax Map, as Section 44 – Block F – Lots 351, 411, 412, 415 for the Coliseum Parcel and Section 44 – Block F – Lots 326, 401 and 402 for the Marriott Parcel from MFM to MF-IRD (as described above), should the MF-IRD be adopted. See Figure 2 in Section 2.1, Introduction, which depicts the tax parcels included in the proposed rezoning.

‌Table 28 Compliance of the Proposed Action with MF-IRD

Parameter	Permitted/Required	Provided by Proposed Action
Floor Area Ratio (maximum)	1.6	1.0
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Building Height* (maximum)	250 feet	95 feet
Hotel Building Height (maximum)	280 feet	278 feet
Parking Structure Height (maximum)	95 feet	95 feet
Front Yard (minimum)	10 feet	41.87 feet
Rear Yard (minimum)	10 feet	65.5 feet
Public Open Space (minimum)	3.0% (112,755 square feet)	3.9% (147,952 square feet)
Parking (minimum)	12,411 spaces	12,450 spaces
Loading (minimum)	24 spaces	24 spaces

Parking and loading calculations are provided in Table 29 below and are also included on the CMP in Appendix 2-1.

‌197 Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Article XXXI General Provisions – § 305 Site Plans. Available at: https://ecode360.com/14497468. Accessed January 2024.

‌Table 29 Parking and Loading Requirements per Code and Proposed MF-IRD

Parking	Required
Required Parking Based on Use (Code Section)
Conference/meeting space (§319.A(5))	1,175 spaces
Retail (§319.A(8))	278 spaces
Restaurants (§319.A(16))	1,981 spaces
Hotel (§319.A(2))	2,88 spaces
Net Gaming Area (§MF-IRD)	1,969 spaces
Gaming Circulation and Support (§MF-IRD)	1,501 spaces
Entertainment Venue (§319.A(4))	1,500 spaces
Public Attraction (§319.A(5))	300 spaces
Support Areas (§MF-IRD)	1,377 spaces
Mep Facilities (§MF-IRD)	42 spaces
Total Parking	12,411 spaces

As detailed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, the proposed development includes 12,450 parking spaces; and therefore, would exceed the applicable parking requirements outlined in Section 319 of the Town Code, as well as the requirements for the proposed MF-IRD. The proposed action would provide an additional 39 spaces and comply with the existing and proposed Codes.

As explained in Section 2.4, Description of Proposed Action, and discussed in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources, ornamental landscaping is proposed throughout the exterior of the subject property (Appendix 3.3-3). The landscape design, as shown on the Landscaping and Planting Plan in Appendix 3.3-3 would enhance the visual and spatial qualities of the development while also providing a range of environmental benefits, establishing a sense of place and providing a resilient approach to climate change through water management strategies and sustainable landscape management practices. Each component of the proposed Integrated Resort would be thoughtfully woven together through a series of articulated landscape strategies and united by a common theme of environmentally sustainable design. As shown in Appendix 3.3-3, landscaped buffers are proposed to surround the proposed Integrated Resort. The landscape design would establish a sense of place along with a resilient approach to climate change through water management strategies (e.g., water submetering and use of a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters and stores rainwater for reuse, if approved by the appropriate agency of Nassau County [NCDPW and/or NCDH]) and sustainable landscape practices (e.g., use of native plantings and no-mow lawns).

As noted above, the MF-IRD requires at least 3.0 percent of the total land area be set aside as public open space (exclusive of setbacks, parking areas and driveways). Pursuant to these requirements, the subject property would require a minimum of 112,744 sf (2.59 acres) of public open space (3.0 percent). The anticipated development, as illustrated on the proposed Conceptual Master Plan (Appendix 2-1) provides 147,952± sf (3.40 acres) of public open space (3.9 percent), thus exceeding the required public open space requirement. This space would include a Central Plaza that would be available to the community.

The total floor area of the proposed Integrated Resort is 4,516,933 sf, with 3,751,672 sf above grade. The total area of the parking structures is 3,869,500 square feet. As the floor area ratio (FAR) is calculated based on the above grade square footage (excluding basements and parking structures) and lot area of the subject property is 3,758,127 sf, the FAR of the proposed development is approximately 1.0 (3,751,672 sf above grade ÷ 3,758,127 sf of lot area). The tallest structure proposed with the Integrated Resort would be the hotel towers at 278 feet, where 280 feet is permitted under the MF-IRD. Both the proposed mixed-use building and parking structures would be 95 feet tall, where the MF-IRD proposes to permit 250 feet and 95 feet, respectively. Table 28 provides a review of zoning compliance with the proposed MF-IRD.

Sands’ planning and design strategy is grounded in a commitment to integrating with and complementing the local community. According to the Town Code, the MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District aims to “create an attractive physical environment that provides daily amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of working, resident and visiting populations,”198 and this concept is carried through the proposed MF-IRD. Generally, integrated resorts are catalysts for significant positive transformation in their host communities, and Sands intends to revitalize the underutilized Coliseum site by creating an anchor development that frames Nassau County as a world-class tourism destination and serves an entertainment hub for local residents.

Regarding the proposed zoning, the MF-IRD would become part of the Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field (MF - PDD). A PDD generally permits different types of land uses in proximity to one another, planned as a unified, complementary, cohesive whole. Use of the PDD allows for planning flexibility, which is fundamental to the proposed Integrated Resort concept. The proposed MF-IRD is similar in nature to the previously-adopted MFM Zoning District, such as creating developments that promote sustainability and economic vitality, and offer benefits to the larger community. Moreover, it is consistent with the legislative intent of the MF – PDD.

Community Character
The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate a mix of land uses on the subject site, including entertainment, lodging, retail, dining, and associated improvements that would be in keeping with the vision of Town’s zoning and local land use plans. The Coliseum building would be revitalized into an imaginative entertainment destination. Many of the entertainment uses formerly housed at the Coliseum would still be available to the community, but would be expanded to include gaming (less than 10 percent of the square footage), dining and retail, as well as experiential uses. As there would be no change to the use or external aesthetics of the Marriott Hotel as part of the proposed action, except for a reconfiguration of parking, there would be no change in community character related to this use.
It is Sands’ intention to transform the subject property into a thriving destination with round-the- clock activities, serving as an economic engine for the community, positively impacting the character of the area through addressing this long-time vision for the community. The proposed Integrated Resort would bring thousands of new jobs to the community and extensive opportunities for the public to experience leisure activities, shopping, dining and gaming

‌198 Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field, §146.1 MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District (MFM). Available at: https://ecode360.com/15284366. Accessed January 2024.

activities on the subject site. The land use of the site would be intensified, as the scale of the proposed development would be larger than that of the current Coliseum. However, this change in scale and intensity is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various land use plans, as described above.
The character of the subject site would be transformed from an underutilized building in a sea of parking to a modern, active destination with a sense of place. The mix of buildings would be thoughtfully designed and much of the parking would be concealed within structures, rather than in the current surface lots. Landscaping has been a priority through the design process, with the intention of providing linkages to the local neighborhoods and complementing the architectural design.
Sands has conducted extensive community engagement, as detailed in Section 2.6, Community Outreach, to create a plan that enhances the community character with amenities and uses to serve local residents. These features include a live performance venue, outdoor plazas, meeting and conference space, and complementary retail and restaurant offerings. A primary design objective is to fully integrate the development with the community and add value to the neighborhood through linkages and synergies with surrounding areas.
The proposed development would help strengthen the community character through increasing positive economic impact, strengthening pedestrian linkages, introducing new amenities, and enhancing public spaces. A central amenity would be an almost five-acre plaza with year-round programming to serve as a primary space for community engagement and entertainment.
In summary, the community character is defined by a number of dominant land uses, but particularly the Coliseum, each of which is characterized by differing physical sizes associated with that use. The proposed Integrated Resort is expected to have positive impacts on the character of the surrounding community, revitalizing an underutilized property into an active, entertainment destination, realizing a longstanding local vision for the property.

‌Proposed Mitigation
The proposed Integrated Resort would transform the existing Coliseum property, currently a sea of asphalt and empty parking areas with an underutilized Coliseum, into the premier, next- generation, mixed-entertainment destination that fosters a sense of community and connectivity within its surroundings and draws people together. In order to minimize the impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on the land use, zoning, and community character, measures have been incorporated into the project design, and the proposed MF-IRD includes design guidelines, including provisions for green site and building requirements and landscape/hardscape features.
Measures to minimize impacts include the following:
› The proposed action includes the adaptive re-use of the Coliseum structure.
› The MF-IRD would facilitate the transformative redevelopment of the Coliseum property to encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field, consistent with the objectives of the PDD and MFM Zoning District. The proposed MF-IRD has also been patterned after, and incorporates many, of the zoning and design requirements of the MFM Zoning District, thereby furthering the goals of that district.

› The design incorporates a significant amount of new green and open space on the site through the introduction of an outdoor plaza, a veterans memorial, and substantial landscaping throughout the subject property.
› The podium design features a series of landscaped terraces and setbacks that gradually step down the massing of the building. These terraces and setbacks would serve to break up the building’s scale, while creating a series of visual connections between different levels of the podium. The terracing of the building mass also allows for a transition between the podium and the hotel towers above, so there is not one solid wall of buildings.
› The choice of building materials and the composition of the building components on the site would ensure a visually appealing design.
› The proposed project would incorporate a comprehensive landscaping plan that would provide visual relief from the proposed buildings, partially screening and softening them, as well as the entire perimeter of the property and the internal roadways.
› The proposed surface parking areas would be surrounded by landscaping that would help screen them from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. Landscaped islands within these areas would also minimize the visual impact of the asphalt and concrete parking lots and would help screen the vehicles parked within these surface lots.

‌Transportation and Parking
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Sands New York Integrated Resort was prepared, in accordance with the Final Scope, to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed action. The purpose of the TIS was to determine if there are significant adverse traffic impacts that would result from development and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort, to evaluate the adequacy of the roadway network to accommodate the proposed Integrated Resort, and to propose mitigation measures, as required. As the TIS evaluated over 100 locations on the roadway network, including the Meadowbrook State Parkway and the Northern State Parkway, it is voluminous and provides substantial technical data and analyses. This section of the DEIS summarizes the main analyses conducted and the results thereof in accordance with the guidance provided on page 98 of The SEQR Handbook, which indicates, in pertinent part, “. . .EISs should be written in plain language that can be read and understood by all. Highly technical material should be summarized in the text of the EIS and, if that technical material must be presented in its entirety, it should be included as an appendix.” Accordingly, those seeking to review the detailed analyses and supporting data should refer to the complete TIS, which is included in Appendix 3.5-1.
1. ‌Methodology and Data Collection
  The TIS was performed in accordance with the Final Scope for the proposed Integrated Resort and includes an evaluation of the existing traffic operations, an assessment of future conditions without development of the proposed Integrated Resort (no-build condition), an estimate of projected trip generation for the proposed Integrated Resort (for Phase 1 and Full Build), and the evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on future traffic and transit operations in the Study Area (build condition and build condition with mitigation). To inform the analysis, a traffic data collection program was developed that included obtaining turning movement counts (TMCs) at the 66 study intersections and ATR counts on local roadways and along the Meadowbrook State Parkway, the Northern State Parkway, the Southern State Parkway and their ramps, as prescribed in the Final Scope.
  Turning movement counts at the 66 study intersections (Figure 24) were performed to document traffic volumes during the typical (non-summer) period. These 66 intersections are as follows:
  1. Hempstead Turnpike at James Doolittle Boulevard
  2. Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Main Entrance
  3. Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue
  4. Hempstead Turnpike at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) Entrance
  5. Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue
  6. Earle Ovington Boulevard at Hofstra East Gate Road/Site Access
  7. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound (EB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access
  8. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound (WB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Nassau Community College
  9. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB at James Doolittle Boulevard/Site Access
  10. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at Nassau Community College Perimeter Road
  11. Merrick Avenue at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  12. Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue
  13. Hempstead Turnpike at Eisenhower Park Pedestrian Entrance
  14. Hempstead Turnpike at Coolidge Drive
  15. Hempstead Turnpike at Park Boulevard/East Meadow Avenue
  16. Merrick Avenue at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Peters Gate
  17. Hempstead Turnpike at California Avenue/Hofstra Boulevard
  18. Hempstead Turnpike at Oak Street/Hofstra
  19. Front Street at Merrick Avenue
  20. Front Street at Uniondale Avenue
  21. Front Street at California Avenue
  22. Fulton Avenue at Peninsula Boulevard/Bennett Avenue
  23. Fulton Avenue at Clinton Street
  24. Fulton Avenue at N Franklin Street
  25. Franklin Avenue at Stewart Avenue
  26. Old Country Road at Franklin Avenue/Mineola Boulevard
  27. Old Country Road at Clinton Road/Glen Cove Road
  28. Old Country Road at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Avenue
  29. Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue
  30. Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park Boulevard
  31. Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse
  32. Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street
  33. Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road
  34. Oak Street at Commercial Avenue
  35. Commercial Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard
  36. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Westbury Boulevard (Meadow Street)
  37. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at U-Turn (near Earle Ovington Boulevard)
  38. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB at Coliseum North Exit Gate
  39. Earle Ovington Boulevard at Coliseum Media/Staff Parking
  40. Hempstead Turnpike WB at Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off Ramp
  41. Hempstead Turnpike WB at Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off Ramp
  42. Hempstead Turnpike EB at Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off Ramp
  43. Hempstead Turnpike EB at Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off Ramp
  44. Hempstead Turnpike at Front Street
  45. Hempstead Turnpike at Carman Avenue/3rd Street
  46. Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road
  47. Merrick Avenue at Bellmore Avenue
  48. Merrick Avenue at North Jerusalem Avenue
  49. Merrick Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue
  50. Uniondale Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue
  51. Uniondale Avenue/Brookside Avenue at Nassau Road
  52. Stewart Avenue at Ring Road West (Roosevelt Field)
  53. Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance
  54. Old Country Road at Salisbury Park Drive/School Street
  55. Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive
  56. Merrick Avenue at Privado Road
  57. Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue/Post Road
  58. Main Street/2nd Street at Franklin Avenue
  59. Main Street at Meadow Street
  60. Meadow Street at Washington Avenue
  61. Meadow Street at Clinton Road
  62. Meadow Street at Lindbergh Street
  63. Westbury Boulevard at Lindbergh Street
  64. Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Meadow Street
  65. Hempstead Turnpike at Perimeter Road East/Franklin Avenue
  66. Washington Street at W Columbia St
  › Old Country Road at Clinton Road/Glen Cove Road
  › Old Country Road at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Avenue
  › Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue
  › Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park Boulevard
  › Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse
  › Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street
  › Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road
  › Stewart Avenue at Ring Road West (Roosevelt Field)
  › Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance
  › Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive
  › Merrick Avenue at Privado Road.
  
  Typical (non-summer) counts were conducted at the study intersections during the study periods for the weekday AM peak period from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. and the extended weekday PM peak period from 3:00 to 11:00 p.m. TMCs were collected on Saturday for the Saturday midday peak period from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and the Saturday extended PM peak period from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Counts performed for the holiday period (late-November through late-December) included the extended weekday PM and Saturday midday peak periods only. The TMCs were collected and include data on pedestrians and bicycles, as well as a breakdown of the class of vehicles identified between heavy/articulated trucks, light vehicles, and buses for each movement. U-turn and Right-Turn on Red (RTOR) movements were also recorded.
  
  Figure 24: Study Area Intersections
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  25
  
  1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  
  57
  
  54
  
  28
  
  29
  56
  
  55
  
  27 53
  
  26
  
  30
  
  110
  
  31
  
  32
  
  52
  
  35
  
  33
  
  34
  
  11
  
  25
  
  10
  
  98
  
  9
  
  37 38
  
  44 45
  
  65
  
  36
  
  13
  
  14 15
  
  46
  
  64
  
  79
  
  62
  
  41 43 12
  
  42
  
  39
  
  40
  
  61
  
  63
  
  69
  
  2
  
  1
  
  60
  
  4 3
  
  58 59
  
  5
  
  16
  
  17
  
  18
  
  19
  
  66
  
  23
  
  22
  
  21
  
  20
  
  24
  
  47
  
  50
  
  48
  
  49
  
  NOT TO SCALE
  
  51
  
  24
  
  102
  
  24
  
  ‌Basemap Source: Nearmap Not to Scale
  Hempstead Turnpike at James Doolittle Boulevard
  
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24
  25
  26
  27
  28
  29
  30
  31
  32
  33
  34
  35
  36
  37
  38
  39
  40
  41
  42
  43
  44
  45
  46
  47
  48
  49
  50
  51
  52
  53
  54
  55
  56
  57
  58
  59
  60
  61
  62
  63
  64
  65
  66
  
  Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Nassau Coliseum Main Entrance Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue
  Hempstead Turnpike at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Entrance Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue Earle Ovington Boulevard at Hofstra East Gate Road/Site Access
  Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access
  Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound at Earle Ovington Blvd/Nassau Community College Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound at James Doolittle Boulevard/Site Access
  Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound at Nassau Community College Perimeter Road Merrick Avenue at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue
  Hempstead Turnpike at Eisenhower Park Pedestrian Entrance Hempstead Turnpike at Coolidge Drive
  Hempstead Turnpike at Park Boulevard/East Meadow Avenue Merrick Avenue at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Peters Gate Hempstead Turnpike at California Avenue/Hofstra Boulevard
  Hempstead Turnpike at Oak Street/Hofstra
  Front Street at Merrick Avenue Front Street at Uniondale Avenue Front Street at California Avenue
  Fulton Avenue at Peninsula Boulevard/Bennett Avenue Fulton Avenue at Clinton Street
  Fulton Avenue at N Franklin Street
  Franklin Avenue at Stewart Avenue
  106
  
  Old Country Road at Franklin Avenue/Mineola Boulevard Old Country Road at Clinton Road/Glen Cove Road
  Old Country Road at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Avenue
  Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park Boulevard Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse
  Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road
  Oak Street at Commercial Avenue
  24
  
  Commercial Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Westbury Boulevard
  Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Westbound U-Turn (near Earle Ovington Boulevard) Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound at Coliseum North Exit Gate
  Earle Ovington Boulevard at Coliseum Media/Staff Parking
  Hempstead Turnpike Westbound at Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Off Ramp Hempstead Turnpike Westbound at Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Off Ramp Hempstead Turnpike Eastbound at Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Off Ramp Hempstead Turnpike Eastbound at Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Off Ramp Hempstead Turnpike at Front Street
  Hempstead Turnpike at Carman Avenue/3rd Street Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road
  Merrick Avenue at Bellmore Avenue Merrick Avenue at North Jerusalem Avenue Merrick Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue Uniondale Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue
  Uniondale Avenue/Brookside Avenue at Nassau Road Stewart Avenue at Ring Road West (Roosevelt Field) Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance
  Old Country Road at Salisbury Park Drive/School Street
  Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive Merrick Avenue at Privado Road
  Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue/Post Road Main Street/2nd Street at Franklin Avenue Main Street at Meadow Street
  Meadow Street at Washington Avenue Meadow Street at Clinton Road Meadow Street at Lindbergh Street Westbury Boulevard at Lindbergh Street
  Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Meadow Street
  Hempstead Turnpike at Perimeter Road East/Franklin Avenue Washington Street at W Columbia Street
  
  Legend:
  Study intersection - Typical (Non-Summer) Only
  Study Intersection - Typical (Non-Summer) and Holiday Period (Late November Through Late December)
  
  Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) were installed for seven consecutive days in February and September of 2023, representing typical (non-summer) conditions to document traffic volumes at key locations on area arterials and local surface streets as well as at locations along the Meadowbrook State Parkway, the Northern State Parkway, the Southern State Parkway and their ramps. In addition, ATRs were installed at all locations along the parkways and ramps over the course of a summer weekend to capture a Saturday midday peak hour summer condition. Finally, a number of locations near the Roosevelt Field Mall and nearby areas that are known to experience higher retail-related traffic during the holiday period (late-November through late- December) were counted again with ATRs to provide the volumes necessary for a weekday PM and Saturday midday evaluation during the holiday period on the Meadowbrook State Parkway. A total of 114 locations were studied using ATRs (see Figure 25), as follows:
  1. Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) between James Doolittle Boulevard and Meadowbrook State Parkway Ramps – Both EB and WB directions
  2. Earle Ovington Boulevard between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB and Hofstra East Gate Road – Both Northbound (NB) and Southbound (SB) directions
  3. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard between Earle Ovington Boulevard and James Doolittle Boulevard - Both EB and WB directions
  4. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB to EB U-turn
  5. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB to WB U-turn
  6. Hempstead Turnpike west of Newbridge Road (NY 106) – Both EB and WB directions
  7. Old Country Road east of Zeckendorf Boulevard – Both EB and WB directions
  8. Northern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Post Avenue
  9. Post Avenue Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway EB
  10. Northern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Post Avenue
  11. Post Avenue Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway WB
  12. Northern State Parkway EB Mainline East of Post Avenue
  13. Northern State Parkway WB Mainline East of Post Avenue
  14. Northern State Parkway WB Connector to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  15. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Ramp to Northern State Parkway EB
  16. Northern State Parkway EB Connector to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  17. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Connector to Northern State Parkway WB
  18. Northern State Parkway EB Mainline through Meadowbrook State Parkway interchange
  19. Northern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Glen Cove Road NB
  20. Glen Cove Road Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway EB
  21. Glen Cove Road Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  22. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline North of Old Country Road
  23. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline North of Old Country Road
  24. Old Country Road WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  25. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Old Country Road WB
  26. Old Country Road Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  27. Ring Road East Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  28. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Old Country Road EB
  29. Old Country Road EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  30. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Old Country Road
  31. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline South of Old Country Road
  32. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline South of Old Country Road
  33. Zeckendorf Boulevard WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  34. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Roosevelt Field
  35. Zeckendorf Boulevard WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  36. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Zeckendorf Boulevard EB
  37. Zeckendorf Boulevard EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  38. Zeckendorf Boulevard EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  39. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Zeckendorf Boulevard (Dibblee Drive)
  40. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Roosevelt Field
  41. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline South of Zeckendorf Boulevard
  42. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline South of Zeckendorf Boulevard
  43. Merchants Concourse Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  44. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Merchants Concourse NB
  45. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Stewart Ave/Endo Boulevard
  46. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Stewart Ave/Endo Boulevard
  47. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Merchants Concourse NB
  48. Meadowbrook State Parkway north of Stewart Avenue NB
  49. Meadowbrook State Parkway north of Stewart Avenue SB
  50. EB Stewart Avenue Ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  51. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to EB Stewart Avenue
  52. Stewart Avenue Ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  53. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Stewart Avenue ramps
  54. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB CD Road between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Stewart Avenue ramps
  55. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off-Ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  56. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  57. Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  58. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  59. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB south of Charles Lindbergh overpass
  60. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB CD Road south of Charles Lindbergh overpass
  61. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off-Ramp to WB Hempstead Turnpike
  62. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Off-Ramp to EB Hempstead Turnpike
  63. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to WB Hempstead Turnpike
  64. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Off-Ramp to EB Hempstead Turnpike
  65. EB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  66. EB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  67. WB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to NB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  68. WB Hempstead Turnpike ramp to SB Meadowbrook State Parkway
  69. Meadowbrook State Parkway south of Hempstead Turnpike NB
  70. Meadowbrook State Parkway south of Hempstead Turnpike SB
  71. Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  72. Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  73. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
  74. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
  75. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
  76. Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  77. Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  78. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
  79. Southern State Parkway EB Mainline west of Meadowbrook State Parkway
  80. Southern State Parkway WB Mainline west of Meadowbrook State Parkway
  81. Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Nassau Road
  82. Nassau Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
  83. Nassau Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
  84. Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Nassau Road
  85. Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Road
  86. Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Road
  87. Meadowbrook Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
  88. Meadowbrook Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
  89. Merrick Avenue SB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
  90. Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue SB
  91. Merrick Avenue NB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway WB
  92. Southern State Parkway WB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue NB
  93. Merrick Avenue NB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
  94. Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue NB
  95. Merrick Avenue SB Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway EB
  96. Southern State Parkway EB Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue SB
  97. Babylon Turnpike WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  98. Babylon Turnpike EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  99. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike EB
  100. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike EB
  101. Babylon Turnpike WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  102. Babylon Turnpike EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  103. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike WB
  104. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike WB
  105. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Mainline south of Babylon Turnpike
  106. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Mainline north of Babylon Turnpike
  107. Sunrise Highway WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  108. Sunrise Highway EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB
  109. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway EB
  110. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway EB
  111. Sunrise Highway WB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  112. Sunrise Highway EB Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway SB
  113. Meadowbrook State Parkway NB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway WB
  114. Meadowbrook State Parkway SB Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway WB
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  25
  
  1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  
  24
  
  102
  
  24
  
  Arterial Count Locations:
  1 Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) between James Doolittle Boulevard and Meadowbrook Parkway Ramps - Both Eastbound & Westbound directions
  2 Earle Ovington Boulevard between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound and Hofstra East Gate Road - Both Northbound & Southbound directions
  3 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard between Earle Ovington Boulevard and James Doolittle Boulevard - Both Eastbound & Westbound directions
  4 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound to Eastbound U-turn
  5 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound to Westbound U-turn
  6 Hempstead Turnpike West of Newbridge Road (NY 106) - Both Eastbound & Westbound directions
  7 Old Country Road east of Zeckendorf Boulevard - Both Eastbound and Westbound directions
  
  ‌Parkway Count Locations:
  8 Northern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Post Avenue
  9 Post Avenue Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway Eastbound
  10 Northern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Post Avenue
  11 Post Avenue Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway Westbound
  12 Northern State Parkway Eastbound Mainline East of Post Avenue
  13 Northern State Parkway Westbound Mainline East of Post Avenue
  14 Northern State Parkway Westbound Connector to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  15 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Ramp to Northern State Parkway Eastbound
  16 Northern State Parkway Eastbound Connector to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  17 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Connector to Northern State Parkway Westbound
  18 Northern State Parkway Eastbound Mainline through Meadowbrook State Parkway Interchange
  19 Northern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Glen Cove Road Northbound
  20 Glen Cove Road Entrance Ramp to Northern State Parkway Eastbound
  21 Glen Cove Road Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  22 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline North of Old Country Road
  23 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline North of Old Country Road
  24 Old Country Road Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  25 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Old Country Road Westbound
  26 Old Country Road Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  27 Ring Road East Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  28 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Old Country Road Eastbound
  29 Old Country Road Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  30 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Old Country Road
  31 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline South of Old Country Road
  32 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline South of Old Country Road
  33 Zeckendorf Boulevard Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  34 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Roosevelt Field
  35 Zeckendorf Boulevard Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  36 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Zeckendorf Boulevard Eastbound
  37 Zeckendorf Boulevard Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  38 Zeckendorf Boulevard Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  39 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Zeckendorf Boulevard (Dibblee Drive)
  40 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Roosevelt Field
  41 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline South of Zeckendorf Blvd
  42 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline South of Zeckendorf Blvd
  43 Merchants Concourse Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  44 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Merchants Concourse Northbound
  45 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Stewart Avenue/Endo Boulevard
  46 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Stewart Avenue/Endo Boulevard
  47 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Merchants Concourse Northbound
  48 Meadowbrook State Parkway North of Stewart Avenue Northbound
  49 Meadowbrook State Parkway North of Stewart Avenue Southbound
  50 Eastbound Stewart Avenue Ramp to Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  51 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Off-Ramp to Eastbound Stewart Avenue
  52 Stewart Avenue Ramp to Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  53 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Stewart Avenue Ramps
  54 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound CD Road between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Stewart Avenue Ramps
  55 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Off-Ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  56 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Ramp to Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  57 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Ramp to Northbound State Meadowbrook Parkway
  58 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Off-Ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  59 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound south of Charles Lindbergh Overpass
  60 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound CD Road South of Charles Lindbergh Overpass
  61 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Off-Ramp to Westbound Hempstead Turnpike
  62 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Off-Ramp to Eastbound Hempstead Turnpike
  63 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Off-Ramp to Westbound Hempstead Turnpike
  64 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Off-Ramp to Eastbound Hempstead Turnpike
  65 Eastbound Hempstead Turnpike Ramp to Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  66 Eastbound Hempstead Turnpike Ramp to Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  67 Westbound Hempstead Turnpike Ramp to Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  68 Westbound Hempstead Turnpike Ramp to Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  69 Meadowbrook State Parkway South of Hempstead Turnpike Northbound
  70 Meadowbrook State Parkway South of Hempstead Turnpike Southbound
  
  Legend:
  # ATR Count Location
  Limits of Meadowbrook State Parkway Analysis - Typical (Non-Summer) and Potential Summer
  Limits of Meadowbrook State Parkway Analysis - Typical (Non-Summer) and Potential Summer, and Holiday Period (Late November through Late December)
  
  13
  
  12
  
  11
  
  10
  9
  
  8
  
  19
  
  18
  
  20
  17
  16
  21
  
  15
  
  14
  
  22
  
  23
  
  7
  
  24
  
  25
  26 28
  27
  
  29
  
  30
  
  110
  
  32
  
  31
  
  33
  
  43 46
  
  40
  
  34
  35 36
  37
  
  38
  
  41 39
  42
  
  45
  
  44
  48
  47 49
  
  50
  
  52
  
  51
  
  54
  
  53
  
  58
  
  55
  
  60 59
  56 57
  
  5
  
  3
  
  4
  
  67
  63
  
  6
  
  61
  
  68
  
  2
  
  1
  
  62
  
  66
  
  65
  64
  
  70
  
  69
  
  NOT TO SCALE
  
  Figure 25: Automatic Traffic Recorder Locations (Continued)
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  
  71 Southern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  72 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  73 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway Eastbound
  74 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway Eastbound
  75 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway Westbound
  76 Southern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  77 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  78 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Southern State Parkway Westbound
  79 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Mainline West of Meadowbrook State Parkway
  80 Southern State Parkway Westbound Mainline West of Meadowbrook State Parkway
  81 Southern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Nassau Road
  82 Nassau Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Eastbound
  83 Nassau Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Westbound
  78
  
  84 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Nassau Road
  71
  
  75
  
  80
  
  85 Southern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Road
  96 95
  
  94
  
  91
  
  89
  90
  
  92
  
  86 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Road
  85
  86
  
  88
  
  72
  
  79
  
  87 Meadowbrook Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Eastbound
  93
  
  87
  
  73
  
  74
  76
  
  88 Meadowbrook Road Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Westbound
  89 Merrick Avenue Southbound Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Westbound
  77
  
  81
  
  90 Southern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue Southbound
  83
  
  91 Merrick Avenue Northbound Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Westbound
  82
  
  92 Southern State Parkway Westbound Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue Northbound
  93 Merrick Avenue Northbound Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Eastbound
  84
  
  94 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue Northbound
  95 Merrick Avenue Southbound Entrance Ramp to Southern State Parkway Eastbound
  96 Southern State Parkway Eastbound Exit Ramp to Merrick Avenue Southbound
  110
  
  97 Babylon Turnpike Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  98 Babylon Turnpike Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  99 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike Eastbound
  100 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike Eastbound
  101 Babylon Turnpike Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  102 Babylon Turnpike Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  103 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike Westbound
  104 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Babylon Turnpike Westbound
  105 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline South of Babylon Turnpike
  106 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline North of Babylon Turnpike
  107 Sunrise Highway Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  108 Sunrise Highway Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound
  109 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway Eastbound
  110 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway Eastbound
  111 Sunrise Highway Westbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  112 Sunrise Highway Eastbound Entrance Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound
  113 Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway Westbound
  114 Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Exit Ramp to Sunrise Highway Westbound
  
  106
  
  101
  104
  100
  102
  97
  103
  98
  99
  
  105
  
  107
  
  111
  114
  
  112
  
  113
  109
  108
  
  110
  
  27
  
  Legend:
  # ATR Count Location
  Limits of Meadowbrook State Parkway Analysis - Typical (Non-Summer) and Potential Summer
  NOT TO SCALE
  
  Limits of Meadowbrook State Parkway Analysis - Typical (Non-Summer) and Potential Summer, and Holiday Period (Late November through Late December)
2. ‌Existing Conditions
  1. Studied Roadways and Intersections
    The principal roadways evaluated in the TIS are listed below, with detailed descriptions contained in the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1.
    › Principal Arterial Expressways (Parkways)
    - Meadowbrook State Parkway (NY Route 908E), including the following interchanges:
      - Sunrise Highway (NY 27) (M8)
      - Babylon Turnpike (M7)
      - Southern State Parkway (M6)
      - Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) (M4, M5)
      - Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (M4)
      - Stewart Avenue (M3W)
      - Merchants Concourse (M3E)
      - Zeckendorf Boulevard/Roosevelt Field Mall (M2E/M2W)
      - Old Country Road (M1)
      - Glen Cove Road
      - Northern State Parkway
    - Northern State Parkway (NY Route 908G), including the following interchanges:
      - Meadowbrook State Parkway
      - Post Avenue
    - Southern State Parkway (NY Route 908M), including the following interchanges:
      - Nassau Road
      - Meadowbrook State Parkway
      - Meadowbrook Road
      - Merrick Avenue
        › Arterials and Local Roadways
    - Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24)
    - Earle Ovington Boulevard (Nassau County right-of-way [ROW])
    - Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (Nassau County ROW)
    - James Doolittle Boulevard (Town of Hempstead ROW)
    - Glenn Curtiss Boulevard (Nassau County ROW)
    - Merrick Avenue (Nassau County ROW)
    As part of this study, field investigations of all study intersections were performed to document existing conditions. These efforts were supplemented with desktop review sources such as publicly-available and subscription mapping programs. Field sketches were prepared for all study intersections documenting existing geometric and traffic control conditions and other public infrastructure in the intersection area.
    Existing roadway features in the Study Area, including number, direction and width of travel lanes and shoulder, posted speed limits, maintenance jurisdiction, parking regulations, signs and traffic control devices and pedestrian accommodations, on-street parking, bus transit stops, and traffic signal phasing and timing were all recorded and reflected in Appendix 3.5-1.
  2. Critical Peak Hours
    The nature of the proposed Integrated Resort and its peaks of activity result in different site traffic volume patterns than the typical peak periods on the adjacent roadway network. A total of five distinct peak hours were chosen for analysis to capture all peak periods (adjacent roadway peaks and Integrated Resort peaks). A common network peak hour was selected within the lengthier count periods for the intersections immediately surrounding the site. Given the proximity of these intersections to the site and each other, it was deemed important that these intersections be evaluated at a common peak hour to ensure the most accurate balancing of network volumes and interaction of intersection operations. The peak hours identified are as follows:
    › Weekday AM Peak Hour (7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.)
    › Weekday PM Peak Hour (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
    › Friday Evening Peak Hour (6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
    › Saturday Midday Peak Hour (1:15 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.)
    › Saturday Evening Peak Hour (7:15 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.).
    The intersections closest to the site for which the specific peak hour volumes listed above were used include:
    › Hempstead Turnpike at James Doolittle Boulevard
    › Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Coliseum Main Entrance
    › Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue
    › Hempstead Turnpike at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) Entrance
    › Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue
    › Earle Ovington Boulevard at Hofstra East Gate Road/Site Access
    › Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound (EB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access
    › Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound (WB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Nassau Community College
    › Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB at James Doolittle Boulevard/Site Access
    › Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at Nassau Community College Perimeter Road
    › Merrick Avenue at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
    › Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue.
    For the balance of the study intersections that are further away from the site, the actual peak hour based on intersection volumes (which may vary from the specific hours listed above) counted for each intersection was used for the weekday AM, weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours to provide an analysis for the worst-case scenario at each location. In doing so, the study represents a conservatively high estimate of roadway conditions at those locations. For the Friday and Saturday evening, the Friday evening peak hour of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday evening peak hour of 7:15 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. were used for all intersections.
    Review of the trip generation, existing conditions traffic data and analysis results indicate that there are three time periods of the five evaluated that are more critical given the combination of higher site volume, high levels of background traffic and build conditions that resulted in proposed mitigation. These are the Weekday PM peak hour where high levels of background traffic are combined with high levels of site traffic, the Friday Evening peak hour when background traffic is relatively high and site traffic is high and the Saturday Evening peak hour when the site traffic is at its highest. The existing Weekday PM, Friday Evening, and Saturday Evening peak hour intersection traffic volumes for the intersections closest to the site listed above are illustrated in Figure 26.
    \\vhb\gbl\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel Nassau\Graphics\FIGURES\EIS Traffic Figures\26841.01 Core Network Volumes.dwg
    
    Nassau Community College

Charles Lindbergh Blvd

[117] (281) 884

[18] (1) 5

[0]

[418]

(490)

[40] (0)

[211] (282) 524

64 (11) [1]

18 (4)

112 (30)

454 (251) [168]

Earle Ovington Blvd

[8] (11) 10

[174] (259)

[6] (25) 119

[216] (536) 1343

301

409 (245) [222]

[6]

(259) [199]

517

7 (0) [28]

216

(53)

36 (7) [26]

3 (1) [8]

637

Coliseum Access

[214] (543) 1507

[89] (30) 26

[5]

[3]

112 (22) [3]

[41] (41) 47

217 (34) [11]

Perimeter Rd

900 (510) [467]

Hofstra University

0 (0)

1044 (542)

[255]

0 (0) [0]

638

Coliseum Access

(0)

[295] (490)

[35]

[0]

(65)

[381]

[2]

Project Site

Hotel Access

[0] (0) 0

East Gate Rd

[12] (99) 79

[0] (0) 0

[2]

[28]

[0]

(51)

[272] (341)

(0)

[28] (73) 63

50 (49) [9]

[0]

(473)

(1)

935

7 (3)

0 (2) [0]

14 (12) [0]

505

(1)

Coliseum Access

MSK CC

220 (142) [89]

318 (224) [188]

476 (193) [134]

Hempstead Tpke

[0] (6) 3

140 (98) [74]

Street Name

MSK Entrance

1273 (1197) [709]

259 (197) [161]

57 (57) [34]

(21) [4]

(2) [2]

(1) [0]

20 (5) [4]

1694 (1512) [963]

[11] (16) 11 [1] (10) 4

James Doolittle Blvd

1656 (1469) [933]

158 (109) [68]

0 (2) [3]

17 (7) [8]

25 (51) [30]

[15] (28) 18

11 (1) [90]

Coliseum Access

1554 (1463) [958]

349 (75) [25]

44 (10) [10]

[863] (1085) 2172

30 (32) [44]

1933 (1498) [1053]

Uniondale Ave

[66] (92) 110

[139] (183) 229

[88] (88) 127

[89] (112) 198

[566] (782) 1234

[62] (75) 87

[2] (4) 9

[896] (1086) 1948

[857] (1044) 1896

Cunningham Ave

[33] (38) 54

[50] (48) 64

[40] (32) 48

[7] (2) 1

Glenn Curtis Blvd

[29] (87) 241

[2] (1) 3

[19] (114) 536

[826] (954) 1575

[62] (110) 366

Key: Weekday PM Peak (Friday Evening Peak) [Saturday Evening Peak]

‌2023 Existing Traffic Volumes Sands Integrated Resort

Figure 26

Not to Scale

1255 Hempstead Tpke and 101 James Doolittle Blvd Town of Hempstead, NY

Holiday Season
As previously discussed, additional counts were performed at several intersections near the Roosevelt Field Mall for the holiday period (late-November through late-December) and for a section of the Meadowbrook State Parkway to capture traffic volumes during the heavy retail periods that typically accompany the December holiday timeframe. The studied intersections during the holiday period include:
› Old Country Road at Clinton Road/Glen Cove Road
› Old Country Road at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Avenue
› Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue
› Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park Boulevard
› Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse
› Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street
› Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road
› Stewart Avenue at Ring Road West (Roosevelt Field)
› Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance
› Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive
› Merrick Avenue at Privado Road.
The traffic counts for the holiday season are detailed in Section 3.5.3.2, Traffic Operations Analysis, and Attachment F of Appendix 3.5-1.

Summer Season

As required by the Final Scope, traffic volumes were collected using ATRs on a Saturday in August on the Meadowbrook State Parkway between the Northern State Parkway and Sunrise Highway (full volumes contained within Attachment C of Appendix 3.5-1). In accordance with the Final Scope, if the Saturday midday summer season volumes were 10 percent or higher than September, a detailed evaluation of the impacts of the project would be necessary reflecting the summer background condition. Table 30 summarizes the summer season and September Saturday midday volumes and a comparison of the two at a number of key locations along the Parkway.

Based on the traffic volumes collected and presented in Table 30 the summer season traffic volumes on the Meadowbrook State Parkway do not meet the threshold in the Final Scope that would require a summer season analysis of the Parkway. At most locations, the summer volumes are, in fact, lower than the September volumes. At a single location and direction, Meadowbrook State Parkway north of Babylon Turnpike, southbound volumes on the Meadowbrook State Parkway are 13 percent higher in August than in September during the Saturday midday peak hour. The TIS shows that this is not an area that would be impacted by a significant amount of traffic from the Integrated Resort. Given this, and the fact that this is an isolated condition in one direction and all other locations did not exhibit sensitivity to summer season traffic, this isolated condition would not be attributed to or significantly impacted by project generated traffic. At all other locations the August volumes are comparable to the September volumes (were either lower or less than 10 percent greater than September volumes).

‌Table 30 Meadowbrook State Parkway Saturday Volumes – September vs. August (Summer)

Count				% Difference – Summer Traffic
Count Location	Time Period	Aug-23 (Summer)	Sep-23	% Difference – Summer Traffic
Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline North of Old Country Road	Midday	4,437	4,886	-9%
	Daily	60,695	67,180	-10%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline North of Old Country Road	Midday	5,018	5,027	0%
	Daily	64,879	67,810	-4%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline South of Old Country Road	Midday	3,697	4,104	-10%
	Daily	52,058	58,238	-11%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline South of Old Country Road	Midday	4,816	4,592	5%
	Daily	58,458	63,572	-8%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline South of Zeckendorf Blvd	Midday	3,374	3,548	-5%
	Daily	46,412	51,364	-10%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline South of Zeckendorf Blvd	Midday	4,336	4,042	7%
	Daily	55,770	58,006	-4%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline south of Babylon Turnpike	Midday	2,807	3,210	-13%
	Daily	44,732	49,862	-10%
Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline north of Babylon Turnpike	Midday	3,788	3,354	13%
	Daily	57,191	48,433	18%
Averages	Midday	4,034	4,095	-1%
Averages	Daily	55,024	58,058	-5%

Existing Multi-Modal Accommodations

In order to assess the entire transportation network serving the area surrounding the subject property, the TIS also inventoried the existing transit and non-motorized services and facilities in the vicinity of the subject property, including:

› Commuter Rail (Long Island Rail Road [LIRR]) Service Via:

Hempstead LIRR Station (located roughly 2 miles southwest of subject property)
- Note: based on comments received, this is the only LIRR station that Sands would be providing shuttles to and from
Mineola LIRR Station (located roughly 3 miles northwest of the subject property)
Garden City LIRR Station (located roughly 2.5 miles west of the subject property)
Country Life Press LIRR Station (located roughly 2 miles west of the subject property)
Westbury LIRR Station (located roughly 2 miles north of the subject property)

Carle Place LIRR Station (located roughly 2 miles north of the subject property).

› Public Bus (Nassau Inter-County Express [NICE]) Service:

NICE Bus routes closest to the project site with stops along the site borders include the N16x, N43, N70, and N71. Among stops bordering the subject property, there are three NICE bus stops located along the north side of Hempstead Turnpike immediately fronting the subject property and three located on the south side of Hempstead Turnpike, immediately opposite the site frontage. Other NICE bus routes with stops within a one-mile radius include N16, N27, N35, N48, and N49. Table 31 summarizes existing bus services operating within ½ mile of the project site (routes with service stopping directly adjacent to the subject property are in bold):

‌Table 31 Existing Bus Service with Stops within ½ Mile of Subject Property

Route Description Time Period 1

Hours of Operation 2

Peak Hour Frequency 3

N43 Garden City to Freeport

N70

Hempstead to Farmingdale State College

4:27 a.m.-12:40

M-F

a.m.

M-F

p.m.

Sat, Sun 5:26 a.m.-11:10 4:15 a.m.-12:42

a.m.

Sat, Sun 4:38 a.m.-12:56

25-35

15-20

27-30

N71 Hempstead to Sunrise

M-F 6:45 a.m.-10:28 45-60

p.m.

Sat, Sun 6:59 a.m.-7:59 60

p.m.

N16

Garden City to Rockville Centre

M-F 5:30 a.m.-12:08 29-30

a.m.

N16x

Hempstead to Nassau Community College (Express)

5:45 a.m.-9:58

M-F a.m. 18-20

12:33 p.m.-5:49

p.m.

N27

Hempstead to Glen Cove

M-F 5:01 a.m.-11:34 15-35

p.m.

Mall/Amityville

Source: Nassau Inter-County Express Map & Schedules, effective February 12, 2024.

1 M-F is Monday through Friday

2 Time of day that bus service is provided

3 Headways between buses on the route, in minutes

› Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations 199

A shared use path system of pedestrian/bicycle connectivity exists in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, in addition to pedestrian accommodations at signalized intersections.

Shared use (multi-use) paths are present along each of the roadways surrounding the site, including Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24), Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and Earle Ovington Boulevard. A formal bike lane exists in each direction along James Doolittle Boulevard. The paths eventually connect to the Mitchel Field pedestrian path and bikeway, which provides greater connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the area as a whole. The nearby multi-use paths, bike lane, and trails are shown on Figure 27 .

Pedestrian accommodations for crossing are provided in the form of marked crosswalks and dedicated pedestrian signal equipment at the major intersections in the vicinity of the project site. These include, but are not limited to:

› Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Coliseum Main Entrance

Marked crosswalks across the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches
Pedestrian push buttons and indicators are provided at each of these crossings
Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue/MSKCC Entrance
Marked crosswalks across the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches
Pedestrian push buttons and indicators are provided on each of the three marked crossings
› Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue
Marked crosswalks across the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches
Pedestrian push buttons and indicators are provided at each of these crossings
A pedestrian bridge is provided immediately west of the eastbound approach
› Earle Ovington Boulevard at Hofstra East Gate Road/Site Access
Marked crosswalks across the eastbound, westbound, and southbound approaches
Pedestrian push buttons and indicators are provided at each of these crossings
› Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound
Marked crosswalks across the westbound, eastbound, and northbound approaches
Pedestrian push buttons and indicators are provided at each of these crossings
› Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound/Nassau Community College Access
Marked crosswalks across the eastbound, westbound, northbound, and southbound legs
Pedestrian push buttons and indicators are provided on each of these crossings

‌199 To present a high-side conservative estimate of traffic impacts, only modest credits for pedestrian and bicycle use to and from the site were taken in the performance of this study.

Figure 27: Multi-Use Paths and Trails

Sands New York Integrated Resort

Meadowbrook

State Parkway

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

‌0 1,000 Feet

Path: \\vhb.com\gis\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel Nassau\Project\SiteLocationMap_CONFsands_20230214\SiteLocationMap_CONFsands_20230214.aprx (User: krondinella, Date: 2/5/2024)

Subject Property Study Area

Foot Paths and Bike Trails

Existing Multi-Use Path or Trail Existing Bike Lane

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: ESRI, Nassau County

Crash History of Studied Intersections and Segments

Crash data for the 66 study intersections as well as selected segments Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Earle Ovington Boulevard, Hempstead Turnpike, and James Doolittle Boulevard between the intersections, for the time period between March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2020 was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation and analyzed. The time period of March 2017 through February 2020 was chosen for analysis in order to exclude data occurring during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which traffic volumes and, therefore, crashes were uncharacteristically lower due to stay-at-home orders. The three-year period prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has been used to represent typical conditions given that the period of data available after the COVID-19 pandemic effects subsided (to varying degrees) does not yet contain three years of data to evaluate. However, as required by the Final Scope, a discussion of crash history in the Study Area in 2022 and 2023 is also included within the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1.

Overall, between the period of March 1, 2017, to February 28, 2020, a total of 3,516 crashes occurred at the 66 study intersections, and a total of 34 crashes occurred on the 11 examined roadway segments.

Intersection Crashes, 2017 - 2020

Of the 3,516 total intersection crashes, there were 931 injury crashes, 1,757 property-damage collisions and 823 non-reportable incidents (no injury and less than $1,000 in property damage). There were five fatalities reported in the three-year study period at the following locations: 1) Hempstead Turnpike at Park Boulevard/East Meadow Avenue, 2) Fulton Avenue at Clinton Street,

3) Old Country Road at Franklin Avenue/Mineola Boulevard, 4) Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road, and 5) Old Country Road at Salisbury Park Drive/School Street.

The five intersections with the most crashes within the studied three-year period were: Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue, Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance, Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street, Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road and Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse. The three intersections of Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue, Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street and Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse were also among the top five intersections for reported injuries over the studied three-year period, along with the intersections of Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue and Fulton Avenue at Peninsula Boulevard/Bennett Avenue.

A summary of intersection crash trends at intersections closest to the project site follows in

Table 32 .

‌Table 32 Summary of Three-Year Crash History for Intersections Within Proximity of Subject Property

Intersection	Total Crashes	Crashes Resulting in Injury (Including Serious)	Most Frequent Collision Types
Hempstead Turnpike at James Doolittle Boulevard	13	2	Rear-End
Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Coliseum Main Entrance	49	15	Rear-End
Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue	67	17	Overtaking Right-Angle
Hempstead Turnpike at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) Entrance	4	2	Rear-End
Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue	121	38	Rear-End
Earle Ovington Boulevard at Hofstra East Gate Road/Site Access	7	3	Rear-End
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound (EB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access	17	2	Rear-End Overtaking
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound (WB) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Nassau Community College	59	14	Rear-End
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB at James Doolittle Boulevard/Site Access	2	0	N/A
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at Nassau Community College Perimeter Road	3	1	N/A
Merrick Avenue at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard	18	5	Rear-End
Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue	130	34	Rear-End Overtaking

Segment Crashes, 2017 - 2020

Of the 34 total crashes along the studied segments of the TIS, there were 7 injury crashes, 18 property-damage only collisions, and 9 non-reportable incidents (no injury and less than $1,000 in property damage). There were no fatalities reported along the segments during the three-year study period. Over half of the total crashes observed occurred on two segments - Hempstead Turnpike from the MSKCC Access to Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB from Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access to U-Turn (near Earle Ovington Boulevard). The segment of Hempstead Turnpike from the MSKCC Access to Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue had the most crashes during the study period with 12 crashes, including 5 injuries (representing 71 percent (5/7) of all injuries on the 11 studied

segments during the three-year study period). Ten out of 12 of these crashes along this segment were characterized as rear-end collisions, and all of the crashes resulting in injuries occurred in the westbound direction due to either following too closely, driver inattention, or reaction of other uninvolved vehicles. A total of 6 crashes occurred along the segment of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard EB from Earle Ovington Boulevard/Site Access to U-Turn (near Earle Ovington Boulevard) during the three-year period, none of which involved injuries.

Meadowbrook State Parkway Crashes, 2017 - 2020

In addition to the studied intersections and segments, crashes along Meadowbrook State Parkway between and including the parkway’s interchanges with Hempstead Turnpike and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard for the same period between 2017 and 2020 were also analyzed as part of the TIS. Overall, a total of 286 crashes, including 73 crashes resulting in injuries, 177 property-damage collisions and 36 non-reportable incidents, occurred along this section of the Parkway. There were no fatalities reported in the Study Area in the three-year period.

Nearly 80 percent of all observed crashes occurred at three of the 14 studied locations along the Parkway, including:

› Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline section between beginning and end of northbound C-D Road (55 crashes, including 7 crashes resulting injuries)

› Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline section between beginning and end of northbound C-D Road (98 crashes, including 33 crashes resulting in injuries)

› Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound Mainline Section between Entrance Ramp from Stewart Avenue and eastbound entrance ramp from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (74 crashes, including 20 crashes resulting in injuries).

The single most common collision type of these locations was rear-end collisions, followed by overtaking crashes.

2022 and 2023 Crash Data

As discussed above, the three-year period prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was used to represent typical conditions given that the period of data available after the COVID-19 pandemic effects subsided does not yet contain three years of data to evaluate. However, to conform to the requirements of the Final Scope, 2022 and 2023 crash data was compared to 2017 – 2020 data to determine if the frequency of crashes has changed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

An analysis was conducted in the TIS to compare the number of crashes at the following five selected key intersections over the two time periods of March 2017 through February 2020 (pre- COVID) and January 2022 through December 2023 (post-COVID) (Table 33):

› Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue

› Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue

› Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue

› Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road

› Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance.

These intersections were selected due to their relatively high crash totals in the pre-COVID period.

‌Table 33 Difference in Annual Average of Crashes at Select Intersections Between Pre/Post COVID

Difference in Annual Average Pre and Post COVID	Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue	Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue	Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue	Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road	Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance
Difference in Annual Average Pre and Post COVID		Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue	Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue	Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Road		Total
Total Crashes (% Change)	+2.6 (+6%)	+1.7 (+4%)	+6.3 (+8%)	+12.8 (+25%)	+14.3 (+26%)	+37.8 (14%)
Fatal Crashes**	0	+0.5*	0	-0.3*	0	+0.2*
Injury Crashes (% Change)	+1.8 (+14%)	-1.3 (-12%)	+6.8 (+38%)	+4 (+57%)	+1.3 (+19%)	+12.7 (+23%)
Property Damage Crashes (% Change)	+7.3 (+46%)	+6.3 (+32%)	+10.8 (+29%)	+13.3 (+52%)	+16.8 (+57%)	+54.7 (+43%)
Non-Reportable Crashes (% Change)	-6.5 (-54%)	-3.8 (-31%)	-11.3 (-51%)	-4.2 (-25%)	-3.8 (-22%)	-29.7 (- 37%)
Some numbers may appear as a fraction of one as the presented numbers represent annual averages over multi-year periods. *The percent change for fatal crashes for each select intersection was not presented as the percent change was negligible

Overall, the comparison between the pre-COVID and post-COVID periods revealed that, post- COVID, annual crashes increased by 14 percent, injury crashes increased by 23 percent, property damage crashes increased by 43 percent, and non-reportable crashes decreased by 37 percent. Notably, injury crashes increased by 57 percent at Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Bridge, the largest increase in injury crashes among the selected intersections. At Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue, injury crashes decreased by 12 percent, the only such decrease among all selected intersections. Though the analysis should be viewed as preliminary given the limited time frame and the continued impacts of COVID-19 on transportation and traffic trends, the analyzed sample revealed an increase in the number of crashes in the area on an annual basis.

Given the nature of the roadways in the Study Area, which includes a mix of local roadways as well as arterials and connectors with multiple intersecting side streets, frequent curb cuts providing access from adjacent properties, and high traffic volumes, the level of crash experience that was indicated by the crash data is not unusual.

‌Potential Impacts
1. Future Conditions
  The analysis of future conditions was performed to evaluate the effect of the proposed Integrated Resort in the Study Area (no-build, build, and build with mitigation conditions). Background traffic volumes in the Study Area were projected to the Phase 1 Build year (2027), when the initial portions of the Integrated Resort would be open to the public, and the Full Build year (2030). A No-Build Condition was also considered to evaluate future traffic conditions
  without construction of the proposed Integrated Resort. The evaluation of the Full Build condition established the necessary mitigation measures for surface street intersections, as discussed in Section 3.5.3.2, Traffic Operations Analysis. The Full Build mitigation (mitigation measures for surface intersections) would be in place by operation of Phase 1 and would, thus, effectively mitigate Phase 1 impacts. Mitigation measures for parkway impacts are associated with the Full Build year (2030) and would be in place prior (subject to local and state agencies approvals/permits) to the completion of Phase 2.
  
  No Build Condition (2030)
  No-Build traffic volumes include existing traffic and new traffic due to general traffic growth and other planned developments (OPDs) near the subject property. Based on review of NYSDOT published growth rates for the Study Area and correspondence with the NCDPW, a 0.6 percent annual growth rate was applied to the 2023 existing traffic volumes for seven years to represent 2030 background traffic volumes (correspondence with the NCDPW can be found in Attachment I of Appendix 3.5-1). 2030 background traffic volumes also considered the following OPDs that are planned to be completed prior to 2030, based upon information from local municipalities (please see Section 4, Cumulative Impacts for additional information on the 15 analyzed OPDs):
  › The Gardens at Buffalo (Village of Freeport)
  › The Bridge (Village of Mineola)
  › The Royal Blue (Village of Mineola)
  › 120 and 125 3rd Street (Village of Mineola)
  › 85 Willis/111 Second Street (Village of Mineola)
  › Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead (Village of Hempstead)
  › Carman Place (Village of Hempstead)
  › Estella Housing (Village of Hempstead)
  › Grubb Site Plan (Village of Hempstead)
  › Clinton Manor LLC (Village of Hempstead)
  › Cornerstone at Westbury (Village of Westbury)
  › Proposed Shopping Center at 347-357 Old Country Road (Town of North Hempstead)
  › Roosevelt Field Mall Hotel (Pad Site) and Roosevelt Field Mall – Medical office Building (Pad Site) (Town of Hempstead)
  › Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Expansion (Town of Hempstead)
  › NYU Langone Hospital at NCC Campus (Town of Hempstead).200
  Trips associated with the OPDs were distributed to the study intersections as appropriate and are included in the No-Build traffic volumes. The potential for a future Nassau County BRT System in the area of the proposed Integrated Resort was also considered for the 2030 No-Build Condition. The initial phase of the BRT would run from downtown Hempstead Village at the Rosa Parks HTC
  
  ‌200 Pursuant to the Final Scope, even though no application is pending, the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility has been analyzed as part of the cumulative impact assessment.
  to Roosevelt Field Mall. Additional discussion on the Planned BRT system is contained within
  Appendix 3.5-1.
  As discussed in Section 3.5.2, Existing Conditions, there are three time periods of the five evaluated that are more critical given the combination of higher site volume, high levels of background traffic and build conditions that resulted in proposed mitigation. The 2030 No-Build traffic volumes for intersections closest to the site for the Weekday PM, Friday Evening, and Saturday Evening peak hours are shown in Figure 28 .
  Neither NYSDOT nor NCDPW identified any significant projects within the Study Area that were to be considered for the future conditions. According to NYSDOT and NCDPW, no planned roadway improvements by 2030 needed to be taken into account for background traffic volumes.
  
  Full Build Condition (2030)
  The TIS evaluated the Full Build condition to identify impacts and mitigation for the entire Integrated Resort, and these Full Build mitigation measures on surface streets would be implemented prior to opening of Phase 1. Thus, Phase 1 impacts would be mitigated. To estimate the traffic impact of the proposed entire Integrated Resort, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the entire proposed development was estimated and added to future 2030 No- Build traffic volumes at the Study Area and site access intersections.
  In determining the trip generation associated with the Integrated Resort, each component of the overall development plan was considered, along with the relationships between the uses within the site.201 Factors such as travel mode and vehicle occupancy were also considered to determine overall traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the proposed project for the five critical peak hours, namely the Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday Evening, Saturday Midday and Saturday Evening peak periods.
  Overall, under 2030 Build Conditions, the Integrated Resort is expected to generate 1,455 external trips during the Weekday AM peak hour, 2,304 trips during the Weekday PM peak hour, 3,107 trips during the Friday Evening peak hour, 3,011 trips during the Saturday Midday peak hour, and 4,186 trips during the Saturday Evening peak hour (Table 34). Of these total trips, walking/bicycle trips range from 27 to 90 trips depending on the peak hour. Between 92 and 94 percent of all trips generated to/from the site are estimated to be made by automobile.
  Additional trip generation estimates are detailed in Appendix 3.5-1. Trip credits for transit mode, internal capture, and pass-by traffic were considered and applied to the gross trip generation to develop the appropriate net level of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. Credits to account for internal trips were initially estimated using the ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition .202
  
  ‌201 The site generated trips were estimated for each of the resort components using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
  ‌202 Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.
  \\vhb\gbl\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel Nassau\Graphics\FIGURES\EIS Traffic Figures\26841.01 Core Network Volumes.dwg
  
  Nassau Community College

Charles Lindbergh Blvd

[122] (293) 922

[19] (1) 5

[0]

[436]

[266] (511)

[42] (0)

[220] (295) 549

67 (11) [1]

19 (4)

117 (31)

473 (262) [175]

Earle Ovington Blvd

[8] (11) 10

(270)

[6] (26)

[225] (559) 1407

316

124

[181]

429 (255) [231]

542

[6]

(270) [208]

7 (0) [29]

225

(55)

38 (7) [27]

3 (1) [8]

673

Coliseum Access

[223] (566) 1578

[93] (31) 27

[5]

[3]

117 (23) [3]

[43] (43) 49

226 (35) [11]

Perimeter Rd

941 (532) [487]

Hofstra University

0 (0)

1095 (566)

0 (0) [0]

674

Coliseum Access

(0)

[308] (511)

(68) [36]

[0]

[397]

[2]

Project Site

Hotel Access

[0] (0) 0

East Gate Rd

[13] (103) 82

[0] (0) 0

[2]

[0]

[29] (53)

(0)

[29] (76) 66

61 (51) [9]

[0]

(494)

(1)

102

977

(3)

0 (2) [0]

20 (13) [0]

[284] (356) 527

(1)

Coliseum Access

MSK CC

229 (148) [93]

334 (234) [196]

501 (202) [140]

Hempstead Tpke

[0] (6) 3

146 (102) [77]

MSK Entrance

1363 (1275) [762]

270 (205) [168]

59 (59) [35]

(22) [4]

22 (5) [4]

1798 (1604) [1027]

[11] (17) 11 [1] (10) 4

James Doolittle Blvd

1760 (1559) [996]

(2) [2]

(1) [0]

18 (7) [8]

165 (114) [71]

0 (2) [3]

[16] (29) 19

11 (1) [94]

Coliseum Access

1653 (1553) [1022]

364 (78) [26]

46 (10) [10]

26 (53) [31]

[919] (1153) 2296

31 (33) [46]

2049 (1589) [1121]

Uniondale Ave

[69] (96) 115

[145] (191) 239

[92] (92) 133

[93] (117) 206

[609] (836) 1315

[65] (78) 91

[2] (4) 12

[955] (1154) 2062

[913] (1111) 2008

Cunningham Ave

[34] (40) 56

[52] (50) 67

[42] (33) 50

[7] (2) 1

Glenn Curtis Blvd

[30] (91) 251

[2] (1) 3

[20] (119) 559

[880] (1017) 1673

[65] (115) 382

Key: Weekday PM Peak (Friday Evening Peak) [Saturday Evening Peak]

‌2030 No-Build Traffic Volumes Sands Integrated Resort

Figure 28

Not to Scale

1255 Hempstead Tpke and 101 James Doolittle Blvd Town of Hempstead, NY

‌Table 34 Total External Trip Generation – All Modes

Peak Hour	Hour	Entering	Exiting	Total	% Auto
Weekday AM	7:30 to 8:30 a.m.	956	499	1,455	94%
Weekday PM	5:00 to 6:00 p.m.	1,001	1,303	2,304	94%
Friday Evening	6:00 to 7:00 p.m.	1,575	1,532	3,107	93%
Saturday Midday	1:15 to 2:15 p.m.	1,701	1,310	3,011	92%
Saturday Evening	7:15 to 8:15 p.m.	2,013	2,173	4,186	92%

A comparison of trip generation rates for other resort casinos, including MGM Springfield, Mohegan Sun Casino and MGM Detroit, was conducted to confirm the reasonableness of the predicted trip generation rates of the proposed Integrated Resort. These resort casinos were identified for comparison purposes as they include the components planned for the proposed Integrated Resort (full casino, hotel, entertainment, meetings, retail and restaurant). Existing gaming facilities in the area did not include all components or were significantly smaller than the proposed Integrated Resort. Altogether, the trip rates for all three casinos were lower than those predicted for the proposed Integrated Resort when considering all components of the resorts, meaning that the methodology to determine trip generation for the Integrated Resort is conservatively high compared to other large casino developments, as detailed in Attachment J of Appendix 3.5-1.

A comparison of anticipated trip generation rates for the Integrated Resort and the previous use of the subject property for sporting events and concerts at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum revealed that the most intensive peak hour of the Coliseum was higher than the most intensive peak hour of the proposed Integrated Resort (Table 35).203

‌Table 35 Peak Hour Comparison – Integrated Resort and Coliseum

Time Period	Movement	Sands Integrated Resort	Coliseum Event1
Weekday Evening Peak Hour2	Enter	1,575	3,017
	Exit	1,532	332
	Total	3,107	3,349
Evening Peak Hour3	Enter	2,013	338
Evening Peak Hour3	Exit	2,173	4,526
	Total	4,186	4,864
1 Counts at NYCB Live (4/1/2019 Islanders Game), where attendance was 13,917 persons per https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYI/2019_games.htm l 2 Weekday evening 6:00 to 7:00 PM for both uses 3 Sands Saturday evening peak hour and Coliseum exiting peak hour on observed Monday

The distribution of the Integrated Resort’s generated trips is dependent on the use generating each trip and the type of user (visitor, employee, etc.). In general, travel to and from the site for casino patrons and hotel guests would be from a broader geographical footprint (regional or beyond) with heavier reliance of travel on higher classification roadways when traveling to and

‌203 Count data for Coliseum was collected on April 1, 2019 from 5:00 to 11:00 p.m. during an Islanders vs. Maple Leafs hockey game.

These counts were used to determine the number of trips entering and exiting the subject property.

from the site (e.g., interstates, parkways), while employee trips would have a more local distribution pattern (local).

The trips associated with the land uses and user groups were combined to create a single 2030 Combined Trip Assignment for the five peak hours. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, Existing Conditions, there are three time periods of the five evaluated that are more critical given the combination of higher site volume, high levels of background traffic and build conditions that resulted in proposed mitigation. The 2030 Combined Trip Assignment for the intersections in the vicinity of the site was added to the 2030 No-Build peak hour volumes for the intersections closest to the site for the Weekday PM, Friday Evening, and Saturday Evening peak hours to develop the 2030 Build traffic volumes shown in Figure 29 .

To illustrate the level of site traffic anticipated on area roadways near the site, the Weekday PM peak hour was chosen as a representative example and a color graphic developed that shows the level of site traffic expected on these roadways on a sliding color scale. Figure 30 depicts the anticipated distribution of generated trips from the subject property on a typical Weekday PM peak hour under the 2030 Build Condition. This example shows how the greatest levels of site traffic are expected to arrive and depart the site using the parkway system to the north and south and are expected to arrive to the Study Area in greatest numbers from the west.

Furthermore, this figure illustrates the significantly lower levels of site traffic that use local roadways, with these levels dropping significantly the further the distance from the site.

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel Nassau\Graphics\FIGURES\EIS Traffic Figures\26841.01 Core Network Volumes.dwg

Nassau Community College

Charles Lindbergh Blvd

67 (11) [1]

[5]

[3]

19 (4)

117 (31)

473 (262) [175]

530 (612) [446]

[111] (91) 80

(11) 10

336

124

[1126] (1177) 2080

1269 (924) [713]

455 (725) [932]

[1470] (1464) 2278

[104] (37) 30

117 (23) [3]

226 (35) [11]

Perimeter Rd

1496 (1614) [1633]

Sands Ave

[449] (325) 230

0 (0) [0]

(6) [11]

Earle Ovington Blvd

[8]

[212] (293)

[6] (26)

[1037] (1142) 1881

Parking Access

[34] (24) 16

[39] (27) 17

[34] (24) 15

[6]

[338]

(561)

(66) [114]

[0] (0) 0

Charles Lindbergh Blvd

[127] (297) 923

[32] (14) 15

Hofstra University

[578] (737)

[56]

(13)

[225] (315) 549

303 (383) [552]

597

(55)

225

51 (69) [103]

902

Coliseum Access

Hotel Access

Project Site

Hotel Access

0 (0) [0]

3 (6) [11]

[0] (0) 0

[0]

[11]

[0]

(0) 0

[73] (51) 32

[0] (0) 0

0 (0)

3 (6)

[0] (0) 0

[73] (51) 32

[36]

[495]

[133]

[0] (0) 0

East Gate Rd

[13] (103) 82

[0] (0) 0

[29] (76) 66

(1)

(562)

[2]

268 (248) [287]

1025

66 (314)

102 (68)

0 (2) [0]

315 (298) [386]

Coliseum Access

Parking Access

0 (0) [0]

3 (6) [11]

[0] (0) 0

(0) [0]

(6) [11]

[0] (0) 0

Coliseum Access

Parking Access

[0] (0) 0

[73] (51) 32

[2]

560

(1)

(53)

(398)

(45)

[29]

James Doolittle

MSK CC

MSK Entrance

[16]

[332]

[34] (24) 15

29 (59) [42]

[38] (28)

[39] (27)

[0] (0) 0

Blvd

261 (179) [134]

348 (249) [215]

796 (510) [563]

Hempstead Tpke

[0] (6) 3

165 (125) [103]

1373 (1291) [785]

278 (216) [183]

59 (59) [35]

(56) [42]

125 (535) [279]

1809 (1619) [1052]

[11] (17) 11 [1] (10) 4

1870 (2093) [1288]

(11) [16]

(7) [8]

182 (220) [285]

165 (114) [71]

0 (2) [3]

[16] (29) 19

254 (373) [487]

1755 (2074) [1299]

364 (78) [26]

46 (10) [10]

[1605] (1665) 2746

66 (88) [123]

2391 (2476) [1779]

Uniondale Ave

[69] (96) 115

[158] (216) 248

[105] (105) 138

[118] (156) 219

[632] (874) 1327

[65] (78) 91

[26] (42) 20

[1389] (1473) 2366

[1338] (1423) 2305

Cunningham Ave

[52] (40) 57

[20] (13) 10

[44] (51) 60

[52] (50) 67

Glenn Curtis Blvd

[31] (96) 251

[12] (9) 7

[20] (119) 559

[1288] (1317) 1959

[68] (116) 384

Key: Weekday PM Peak (Friday Evening Peak) [Saturday Evening Peak]

‌2030 Build Traffic Volumes Sands Integrated Resort

Figure 29

Not to Scale

1255 Hempstead Tpke and 101 James Doolittle Blvd Town of Hempstead, NY

Figure 30: 2030 Build Trip Distribution for Weekday PM Peak Hour

Sands New York Integrated Resort

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

‌lliston Pr" k

E t W1 I on

25B cJ)

'§_

'/1.

Salisbury

i,=s_teaa::tP-kl(eec:::l---====::::::::::::=::::::::::-J

E t M_.:1c ow

106

Elin rv

h el

1.5Miles

> 300 Trips < 10Trips

Source: ESRI.

No Build Condition (2027)

Consistent with development of the 2030 No-Build conditions, the 2027 No-Build traffic volumes were developed by applying the 0.6 percent annual background growth rate to the 2023 existing traffic volumes for three years and adding in the traffic from all the OPDs discussed under the 2030 No-Build Condition, above in this Section.

Phase I Condition (2027)

The site trip generation associated with the operation of Phase 1 has been developed following the same methodology as detailed above for the Full Build condition and accounts for the limited components of the overall Integrated Resort that would be operational in Phase 1. Table 36 presents the total external trip generation for Phase 1 for the five key peak hours evaluated.

‌Table 36 Total External Trip Generation – Phase 1 – All Modes

Peak Hour	Hour	Entering	Exiting	Total
Weekday AM	7:30 to 8:30 a.m.	273	128	401
Weekday PM	5:00 to 6:00 p.m.	241	339	580
Friday Evening	6:00 to 7:00 p.m.	408	439	847
Saturday Midday	1:15 to 2:15 p.m.	472	368	840
Saturday Evening	7:15 to 8:15 p.m.	595	640	1,235

The trips associated with the land uses and user groups were combined to create a single 2027 Combined Trip Assignment for the five peak hours and are discussed in detail in the TIS in Appendix 3.5-1.

Traffic Operations Analysis

Intersection Capacity Analysis

To assess the quality of traffic flow, roadway capacity analyses were conducted with respect to the existing, future No-Build, and future Build conditions. These capacity analyses provide an indication of the adequacy of the roadway facilities to serve the anticipated traffic demands. Roadway operating conditions are classified by calculated levels-of-service (LOS). LOS is a measure of intersection operations that considers many factors including roadway geometry, speed, and travel delay. Levels of service range from A to F, with LOS A representing short vehicle delays and LOS F representing longer vehicle delays. These capacity analyses helped to identify potential mitigation measures to reduce the impact on traffic flow on surface streets adjacent to and surrounding the subject property.

Aside from the required mitigation for addressing intersection capacity concerns, improvements would also be required to the site access points and the roadways immediately adjacent to the site. These improvements are not mitigation in the conventional sense in that they are proposed to provide access to the site and are not necessarily required to increase intersection capacity. These site access improvements are identified in Table 37 .

‌Table 37 Improvements to Site Access

Intersection	Existing Geometry	Improvement
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access	EB: LL, TTT, R WB: LL, TTT, R NB: L, LT, TR, R SB: L, LT, TR, R	WB: Modify right-turn lane to eliminate uncontrolled movement SB: Restripe southbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes and a shared thru-right lane
Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (EB)/Site Access	EB: LL, T, R WB: LL, R NB: TTT, TR SB: L, TT	WB: Remove one left-turn lane, construct an additional channelized right turn lane
Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Bus and Delivery Vehicle Access Roadway	Intersection does not exist in this condition	Construct bus deceleration lane and one-way roadway from Earle Ovington Boulevard to Garage A. From Garage A, construct a right out only from the site onto Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Blvd.)	Intersection does not exist in this condition	Construct Intersection and Signalize with optimized timing/phasing
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at James Doolittle Boulevard	EB: TTT, TR, R WB: TTTT NB: RR	EB: Remove right-turn lane NB: Remove right-turn lane
Geometry Notes: Approach lane designations are separated by commas. For instance, L represents a single left turn lane. LL represents two left-turn lanes. LT represents a shared left-turn/through lane. Right turn lanes are designed R.

The results of the capacity analyses conducted for proposed Integrated Resort indicate that some intersections with project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS would require modifications. Roadways where there would be project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS and their corresponding recommended improvements are presented in Table 37 (full LOS capacity tables for each studied intersection are included in Attachment M of Appendix 3.5-1):

‌Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures
Intersection	Improvement	2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS))
Hempstead	WB: Modify right-turn	Weekday AM Peak: 33.5 (C) Weekday PM Peak: 42.5 (D) Friday Evening Peak: 19.1 (B) Saturday Midday Peak: 13.1 (B) Saturday Evening Peak: 8.6 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 36.0 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 50.0 (D) Friday Evening Peak: 19.3 (B) Saturday Midday Peak: 13.3 (B) Saturday Evening Peak: 8.6 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 49.6 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 74.1 (E) Friday Evening Peak: 26.8 (C) Saturday Midday Peak: 19.9 (B) Saturday Evening Peak: 19.8 (B)	Weekday AM Peak: 34.7 (C) Weekday PM Peak: 55.7 (E) Friday Evening Peak: 31.8 (C) Saturday Midday Peak: 18.9 (B) Saturday Evening Peak: 17.7 (B)
Turnpike (NY	lane to eliminate
24) at Glenn	uncontrolled
Curtiss	movement
Boulevard/Site Access	SB: Restripe southbound approach
	to provide two left-
	turn lanes and a
	shared thru-right lane
	NB: Restripe approach
	to provide two left-
	turn lanes, a shared
	thru-right lane and a
	right-turn lane
	Restrict WB U-Turns
	(PM Peak)
	Optimize signal
	timing/ phasing
	(AM, PM, SAT MID,
	SAT EVE, FRI EVE)
Hempstead	Optimize signal	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday
Turnpike (NY	timing/ phasing/	Peak: 8.2 (A)	Peak: 8.3 (A)	Peak: 8.1 (A)	AM Peak:
24) at Cunningham Avenue	Offsets (AM, PM, SAT EVE, FRI EVE, SAT MID)	Weekday PM Peak: 8.7 (A) Friday Evening	Weekday PM Peak: 9.2 (A) Friday Evening	Weekday PM Peak: 14.1 (B) Friday Evening	7.3 (A) Weekday PM Peak: 8.9 (A)
		Peak: 8.6 (A)	Peak: 8.7 (A)	Peak: 7.6 (A)	Friday
		Saturday Midday Peak: 7.5 (A) Saturday Evening Peak: 7.7 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 7.6 (A) Saturday Evening Peak: 7.7 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 7.0 (A) Saturday Evening Peak: 5.9 (A)	Evening Peak: 13.8 (B) Saturday Midday Peak: 11.4 (B)
					Saturday
					Evening
					Peak: 4.4 (A)
Hempstead Turnpike (NY	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/ Offsets	Weekday AM Peak: 4.9 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 5.1 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 6.3 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 4.5 (A)

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

Intersection

Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS))

24) at MSKCC

Entrance

(AM, PM, SAT EVE, FRI EVE, SAT MID)

Weekday PM Peak: 6.3 (A)

Friday Evening Peak: 4.4 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 5.2 (A)

Saturday Evening Peak: 4.3 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 6.5 (A)

Friday Evening Peak: 4.6 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

5.3 (A)

Saturday Evening Peak:

4.3 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 9.0 (A)

Friday Evening Peak: 6.7 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

6.3 (A)

Saturday Evening Peak:

7.7 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 4.7 (A)

Friday Evening Peak: 4.6 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 5.1 (A)

Saturday Evening Peak: 4.7 (A)

Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Unio ndale Avenue

SB: Construct additional right-turn lane. Restripe southbound approach to provide two left- turn lanes, a thru lane, a shared thru-right lane, and a right-turn lane Optimize signal timing/phasing

(AM, PM, SAT EVE, FRI EVE, SAT MID)

Weekday AM Peak: 65.5 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 63.3 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 49.7 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 51.6 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak: 41.3 (D)

Weekday AM Peak: 69.7 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 66.5 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 50.7 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak:

52.5 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak:

41.9 (D)

Weekday AM Peak: 77.4 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 93.3 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 61.0 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak:

56.0 (E)

Saturday Evening Peak:

53.2 (D)

Weekday AM Peak:

54.5 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 59.1 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 47.1 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 44.5 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak: 40.5

(D)

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

2030 No Build

2030 Build

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

(delay in seconds (LOS))

Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (EB)/Site Access

Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Earle Ovington Blvd/NCC Access 204

EB: Construct an additional left-turn lane

WB: Remove one left- turn lane, construct an additional channelized right turn lane

SB: Construct an additional U-turn only lane

(AM, PM, SAT MID, SAT EVE, FRI EVE)

EB: Construct receiving lanes

SB: Construct a left- turn lane

NB: Relocate channelized right turn lanes, and remove northbound through lane

Optimize signal timing/ phasing/ Offsets

(AM, PM, SAT EVE, FRI EVE, SAT MID)

Weekday AM Peak: 13.7 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 21.9 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 10.2 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 8.6 (A)

Saturday Evening Peak: 8.4 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 41.3 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 27.3 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 19.0 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 24.0 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak: 13.2 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 13.9 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 23.3 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 10.3 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

8.6 (A)

Saturday Evening Peak:

8.4 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 47.1 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 27.8 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 19.2 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

24.3 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak:

13.3 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 15.1 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 32.7 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 11.9 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

10.2 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak:

13.8 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 52.2 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 28.8 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 19.9 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

26.5 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak:

14.0 (B)

Weekday AM Peak:

16.2 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 26.2 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 16.3 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 14.2 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak: 16.8 (B)

Weekday AM Peak:

34.9 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 13.8 (B)

Friday Evening Peak: 9.1 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 11.2 (B)

‌204 While the Final Scope of this DEIS includes a merge/weave analysis of the two existing U-turn areas on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, the identified physical improvements on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, including the creation of a new signalized intersection at the proposed Sands Boulevard and reconfiguration of the intersection at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard and the NCC main access, obviate the need for such a merge/weave analysis. The westerly westbound to eastbound U-turn is proposed to be eliminated, and with the changes in area circulation gained, it is not expected that any significant traffic volume would utilize the U-turns.

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

2030 No Build

2030 Build

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

(delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Evening Peak: 6.4 (A)

Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Park Boulevard/E. Meadow Avenue

Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Hofstra Boulevard/ California Avenue 206

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

(PM)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset

(AM, EVE)

Weekday AM Peak: 45.1 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 65.9 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 44.6 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 41.8 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak: 29.2 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 22.6 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 25.4 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 18.4 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 21.0 (C)c

Saturday Evening Peak: 14.7 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 47.0 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 75.0 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 46.2 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak:

42.8 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak:

29.4 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 23.2 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 25.9 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 18.3 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

21.0 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak:

14.5 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 47.4 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 80.4 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 47.2 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak:

43.1 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak:

29.0 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 23.1 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 26.0 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 17.9 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

20.9 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak:

N/A

205

Weekday PM Peak: 66.5 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: N/A

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A

Weekday AM Peak:

(C)
Weekday PM Peak: 30.2 (C)
Friday Evening Peak: 21.5 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak: 24.8 (C)

‌205 N/A = Not Applicable. Delay in Seconds and LOS was not estimated for this peak hour under the 2030 Build with Mitigation Condition as the recommended mitigation measures for the respective intersection would not apply to this peak hour.
‌206 Intersection is part of a coordinated signal system that runs along Hempstead Turnpike. Changes to system timings, including intersection offsets that improve conditions at one location can have effects on the operation of others, including minor negative impacts. In this case, changes necessary to improve conditions at Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington have an inconsequential negative impact on Hempstead Turnpike at Hofstra Blvd/California Avenue. This minor negative impact is more than offset by benefits at Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington and are a result of changes to system intersection offsets.

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

2030 No Build

2030 Build

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation

Intersection Improvement
2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))
Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))
Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))
(delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Evening Peak: 16.0 (B)
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Oak Street/Hofstra Boulevard

Fulton Avenue at N. Franklin Street
Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset
(AM, PM, SAT MID, SAT EVE, FRI EVE)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing
(PM)
Weekday AM Peak: 26.0 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 37.7 (D)
Friday Evening Peak: 25.8 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak: 25.1 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak: 17.5 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 25.8 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 36.4 (D)
Friday Evening Peak: 26.1 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak: 24.9 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak: 23.7 (C)
Weekday AM Peak: 26.4 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 39.0 (D)
Friday Evening Peak: 26.0 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak:
25.8 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak:
17.4 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 28.5 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 54.7 (D)
Friday Evening Peak: 29.1 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak:
27.9 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak:
25.4 (C)
Weekday AM Peak: 26.5 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 39.2 (D)
Friday Evening Peak: 25.8 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak:
25.6 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak:
17.3 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 28.8 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 57.9 (E)
Friday Evening Peak: 29.9 (C)
Saturday Midday Peak:
28.4 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak:
(C)

25.7 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 38.2 (D)

Friday Evening Peak: 28.9 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: 25.5 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak: 17.5 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A 207

Weekday PM Peak: 53.9 (D)

Friday Evening Peak: N/A

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A

‌207 N/A = Not Applicable. Delay in Seconds and LOS was not estimated for this peak hour under the 2030 Build with Mitigation Condition as the recommended mitigation measures for the respective intersection would not apply to this peak hour.

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

2030 No Build

2030 Build

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

(delay in seconds (LOS))

Stewart Avenue at Franklin Avenue

Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive

Merrick Avenue at Privado Road

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

(PM)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

(PM, SAT MID)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

(PM)

Weekday AM Peak: 64.5 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 76.2 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 27.4 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: 27.3 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak: 23.1 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 15.7 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 86.4 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 32.3 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: 26.6 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak: 15.0 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 14.7 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 45.5 (D)

Friday Evening Peak: 16.7 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 101.8 (F)

Weekday PM Peak: 124.7 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 33.6 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak:

43.7 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak:

26.7 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 17.0 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 101.4 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 41.3 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak:

34.7 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak:

15.6 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 18.2 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 59.2 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 18.4 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 101.9 (F)

Weekday PM Peak: 125.3 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 34.3 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak:

43.9 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak:

26.9 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 17.9 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 105.9 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 51.2 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak:

39.8 (D)

Saturday Evening Peak:

15.8 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 19.2 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 62.6 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 20.3 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A 208

Weekday PM Peak: 98.4 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: N/A

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A

Weekday AM Peak: N/A*

Weekday PM Peak: 24.3 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: N/A

Saturday Midday Peak: 19.2 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 8.7 (A)

‌208 N/A = Not Applicable. Delay in Seconds and LOS was not estimated for this peak hour under the 2030 Build with Mitigation Condition as the recommended mitigation measures for the respective intersection would not apply to this peak hour.

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

2030 No Build

2030 Build

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Midday Peak: 15.2 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak: 7.6 (A)

Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Midday Peak:

16.2 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak:

8.0 (A)

Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Midday Peak:

17.0 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak:

8.5 (A)

(delay in seconds (LOS))

Friday Evening Peak: N/A 209

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A

Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue

Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Mea dow Street

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

(PM, FRI EVE)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

(PM)

Weekday AM Peak: 54.0 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 117.2 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 31.5 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: 25.5 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak: 18.1 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 18.8 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 43.0 (D)

Friday Evening Peak: 12.4 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 10.6 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak: 10.0 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 64.1 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 137.1 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 33.2 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak:

26.4 (C)

Saturday Evening Peak:

18.4 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 20.9 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 57.9 (E)

Friday Evening Peak: 12.7 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

10.8 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak:

(B)
Weekday AM Peak: 69.1 (E)
Weekday PM Peak: 144.8 (F)
Friday Evening Peak: 37.8 (D)
Saturday Midday Peak:
27.3 (C)
Saturday Evening Peak:
20.2 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 21.1 (C)
Weekday PM Peak: 60.8 (E)
Friday Evening Peak: 12.8 (B)
Saturday Midday Peak:
10.9 (B)
Saturday Evening Peak:
(B)

N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 134.4 (F)

Friday Evening Peak: 34.8 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 23.0 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: N/A

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

‌209 N/A = Not Applicable. Delay in Seconds and LOS was not estimated for this peak hour under the 2030 Build with Mitigation Condition as the recommended mitigation measures for the respective intersection would not apply to this peak hour.

Table 38 Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures

2030 No Build

2030 Build

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

(delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Evening Peak: N/A 210

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Blvd.)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset

(AM, PM, SAT MID, SAT EVE, FRI EVE)

Intersection does not exist in this condition

Weekday AM Peak: 6.1 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 25.4 (C)

Friday Evening Peak: 13.7 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

12.4 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak:

15.1 (B)

Weekday AM Peak:

7.1 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 18.9 (B)

Friday Evening Peak: 14.5 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 14.7 (B)

Saturday Evening Peak: 17.1 (B)

The results of the intersection capacity analysis above indicate that for all time periods analyzed, the mitigation proposed retains good levels of traffic service or returns intersection levels of service and delay to No-Build Condition levels. All costs associated with the design, permitting and construction of the identified mitigation and access improvements would be borne by Sands. Sands intends to implement all required physical intersection mitigation at the above intersections for the Full Build during the Phase 1 construction period to minimize disruption to the Study Area. Accordingly, even though the totality of these intersection mitigation measures are not required to mitigate traffic impacts associated with Phase 1 development, they would be implemented for Phase 1 development. Figure 31 to Figure 36 illustrate the proposed physical mitigation measures at the above identified intersections. Figure 37, illustrates the intersection locations where signal timing/phasing optimization is recommended as a mitigation measure.

‌210 N/A = Not Applicable. Delay in Seconds and LOS was not estimated for this peak hour under the 2030 Build with Mitigation Condition as the recommended mitigation measures for the respective intersection would not apply to this peak hour.

‌

‌I

.t8::i

. °st::":'

.,,...-

.,,..--

----.,-,-..--

.,,..--

.,,..-- .,,..--

.,,..-- ------

----.,-,-..--

------

‌/I

-- -Char.lgs Lind b_ergh

Blvd

r '

- 1111111111111

------ I""'\

‌Basemap Source: Nearmap

‌Charles Lindbergh

Basemap Source: Nearmap

I""'")

-II rn •

‌Basemap Source: Nearmap

Jericho Turnpike

‌12

Path: C:\Users\rwolf\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects\Sands Signal Mitigation\Sands Signal Mitigation.aprx (rwolf, 9/11/2024)

Old Country Road

Merrick Avenue

Stewart Avenue

9 14

Hempstead Turnpike

Franklin Street

3 2

Fulton Avenue

Source: NearMap

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Sub

Subject Property

Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Nassau Coliseum Main Entrance

Hempstead Turnpike at Cunningham Avenue

Hempstead Turnpike at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Entrance

Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue

Hempstead Turnpike at Park Boulevard/East Meadow Avenue

Hempstead Turnpike at California Avenue/ Hofstra Boulevard

Hempstead Turnpike at Oak Street/Hofstra Boulevard

Fulton Avenue at N Franklin Street Franklin Avenue at Stewart Avenue

Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive

Merrick Avenue at Privado Road

Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue/Post Road

Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Meadow Street

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Boulevard)

Parkways and Interchange Analysis

Assessment of vehicular traffic operations on the adjacent highway network was conducted to analyze traffic conditions on the Meadowbrook State Parkway, Southern State Parkway, Northern State Parkway, and Sunrise Highway, and their interchanges with local streets. The Meadowbrook State Parkway is located near the project site and is anticipated to be a primary route used by project-generated traffic. Two separate interchanges on the Meadowbrook State Parkway, Hempstead Turnpike and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, provide access to the project site. While these interchanges would experience the greatest level of project-generated trips, traffic flow can be potentially impacted on a wider area, which is why the two Meadowbrook State Parkway major system-interchanges, Northern State Parkway and Southern State Parkway, require analysis. The results of the analysis provide valuable insights and recommendations for improving the mobility and safety of the parkway network.

Under Existing and No Build 2030 conditions, the parkway study network was found to experience congestion and delay, especially during peak hours. Though posted parkway speed limits of 55 mph exist on all the parkways, analysis of average corridor speed indicates that, even in existing conditions, there is not a single corridor and peak hour combination that operates in free flow average speed conditions. The corridor travel speeds decrease in the No Build 2030 conditions as the forecasted additional traffic volume (without the proposed action) is loaded into the network. In short, notable capacity issues exist in the existing and no build conditions on all the parkways studied.

Meadowbrook State Parkway

The Integrated Resort is projected to add measurable traffic to the Meadowbrook State Parkway, especially north of the site between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Northern State Parkway (Table 39). The highest increases would occur on this segment of Meadowbrook State Parkway in the Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak hours. When combined with the traffic operation results of the Existing and No Build 2030 conditions, this volume growth suggests with the proposed Integrated Resort traffic, impacts would result on the Meadowbrook State Parkway, particularly to/from the north, and mitigation measures would be needed.

‌Table 39 Increase in Traffic Volumes on Meadowbrook State Parkway from the Proposed Integrated Resort

Direction	Weekday AM	Weekday PM	Friday Evening	Saturday Midday	Saturday Evening
From North	425	575	900	975	1,200
To North	250	650	825	775	1,175
From South	350	300	450	500	550
To South	175	425	475	375	650

To identify areas of potential mitigation, congestion bottlenecks, or the areas where the traffic flow breaks down and causes upstream congestion, were identified, and the effects of these bottlenecks on the upstream sections were evaluated by comparing the change in traffic metrics before and after the breakdown point. This process resulted in the identification of five focal areas of the parkway system that are congestion bottlenecks and that experience increased

congestion from traffic volumes associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. These five bottlenecks are as follows:

› Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway, immediately south of Northern State Parkway, including the ramps from Northern State Parkway onto southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway.

Proposed mitigation includes: the removal of the existing lane drop to widen to two full lanes the ramp from westbound Northern State Parkway to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway as well widen to a fourth lane southbound on Meadowbrook State Parkway from Northern State Parkway to Zeckendorf Boulevard (Table 40).

‌Table 40 Speed (mph) Metrics for Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (South of Northern State Parkway)

Roadway	Scenario	Weekday AM	Weekday PM	Friday PM	Saturday Midday	Saturday Evening
Ramp from Northern State Parkway eastbound to Meadowbrook State Parkway southbound	Existing	54	16	52	16	55
	No Build 2030	54	13	26	11	54
	Build 2030	54	12	22	15	53
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	54	30	22	23	53
Ramp from Northern State Parkway westbound to Meadowbrook State Parkway southbound	Existing	23	10	41	31	51
	No Build 2030	21	6	19	7	51
	Build 2030	8	6	11	8	49
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	52	52	52	52	53
	Existing	53	17	49	17	55
Meadowbrook State Parkway southbound	No Build 2030	53	15	25	15	55
	Build 2030	52	15	26	18	54
	Build 2030 with Mitigation
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	54	26	21	28	53

› Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway approaching Northern State Parkway, including the ramp from Meadowbrook State Parkway onto eastbound Northern State Parkway.

Proposed mitigation includes: the widening of northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to four lanes from Old Country Road to the Northern State Parkway interchange and the widening of the ramp to eastbound Northern State Parkway to a two lane ramp onto Northern State Parkway Table 41 .

‌Table 41 Speed (mph) Metrics for Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (South of Northern State Parkway)

Roadway	Scenario	Weekday AM	Weekday PM	Friday PM	Saturday Midday	Saturday Evening
	Existing	48	41	53	33	51
Meadowbrook State Parkway northbound	No Build 2030	43	31	28	36	48
Meadowbrook State Parkway northbound	Build 2030	46	38	46	34	37
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	54	49	55	49	35
Ramp from Meadowbrook State Parkway northbound to Northern State Parkway eastbound	Existing	48	34	46	43	49
	No Build 2030	48	25	24	44	49
	Build 2030	47	47	43	46	48
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	49	29	47	47	48

› Northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road at the Stewart Avenue ramps

Proposed mitigation includes: widening the north end of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road, which currently transitions to a single lane to two lanes and merging both lanes onto Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline prior to the Stewart Avenue overpass. The existing third northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline travel lane would be dropped prior to the C-D road merge to accommodate the extra merge lane (Table 42).

‌

Roadway	Scenario	Weekday AM	Weekday PM	Friday PM	Saturday Midday	Saturday Evening
Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound C-D Road at Stewart Avenue Ramps	Existing	43	48	49	49	52
	No Build 2030	43	45	49	49	52
	Build 2030	39	17	13	18	9
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	55	55	55	47	55
Meadowbrook State Parkway Northbound Mainline at Build Mitigation 3-to-2 lane drop	Existing	55	55	55	55	55
	No Build 2030	55	54	55	55	55
	Build 2030	55	55	55	54	55
	Build 2030 with Mitigation	55	54	55	49	55

The other two congestion bottlenecks identified were the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway, beginning at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and extending through Hempstead Turnpike and the Meadowbrook State Parkway/Southern State Parkway interchange. However, as shown in Section 4 of the TIS (Appendix 3.5-1) these locations would experience lower levels of trip generation from the proposed Integrated Resort than locations along the parkway north of the subject property, and represent a lesser percentage of traffic at these locations. The proposed

mitigation measures are focused on providing improvements north of the site where site volumes are highest and investments can result in the most significant improvements in traffic conditions for visitors and the motoring public in general.

Hempstead Turnpike at Meadowbrook State Parkway

The TIS evaluated all eight ramp junctions associated with the interchange of Hempstead Turnpike at Meadowbrook State Parkway for all five critical peak hours. The analysis performed indicates that levels of service in the Build conditions would be consistent with No Build conditions, with the exception of the ramp junction from Hempstead Turnpike Eastbound to the off-ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound. During the weekday PM peak hour, the ramp junction on Hempstead Turnpike is expected to experience delays and a LOS F, as an increased number of vehicles attempt to enter the southbound Parkway from eastbound Hempstead Turnpike.

This ramp junction from Hempstead Turnpike Eastbound to the off-ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound is proposed to be mitigated by an extension of the deceleration lane onto the ramp from Hempstead Turnpike (approximately 500 feet) and an extension of the acceleration lane from the ramp onto the Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 400 feet). With the implementation of these improvements, this ramp junction would operate similar to as it does in the existing condition.

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Meadowbrook State Parkway

The Final Scope for the DEIS includes the evaluation of four of the ramp junctions along Hempstead Turnpike that serve its interchange with the Meadowbrook State Parkway. As discussed above, this study was expanded to include all eight ramps along Hempstead Turnpike that compose that interchange. Similarly, given the proximity of the parkways interchange with Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to the site, the four ramps along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard serving the parkway have also been included in this study. The analysis for the four ramps along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard was performed for all five peak hours analyzed for the Existing conditions, the No-Build 2030 Conditions, and the Build 2030 conditions. The analysis performed, which is summarized in Chapter 4 of Appendix 3.5-1, indicates that levels of traffic service in the Build conditions would be consistent with No Build conditions or operate with good levels of service, with the exception of the ramp junction from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound to the off-ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway Southbound.

During the weekday PM peak hour, the ramp junction on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard is expected to experience delays (from LOS A, under the No Build Condition, to LOS E, under the Build Condition) as an increased number of vehicles enter the southbound parkway from eastbound Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. This condition is mitigated with a proposed extension of the length of the two-lane section of the ramp (approximately 350 feet) and an extension of the acceleration lane from the ramp onto the Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 450 feet). With the implementation of this improvement, this ramp junction will operate with improved and acceptable delay (LOS D). The proposed improvements on this ramp are depicted in Attachment P of Appendix 3.5-1.

Figure 38 , Figure 39 , and Figure 40 illustrate the proposed physical mitigation measures at the above identified segments of Meadowbrook State Parkway and Hempstead Turnpike, as well as Meadowbrook State Parkway at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.

Holiday Period Analysis

Intersections

Traffic Impacts related to the Integrated Resort were evaluated for a holiday period (late- November through late-December) at the intersections and at the segments/ramp junctions in the vicinity of the Roosevelt Field Mall and adjacent retail area, in accordance with the Final Scope, including:

› Old Country Road at Clinton Road/Glen Cove Road

› Old Country Road at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Avenue

› Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue

› Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park Boulevard

› Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse

› Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street

› Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road

› Stewart Avenue at Ring Road West (Roosevelt Field)

› Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance

› Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive

› Merrick Avenue at Privado Road

LOS analyses were conducted for the 2023 Existing, 2030 No-Build, and 2030 Build conditions for the holiday period study intersections for the identified key peak hours. The same mitigation measures determined in the non-holiday conditions and described previously were applied to the Holiday peak periods and were found to mitigate any Integrated Resort-related operational issues at those locations.

Some additional deficiencies were noted in the background 2030 No-Build conditions that were not present during the typical non-holiday condition. Poor levels of traffic service were found during this holiday period at the following intersections:

› Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue

› Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road

› Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance

› Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive

Each of the impacts at these intersections can be addressed by optimizing signal timing and phasing. These proposed mitigation measures would retain good levels of traffic service or return intersection levels of service and delay to No-Build Condition levels. No additional physical mitigation is required to address holiday traffic.

‌Southbound Widening for Additional Lane.

Remove Existing Shoulder. Add New Lane and Shoulder.

Old Country Road Overpass

Replacement over Meadowbrook Parkway

LIRR Bridge Replacement

Meadowbrook Parkway Bridge Widening over Westbury Avenue

Northbound Widening for Additional Lane.

over Meadowbrook Parkway

Remove Existing Shoulder. Add New Lane and Shoulder.

‌Transition Northbound Mainline from Three Lanes to Two Lanes

Widen Service Road and Entrance Ramp to Two Lanes

Basemap Source: Nearmap

Southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Ramp

‌Sands New York Integrated Resort

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

ISSUED | 10/24/2024

Lengthen Exit Ramp Deceleration Lane Approximately 500 Linear Feet

Extend Two-Lane Ramp Section Approximately 350 Linear Feet

Extend Acceleration Lane Approximately 400 Linear Feet

Extend Acceleration Lane Approximately 450 Linear Feet

Basemap Source: Nearmap

Attachment P-9

Parkways and Interchanges

An analysis was also conducted for 2023 Existing, 2030 No-Build, and 2030 Build conditions in both the northbound and southbound directions for the weekday holiday PM peak hour and holiday Saturday Midday peak hours for the ramps and freeway sections along the Meadowbrook State Parkway from a point south of the Zeckendorf Boulevard interchange northward to a point north of its interchange with Old Country Road. It is noted that the months of November and December do not coincide with the months of peak activity at the Integrated Resort, which occur in March and May as discussed in Appendix 3.5-1. In fact, the months of November and December are the two slowest months of casino patronage. Increases in traffic levels in this area during the holiday period are related to increased activity at the regional mall and other area retail and service attractions.

During the holiday period, for all conditions, this segment of the Meadowbrook State Parkway would experience reduced highway speeds, as would be expected as a result of the influences of holiday traffic entering and exiting the retail establishments located just off the Parkway network. As noted previously, the traffic levels generated by the Integrated Resort would be lower during the holiday period than during its peak times of the year (March and May).

The proposed extensive mitigation measures for Meadowbrook State Parkway for the 2030 Build Condition, discussed above, would improve the operations during the holiday periods. Thus, no additional mitigation is necessary to accommodate traffic during the holiday period.

Phase I Analysis Surface Intersections

The Final Scope requires that all study intersections be analyzed for the five peak hour periods for the Full Build condition to identify project impacts and mitigation measures. With respect to the operation of Phase 1 only, the Final Scope requires a sensitivity analysis to identify operations and mitigation necessary for the operation of Phase 1 only. As explained earlier in this section, Sands would be implementing the intersection mitigation necessary for the Full Build condition during construction of Phase 1 of the Integrated Resort. This being the case, the operation of Phase 1 would benefit from the mitigation for Full Build being in place at all intersections where mitigation is proposed. These intersections include:

Hempstead Tpke at Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Coliseum Access
Hempstead Tpke at Cunningham Ave & West Drive
Hempstead Tpke at MSKCC Entrance
Hempstead Tpke at Earle Ovington Blvd/Uniondale Ave
Earle Ovington Blvd at Charles Lindbergh Blvd EB/Coliseum Access
Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Earle Ovington Blvd/NCC Access
Hempstead Tpke at Park Blvd/East Meadow Ave
Hempstead Tpke at California Ave/ Hofstra Blvd
Hempstead Tpke at Oak St/Hofstra Blvd
Fulton Ave at N Franklin St
Stewart Ave at Franklin Ave
Merrick Ave at Corporate Dr
Merrick Ave at Privado Rd
Jericho Tpke at Post Ave/Post Rd
Westbury Blvd at Oak St/Meadow St
Charles Lindbergh Blvd at Sands Blvd

Appendix 3.5-1

Potential for Traffic Diversions

Certain assigned routes in the vicinity of the proposed Integrated Resort may experience delays caused by crashes or other events and result in traffic diversions when using navigation apps with real time data. As a more significant percentage of traffic is oriented to and from the north, potential diversion routes to and from the north were considered.

One such diversion is for traffic from the northeast that may be redirected to travel via Merrick Avenue. Merrick Avenue is an arterial where a number of traffic signal timing changes have been proposed in order to improve the operations along this corridor to help get the most efficiency out of those intersections during the typical condition or during a particular diversion period.

Another potential diversion would be if drivers were to leave the Meadowbrook State Parkway due to congestion or an event on that roadway. An evaluation of routing provided by Google Maps indicates that even if vehicles leave the Meadowbrook State Parkway, they would then access the site via Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. Based on the levels of service summarized in the tables above, with the traffic signal improvements described above, capacity on critical approaches likely to accommodate diversion traffic was increased by as much as 50 percent. Therefore, both of these roadways have the capacity to accommodate additional traffic.

The potential for traffic diversion from primary routes are discussed in further detail in Chapter Four of the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

Consistent with the Final Scope, a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and the proposed Sands Boulevard (proposed new external signal), which would provide access to the project site as well as locations internal to the site where traffic signals are proposed (1 external location, 6 internal locations). These analyses were performed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 11th Edition.211 There are nine warrants described in the MUTCD, and the installation of a traffic signal should only be considered if one or more of the nine signal warrants are met, and in consideration of engineering judgement. For the initial analysis, the four traffic volume warrants were considered and are outlined below:

‌211 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 11th Edition, FHWA, December 2023.

› Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume

› Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicle Volume

› Warrant 3, Peak Hour

› Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

The intersections for which traffic signal warrants were considered are as follows:

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Sands Boulevard

› Sands Boulevard at North Drive

› Sands Boulevard at Hotel Tower 1 Loop

› North Drive at Hotel Tower 2 Loop/Garage A West Access

› North Drive at Garage A East Access

› South Drive at Garage B Access

› West Drive at Garage C Access/MSKCC Access.

Of the seven locations noted above, four meet at least one warrant as discussed below:

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Proposed Sands Boulevard Intersection (Warrant 1 – 3 Met)

› Proposed Sands Boulevard at Proposed North Drive intersection (Warrant 1 – 3 Met)

› North Drive at Hotel Tower 2 Loop/Garage A West Access (Warrant 4 Met)

› North Drive at North Drive at Garage A East Access (Warrant 4 Met).

Regarding the remaining three proposed signalized intersections, the MUTCD indicates that a traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the warrants described in this Chapter are met and should also consider engineering judgement. Although based on the anticipated capture area and arrival and departure patterns, trips were assigned to their closest access point and garage that is accessible to them (employees were only assigned to employee garages), once the Integrated Resort is operating, there may be some redistributions of regular patrons from Garage A to Garages B and/or C, which are likely to have significant availability during the weekdays. If this redistribution occurs, the traffic signal infrastructure needs to be in place to safely process those trips. Further, when peak events occur in the meeting and conference space or theater, significant entries and exits would occur at the intersections along West Street and South Street and significant levels of pedestrian crossings could be experienced there as well as at the intersection of Sands Boulevard at the Hotel Tower 1 Loop and surface parking field access. The presence of traffic signals would ensure that these trips, and trips in to and out of MSKCC, continue to be processed efficiently and safely. The TIS, therefore, based on engineering judgement, recommends that these traffic signals be installed.

Roadway Improvement Permitting Agencies

The identified mitigation measures identified as part of the TIS would require design review and a Highway Work Permit from the appropriate jurisdiction for each location. The corresponding permitting agency for each of the primary studied roadways are included in Table 43 .

‌Table 43 Roadway and Intersection Governing Jurisdictions

Roadway or Intersection	Jurisdiction
Meadowbrook State Parkway	NYSDOT with consultation with NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Road Segments Between Intersections	NYSDOT, NCDPW or Town
Intersection of State Highways	NYSDOT
Intersection of Nassau County (NC) Highways	NCDPW
Intersection of State with NC and/or Town Roadways	NYSDOT
Intersection of NC with Town Roadways	NCDPW

Parking, Site Access and Circulation

Parking Code Requirements

The proposed Integrated Resort would be served by both surface parking fields and structured parking. These parking garages and parking fields are located such that ample parking would be available close and convenient to the various components of the Integrated Resort to serve site visitors and employees. The parking proposed to be provided as part of the proposed action would be in compliance with the parking requirements of the proposed MF-IRD. Specifically, per the provisions of the proposed MF-IRD, Table 44 lists the parking spaces that would be required for the proposed action.

‌Table 44 Parking Required per Proposed MF-IRD Code

Component	Town Code	Proposed Square Footage	Parking Required (stalls)
Casino/Gaming	1 per 200 sf	393,726 sf	1,969
Gaming Circulation/Support	1 per 200 sf	300,196 sf	1,501
Support Areas	1 per 500 sf	688,068 sf	1,377
Conference Center	1 per 200 sf	234,653 sf	1,175
Hotel	1 per Room	2,288 Rooms	2,288
Retail	1 per 200 sf	55,507 sf	278
Restaurant	1 per 100 sf	162,792 sf	1,628
Rest. Employees	1 per 4 Employees	1,411 emp.	353
Entertainment Venue	1 per 3 Seats	4,500 seats	1,500
Public Attraction	1 Per 200 sf	60,000 sf	300
Central Utility Plant/Mechanical Space	1 per 10,000 sf	416,874 sf	42
Total			12,411

The Integrated Resort would provide 9,963 spaces within the on-site parking garages and another 2,487 parking stalls in surface level lots. Therefore, 12,450 spaces in total would be

provided, which results in more than adequate parking with respect to the requirements of the proposed MF-IRD.

Anticipated Parking Demand

As required by the Final Scope for the proposed Integrated Resort, an analysis of the actual parking demands expected to occur at the site was performed to confirm the parking provided would accommodate actual anticipated peak parking demand. This analysis utilized peak parking demand rate data contained in ITE’s Parking Generation, 6thEdition ,212 which is a widely used and accepted source for parking demand data for various land uses, including many proposed in the Integrated Resort as well as parking demand data derived from information provided by Sands for the balance of the land uses proposed that are not available in the ITE database. This analysis, discussed in detail in the TIS in Appendix 3.5-1 projects a peak parking demand on the site of 2,365 parked vehicles with the operation of Phase 1 and 10,561 parked vehicles with Full Build. Each of these peak demand periods would occur on Saturday.

As such, the 12,450 spaces to be constructed to support the Full Build Integrated Resort is adequate to accommodate anticipated peak parking demand. Likewise, Garage A provides over 4,300 spaces that would be available for Phase 1 operations, exceeding peak demand.

As discussed in the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1, virtually all parking on the site would be required during construction and particularly during the time of overlap when Phase 1 is operational, and Phase 2 is under construction. Sands would work with the Town of Hempstead during site plan review to potentially landbank213 surface parking areas along Hempstead Turnpike to increase landscaping until a time when additional parking is required to support Integrated Resort operations (if such condition occurs).

Site Access

The anticipated development would include the modification of several of the existing site driveways along with the addition of new access points to minimize the impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The project site is bounded by four roadways of Town, Nassau County and New York State ownership and currently served by a number access points which accommodated well attended events at the Coliseum. Access to the project site is currently provided via both signalized and unsignalized access points.

The proposed access points are depicted in Figure 41 and are described as follows:

› On Hempstead Turnpike – Currently, access is provided via two direct signalized access points and indirectly via James Doolittle Boulevard.

The current main access to the site is a signalized access point on Hempstead Turnpike opposite Glenn Curtiss Boulevard.

‌212 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Parking Generation, Sixth Edition (2023).
‌213 Landbanking would allow for temporary landscaping of surface parking spaces until such time the parking spaces are needed to accommodate visitors to the proposed Integrated Resort.
- The Integrated Resort main entrance on Hempstead Turnpike would be reconfigured at the intersection as shown on the CMP to better accommodate projected traffic levels.
A second signalized access point is provided to the west adjacent to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Access to two surface parking fields would be provided from James Doolittle Boulevard which currently, and would continue to be accessed via right-turns in and out only at its intersection with Hempstead Turnpike.
› On Earle Ovington Boulevard – Currently, access is provided via two direct signalized access points as well as a pair of unsignalized, gated access points that were used only during large events at the Coliseum.
The southern signalized access point, opposite the East Gate Drive access to Hofstra University would continue in that location with minor changes to the westbound site exit as shown on the CMP.
The signalized intersection at the northern access point on Earle Ovington Boulevard would see significant changes to the westbound approach as well as the provision of an additional eastbound left turn lane and the addition of a southbound U-turn lane.
The existing unsignalized access points would continue to provide access to the proposed site via unsignalized right turn out only intersections.
As shown on Figure 41 for the Integrated Resort, a new one-way access roadway is proposed from Earle Ovington Boulevard just north of the northerly signalized access point to provide direct access to the lower level of Garage A and serve buses and delivery vehicles.
› On Charles Lindbergh Boulevard - Currently, access along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard is provided via two unsignalized access points via right-turns only. A gated exit-only access is present central to the site that was used only during large events at the Coliseum. To the east, James Doolittle Boulevard provides access into the site. The operation of these right- in/right-out access points is supported by the presence of large turnarounds in the roadway median that allow vehicles from either direction to enter and exit the site on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.
A new signalized intersection is proposed at the northern terminus of Sands Boulevard in the vicinity of the existing gated egress to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard currently used at the end of large events at the Coliseum.
The intersection of James Doolittle Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard would be modified to a more conventional geometry and remain as right-turns in and out only.
A one-way exit from the lower level of Garage would serve exiting buses and delivery vehicles would join Charles Lindbergh Boulevard west of the Sands Boulevard intersection.
› On James Doolittle Boulevard –
James Doolittle Boulevard would continue to provide access to the existing hotel, as well as surface parking fields to its north and south at unsignalized access points.
A third access on James Doolittle Boulevard is proposed connecting east-west to Sands Boulevard.

Figure 41: Site Access Points and Internal Circulation

Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Source: Conceptual Master Plan, H2M Architects + Engineers 04/02/2024

Site Circulation

On-site circulation would be accomplished via a series of internal roadways configured to efficiently allow the various types of site users (e.g., passenger cars, shuttle buses, delivery trucks) to access and move about the site. Specifically, the site design, as depicted in Figure 41, provides four site roadways for vehicular circulation within the site:

› Sands Boulevard – Sands Boulevard would extend from Hempstead Turnpike northerly through the site to a new signalized intersection at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. Each end of this roadway serves as a major access point to the Resort and would be signalized.

› Sands Boulevard provides direct access to both easterly surface parking fields, the drop-off loop adjacent to Hotel Tower 1 and Garage A. Circulation to and from Earle Ovington Boulevard is provided via its intersection with North Drive, which also provides access to Garage A and the drop-off loop adjacent to Hotel Tower 2.

› North Drive – North Drive extends from its signalized intersection with Earle Ovington Boulevard, opposite the terminus of the eastbound leg of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to its terminus at Sands Boulevard, also signalized. North Drive provides direct access to Garage A and the drop-off area adjacent to Hotel Tower 2.

› West Drive – West Drive extends north from its signalized intersection with Hempstead Turnpike to South Drive. West Drive would provide direct access to Parking Garage C as well as continue to provide access to MSKCC. West Drive provides indirect access to Earle Ovington Boulevard via South Drive.

› South Drive - South Drive extends from its signalized intersection with Earle Ovington Boulevard, opposite the East Gate Drive access to Hofstra University to its terminus at West Drive. South Drive provides direct access to Garage B, the southwest surface parking field and MSKCC.

The proposed access points and internal roadways are designed to well accommodate anticipated traffic levels at the site in an efficient and safe manner and have been evaluated in detail in the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1 to ensure proper operations.

Transportation Demand Management

› Transit Options: The Integrated Resort would leverage and expand on existing NICE bus service and the proposed Nassau County BRT along Earle Ovington Boulevard to encourage a significant number of trips by alternative modes.

The Integrated Resort is also committed to encouraging use of non-vehicular modes and plans to leverage the proximity of the LIRR by providing a shuttle from the Hempstead LIRR Station

(and, by proximity, the Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center) directly to the site. No other area railroad stations would be served by this shuttle service.214 The cost of this service would be borne by Sands. The Integrated Resort would also provide direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations via a coach shuttle.

The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to generate additional ridership demand on existing local transit services, specifically the NICE Bus service and the LIRR Hempstead branch. A full analysis on the projected impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on the capacity of the NICE and LIRR systems are contained within Chapter Six of the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1. This analysis demonstrates that there is capacity on the NICE systems to accommodate projected ridership from the proposed Integrated Resort during the analyzed project peak periods (Table 45).

‌Table 45 Bus Capacity by Peak Hour vs. Project-Generated Bus Ridership

Peak Hour		Number of Trips Serving Project Site1								Peak Hour Policy Capacity Threshold	Total Project- Generated Bus Riders
	N43		N70/71		N16/16x		N27
	NB	SB	EB	WB	NB	SB	NB	SB	Total
Weekday AM (7:30 to 8:30 a.m.)	2	2	4	4	3	3	3	3	24	1,404	146
Weekday PM (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.)	2	2	3	4	2	3	1	2	19	1,112	149
Friday Evening (6:00 to 7:00 p.m.)	2	2	3	4	2	3	1	1	18	878	177
Saturday Midday (1:15 to 2:15 p.m.)	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	0	8	390	172
Saturday Evening (7:15 to 8:15 p.m.)	2	1	2	2	0	0	0	0	7	341	248

Source: Nassau Inter-County Express Map & Schedules, effective February 12, 2024.

The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to generate additional ridership demand as a result of the Sands-provided shuttle to and from the LIRR Hempstead Station. Thus, the anticipated ridership demand on the LIRR was reviewed in the TIS Appendix 3.5-1. Based on review of publicly available documents summarizing ridership data on the LIRR,215 the capacity to accommodate potential increased ridership associated with the proposed Integrated Resort can be assessed. In 2023, the LIRR carried 65.2 million riders, which represents 25.9 million riders, or 28 percent, fewer than the peak ridership of 91.1 million riders in 2019. A significant LIRR Origin- Destination study216 was conducted in 2014 that noted the boardings and lightings associated

‌214 During the public scoping process, comments were issued by the Village of Westbury confirming the Village’s opposition to the use of the Westbury LIRR Station for the shuttle service. This correspondence is included in Attachment I of the TIS, Appendix 3.5-1

‌215 Long Island Rail Road: On-Time Performance by the Numbers (2023), https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/pdf/report-9-2025.pdf and MTA Long Island Rail Road, 2023 Annual Ridership Report, 138216 (mta.info)

‌216 2012-2014 LIRR Origin and Destination Report, Abt/SRBI, August 2016, Microsoft Word - 2012 LIRR OD Report Volume I 08232016.doc (mta.info)

with the Hempstead line at that time. During the AM peak, 4,707 riders boarded the Hempstead line and during the PM peak, 4,378 riders alighted on the Hempstead line. On the entire Saturday, only 1,968 boarded on the Hempstead line over the course of the day and only 2,224 riders alighted. Applying a similar reduction factor on the Hempstead line, as has been observed throughout the LIRR network, this results in a corresponding reduction of over 1,000 riders since pre-pandemic peak levels during the highest period of ridership in the PM peak.

As explained in the TIS, the Integrated Resort demand for the LIRR Hempstead Line during the PM commuter peak hour is 160 person trips, which is significantly less than the post-pandemic difference in ridership on this line. The highest LIRR demand due to the Integrated Resort is expected in the Saturday evening peak hour with 423 peak hour person trips. Although site related demand is higher during the Saturday evening peak hour than the LIRR critical PM peak, the added demand would still result in ridership significantly below the peak ridership experienced in 2019. Thus, capacity exists to accommodate projected LIRR Hempstead Line commuters destined to/from the proposed Integrated Resort.

› Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: The Integrated Resort plans to leverage the existing system, by providing pedestrian connections into its major entrances for both visitors and employees. The pedestrian accommodations around the site would continue to be via the multi-use path system and dedicated bike paths. Crosswalks are provided at signalized intersections to provide connection to and from the surrounding areas.

› Appointment of a Transportation Coordinator: The Integrated Resort would appoint a Transportation Coordinator that would be in charge of monitoring usage of the various TDM measures, including tracking shuttle usage and increasing supply as required, monitoring carpool and bicycle parking supply adequacy. In addition, the Transportation Coordinator would work with supervisors in each of the various uses in the Integrated Resort to schedule employee shift start and end times outside of the peak traffic periods and work with employees to encourage use of alternate modes of travel by posting information on bicycling infrastructure and transit options.

› Parking Policy: In order to encourage carpooling, the Integrated Resort would provide priority parking for carpoolers in its staff parking areas. These parking spaces would be closely located to the employee entrance.

The TIS also evaluated impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed action during construction and impacts of a proposed alternative development. These traffic analyses are summarized in Section 3.15, Construction and Chapter 8, Alternatives and Their Impacts, respectively, and included in their entirety in Appendix 3.5-1.

‌Proposed Mitigation
Based upon the traffic impact analyses conducted for the proposed Integrated Resort, a series of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding roadways and intersections. Among these measures are a range of roadway

improvements that focus on impacts of trip generation associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, as well as addressing existing areas of congestion, and impacts from OPDs. Specifically, geometric and traffic signal operation improvements are proposed at intersections on the local street network, as well as capacity improvements on the Meadowbrook State Parkway and other primary roadways to address the combination of existing traffic-related deficiencies and project- related traffic increases. All proposed mitigation measures would be funded by Sands and be in place by completion of Phase 2. These improvements are as follows:
› Physical Mitigation Improvements at Intersections:
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access:
  - WB: Modify right-turn lane to eliminate uncontrolled movement
  - SB: Restripe southbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes and a shared thru-right lane
  - NB: Restripe approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a shared thru-right lane and a right-turn lane
  - Restrict WB U-Turns (PM Peak)
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue:
  - SB: Construct additional right-turn lane. Restripe southbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a thru lane, a shared thru-right lane, and a right- turn lane
- Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (EB)/Site Access:
  - EB: Construct an additional left-turn lane
  - WB: Remove one left-turn lane, construct an additional channelized right turn lane
  - SB: Construct an additional U-turn only lane
- Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Bus and Delivery Vehicle Access Roadway:
  - Construct deceleration lane and one-way roadway from Earle Ovington Boulevard to Garage A.
  - From Garage A, construct a one-way roadway with a right out only from the site onto Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.
- Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Blvd.):
  - Construct Intersection
- Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at James Doolittle Boulevard:
  - EB: Remove right-turn lane
  - NB: Remove right-turn lane
    › Physical Mitigation Improvements on Parkways and Interchanges:
- Removal of the existing lane drop (from two lanes to one lane) to widen to two full lanes the ramp from westbound Northern State Parkway onto southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
- Widening to a fourth lane southbound on Meadowbrook State Parkway from Northern State Parkway to Zeckendorf Boulevard
- Widening of northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to four lanes from Old Country Road to the Northern State Parkway ramps
- Bridge widenings and replacements to accommodate the widenings noted above including; widening of the Meadowbrook State Parkway bridge over Westbury Avenue, replacement of the MTA Long Island Railroad bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span, and replacement of the Old Country Road bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span
- Widening of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway ramp to eastbound Northern State Parkway to a two-lane ramp onto Northern State Parkway
- Widening of the north end of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road, which currently transitions to a single lane, to two lanes and merging both lanes onto Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline prior to the Stewart Avenue overpass. The existing third northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline travel lane would be dropped prior to the C-D road merge
- Along eastbound Hempstead Turnpike the extension of the deceleration lane onto the ramp to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 500 feet)
- Along southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway the extension of the acceleration lane from the ramp from eastbound Hempstead Turnpike (approximately 400 feet)
- An extension of the two lane section of the ramp from eastbound Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 350 feet) and an extension of the acceleration lane from the same ramp onto the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 450 feet).
  › Intersections Recommended for Signal Timing/Phasing Optimization
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access:
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Cunningham Avenue
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at MSKCC Entrance
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Union Dale Avenue
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Park Boulevard/E. Meadow Avenue
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Hofstra Boulevard/California Avenue
- Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Oak Street/Hofstra Boulevard
- Fulton Avenue at N. Franklin Street
- Stewart Avenue at Franklin Avenue
- Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive
- Merrick Avenue at Privado Road
- Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue
- Oak Street at Westbury Boulevard/Meadow Street
- Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Site Access (Sands Blvd.)
- Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue (for Holiday Peak Period)
- Stewart Avenue at Clinton Road (for Holiday Peak Period).
› The Promotion of Public Transit Options: The Integrated Resort would leverage and expand on existing NICE bus service and the proposed Nassau County BRT along Earle Ovington Boulevard to encourage a significant number of trips by alternative modes. The Integrated Resort would also provide a shuttle from the Hempstead LIRR Station directly to the site and a direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations via a coach shuttle. The cost of both bus services would be borne by the Lessee for the Integrated Resort.
› Connectivity to Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: The Integrated Resort would promote walking and biking to/from and within the project site by providing pedestrian connections into its major entrances for both visitors and employees. The pedestrian accommodations around the site would continue to be via the multi-use path. Crosswalks are provided at signalized intersections to provide connection to and from the surrounding areas.
› Transportation Management Association Membership: The Integrated Resort would investigate membership in a local area Transportation Management Association (TMA), which provides incentives and awareness of alternative mode choices available in the area and work to connect partners to continue to improve those choices.
› Appointment of a Transportation Coordinator: The Integrated Resort would appoint a Transportation Coordinator that would be in charge of monitoring usage of the various TDM measures, including tracking shuttle usage and increasing supply as required, monitoring carpool and bicycle parking supply adequacy. In addition, the Transportation Coordinator would work with supervisors in each of the various uses in the Integrated Resort to schedule employee shift start and end times outside of the peak traffic periods and work with employees to encourage use of alternate modes of travel by posting information on bicycling infrastructure and transit options.
› Parking Policy: In order to encourage carpooling, and reduce traffic and parking impacts, the Integrated Resort would provide priority parking for carpoolers in its staff parking areas. These parking spaces would be closely located to the employee entrance.

‌Air Quality

Ambient air quality, or the quality of the surrounding air, may be affected by air pollutants produced by motor vehicles, referred to as "mobile sources," by fixed facilities, referred as "stationary sources," or by a combination of both.

Direct air quality impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed action result from emissions generated by stationary sources, such as emissions from on-site kitchen exhaust or emissions from parking lots. Indirect effects are caused by off-site emissions associated with a project, such as emissions from vehicles (the mobile sources noted above) traveling to and from the project site. The air quality assessment was prepared with a focus on the following areas of potential concern:

› Potential impacts from mobile sources (vehicle trips) introduced by the proposed project on ambient air quality at the microscale (intersection) level.

› Potential impacts from mobile source on ambient air quality at the mesoscale (regional) level.

› Potential impacts of emissions from parking. The proposed project would include three parking garages (A, B, and C) and three surface parking lots (SW Surface Lot, NE Surface Lot, and SE Surface Lot). Based on the size and anticipated use of each of the parking facilities, Garage A was analyzed to evaluate worst-case impacts of the proposed parking uses on air quality.

› Potential impacts from stationary air pollution sources introduced by the project, specifically the commercial kitchen exhaust vents.

› Given the proposed project’s location near Disadvantaged Communities (DAC), as identified by New York State,217 the air quality analysis identifies the common air pollutants and their sources, estimates the impact of project generated emissions on nearby areas, and assesses potential impacts related to asthma.

‌Existing Conditions

Pollutants of Concern
Air pollution is of concern because of its demonstrated effects on human health, especially respiratory health. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. These six pollutants are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb).
CO is a colorless and odorless gas that is a product of incomplete combustion. In urban areas, approximately 80 to 90 percent of CO emissions are from motor vehicles. CO concentrations can diminish rapidly over relatively short distances; elevated concentrations are usually limited to

‌217 New York State. Disadvantaged Community Criteria. Available at: https://climate.ny.gov/resources/disadvantaged-communities- criteria/. Accessed October 2024.

locations near crowded intersections, heavily traveled and congested roadways, parking lots, and garages. Consequently, CO concentrations are analyzed on a local (microscale) basis.
Particulate matter is made up of small solid particles and liquid droplets. PM10 refers to particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less, and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. Particulates can enter the body through the respiratory system. Particulates over 10 micrometers in size are generally captured in the nose and throat and are readily expelled from the body. Particulates smaller than 10 micrometers, and especially particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers, can reach the air ducts (bronchi) and the air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs. Particulates are associated with increased incidence of respiratory diseases, cardiopulmonary disease, and cancer.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are of principal concern because of their role, together with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),218 as precursors in the formation of ozone (O3). Ozone is formed through a series of reactions that take place in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. The effects of NOX and VOC emissions from all sources are generally examined on a mesoscale (regional) basis. NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) is also regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a pollutant harmful to human health.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions result from combustion of sulfur containing fossil fuels. SO2 is also of concern as a precursor to PM2.5. Federal restrictions on the sulfur content in diesel fuel for on- road and non-road vehicles have reduced SO2 emissions from mobile sources.
Lead (Pb) emissions are principally associated with industrial sources. Lead from vehicles was a concern in the past, when gasoline contained more lead. Lead emissions from automobiles have since declined.
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), are pollutants with known or suspected health impacts of concern. The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 listed 188 air toxics and addressed the need to control toxic emissions from transportation sources. EPA identified nine compounds with substantial contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers or contributors and non-cancer hazard contributors from the 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). These compounds are 1, 3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

Air Quality Standards

In accordance with the requirements of the CAA, as amended 1990, the EPA has promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as sick children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

‌218 VOCs, or Volatile Organic Compounds, are a group of organic chemicals that easily evaporate at room temperature. They are commonly found in a variety of products and materials, including paints, coatings, adhesives, cleaning products, and building materials. Common VOCs include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylene.

The NAAQS are presented in Table 46. The State of New York has adopted similar standards as those set by the EPA. Federal ambient air quality standards do not exist for MSATs; however, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has developed a guidance document DAR-1 (February 2021), which contains a compilation of annual and short term (1‐ hour) guideline concentration thresholds for these compounds.

The predicted concentrations of pollutants of concern associated with a proposed project are compared to the NAAQS for criteria air pollutants and ambient guideline concentrations for non- criteria pollutants. In general, if an air quality analysis indicates that a project would cause the standards for any pollutant to be exceeded, it can be concluded that the project would result in an adverse air quality impact.

‌Table 46 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant	Primary/ Secondary	Averaging Time	Level	Form
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	Primary	8 hours	9 ppm	Not to be exceeded more than once per year
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	Primary	1 hour	35 ppm	Not to be exceeded more than once per year
Lead (Pb)	Primary and secondary	Rolling 3-month Average	0.15 µg/m3 (1)	Not to be exceeded
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)	Primary	1 hour	100 ppb	98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)	Primary and secondary
	Primary and secondary	1 year	53 ppb (2)	Annual mean
Ozone (O3)	Primary and secondary	8 hours	0.070 ppm (3)	Annual fourth-highest daily maximum concentration, averaged over 3 years
	Particulate Matter (PM2.5)	Primary	1 year	9.0 µg/m3
	Particulate Matter (PM2.5)	Secondary	1 year	15.0 μg/m3
Particulate Matter	Particulate Matter (PM10)	Primary and Secondary	24 hours	35 µg/m3
	Particulate Matter (PM10)	Primary and Secondary	24 hours	150 µg/m3
	Primary	1 hour	75 ppb (4)	99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years
Sulfur Oxides
	Secondary	3 hours	0.5 ppm	Not to be exceeded more than once per year
Source: EPA NAAQS Table, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table, last updated February 7, 2024. 1 In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 µg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. 2 The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 parts per million (ppm). It is shown here in terms of ppb for comparison with the 1-hour standard.

3 Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.

4 The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS.

Regulatory Context
The 1990 CAA with Amendments resulted in states being divided into attainment and non- attainment areas, with classifications based upon the severity of their air quality issues. Air quality control regions are classified and divided into one of three categories: attainment, unclassified, or non-attainment depending upon air quality data and ambient concentrations of pollutants.
Attainment areas are regions where ambient concentrations of a pollutant are below the respective NAAQS; non-attainment areas are those where concentrations exceed the NAAQS. Maintenance areas are former non-attainment areas that achieved attainment. An unclassified area is a region where data are insufficient to make a determination and is generally considered as an attainment area for administrative purposes. A single area can be in attainment of the standards for some pollutants while being in non-attainment for others. When an area is designated as non-attainment by EPA, the state is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that outlines the plan to achieve conformity with the NAAQS and for maintaining attainment status.
Nassau County is in attainment for the criteria pollutants PM10, Pb, NO2, and SO2. Nassau County was redesignated from being in non-attainment of the CO standard as of May 20, 2002 (moderate <12.7 ppm non-attainment) and was also redesignated from being in non-attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard as of April 18, 2014. Currently, Nassau County is a maintenance area for CO and PM2.5. As part of the larger New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT non-attainment area, Nassau County is designated as a severe-15 non-attainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and as a moderate non-attainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.219

Background Concentrations

Background concentrations are the ambient pollution levels associated with existing stationary, mobile, and other emission sources from the area. The background concentrations presented in Table 47 are based on the most recent available monitoring data (2020-2022) at monitoring stations closest to the proposed project site. The background values were calculated consistent with Table 3 from NYSDEC’s DAR-10: Guidelines on Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air

‌219 USEPA. New York Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ny.html. Accessed August 2024 . According to the EPA, “Severe-15” means that an area has a design value of 0.105 up to but not including 0.111 parts per million (see https://www.epa.gov/green-book/ozone- designation-and-classification-information )

Quality Impact Analysis.220 Existing air quality in the project area meets standards, except for ozone, which is a regional pollutant whose levels are elevated throughout the New York- Northern New Jersey – Long Island metropolitan area.

‌Table 47 Background Concentrations

Pollutant	Averaging Time	Monitoring Location	Background Concentration	NAAQS	Percent of NAAQS
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)	1-Hour1	Queens College, Queens	97 µg/m3	188 µg/m3	51.6%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)	Annual2	Queens College, Queens	25.7 µg/m3	100 µg/m3	25.7%
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	1-Hour	Queens College - Near Road, Queens	2.12 ppm	35 ppm	6.1%
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	8-Hour	Queens College - Near Road, Queens	1.9 ppm	9 ppm	21.1%
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)	24-Hour3	Eisenhower Park, Nassau	15.2 µg/m3	35 µg/m3	43.4%
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)	Annual	Eisenhower Park, Nassau	5.9 µg/m3	9 µg/m3	65.6%
Particulate Matter (PM10)	24-Hour4	Queens College, Queens	34 µg/m3	150 µg/m3	22.7%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)	1-Hour5	Eisenhower Park, Nassau	36 µg/m3	196 µg/m3	18.4%
Lead (Pb)	Rolling 3- month average6	IS 52, Bronx	0.0036 µg/m3	0.15 µg/m3	2.4%
Ozone (O3)	8-Hours7	Babylon, Suffolk	0.074 ppm	0.070 ppm	105.7%
Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Ambient Air Quality Report 2022: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/2022airqualreport.pdf 1 1-hour NO2 background concentration is based on three-year average of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations from available monitoring data. 2 Annual NO2 background concentration is based on the maximum annual average from the latest three years of available monitoring data. 3 The 24-hour PM2.5 background concentration is based on 98th percentile concentration averaged over three years of data. 4 24-hour PM10 is based on the average max value from the most recent three years of available monitoring data. 5 1-hour SO2 background concentration is based on maximum 99th percentile concentration averaged over the latest three years of available monitoring data. 6 3-month Pb background concentration is based on the maximum 3-month rolling average concentration of the latest three years of monitoring data. 7 8-hour O3 background concentration is based on fourth-highest daily concentration averaged over the latest three years of available monitoring data.

Disadvantaged Communities
On July 18, 2019, the NYS Legislature enacted the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) with an effective date of January 1, 2020. The CLCPA established a statewide mandate to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 85 percent below by 2050. Among the mandates was the identification and consideration of Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) with a requirement that 35 percent of the benefits from the State’s investments must be directed to DACs.

‌220 NYSDEC. DAR-10: Guidelines on Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air Quality Impact Analysis. Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/dar10.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

A Climate Justice Working Group, comprised of representatives from State agencies and Environmental Justice advocacy organizations was formed to identify DACs. These are distinct from Federally-designated Environmental Justice communities and are defined in the CLCPA as communities that bear burdens of negative public health effects, environmental pollution, impacts of climate change, and possess certain socio-economic criteria, or comprise high- concentrations of low- and moderate- income households.221 In addition to household income, factors for designation include the proximity to potential environmental hazards, level of risk from climate change and community health vulnerabilities.222
Ultimately ten communities throughout New York State that are located within designated DACs with high air pollution burdens were selected for the Community Air Monitoring Initiative. The proposed action lies within the Hempstead/New Cassel/Roosevelt/Uniondale/Westbury designated area. Figure 42 shows the portion of the DAC that lies within or adjacent to the study area.
The NYSDEC identified twelve air pollutant indicators in the study area.223 These indicators include high traffic volume, large oil storage facilities, power generation plants and similar sources. Figure 43 provides an inventory of fixed sources within the entire designated area. For the Uniondale subarea specifically, in which the subject property is located, NYSDEC cited vehicular emissions as the primary source of concern.

‌221 NYS Legislature. Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. (S.6599, A.8429, 2019)
‌222 New York State Climate Justice Working Group. Draft Disadvantaged Communities Criteria and List Technical Documentation (March 9, 2022)
‌223 NYSDEC. Hempstead Area Community Air Monitoring Quarterly Meeting Notes (September 13, 2023)

Figure 42: Disadvantaged Communities and Potential Environmental Justice Areas
Sands New York Integrated Resort

Ra

d

ran

Liberty Ave

ilr

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Oliv

O

Rd

Dryden St

Whittier St

d C

l

y

ountr

h Ave

Blvd

5t

Cemetery of the Holy Rood
ry Rd

ount

ld C

ur

y

Dr

O

Trans

Co

verse Blvd

rp

orate

Washington Ave

Maxwell Rd

Russell Rd

Roxb

Dr

rd

fo

Roosevelt Field
Dr

S

tra

t

Mall W T
g

to

n

Rd

H

unt

in

Stewa

alis

bury

S

y S
P

rt Ave

t St

ngt

Washi

Chestnu
Custer Park

D

rk

a

Merr

Boylston

r

Nassau Community College

Ga

Ave

on Ave

rde

n St

Meadow St

Mitchel County Park

ick

Eisenhower Park Playground

lenn C

G

ur

tis

Merrick

Oak St

St

lidge Dr

Westb

B

ury

lvd

Meadowbrook Park

Yale S

t

n Av

e

Willi

mpstead

Hofstra University

d

s Blv

Ave

nia Ave

Front St

24

Coo

East Meadow Mall

Front St

St

nwich

Devon S

e

Spru

e

ce

Gr

am St

erly Rd

e Ave

Califor

Fenimor

Bev

pect Ave

East Meadow

Milbu

d

Belm

o

N

kwy

0 2,000 Feet
Subject Property Study Area
Disatvantaged Communities (DAC)
Uniondale

n

t P

e

E M

Ln

i

Merr

c

Pros

Powers Ave

Roosevelt County Park

Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA) Communities

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, NYSDEC
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌Figure 43 Emission Sources within the Hempstead / New Cassel / Roosevelt / Uniondale / Westbury DAC

Source: Community Air Monitoring Meeting Hempstead-New Cassel-Roosevelt-Uniondale-Westbury on 09/13/2023

As described in the Community Air Monitoring: Hempstead, including New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale & Westbury fact sheet:224
To measure air pollution from sources such as cars, diesel trucks, construction equipment, commercial operations, and industrial facilities, cars equipped with sensors will drive throughout the neighborhood. The information collected will be used to create maps that show air pollutant estimates for every 100 meters (about 330 feet of road) across the community. This information will help identify air quality issues and help guide actions to reduce localized pollutant levels and target sources of greenhouse gases. The pollutants that will be measured include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, fine particulate matter, methane, ethane, black carbon, and targeted toxics.
Five subareas were identified as having high air pollution burdens. As shown in Figure 44, the two specific study areas abutting the site are bounded by Oak Street, Hempstead Turnpike, Warren Street and Commercial Avenue to the west, and Hempstead Turnpike, Meadowbrook State Parkway, Front Street, and California Avenue to the south.

‌224 NYSDEC. Community Air Monitoring: Hempstead including New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, & Westbury. Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/camfshemp.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

286 3.6 Air Quality

Figure 44: Subareas Selected for the NYSDEC Statewide Community Air Monitoring Initiative
Sands New York Integrated Resort

N

0

5,000 Feet

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
I U Willets Rd

ost Ave

n C

le

P

n

s L

el

l

ada St

Nev

Gardens

ringtown

Herricks

en City ark
Albertson

Williston Park

Hwy

Horton

Raff Ave

Mineola

Jer

Westbury

ntagh P

d

ld Coun

R

O

try

Carle Place

New Cassel

po

rat

k

1st St

e

Cor

Salisbury

ove Rd

Pow

ich

o Tpke

Hicks

Wa

106

N

assau Bl

Dr

Garden City Golf Club

vd

Garden City

Nassau Community College

Eisenhower Park Playground

Orchid R

wy N

Old Fa

m

r

d

R

gh

Wanta

Center

ad

Tpk

e

Levittow

Jackson

Meadow St

arden City South

West

Hempstead
Hofstra University

E

Mea

St

East Meadow

L

Hempste

Judy Jacobs-Parkway
H

dow

Pkwy S

n

d

R

Elementary School
dar St

Av

e

Merri

ck Ave

ewbridge

e

C

Hempstead
thern

N

lvd

Uniondale
B

au

Na

ss

ood Av

Woo

dfiel

e

d

Rd

Franklin Elementary School

Pkwy

N

assa

Oakfield Ave

ark Ave

Nor

North Bellmore

Lakeview
Hempstead Lake State Park

Subject Property Study Areas
South Hempstead

rook

u Rd

N M

wbr

Rd

Ne

Meado

ea

Sta

Roosevelt

ch

nto

n A

ve

Merrick

Merrick

br

Ave

oo

w

k Rd

idge

P

B

Rd

Bellm

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, NYSDEC

Mobile monitoring began in September 2022 and was intended to continue for one year. VHB coordinated with the NYSDEC’s Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer, as well as other NYSDEC Region 1 personnel on January 24, 2024 and was advised that a consultant was working on the air quality monitoring. (Appendix 3.6-1). Additionally, as a follow-up, VHB submitted several Freedom of Information requests to the NYSDEC from March through July 2024 via email to obtain the local air quality data (Appendix 3.6-1).
The NYSDEC has published its report entitled New York State Community Air Monitoring Initiative, dated August 12, 2024 detailing the results of their air quality monitoring efforts in a number of Disadvantaged Communities in the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead.225 The communities discussed in the NYSDEC report included the following with those adjacent to each other grouped together:
› Westbury/New Cassel
› Hempstead Village/Uniondale
› Roosevelt.
NYSDEC held a Community Air Monitoring (CAM) Initiative meeting on October 3, 2024 to discuss the results of the monitoring within the Hempstead/New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/Westbury area. Both mobile source and stationary pollutants were monitored throughout the community from September 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023. The results of the monitoring, released in August 2024, were discussed via one-on-one sessions with NYSDEC personnel, who walked through the Story Maps (Phase 1), which present a profile of the community and show the findings in an interactive digital format.226
As shown on the Story Maps, the focus surrounding the subject property was diesel and non- diesel mobile sources, particularly along and around Hempstead Turnpike. Mobile source emissions along Hempstead Turnpike were measured by likelihood of air quality impact, for both diesel and non-diesel sources. Diesel sources directly south of the subject property along Hempstead Turnpike indicated a low likelihood of impacting air quality, and non-diesel sources in the same area ranged from moderately low to moderate likelihood.
See Section 3.6.2.4, below for additional information on community air monitoring, including potential impacts related to asthma.

‌Potential Impacts

Potential impacts in the area, including in Disadvantaged Communities, associated with mobile and stationary sources, were assessed. The mobile source analyses were completed at a microscale (local) level and consisted of a CO screening analysis including a Level of Service, capture criteria, volume threshold screening analysis, and parking garage assessment. Even though the screening analysis did not identify intersections that necessitated further air quality

‌225 Hempstead, New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, Westbury; New York State Community Air Monitoring Initiative; Air Quality Monitoring conducted September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023; August 12, 2024.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/b39806cbc7ea4b139b79713720dab25f?item=16

‌226 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). StoryMap: New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site.

Available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ee9a5b7a1dc3401cb6bc30e5118a35b1. Accessed September 2024.

analysis, a more detailed microscale analysis was completed at two intersections to further evaluate the potential effect of the project-generated traffic on Disadvantaged Communities. Additionally, an analysis was completed to evaluate the effect of the project-generated traffic on air quality at the regional (mesoscale) level. The stationary source analysis, based on the project committing to all-electric with the exception of the commercial kitchen cooking,227 provides an assessment of the gas usage for the kitchens.

Mobile Source Impacts
CO Microscale Screening Analysis
An assessment of the potential air quality effects of CO concentrations that would result from the proposed project was performed following the procedures outlined in the TEM, and consisted of the TEM three-step process: Step 1) Level of Service Screening; Step 2) Capture Criteria Screening; and Step 3) Volume Threshold Screening.
The assessment included a mobile source screening analysis to determine whether the Project would result in increased traffic volumes or associated effects (e.g., changes in speed, roadway width, sidewalk locations, or traffic signals) that may result in substantial increases in CO concentrations, thereby requiring further detailed analysis.
According to the screening procedures, as outlined in the TEM, if for Step 1, the Level of Service (LOS) in the Build condition (without mitigation) is A, B, or C, no further air quality analysis is required. For each intersection or corridor operating at LOS D or worse, the following “Capture Criteria” (Step 2) are applied to determine if an air quality analysis may be warranted:
› A 10 percent or more reduction in the distance between source and receptor
› A 10 percent or more increase in traffic volume on affected roadways for the Build Year
› A 10 percent or more increase in vehicle emissions for the Build Year
› Any increase in the number of queued lanes for the Build Year (this applies to intersections)
› A 20 percent reduction in speed when average speeds are below 30 miles per hour (mph)
If a project does not meet any of the above criteria, a microscale analysis is not required. Should any one of the above Capture Criteria be met, then a Volume Threshold Screening is performed as Step 3 using traffic volume and emission factor data to compare with specific volume thresholds established in the TEM. This approach uses region-specific emissions data to determine corresponding vehicle thresholds. Emission factors were computed using the EPA mobile source emissions model, Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES4). Emissions were calculated for different speed ranges (called “speed bins” within the model). As part of Step 3, emission factors calculated using the MOVES4 model were paired with the speeds developed for the project as part of the TIS. Input files for the MOVES4 model (i.e., fuel data, county-specific hourly temperature and relative humidity data, inspection/maintenance coverage, etc.) for Nassau County were provided by NYSDEC. The Volume Thresholds (provided in the TEM) establish traffic volumes under which a violation of the NAAQS for CO is extremely unlikely.

‌227 Two diesel-powered emergency generators are also proposed. However, as the use of generators would be limited to emergency conditions and testing/maintenance, the contribution of emissions from generators would be minimal.

Both the Capture Criteria and Volume Threshold Screening were developed by NYSDOT to be conservative air quality estimates based on worst-case assumptions. The TEM states that if the project-related traffic volumes are below the Volume Threshold criteria, then a microscale air quality analysis is unnecessary even if the other Capture Criteria are met for a location with LOS D or worse, since a violation of the NAAQS would be extremely unlikely. Appendix 3.6-2 includes the results of the screening analysis for the project. The following three-step process was applied to the proposed project.

Step 1 - LOS Screening Analysis
Based on the review of the intersections and interchange ramp locations analyzed in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking, 30 intersections were projected to operate at a LOS D or worse during Weekday PM peak period in the Build condition (without mitigation). Of those, nine intersections were also projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the Saturday Evening peak period analyzed for the 2030 build year (i.e., Estimated Time of Completion [ETC]). The proposed 2030 Full-Build year was used in the analysis, as the year when emissions would be greatest. It is anticipated that vehicles would be more efficient and increasingly electric (with fewer local emissions) in the future (including ETC +10 or 2040 and ETC + 20 or 2050), as detailed in the section below on Mesoscale Analysis. Therefore, the ETC year (2030 build year) was analyzed as representative of worst-case project-generated emissions.
LOS was used in Step 1 of the screening analysis. Similarly, the Weekday PM (WD PM) and Saturday Evening (SAT EVE) peak periods were analyzed as representative of worst-case conditions for air quality.
Intersections with LOS of A, B or C are further considered when there is a nearby sensitive receptor such as a school, hospital, retirement community, etc., as detailed below in Consideration of Sensitive Receptors.

Step 2 - Capture Criteria Screening Analysis
Intersections with Build condition LOS levels of D, E, or F (listed below) were included in further screening analysis using Capture Criteria (Step 2 of the TEM screening analysis), as described below.
› 2. Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Coliseum Access & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM)228
› 5. Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 12. Merrick Ave & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 15. Front St at Uniondale Ave (WD PM)
› 18. Hempstead Tpke at Oak St/Hofstra Blvd (WD PM)
› 19. Front St at Merrick Ave (WD PM)
› 20. Front St at Uniondale Ave (WD PM)
› 23. Fulton Ave at Clinton St (WD PM)

‌228 The numbers in the intersection list correlate to Figure 24 of the DEIS and the Methodology and Data Collection subsection in Section 3.5.1, Transportation and Parking.

› 24. Fulton Ave at N Franklin St (WD PM)
› 25. Stewart Ave at Franklin Ave (WD PM)
› 26. Old Country Rd at Franklin Ave/ Mineola Blvd (WD PM)
› 27. Old Country Rd at Clinton Ave/Glen Cove Rd (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 28. Old Country Rd at Merchants Concourse/Ellison Ave (WD PM)
› 29. Old Country Rd at Merrick Ave/Post Ave (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 30. Merrick Ave at Stewart Ave/ Park Blvd (WD PM)
› 31. Stewart Ave at Endo Blvd/Merchants Concourse (WD PM)
› 32. Stewart Ave at Quentin Roosevelt Blvd/South St (WD PM)
› 33. Stewart Ave at Clinton Rd (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 40. Hempstead Tpke at WB/Meadowbrook Pkwy SB Off Ramp (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 41. Hempstead Tpke at WB/Meadowbrook Pkwy NB Off Ramp (WD PM)
› 45. Hempstead Tpke at Carman Ave (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 46. Hempstead Tpke at Newbridge Rd (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 49. Merrick Ave at Jerusalem Ave (WD PM)
› 50. Uniondale Ave at Jerusalem Rd (WD PM)
› 53. Old Country Rd at Roosevelt Field Entrance (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 54. Old Country Rd at Salisbury Park Dr/School St (WD PM)
› 55. Merrick Ave at Corporate Dr (WD PM)
› 56. Merrick Ave at Privado Rd (WD PM)
› 57. Jericho Tpke at Post Ave (WD PM)
› 64. Westbury Blvd at Oak St/Meadow St (WD PM)
Notes: WD PM = weekday PM peak hour, SAT EVE = Saturday Evening peak hour
Per the TEM, if an intersection meets one or more of the five Capture Criteria discussed below, a Volume Threshold Screening analysis (Step 3) is prepared. The details of this analysis are included in Appendix 3.6-2.
Out of the intersections listed above with LOS D, E, or F, several were identified (see below) through the Capture Criteria Screening analysis as requiring a Volume Threshold Screening analysis for one or both of the peak periods analyzed (WD PM and SAT EVE). The Capture Criteria screening analysis results are summarized below (based on criteria 1-5, noted under the CO Microscale Analysis Screening section). Note that some intersections met more than one of the criteria.
17.10% or greater reduction in source-receptor distance
The source-receptor distance is defined as the distance between the roadway and locations on sidewalks and other areas that are accessible to the public. The following intersection was advanced to Volume Threshold Screening based on the source to receptor distance reduction in the Build with Mitigation Condition:
› 5. Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM and SAT EVE)

18.10% or greater increase in the volume of traffic on examined roads
The following intersections were advanced to Volume Threshold Screening based on the volume increase:
› 2. Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Coliseum Access & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM)
› 5. Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke (SAT EVE)
› 40. Hempstead Tpke at WB/Meadowbrook Pkwy SB Off Ramp (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 41. Hempstead Tpke at WB /Meadowbrook Pkwy NB Off Ramp (WD PM)
1. A 10% or greater increase in vehicle emissions
  Emission percent change is calculated using the following formula:
  𝐸𝐹𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑 − 𝐸𝐹𝑛𝑜−𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑
  % 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 =
  
  𝐸𝐹𝑛𝑜−𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑
  𝑥 100%
  Where EF is the emissions factor at the project. EF was determined using MOVES4,229 examining various factors including vehicle speed, thermal states, emission control strategies, and meteorological conditions.
  The following intersections were advanced to Volume Threshold Screening based on the increase in vehicle emissions:
  › 2. Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Coliseum Access & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM)
  › 5. Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM and SAT EVE)
2. Intersections with any increase in the number of queued lanes
  The following intersection was advanced to Volume Threshold Screening based on the increase in the number of queued lanes:
  › 5. Uniondale Ave/Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke
  Proposed changes at this intersection in the Build with Mitigation Condition include the addition of a queued left-turn lane on southbound Earle Ovington Boulevard. This mitigation measure would replace a median that separates northbound and southbound Earle Ovington Boulevard with the added left-turn lane. The added lane would bring traffic from southbound Earle Ovington Boulevard approximately 15 percent closer to the adjacent bike lane (which is the reason why this intersection was also listed under Capture Criterion 1).
3. Where the average speed is 30 mph or less, a 20% or greater reduction in speed
  The following intersections were advanced to Volume Threshold Screening based on the speed reduction:
  › 2. Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Coliseum Access & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM)
  › 5. Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM)
  › 15. Front St at Uniondale Ave (WD PM)
  
  ‌229 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Latest Version of the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves. Accessed September 2024.
4. Overall Capture Criteria Screening Results
› 2. Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Coliseum Access & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM)
› 5. Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd & Hempstead Tpke (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 15. Front St at Uniondale Ave (WD PM)
› 40. Hempstead Tpke at WB/Meadowbrook Pkwy SB Off Ramp (WD PM and SAT EVE)
› 41. Hempstead Tpke at WB /Meadowbrook Pkwy NB Off Ramp (WD PM)

Step 3 - Volume Threshold Screening
The results of the LOS screening, capture criteria, and volume threshold screening analyses are included in Appendix 3.6-2. The highest Build peak hour traffic volume at the signalized locations advanced to the Volume Threshold Screening (Step 3) was projected to be 2,419, during the weekday PM peak at the westbound approach of Intersection 2. This volume is below the NYSDOT’s TEM Volume Threshold of 4,000 vehicles in the peak hour. The Volume Threshold was determined by comparing the associated emission factor of 3.87 grams per mile (cruise emission factor) developed from MOVES4 (considering vehicle speed, thermal state, emission control strategies, meteorological conditions, and other factors) to Table 3C of the TEM. The highest Build peak hour traffic volume at an unsignalized location advanced to the Volume Threshold Screening (Step 3) was projected to be 2,745, during the weekday PM peak at the eastbound approach of traffic location 40. This volume is below the NYSDOT’s TEM Volume Threshold of 8,000 vehicles in the peak hour. Supporting information is included in Appendix 3.6-2. Therefore, a CO microscale dispersion modeling was not warranted for any of the intersections that would be affected by the proposed project as the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to exceed the NAAQS for CO using the criteria and methodology prescribed in TEM by NYSDOT.

Consideration of Sensitive Receptors
There are receptors requiring consideration per the TEM within the area evaluated as part of the TIS, as shown in Figure 24 in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, which illustrates study area intersections. The receptors considered, as detailed below, include schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, senior centers, retirement communities, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. The receptors were identified using EPA’s NEPAssist mapping tool and through internet research. The following receptors were identified as being within 1,000 feet of an intersection included in the traffic analysis. The intersection / traffic location numbers listed below are included in Section 3.5.1, Transportation and Parking, and shown on Figure 24. The screening analysis is included in Appendix 3.6-2.
› Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (1101 Hempstead Tpke, Uniondale, NY 11553) and the associated parking uses are adjacent to the proposed project site and to Intersection 4 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A) and Intersection 6 (Weekday PM Build LOS: C; Saturday Evening LOS: C). Based on the LOS, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are expected at this receptor.

› Nassau University Medical Center (2201 Hempstead Tpke, East Meadow, NY 11554) is approximately 700 feet from Intersection 45 (Weekday PM Build LOS: E; Saturday Evening LOS: D). The LOS at this intersection are not projected to change as a result of the proposed Integrated Resort in the weekday PM and Saturday evening periods analyzed. Vehicle volumes are projected to increase by two percent during the weekday PM peak period and by five percent during the Saturday evening peak period. The speeds and emission factors, based on speed, are not projected to change with the proposed project. No significant adverse impacts on air quality with the proposed project are anticipated at this receptor, based on the distance to the intersection and no change in the CO emission factor.
› Hofstra University (1000 Hempstead Tpke, Hempstead, NY 11549) is adjacent to Intersection 5 (Weekday PM Build LOS: F; Saturday Evening LOS: D), Intersection 17 (Weekday PM Build LOS: C; Saturday Evening LOS: B), and Intersection 18 (Weekday PM Build LOS: D; Saturday Evening LOS: B).
- During the weekday PM peak period, the traffic analysis projects a volume increase of eight percent between the No-Build and Build Conditions at Intersection 5. Speeds are projected to be reduced by 22 percent, from 9 mph to 7 mph, with a corresponding 36 percent increase in vehicle emissions. For Saturday Evening, the traffic analysis projects a 24 percent increase in vehicle volume at Intersection 5. Speeds are projected to be reduced by 15 percent, from 13 mph to 11 mph. with a corresponding 14 percent increase in vehicle emissions. For both peak periods at Intersection 5, volume threshold analysis was conducted for each approach, using the threshold specified in the TEM. Vehicle volumes at each approach were below their respective thresholds for both peak periods. Although the screening analysis identified no potential for air quality impacts at this location, a more detailed (microscale) analysis was performed at this location, as discussed in the Mobile Source Intersection (Microscale) Analysis section.
- Based on the projected LOS at Intersection 17 for the peak periods analyzed, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are expected at this receptor.
- For the weekday PM peak period, the traffic analysis for Intersection 18 projects a two percent increase in traffic volume and no change in speed relative to the No-Build Condition. There would be no significant impact from Intersection 18 during the Saturday Evening peak period, based on the LOS.
  Based on this evaluation of Intersections 5, 17, and 18, following the TEM, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality proximate to Hofstra University.
  › Westbury High School (1 Post Rd, Old Westbury, NY 11568) and Westbury Friends School (550 Post Ave, Westbury, NY 11590), an elementary school, are adjacent to Intersection 57 (Weekday PM Build LOS: F; Saturday Evening LOS: C), which is on the outskirts of the traffic study area for the proposed project. The proposed project traffic volume increase at this intersection would be less than one percent during the weekday PM peak period. The proposed project is not projected to have an effect on vehicle speeds at this intersection and the CO emission factor is not projected to change during the weekday PM peak period.
  During the Saturday evening peak period, based on the LOS grade, no further analysis is required. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at these receptors.
  
  › California Avenue Elementary School (236 California Ave, Uniondale, NY 11553) is within approximately 305 ft of Intersection 21 (Weekday PM Build LOS: B; Saturday Evening LOS: A). Based on the LOS screening there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  › Stewart School (501 Stewart Ave, Garden City, NY 11530), an elementary school, is adjacent to Intersections 33 and approximately 500 feet away from Intersection 52. At Intersection 33 (Weekday PM Build LOS: F; Saturday Evening LOS: D), the proposed project effect on vehicle volumes would be less than one percent during the weekday PM peak period and 1.3 percent increase during the Saturday Evening peak period, with no projected effect on speeds or emission factors for either peak period. Based on the LOS at Intersection 52 (Weekday PM Build LOS: B; Saturday Evening LOS: A), no further analysis at this intersection is warranted. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  › Kellenberg Memorial High School fields (Glenn Curtiss Blvd, Uniondale, NY 11553) are approximately 620 feet away from Intersection (interchange ramp) 42 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A). Based on the LOS screening there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  › Harold D. Fayette School (1057 Merrick Ave, North Merrick, NY 11566), an elementary school, is approximately 600 ft away from Intersection 48(Weekday PM Build LOS: B; Saturday Evening LOS: B). Based on the LOS screening analysis, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  › Sunrise of East Meadow (1555 Glenn Curtiss Blvd, East Meadow, NY 11554), a nursing home/ assisted living center, is approximately 330 feet away from Intersection 16. Based on the LOS screening analysis at Intersection 16 (Weekday PM Build LOS: B; Saturday Evening LOS: A), there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  › Family Pediatric Home Care (50 Clinton St, Hempstead, NY 11550) is approximately 915 feet away from Intersection 22 (Weekday PM Build LOS: C; Saturday Evening LOS: C). Based on the LOS screening, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  › The Bristal Assisted Living at East Meadow and Westbury Assisted Living (housed in the same building at 40 Merrick Ave, East Meadow, NY 11554) are within 835 feet from Intersection 12 (Weekday PM Build LOS: E; Saturday Evening LOS: D). The building is approximately 488 feet away from Intersection (interchange ramp) 41 (Weekday PM Build LOS: F; Saturday Evening LOS: B) and approximately 417 feet away from Intersection (interchange ramp) 43 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A). Additionally, the property is approximately 984 feet away from Intersection (interchange ramp) 42 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A).
- At Intersection 12 during the weekday PM peak period, the TIS projected a two percent increase in traffic volume. No substantive changes to speed or emissions factors are projected. During the Saturday evening peak period, the TIS projected a five percent increase in traffic volumes. No substantive changes to speed or emission factors are projected. Therefore, additional analysis is not warranted at Intersection 12.
- At Intersection (interchange ramp) 41 the TIS projected an 11 percent increase in traffic volumes in the weekday PM peak period and a 14 percent reduction in speed (from 14
  
  mph to 12 mph), with a corresponding increase in vehicle emissions of 14 percent. A volume threshold analysis was conducted for each approach, using the threshold specified in the TEM. Vehicle volumes at each approach were below their respective thresholds and there would therefore be no significant impact on air quality. During the Saturday Evening peak period, there would be no significant impact on air quality based on the LOS.
- At Intersection (interchange ramp) 42 and Intersection (interchange ramp_ 43, based on the LOS screening, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
  Therefore, based on the evaluation of Intersections / interchange ramps 12, 41, 42, and 43, following the TEM, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at Bristal Assisted Living at East Meadow or Westbury Assisted Living.
  › Fulton Commons Care Center (60 Merrick Ave, East Meadow, NY 11554) property is approximately 977 feet away from Intersection 12 (Weekday PM Build LOS: E; Saturday Evening LOS: D) and approximately 996 feet away from Intersection (interchange ramp) 42 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A). Additionally, the Fulton Commons Care Center building is within approximately 825 feet of Intersection (interchange ramp) 41 (Weekday PM Build LOS: F; Saturday Evening LOS: B) and approximately 790 feet of Intersection 43 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A).
- As stated above in the discussions regarding The Bristal Assisted Living at East Meadow and Westbury Assisted Living, Intersections 12, 41, 42, and 43 do not warrant further analysis.
  Based on the screening analysis following TEM, the projected traffic conditions would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse air quality impacts at this receptor.
  › Harbor Care at the Plaza (250 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11553), a day care, is within 410 feet of Intersection (interchange ramp) 40 (Weekday PM Build LOS: F; Saturday Evening LOS: F) and within 736 feet of Intersection 42 (Weekday PM Build LOS: A; Saturday Evening LOS: A).
- At Intersection (interchange ramp) 40 the TIS projected a 19 percent increase in traffic volumes in the weekday PM peak period (4,376 vehicles to 5,201 vehicles) and a 68 percent increase in traffic volumes in the Saturday Evening peak period (2,086 vehicles to 3,507 vehicles). In both conditions, the projected reduction in speed would be minimal (approximately two percent) and there would be no perceptible increase in the vehicle emission factors. A volume threshold analysis was conducted for each approach, using the threshold specified in the TEM. Vehicle volumes at each approach were below their respective thresholds and therefore, there would be no significant impact on air quality.
- As stated above in the discussion regarding Kellenberg Memorial High School fields, Intersection 42 does not warrant further analysis, as based on the screening analysis following TEM, the projected traffic conditions would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts.
  Therefore, there would be no significant adverse air quality impacts at this receptor.
  
  › Happy Kids Family Day Care (1973 Marion Dr, East Meadow, NY 11554) is approximately 225 feet away from Intersection 44 (Weekday PM Build LOS: C; Saturday Evening LOS: B) and 909 feet away from Intersection 45 (Weekday PM Build LOS: E; Saturday Evening LOS: D).
- Based on the LOS screening, vehicles at Intersection 44 would not result in a significant adverse impact on air quality.
- As stated above in the discussion regarding the Nassau University Medical Center, Intersection 45 does not warrant further analysis, as based on the screening analysis following TEM, the projected traffic conditions would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts.
› Eisenhower Park and Recreation Complex is adjacent to the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard with Meadowbrook Parkway interchange ramps (Intersections 71 through 74). Based on the LOS of A at these locations during both the Weekday PM and Saturday Evening peak periods, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality at this receptor.
› La Petit Childcare (339 Newport Rd, Uniondale, NY 11553) is approximately 968 feet away from Intersection 20 and Cammy's Learning Through Play Childcare Center (1094 Fayette St, Uniondale, NY 11553) is approximately 995 feet away from Intersection 20 (Weekday PM Build LOS: D; Saturday Evening LOS: C). Based on the distances between these receptors and Intersection 20, the LOS during the Saturday Evening peak period, as well as the minimal (one percent) increase in vehicle volumes, and no substantive change in emission factors during the weekday PM peak period at this intersection, there would be no significant adverse impacts on air quality are at these receptors.
None of the intersections meet the thresholds requiring detailed air quality analysis and the results of the screening analysis show that project related traffic is not expected to significantly impact air quality in the area including within the designated Disadvantaged Communities.
Moreover, the TIS recommends mitigation measures at some study locations, both physical capacity improvements and signal timing changes, to address project impacts as well as existing conditions. The results of the intersection capacity analysis reported in the TIS indicate that for all time periods analyzed, the mitigation proposed retains good levels of traffic service or returns intersection levels of service and delay to No-Build Condition levels. As the TIS includes a number of study intersections within the identified Disadvantaged Communities and the evaluation of those intersections indicates no significant impacts to traffic conditions, it can be concluded that the project will not adversely affect air quality conditions in those communities.
Although the screening analysis was sufficient to determine there would be no significant adverse impact on air quality, for conservative analysis purposes, two locations were selected for a more detailed study of the effect of the project-generated traffic on air quality at the microscale level. The locations selected were Intersection 5 and Intersection 29, based on the traffic conditions projected at these locations, and their proximity to sensitive uses and Disadvantaged Communities. Intersection 5, Uniondale Avenue / Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike is located in the Uniondale neighborhood within the Town of Hempstead.

The intersection is in census tract 36059407301, which is designated as a Disadvantaged Community (DAC). Surrounding census tracts 36059407204, 36059407302, and 36059406900 are also designated DACs. Intersection 29, Old Country Road at Merick Avenue / Post Avenue is at the border of the Village of Westbury and the East Meadow neighborhoods, in the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead (adjacent to or near census tracts 36059407301, 36059304100, 36059304202, and 36059304204, which are designated DACs).
Mobile Source Intersection (Microscale) Analysis
A microscale (detailed) analysis of the impacts of the project-generated trips was conducted for the No Build and Build Conditions at the intersection of Uniondale Ave/ Earle Ovington Blvd and Hempstead Tpke (Intersection 5), and at the intersection of Old Country Rd and Merrick Ave/Post Ave (Intersection 29). Emissions of CO and PM2.5 (24-hour and annual) at all intersection approaches (links) were calculated using the EPA MOVES4 emissions model and traffic data developed for the for the proposed Integrated Resort and NYSDEC inputs for Nassau County.
The intersection analysis was conducted using the latest version of the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion model and following the Hot-Spot Analysis procedures prescribed by the EPA.230 The results of this analysis are presented in Table 48 for Intersection 5 and Table 49 for Intersection 29.
‌Table 48 Mobile Source Analysis Results, Intersection 5, Uniondale Avenue/Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike

Pollutant

Averaging
Period Background No-Build Build Increment
Impact Threshold (NAAQS)
CO (ppm)
1-hour
2.1
2.76
3.20
0.44
35
CO (ppm)
8-hour
1.9
2.12
2.28
0.16
9
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
24-hour
15.2
18.13
18.34
0.21
35
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Annual
5.9
7.06
7.15
0.09
9
Notes: The No-Build and Build Condition concentrations include the monitored ambient backgrounds.

‌Table 49 Mobile Source Analysis Results, Intersection 29, Old Country Road at Merrick Avenue/Post Avenue

Pollutant

Averaging
Period Background No-Build Build Increment
Impact Threshold (NAAQS)
CO (ppm)
1-hour
2.1
3.70
3.72
0.02
35
CO (ppm)
8-hour
1.9
2.46
2.47
0.01
9
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
24-hour
15.2
18.63
18.81
0.19
35
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Annual
5.9
7.28
7.33
0.05
9
Notes: The No-Build and Build Condition concentrations include the monitored ambient backgrounds.

‌230 USEPA, Project-Level Conformity and Hot-Spot Analysis, https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-level-conformity- and-hot-spot-analyses

As Table 48 and Table 49 show, the predicted CO, PM2.5 24-hour, and PM2.5 annual levels at the selected intersections would be below the applicable NAAQS. Therefore, the proposed Integrated Resort would not result in a significant adverse air quality impacts on sensitive uses or Disadvantaged Communities, based on detailed modeling at representative intersections, as well as the previously discussed screening analysis.

Mesoscale Analysis
A mesoscale emissions analysis for CO, VOC, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 was conducted in accordance with the TEM, using MOVES4, and the results of the regional traffic modeling. The modeled roadways consist of the area where the Build Condition could have a measurable effect on traffic. The mesoscale analysis was conducted for the analysis year 2030, the estimated time of completion (ETC). The mesoscale analysis used projected annual VMT for 2030 in the No-Build and Build Conditions for different roadway types (e.g., highway, local) and speed-based emission factors for 2030.
The VMT in the area analyzed is projected to increase in both the No-Build and Build Conditions. The difference in projected VMT between the Build and No-Build condition would be three to five percent in all future years considered – 2030 (ETC), 2040 (ETC + 10), and 2050 (ETC + 20).
Over time, between 2030 and 2050, the VMT is projected to increase by 18 to 20 percent in both the No-Build and Build conditions. Although the total VMT would be higher in 2050 than in 2030, the mesoscale analysis was based on 2030 projections, as it is anticipated that the mobile source emissions in the area would decrease in future years due to the effect of the improvements in vehicle efficiency and the increased percentage of electric vehicles on the road, which would outweigh the growth in VMT.
Both New York State and the federal government have enacted legislation that would support a transition from internal combustion engines to zero-emissions vehicles (ZEV). ZEVs include battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel-cell-electric vehicles. New York State adopted California’s Advanced Clean Car II regulation, which requires that by 2035, any new passenger car or truck (including pickup trucks and SUVs) that is sold in the New York State must be a ZEV. New York has already made progress in moving towards a ZEV future, with a 231 percent increase in electric vehicle sales from 2020 to 2022.231 New York State also implemented California’s Heavy-Duty Low Nitrogen Oxide Omnibus standards that would regulate NOx and particulate matter emissions, starting with 2026 engine model years.232 Additionally, New York State is part of multi-state initiatives with a mutual goal to ensure that 100 percent of all new medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) vehicle sales will be ZEV by 2050 with an interim target of 30 percent MHD ZEV sales by 2030. MHD includes larger pickup trucks, vans, delivery trucks, box trucks, school and transit buses, and long-haul delivery trucks.233
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
recently issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The standards would

‌231 NYSERDA. How New York is Preparing for an EV Future. Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Featured-Stories/How-New-York-is- Preparing-for-an-EV-Future .
‌232 NYSERDA. Adoption of Advanced Clean Cars. Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Newsroom/2022-Announcements/2022- 12-29-DEC-Announces-Adoption-of-Advanced-Clean-Cars-II#.
‌233 NYSDEC. Low and Zero-Emission Vehicles. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/air-quality/controlling-motor- vehicle-pollution/low-and-zero-emission-vehicles .

result in a fuel economy increase of two percent per year for model years 2027-2031 for passenger cars, while light trucks will increase two percent per year for model years 2029-2031. These increases will bring the average light-duty vehicle fuel economy up to approximately 50.4 miles per gallon by model year 2031. Heavy-duty pickup truck and van fuel efficiency will increase 10 percent per year for model years 2030-2032 and eight percent per year for model years 2033-2035. This will result in a fleetwide average of approximately 35 miles per gallon by model year 2035.234
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road in 2030 would be 35.53 miles per gallon (MPG) in 2030, 45.25 MPG in 2040, and 48.78 MPG in 2050.235 This projected improvement of more than 27 percent between 2030 and 2040, and more than 37 percent between 2030 and 2050, would outpace the projected increase in VMT in the project area. Therefore, the analyzed 2030 represents the worst-case analysis year for emissions.
The mesoscale emissions associated with traffic conditions under the No-Build and Build Condition in the 2030 analysis year are shown in Table 50. Compared to the No-Build Condition, the Build Condition would result in an increase in emissions of all modeled criteria pollutants.
However, the emissions increase would be well below the de minimis thresholds specified by the EPA.236 Therefore, there would be no potential for a significant adverse impacts on air quality from the proposed Integrated Resort at the regional level.
‌Table 50 Mobile Source Mesoscale Analysis Results (tons per year)

Pollutant
2030 No-Build
2030 Build
2030 Increment
CO
1.6
1.7
0.1
NOx
0.18
0.19
0.01
PM10
0.528
0.554
0.026
PM2.5
0.524
0.550
0.026
VOC
0.031
0.033
0.002

Stationary Source Impacts

The Integrated Resort would not utilize fossils fuels to power stationary sources on site – they would be powered by electricity, with the exception of emergency generators237 and commercial kitchens, which would use natural gas. Therefore, an analysis was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts on air quality from the proposed kitchen exhausts. NO2 and PM2.5 were analyzed as the critical pollutants of concern from utility gas combustion, as detailed in Appendix 3.6-3 of this DEIS.

‌234 NHTSA. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel- economy#75896 .

‌235 USEIA. 2023 Annual Energy Outlook. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=50- AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0 .

‌236 USEPA. De Minimis Tables. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/de-minimis-tables .

‌237 As the use of generators would be limited to emergency conditions and testing/maintenance, the contribution of emissions from generators would be minimal.

Refined Dispersion Modeling

The refined analysis of the effect of the kitchen exhausts that would serve the proposed project was performed using EPA’s AERMOD model. The AERMOD model calculates pollutant concentrations from one or more points (e.g., exhaust stacks). AERMOD is the current EPA- required state-of-the-art dispersion model for regulatory air quality modeling. The model uses source data (emissions, configuration), hourly meteorological data, and geographical data to estimate pollutant concentrations at locations (receptors).238 The analysis methodology follows all applicable EPA239 and NYSDEC240 regulatory modeling guidance.

Emission Rates and Exhaust Parameters

The MEP for the project provided information on conceptual design kitchen exhaust locations and parameters. The annual and 24-hour emission rates were conservatively calculated based on peak hourly load information provided by the MEP and emission factors from EPA’s AP-42, assuming each kitchen would operate at peak capacity for up to 12 hours per day. Peak gas consumption capacity was assumed for 1-hour NOx emission rates. Emission rates and exhaust parameters associated with the proposed kitchens are provided in Table 51 .

‌238 U.S. EPA, User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), EPA-454/B-23-008, October 2023

‌239 Appendix W to Part 51, Title 40, “Guideline on Air Quality Models”

‌240 DAR-10, NYSDEC Guidelines on Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air Quality Impact Analysis, Nov 8, 2019

‌Table 51 Kitchen Exhaust Emission Rates and Exhaust Parameters

Exhaust Flowrate (CFH)	Exhaust Velocity (m/s)	Exhaust Diameter (m)	1-hr NOx (g/s)	Annual NOx (g/s)	PM2.5 (g/s)
2,000	5.7	0.457	7.83x10-3	3.92x10-3	4.90x10-4
16,000	6.5	1.219	6.27x10-2	3.13x10-2	3.92x10-3
16,000	6.5	1.219	6.27x10-2	3.13x10-2	3.92x10-3
10,000	7.2	0.914	3.92x10-2	1.96x10-2	2.45x10-3
4,000	6.5	0.610	1.57x10-2	7.83x10-3	9.81x10-4
4,000	6.5	0.610	1.57x10-2	7.83x10-3	9.81x10-4
4,000	6.5	0.610	1.57x10-2	7.83x10-3	9.81x10-4
10,000	7.2	0.914	3.92x10-2	1.96x10-2	2.45x10-3
4,500	7.3	0.610	1.76x10-2	8.81x10-3	1.10x10-3
4,000	6.5	0.610	1.57x10-2	7.83x10-3	9.81x10-4
4,000	6.5	0.610	1.57x10-2	7.83x10-3	9.81x10-4
The exhaust flowrate and the exhaust height of 60 feet were provided by the MEP engineer for the project. The exhaust diameters and exhaust temperature of 400 F were assumed based on a review of what is typical for commercial kitchen exhaust systems found online. The NOx emission rate was developed based on information for kitchen appliances found in the literature and the PM2.5 emissions rate was based on EPA’s AP-42 and includes both the filterable and condensable particulates. For estimating the annual and 24-hour emission rates, the kitchens were conservatively assumed to operate 12 hours per day, all days of the year.

Meteorological Data

All analyses were conducted using five consecutive years of meteorological data (2017-2021) from the nearest and most representative meteorological stations. Surface data were obtained from JFK Airport and upper air data were obtained from the United States National Weather Service station in Upton, Town of Brookhaven. Data were processed by NYSDEC, using the EPA AERMET and the EPA procedures. These meteorological data provide hour-by-hour wind speeds and directions, stability states, and temperature inversion elevations among other parameters for over the five-year period.

Receptor Locations

Receptors (e.g., locations at which concentrations are calculated) were modeled on buildings with heights similar to or greater than the proposed buildings. Receptors were modeled at heights representing each floor of the receptor buildings, along each building façade where operable windows and air intakes could be exposed to emissions from the kitchen exhaust. Receptors were also modeled at parks, playgrounds and open spaces near the proposed project site.

Kitchen Exhaust Systems Analysis

A refined analysis was prepared to evaluate the effect of the exhaust from the proposed commercial kitchens on air quality. The results of the refined modeling analysis are presented in Table 52 .

For the 1-hour NO2, the highest predicted daily 1-hour NO2 concentration was determined at each receptor location and the 98th percentile daily 1-hour maximum concentration for each modeled year was calculated within the AERMOD model. The 98th percentile concentrations were averaged over the latest five years and added to the hourly background, following EPA guidance.

‌Table 52 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from Kitchen Exhaust

Pollutant	Averaging Time	Predicted Concentration (μg/m3)	Background (μg/m3)	Total (μg/m3)	NAAQS (μg/m3)
NO2	1-Hour	11.58	97	109	188 100
NO2	Annual	0.37	25.7	26.1	188 100
PM2.5	24-Hour	0.50	15.2	15.7	35
PM2.5	Annual	0.06	5.9	5.96	9
1 The refined kitchen exhaust analysis was performed in AERMOD using with and without building downwash options, and the higher concentration is presented in this table. 2 The 1-hour NO2 modeled concentration represents the maximum 98th percentile 1-hour NO2 concentration predicted at any receptor. 3 Annual NO2 concentrations were estimated using a NO2/NOx conversion ratio of 0.75.

As shown in the table above, the maximum concentrations with the commercial kitchens within the Integrated Resort combined with the background levels would be below their respective NAAQS. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts from the kitchen exhausts would result.

Parking Garage Analysis

The proposed project would include several garages and parking lots, with the largest one being Garage A, with over 4,000 parking spaces for cars at six above ground levels, as well as one below ground level with parking spaces for shuttle buses and emergency responder vehicles, as well as areas for ride-hailing services and delivery/service vehicles. The roadway, North Drive, on which the parking facility is located, is a new internal road that will be constructed as part of this development.

An air quality analysis was completed to evaluate the potential for air quality impacts from vehicle activity at the proposed parking facilities (Appendix 3.6-2). A quantitative analysis was conducted using the hourly vehicle activity (ins and outs – i.e., the number of vehicles entering and exiting the garage) obtained from the transportation analysis to estimate potential air quality impacts from the “worst-case” (Garage A) parking facility’s vehicle emissions. The “worst-case” parking facility is the parking facility that would have the maximum number of vehicles entering and exiting at peak periods, and the facility located closest to the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., wherever there is public access or there are operable windows).

To calculate pollutant concentrations that would result from the activity within the garage, the exhaust vent was analyzed as a “virtual point source” using the New York City CEQR Technical Manual241 air quality appendix methodology for mechanically ventilated enclosed parking garages for the below ground floor of Garage A. This methodology is used to estimate pollutant concentrations at various distances from an exhaust vent. The methodology is based on the assumption that the concentration in the garage is equal to the concentration leaving the vent and includes calculations used to determine the appropriate initial horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients at the exhaust vent. The predicted impact from the below-ground garage level was added to the predicted impact from the naturally ventilated garage levels, which were also calculated using the CEQR Technical Manual methodology.

The CO and PM2.5 concentrations were predicted for the time periods when overall garage activity would be the greatest, considering the hours when the greatest number of vehicles would enter and exit the Integrated Resort (Saturday, 7:15 p.m. - 8:15 p.m.). Background and on- street concentrations were added to the modeling results to obtain the total ambient levels at sensitive receptors for CO and PM2.5 with the proposed project.

Receptors were modeled at the sidewalk North Drive at pedestrian level heights. Emission factors were obtained from the EPA MOVES4 model for the 2030 proposed project build year. The following temperature, speed, and idling parameters were included as input to the MOVES4 model:

› Exhaust and crankcase emissions

› 45˚ Fahrenheit with a relative humidity of 77

› On-road speeds of 15 miles per hour (mph)

› Speeds of 5 mph entering and traveling in the garage

› Speeds of 2.5 mph on the garage exit ramp

› Ramp slope of 4.8 percent

› Idle and start speed of 0 mph

› The peak traffic hour for the garage was determined to be Saturday Evening (7:15 p.m. - 8:15 p.m.).

The total projected CO and PM2.5 concentrations were estimated and compared to the NAAQS. The maximum predicted one-hour and eight-hour average CO concentrations are 2.52 ppm and

2.18 ppm, respectively. These values include a predicted concentration of 0.09 ppm and 0.07 ppm, respectively, from the proposed naturally-ventilated parking facility; a predicted contribution of 0.03 ppm and 0.02 ppm respectively, from the below-grade bus depot; an on- street contribution of 0.28 ppm and 0.19 ppm respectively; and a background level of 2.12 ppm and 1.9 ppm, respectively. The maximum predicted one-hour concentration is less than the applicable CO NAAQS of 35 ppm. The maximum predicted eight-hour concentration is less than the applicable CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. Since the results are below NAAQS, there would be no adverse impacts on air quality.

‌241 NYC CEQR. Appendix: Air Quality. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical- manual/2021_ceqr_tm_appendix_air_quality.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations are 15.77 µg/m3 and

6.04 µg/m3, respectively. These values include the predicted concentrations of 0.35 µg/m3 and

0.09 µg/m3 from the proposed naturally-ventilated parking facility; a predicted contribution of

0.22 µg/m3 and 0.05 µg/m3 from the below-grade bus depot; on-street contributions of 0.0007 µg/m3 and 0.0002 µg/m3, respectively; and background concentrations of 15.2 µg/m3 and 5.90 µg/m3, respectively. The maximum predicted 24-hour and annual concentrations are below the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3 and 9.0 µg/m3 respectively. Based on the foregoing, the proposed parking facilities would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts.

Disadvantaged Communities and Air Quality Impacts
On September 27, 2023, NYSDEC released its draft program policy for the review of projects in Disadvantaged Communities, which was finalized on May 8, 2024.242 The Policy identifies key procedures and considerations for addressing the impacts of permit applications including the preparation of a Disproportionate Burden Report and requirements for enhanced public participation.
The Policy also identifies eight recommended mitigation measures to address air quality impacts in Disadvantaged Communities:
› Use of electric powered equipment instead of fossil fuel powered equipment, including electric vehicles
› Use of lower emission technologies
› Use of alternative process technologies that would reduce or eliminate GHG emissions or co- pollutants
› Financial mitigation, such as providing funds for GHG or co-pollutant emissions reduction projects in the local Disadvantaged Community
› Operational mitigation, such as limitations on the amount of fossil fuel combusted at the project or the allowable hours of operation for the project
› Designing truck travel routes that avoid, or minimize impact to, Disadvantaged Communities
› Adding electric vehicle charging stations at the facility or in the local Disadvantaged Community
› Physical mitigation, such as the planting and upkeep of trees, green infrastructure, or other means of carbon sequestration
The proposed action incorporates design elements and features that that are consistent with the recommended mitigation measures listed above. The mitigation elements discussed herein would serve minimize impacts on air quality both within Disadvantaged Communities and the greater surrounding area.
Building Design
The proposed action seeks to minimize energy consumption and resultant emissions through the use of innovative building materials and HVAC systems. Figure 45 provides an overview of

‌242 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Program Policy. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/prgrmpolicy24dash1.pdf .

climate-responsive design elements that are proposed to be incorporated into the Integrated Resort.
‌Figure 45 Climate-responsive Building Features

The proposed action will be designed as a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. All-electric mechanical systems are proposed for the development, the only exception being a limited amount of natural gas utilized for cooking (Sands is also exploring the viability of using renewable natural gas). Implementing stationary source mitigation measures, which include using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens, is projected to reduce natural gas consumption by 10 percent, which is a conservative estimate. Such reduction will result in a substantial avoidance of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e) emissions,243 as more fully described in Section 3.14.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability.
The entire facility will be supported with ASHP for heating and cooling. Two roof-mounted modular ASHP plants will be provided to serve the building cooling and heating loads. A primary water system will be provided throughout the facility, to be supported by the ASHP plant. The primary water system will serve the entire Integrated Resort. A secondary closed-loop system will be provided for each building component. Waste heat from the cooling water will be transferred

‌243 CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent. “The term CO2e is used and means that greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide can be converted, or normalized, to the equivalent amount of CO2, based on their relative contribution to global warming. This provides for a single, uniform means of measuring emissions reductions for multiple greenhouse gases.” https://www.un- redd.org/glossary/carbon-dioxide-equivalent-co2e. Accessed August 2024

into the heating water in the summer months. In the winter, the waste heat from the heating water will be used to cool the building, reducing the energy demand of the entire system.
The Phase 2 air systems will incorporate airside energy recovery enthalpy wheels to pre-treat the ventilation air for both sensible and latent heat transfer. This pre-conditioning will reduce the overall energy consumption by reducing the heating and cooling loads at the central plant.
Under summer conditions the colder, drier interior air absorbs the energy from the higher sensible and moist ventilation air. Under winter conditions, the reverse occurs.
The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the use of renewable energy through the installation of an on-site solar PV system, which is anticipated to achieve at least eight percent of electricity needs. The solar PV array size is estimated to be approximately 8,400 kW, which will generate 10,387,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity annually.
The Integrated Resort will submeter and monitor all major sources of energy consumption and undertake regular and sustained efforts throughout the life cycle of the facility to maintain and improve energy efficiency and reliance on renewable sources of power.
Beyond exceeding the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent in the baseline scenario, Sands is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions in the proposed action by entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources. The 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions assumed from the use of renewable electricity sources is a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.244
After incorporating the additional 20 percent reduction in indirect GHG emissions, the total electricity use in the proposed action is estimated to be 105,132 MWh per year. Considering the global warming potentials associated with each GHG, a total of 58,115 metric tons per year of CO2e is estimated. As shown in Appendix 3.14 1 of this DES, sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources results in approximately 14,529 metric tons per year of CO2e emissions avoided. The reduction in CO2 emissions will assist in minimizing impacts to air quality in the surrounding area.
Another way to reduce energy is to reduce operational carbon.245 To accomplish this, the proposed Integrated Resort will be designed to maximize energy efficiency with high- performance building envelopes, efficient mechanical systems, smart lighting and sophisticated HVAC controls. Renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaics, will be incorporated into the design reducing the operational carbon to 11,600 tons per year. The reduction in energy demand and consumption will reduce impacts to air quality.
Daylighting will also be incorporated such that natural light will be used to help illuminate interior spaces, reducing the need for artificial lighting and associated energy use. The

‌244 SANDS ECO360. https://statics.teams.cdn.office.net/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.htm l. Accessed September 2024.
‌245 Operational carbon refers to the carbon emissions associated with the daily operation of the Integrated Resort, including energy demand for lighting, heating, and cooling.

development will be designed to incorporate natural light penetration, which will save on lighting and energy demand, further minimizing air quality impacts.
The development will be designed to maximize local sourcing of materials and the use of sustainable, low-carbon materials such as recycled steel. Prefabrication and modular construction techniques will be utilized to minimize waste and reduce embodied carbon. A target reduction goal of 20 percent (approximately 40,000 tons annually) would be achieved by implementing multiple strategies including re-purposing the Coliseum, prioritizing low-embodied carbon materials with high recycled content, and using low-embodied carbon insulation and roofing materials. Furthermore, the retention and adaptive reuse of the existing Coliseum structure will reduce energy demand by retaining the embodied energy currently on site and reducing the need for new materials.
The design of the façade is based on a high R-value insulating envelope and incorporates a rain screen technology for optimal thermal performance, water shedding and air tightness. To minimize cooling and heating loads, the hotel façades have a 50 percent window-to-wall ratio and exterior shading to reduce solar gains in the summer months. Highly insulated terraces and roofs incorporate greenery and vegetation to increase thermal mass and damp thermal fluctuations at the roof surface.
The measures outlined above have been incorporated into the design of the proposed Integrated Resort, and these directly address several of the NYSDEC Program Policy mitigation measures noted above, including:
› Operational mitigation, including minimal use of fossil fuel (the Integrated Resort will be an almost all-electric facility)
› Use of lower emission technologies
› Electric vehicle charging stations
› Planting and upkeep of trees and green infrastructure
› Use of alternative process technologies that would reduce or eliminate GHG emissions or co- pollutants.

Sustainable Transportation and Traffic Demand Management
The development will be designed to facilitate sustainable transportation options and transportation demand management (TDM), such as ride sharing programs (carpooling for employees) and providing accessible and convenient connections to the Hempstead LIRR station and Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center. Bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations will be distributed throughout the site. Pedestrian-friendly design strategies, including wide sidewalks and dedicated pedestrian crossings, as well as connections to exterior multiuse paths will be incorporated to encourage walking. The multi-use path system and sidewalk network will provide connections to adjacent neighborhoods, as well as numerous transit options via the NICE Bus system. These measures will be implemented to reduce reliance on private automobiles, which, in turn, would lower air emissions and lessen impacts to overall air quality.
Additionally, as described in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking, an extensive traffic mitigation plan will be implemented to reduce vehicular emissions and to discourage traversing local neighborhoods. The new internal roadway system and the provision of new and enhanced

site access points will encourage travel through the site rather than through surrounding neighborhood.
Parking demand will be accommodated by three multi-level garages and three surface parking lots. The garages are designed to contain photovoltaic panels on the top level. They will also provide accommodations for shuttle buses, coach buses and ride-hailing services to reduce the demand for single-occupant vehicles, thus lowering emissions. The parking garages and surface parking lots will also provide electric vehicle charging stations. Use of electric vehicles minimizes fossil fuel combustion.
As noted in Section 3.15.2, Construction-Related Traffic and Parking, construction vehicles would arrive and depart via Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24), Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. Several routes to and from the site have been identified. Two routes are identified for vehicles arriving from eastern Long Island:
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) westbound to the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway (NYS Route 135) southbound to Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24) westbound.
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) westbound to Newbridge Road (NYS Route 106) southbound to Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24) westbound.
Three routes were identified for vehicles arriving from western Long Island, two from the Long Island Expressway and one along Sunrise Highway:
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) eastbound to New Hyde Park Road, southbound to Hillside Avenue (NYS route 25B), eastbound to Glen Cove Road, southbound to Old Country Road, eastbound to either Merrick Avenue, southbound to either Charles Lindbergh Boulevard or to Hempstead Turnpike.
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) eastbound to Glen Cove Road to Old Country Road, to Merrick Avenue to either Charles Lindbergh Boulevard or to Hempstead Turnpike.
› Southern East-West Access – Sunrise Highway (NYS Route 27) to NYS Route 106N (Newbridge Road) to Hempstead Turnpike.
Based on the foregoing, there would be no construction-related vehicles using local roadways, including those within the adjacent NYSDEC-identified Disadvantaged Communities.
The measures incorporated into the transportation and traffic management plans address additional measures outlined for Disadvantaged Communities, including:
› Providing electric vehicle charging stations
› Designing truck travel routes that avoid, or minimize impact to, Disadvantaged Communities.

Site Design
An extensive and innovative landscaping plan has been developed, maximizing the use of native species, drought-tolerant plantings and pollinator zones. Approximately 15.7 acres of the site area will have landscaped surfaces, a significant increase as the site presently has approximately

8.3 acres of landscaping. As noted on the website One Tree Planted,246 trees help with reducing air pollution and improving air quality.
According to the US National Park Service, planting trees helps to improve air quality through 3 key impacts:
› Altering the concentration of pollutants by reducing air temperatures
› Reducing energy consumption in buildings (particularly for temperature control), which in turn reduces the consumption of energy from polluting sources
› Directly removing pollutants from the air
Therefore, increasing the landscaping and trees on the property will help improve air quality.
Also, within the parking lots, new landscape islands will be installed to avoid large expanses of pavement. Planted parking islands will act as natural heat sinks by absorbing and dissipating solar radiation. Through the process of transpiration, the plants release moisture into the air, providing a cooling effect that helps reduce ambient temperatures in developed environment.
Green roofs/landscape terraces will be installed which act as natural insulators that reduce energy consumption by providing additional thermal mass. They mitigate the urban heat island effect, contribute to stormwater management, and improve air quality.
Implementation of the proposed landscaping plan for the Integrated Resort will help to advance the following NYSDEC recommended actions and strategies for projects in Disadvantaged Communities:
› Physical mitigation, such as the planting and upkeep of trees, green infrastructure, or other means of carbon sequestration.
Based on the incorporation of the foregoing measures that have been identified as recommended mitigation for implementation within Disadvantaged Communities, the proposed Integrated Resort is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on air quality within the previously-identified Disadvantaged Communities, and will minimize air quality impacts within the overall surrounding area.
Asthma Impacts
The New York State Department of Health defines asthma as, “a disease that causes breathing problems. It inflames and narrows the airways that carry oxygen in and out of the lungs. People with asthma can have recurring periods of wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath and coughing. These breathing problems are called asthma attacks or episodes. Asthma is a chronic disease. In other words, people with asthma live with it every day.” 247

‌246 One Tree Planted. How Trees Clean the Air. Available at: https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-trees-clean-air. Accessed August 2024.

‌247 Nassau County Department of Public Health. Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System Asthma Dashboard Technical Notes

The New York State Department of Health compiles data on asthma rates in the State on a local, county, regional, and state level. The most recent data (2021) are publicly available on the New York State Asthma Dashboard (https://apps.health.ny.gov/public/tabvis/PHIG_Public/asthma/).
The dashboard tracks up to 44 indicators including asthma-related emergency department (ER) visits, hospitalizations, deaths, and prevalence indicators subcategorized mainly by patient age, and for some indicators, for those using Medicaid. This data includes Nassau County residents and non-residents who visited any of the 12 Nassau County ERs with Asthma as their chief complaint.
Statewide, asthma indicators have generally worsened, with 22 of the 44 statewide indicators showing negative trends. The indicators show increases in ER visits and hospitalizations from 2020 to 2021. The increases are shown mainly for those aged 0 to 44 years, with decreases in rates for those aged over 45 years. However, statewide total and age-adjusted asthma-related deaths are down roughly 25 percent from 2020 to 2021.
Traffic-related emissions contribute to some of the criteria pollutants that may exacerbate asthma. Of the 29 indicators presented on the dashboard for Nassau County, 28 have shown improvement or no change, while only one indicator showed worsening. The lone indicator showing negative trend from 2020 to 2021 was “asthma universe prevalence for the Medicaid Managed Care population,” where the rate per 100 increased from 3.5 to 3.6. Total and age- adjusted asthma deaths have improved, as have hospitalization and ER rates for all ages.
New York State also provides data on a sub-county basis, by zip code. The subject property and area within one mile thereof contain zip codes 11530, 11550, 11553, 11554, and 11590, which cover Hempstead, Uniondale, East Meadow, Westbury, and Garden City. The sub-county zip code data shows ER visits and hospitalizations. The 2019-2021 data show that zip codes 11550 (Hempstead), 11553 (Uniondale), and 15590 (Westbury) have three-year total asthma ER visitation rates above the state and county rates and total hospitalization rates over the county rates. Table 53 presents the 2019 through 2021 asthma rates for the state, county, and localities.
Nassau County provided information for 2022 asthma rates (Appendix 3.6-4). These data show that Hempstead continues to have one of the higher rates of emergency room visits in the county.
‌Table 53 2019-2021 Asthma Rates

Garden
City/Zip Code

East

State
Nassau County
City 11530
Hempstead 11550
Uniondale 11553
Meadow 11554
Westbury 11590
Total ER visits per 10,000
38.9
20.0
6.4
69.1
36.4
12.7
26.3
Total Hospitalizations per 10,000
6.2
5.8
2.1
19.8
14.3
5.9
9.5
Total Asthma Death Rate per 1,000,000
12.2
9.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source: New York State Department of Health, Asthma Dashboard: https://apps.health.ny.gov/public/tabvis/PHIG_Public/asthma/

Asthma indicators in the county generally improved for the three-year period from 2018-2020 to 2019-2021.
The mobile source air quality analysis in Section 3.6.2.1 assessed all the intersections included in the traffic impact analysis. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the NYSDOT TEM, a three-level screening procedure was used to determine if an individual intersection met the criteria for further air quality analysis. Given the intersections’ Level of Service (LOS), Capture Criteria, and Volume Threshold TEM procedures, it was determined that a microscale air quality modeling analysis would not be warranted, as the proposed project would not impact existing conditions to such a degree as to exceed the NAAQS. Nonetheless, a microscale air quality modeling analysis was performed at two selected intersections based on their proximity to sensitive uses and Disadvantaged Communities. The results of the microscale analyses at these two intersections show that there would be no potential air quality impacts. Also, as presented in Section 3.6.2.2, the analysis of kitchen exhausts and proposed parking facilities indicates that potential air quality impacts would not be significant.
Quantifying the exact percentage of asthma cases directly attributable to air pollution is challenging due to multiple factors contributing to the onset and exacerbation of the condition. Asthma is influenced by a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Genetic predisposition plays a significant role, as individuals with a family history of asthma are more likely to develop the condition. Environmental factors such as allergens (pollen, mold, pet dander), occupational exposures, and indoor pollutants (secondhand smoke, household chemicals) can also trigger asthma symptoms. Furthermore, individual responses to these triggers can vary widely, making it difficult to isolate the impact of air pollution alone.
The complexity of asthma's multifactorial nature requires sophisticated epidemiological studies to discern the contribution of air pollution alongside other risk factors. These studies often rely on large-scale population data and advanced statistical models to account for various confounders. For instance, socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and pre-existing health conditions can influence the prevalence and severity of asthma, complicating the assessment of the direct impact of air pollution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as various health organizations emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches that consider the interplay of multiple factors to accurately estimate the burden of asthma attributable to air pollution (IPCC, 2021). Consequently, while significant associations can be drawn between air pollution and asthma exacerbations, pinpointing an exact percentage remains a complex and evolving challenge in public health research.248,249 As discussed in Section 6.1.5, the NYSDEC has published their report entitled New York State Community Air Monitoring Initiative, date August 12, 2024 detailing the results of their air quality monitoring efforts in a number of Disadvantaged Communities in the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead.250
As the traffic study includes a number of study intersections within the identified Disadvantaged Communities and the evaluation of those intersections (Intersection 5 and Intersection 29) as

‌248 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Available
at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
‌249 USEPA. Asthma and Indoor Environments. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asthma .
‌250 Hempstead, New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, Westbury; New York State Community Air Monitoring Initiative; Air Quality Monitoring conducted September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023; August 12, 2024

part of the microscale analysis described above (which includes an analysis of predicted CO, PM2.5 24-hour, and PM2.5 annual levels), indicate no significant impacts to traffic conditions, it can be concluded that the project will not adversely affect air quality conditions in those communities. Based on the air quality impact protocols established by EPA, NYSDEC, and local agencies, which has been complied with in preparation of the air quality analyses, the proposed project would not exceed NAAQS thresholds. The NAAQS are designed to protect public health and the environment by regulating the presence of harmful pollutants in the air. As presented above and detailed in Appendix 3.6-2, based on the air quality impact protocols established by NYSDOT and followed for this analysis of the proposed Integrated Resort, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact.
Conclusion
Based on the NYSDOT TEM screening analysis, detailed microscale analysis at two intersections, and mesoscale analysis, the vehicle emissions from the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on air quality. The refined analysis of kitchen exhausts indicates that there would be no significant adverse air quality impacts from the use of gas for cooking in the proposed project kitchens. There would also be no significant adverse air quality impacts from the proposed parking facilities.
Furthermore, no significant adverse air quality impacts are expected for Disadvantaged Communities since the proposed Integrated Resort incorporates many of the NYSDEC-identified mitigation measures. Additionally, the microscale analysis conducted at intersections near these Disadvantaged Communities show that the predicted CO, PM2.5 24-hour, and PM2.5 annual levels would be below the applicable NAAQS, which, as noted, are designed to protect public health and the environment.

‌Proposed Mitigation
As demonstrated in the air quality analyses conducted for the proposed Integrated Resort to effectively minimize potential air quality impacts, Sands has incorporated the following mitigation measures into the proposed Integrated Resort:
› Using innovative building materials and HVAC systems, such as air-source heat pumps for heating and cooling
› Designed as a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex (the only exception being a limited amount of natural gas utilized for cooking and emergency generators)
› Using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens
› Monitoring all major sources of energy consumption and undertaking regular and sustained efforts throughout the life cycle of the facility to maintain and improve energy efficiency and reliance on renewable sources of power
› The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the use of renewable energy through the installation of an on-site solar PV system, which is anticipated to achieve at least eight percent of electricity needs. The solar PV array size is estimated to be approximately 8,400 kW, which will generate 10,387,000 kWh of electricity annually. Beyond the eight percent, Sands is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary

source GHG emissions in the proposed action by entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources. The 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions assumed from the use of renewable electricity sources is a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.
› Designing with high-performance building envelopes, efficient mechanical systems, and smart lighting
› Incorporating daylighting, using natural light to illuminate interior spaces
› Local sourcing of materials and the use of sustainable, low-carbon materials such as recycled steel
› Retaining and reusing the existing Coliseum structure, prioritizing low-embodied carbon materials with high recycled content, and using low-embodied carbon insulation and roofing materials
› Designing the façade based on a high R-value insulating envelope and incorporating a rain screen technology for optimal thermal performance, water shedding and air tightness.
› Developing an extensive and innovative landscaping plan, maximizing the use of native species, drought-tolerant plantings and pollinator zones
› Installing landscape islands within the parking lots to avoid large expanses of pavement and act as natural heat sinks by absorbing and dissipating solar radiation
› Installing landscape terraces on roof surfaces to act as natural insulators, mitigating the urban heat island effect, and contributing to stormwater management
› Facilitating sustainable transportation options and TDM, such as ride sharing programs (carpooling for employees) and providing accessible and convenient connections to the Hempstead LIRR station. Providing bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and wide sidewalks and dedicated pedestrian crossings throughout the subject site, as well as connections to exterior multiuse paths.
› Proposing extensive traffic mitigation to reduce potential air quality impacts
› Incorporating building design, site design, sustainable transportation and transportation demand management, as well as a comprehensive landscaping plan that will specifically address a number of the NYSDEC-recommended mitigation measures related to Disadvantaged Communities, including:
- Operational mitigation, such as limitations on the amount of fossil fuel combusted at the project or the allowable hours of operation for the project
- Use of lower emission technologies
- Use of alternative process technologies that would reduce or eliminate GHG emissions or co-pollutants
- Designing truck travel routes that avoid, or minimize impact to, Disadvantaged Communities
- Adding electric vehicle charging stations at the facility
- Physical mitigation, such as the planting and upkeep of trees, green infrastructure, or other means of carbon sequestration.

‌Noise and Vibration

‌Existing Conditions

Introduction and Background

The purpose of the noise analysis is to evaluate the compliance of the proposed Integrated Resort with the applicable Town, State and federal agencies. The noise analysis, which was prepared by Longman Lindsey (the “noise consultant”), evaluates existing sound levels in and around the subject property through implementation of a noise monitoring program. The existing sound levels were then compared to the projected sound level impacts from vehicular and on-stationary sources to determine the potential future noise impacts. The results of the noise analysis are presented below, with supplemental noise data included in Appendix 3.7-1.

Noise is defined as unwanted or excessive sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities such as sleep, work, or recreation. The individual human response to noise is subject to considerable variability since there are many emotional and physical factors that contribute to the differences in reaction to noise.

Sound (noise) is described in terms of loudness, frequency, and duration. Loudness is the sound pressure level measured on a logarithmic scale in units of decibels (dB). For community noise impact assessment, sound level frequency characteristics are based upon human hearing, using an A-weighted (dBA) frequency filter. The A-weighted filter is used because it approximates the way humans hear sound. Sound levels, frequency and variation in time are described below.

› Level – Sound levels are most often measured on a logarithmic scale of decibels. The decibel scale compresses the audible acoustic pressure levels which can vary from the threshold of hearing (0 dB) to the threshold of pain (120 dB). Sound levels generally correspond to perceived loudness. Because the sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the A- weighting system is used when measuring environmental sound to provide a single number descriptor (dBA) that correlates with human subjective response.

› Frequency – Sound is comprised of acoustic energy distributed over a range of frequencies.

The frequency content of sound is characterized by its tone or pitch and is measured according to the rate of air pressure fluctuations in cycles per second (or Hertz). Pure tones have all their energy concentrated in a narrow frequency range.

› Variation in Time – Human response to sound depends on how loud sounds are and how long they last. Because sound levels fluctuate from moment to moment, it is important to characterize the range of levels that exist over a period of time. This is commonly done by using the following sound level metrics:

Leq is the Equivalent Sound Level which assigns a single value of sound level for a period of time in which varying levels of sound are experienced over that time period. The Leq value provides an indication of the effects of sound on people. It is also useful in establishing the ambient sound levels at a potential noise source. The Leq integrates

fluctuating sound levels over a period of time to express them as a steady state sound level.251
Ldn is the Day-Night Sound Level. The sound exposure level for a 24-hour day calculated by adding the sound exposure level obtained during the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) to 10 times the sound exposure level obtained during the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). This unit is used throughout the United States for environmental impact assessment. Also, written as DNL.252 It is noted that an additional 10 dB is imposed on the equivalent sound levels for the night time hours.
Lmax or maximum sound level is the highest exponential-time-average sound level, in decibels, that occurs during a stated time period.253

Because sound levels are measured in decibels, adding sound levels is not linear. For example, when there are two equal sources of sound added together, the overall level increases 3 dB (e.g., 60 dBA plus 60 dBA equals 63 dBA). Additionally, research indicates the following general relationships between A-weighted sound level and human perception:

254

› A one or two dBA increase is not perceptible to the average person

› A three-dBA is just barely perceptible to the human ear

› A 10-dBA increase is perceived as a doubling in loudness to the average person.

Table 54 presents a list of common outdoor and indoor sound levels. The duration characteristics of sound account for the time-varying nature of sound sources.

‌251 NYSDEC. Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/noise2000.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

‌252 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Report No. 0123, September 2018). Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration- impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

‌253 Ibid.

‌254 The Center for Environmental Excellence by the American Associated of State Highway and Transportation Offices in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), https://environment.transportation.org/focus-areas/noise/noise-overview/

‌Table 54 Common Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels

Sound

Outdoor Sound Levels

Pressure (µPa)*

Sound Level

(dBA)** Indoor Sound Levels

Jet Over-Flight at 300 meters (m) 6,324,555	- 110		Rock Band at 5 m
	- 105
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m	- 100		Inside New York Subway
2,000,000			Train
	-	95
Diesel Truck at 15 m 632,456	-	90	Food Blender at 1 m
	-	85
Noisy Urban Area-Daytime 200,000	-	80	Garbage Disposal at 1 m
	-	75	Shouting at 1 m
Gas Lawn Mower at 30 m 63,246	-	70	Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m
	-	65	Normal Speech at 1 m
Suburban Commercial Area 20,000	-	60
	-	55	Quiet Conversation at 1 m
Quiet Urban Area-Daytime 6,325	-	50	Dishwasher Next Room
	-	45
Quiet Urban Area-Nighttime 2,000	-	40	Empty Theater or Library
	-	35
Quiet Suburb-Nighttime 632	-	30	Quiet Bedroom at Night
	-	25	Empty Concert Hall
Quiet Rural Area-Nighttime	-	20

200

15 Broadcast and Recording Studios

Rustling Leaves - 10

	63	-	5
Reference Pressure Level	20	-	0	Threshold of Hearing

Source: Highway Noise Fundamentals. Federal Highway Administration, September 1980.

* µPA – MicroPascals, which describe pressure. The pressure level is what sound level monitors measure.

** dBA – A-weighted decibels, which describe pressure logarithmically with respect to 20 Pa (the reference pressure level).

Noise Regulations, Policies and Ordinances

Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Impact Criteria

HUD has established design noise levels for residential areas for HUD-related projects in the publication entitled A Guide to HUD Environmental Criteria and Standards, Directive Number:

1390.4 Chapter 2 .255 While only projects with HUD funding are required to meet the HUD noise guidelines and standard, they provide useful guidance for evaluating whether residential receptors would be in a high ambient noise condition and whether measures to reduce ambient noise may be warranted.

The HUD noise standard is intended to protect residential receptors from noise levels that cause interference with normal activities, such as sleep and conversation. HUD has established an Ldn of 65 dBA as an exterior standard and an Ldn of 45 dBA as an interior standard. Ldn represents a Day- Night average sound level. This is the average of all sound levels that occur during a 24-hour period, with a significant penalty added to sound levels that occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The HUD standard is intended to protect residential receptors from sound levels that cause interference with normal activities, such as sleep and conversation.

FHWA and NYSDOT Impact Criteria

Traffic noise can adversely affect human activities, such as communication. The FHWA has established Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) to help protect the public health and welfare from excessive vehicular traffic noise. Recognizing that different areas are sensitive to noise in different ways, the NAC varies according to land use. The NAC are described in Table 55, below.

‌Table 55 Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) One-Hour, A-Weighted Sound Levels in Decibels (dBA)

Activity Category	Leq(h)*	Description of Activity Category
A	57 (Exterior)	Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where thepreservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purposes.
B	67 (Exterior)	Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C	72 (Exterior)	Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
D	--	Undeveloped lands
E	52 (Interior)	Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: 23 CFR Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. *Leq(h) is energy averaged, one-hour, A-weighted sound level in decibels (dBA).

The NYSDOT has developed noise impact criteria that establish thresholds deemed to result in adverse impacts for transportation (motor vehicles) and non-highway projects (building

‌255 US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing. Available at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/13904CPDH.PDF. Accessed September 2024.

mechanical equipment). It has also established technical procedures for evaluating sound levels and potential impacts from proposed projects. The NYSDOT guidelines, presented in Table 56 set forth appropriate sound levels based on the land use of the proposed project.

‌Table 56 New York State Department of Transportation Noise Impact Criteria

Activity Category	Noise Impact Criteria
Overall Sound Level	Approach within one decibel of NAC
Transportation Projects	Project increases of six (6) or more decibels
Non-highway Projects	Project increases of three (3) or more decibels
Source: New York State Department of Transportation, Environmental Procedure Manual, Chapter 3.1 August 1998.

NYSDOT endorses the FHWA’s procedures and considers adverse noise impacts to occur when existing or future sound levels approach (within one dBA) or exceed the NAC, or when future sound levels exceed the highest existing sound levels by six dBA or more. For non-highway projects (building mechanical equipment), adverse noise impacts are considered to occur when the future sound levels exceed the existing sound levels by three dBA or more. These guidance criteria are the recommended maximum levels for identifying locations that may be affected by noise and are more stringent than FHWA criteria, which considers future sound level increases of 10 dBA as a noise impact.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) “Assessing and Mitigating Noise

Impacts" Program Policy Criteria

NYSDEC program policy provides guidance on the methods to assess, avoid and/or reduce adverse impacts (NYSDEC, 2001). The NYSDEC policy addresses noise assessments and mitigation for both construction and operation of a proposed project. The goal for any permitted operation is to minimize increases in noise levels.

The NYSDEC policy includes guidelines for assessing noise impacts and mitigation. If long-term operations due to a proposed project would increase noise by three dBA or fewer, there would be a minimal effect on future noise conditions and there would be no need for mitigation.

Changes in noise less than three dBA are typically considered to be imperceptible in most environments. If a project would increase ambient noise levels by three to six dBA, there is potential for adverse noise impact for the most sensitive receptors, and there may be a need for mitigation. For increases in noise of six to ten dBA, there is a greater potential for impact, and mitigation is generally needed. When a noise study indicates that a proposed action may result in a significant impact, NYSDEC requires the applicant to implement reasonable measures to mitigate or eliminate the adverse effects.

Since construction activities are short-term in relation to operational noise, separate thresholds are generally used to assess construction noise. According to NYSDEC policy, a proposed action should generally not raise ambient sound levels above 65 dBA in non-industrial settings or above 79 dBA in industrial environments. Therefore, given the temporary nature of construction noise,

an increase in ambient noise of 10 dBA or more that would increase levels above 65 dBA is a commonly used construction noise threshold.

If a significant adverse impact is identified, in addition to physical mitigation measures, such as reducing sound at the source or installing noise barriers, an applicant should also consider BMPs to reduce noise by means of modifying noise-generating equipment, limiting the time of noisy operations, or relocating noise sources farther away from receptors.

The NYSDEC program policy does not supersede any local noise ordinances or regulations. The Town of Hempstead Noise Ordinance is the controlling local regulation.

Town of Hempstead Noise Ordinance

The Town of Hempstead Noise Ordinance (Chapter 144 of the Town Code) provides a list of prohibited acts that can generate a noise disturbance at § 144-5, and the following are those acts that would be relevant to proposed development on the subject property:

› The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal- combustion engine or motor vehicle, except through a muffler or other sound-dissipative device which effectively would prevent loud or explosive noises there from.

› The erection, including excavating, demolition, alteration or repair, of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, except in a case of urgent necessity in the interest of public safety, and then only with a permit from the Department of Buildings, which permit may be renewed for a period of three days or less while the emergency continues.

› Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates or other containers in such a manner so as to create unreasonable noise.

› Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanical powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, snowblower or similar device, which creates an unreasonable noise across a real property boundary other than between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays.

› The operation of any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, exhaust fan, attic fan, air- conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device in such a manner as to create an unreasonable noise across a real property boundary. Machinery noise originating on private property shall be measured at the property line of the property on which the noise source is located.

Chapter 144 of the Town Code has thresholds for transient and steady sound levels that are considered to be a hazard to the health and welfare of the general public. As noted, § 144-5 of the Town Code indicates that no person shall operate or cause to be operated any mechanism or device, including but not limited to airplanes, which shall create a noise within the Town of Hempstead exceeding the limiting noise spectra set forth in Table 57 .

‌Table 57 Town of Hempstead Noise Criteria (decibels)

Octave Band Center Frequency	Transient Noise1 Band Pressure Level	Steady Noise2 Band Pressure Level
63	92	72
125	87	67
250	79	59
500	72	52
1,000	66	46
2,000	60	40
4,000	54	34
8,000	52	32
Source: Section 144-5, Town of Hempstead Town Code (August 2024) 1 During the daytime from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the transient noise limits shall apply to transient noises having a duration in excess of 12 seconds. During the night, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., the same limits shall apply to transient noises having a duration in excess of six seconds. 2 Steady noise is defined as any noise having a duration in excess of one minute.

The noise analysis uses A-weighted decibels (dBA) to evaluate project-related sound levels because dBA approximates the way humans hear sound, and is the typical unit used to evaluate public noise exposure. As indicated in Section 3.8.1 of the DGEIS for The Lighthouse at Long Island,256 the spectral data presented in Table 57 . Table 57 “was converted to an overall sound level by adjusting it to A-weighted sound levels. As a result, the noise impact criteria for the Town of Hempstead were assumed to be 76 dBA and 56 dBA for transient noise and steady noise, respectively.” This information was confirmed by Longman Lindsey and is incorporated into the analysis and discussion below.

Noise Monitoring Program and Results

There are residential and commercial land uses near the proposed development. According to NYSDEC noise policy, these land uses are all typically considered to be sensitive to noise.

A noise monitoring program was conducted to collect existing sound level data. The noise receptor sites are illustrated in Figure 46, and these monitoring locations are representative of the nearest sensitive receptors. These data were used to establish background sound levels under the existing condition and to project future sound levels under 2030 no build and 2030 build conditions (for comparison to the existing condition), which are discussed in Section 3.7.2, below.

‌256 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for The Lighthouse at Long Island, June 2009

‌Figure 46 Noise Receptor Locations and Area of the Proposed Central Utilities Plants

Location 1 was chosen to represent the Hofstra University Athletic Fields at the eastern portion of the campus. Location 2 represents the Omni office building and the adjacent Mitchel Field Athletic Complex. Location 3, though located at the northern end of the subject property, as the availability of public access for the placement noise monitoring equipment was limited in this area, represents the area of the Engie facility and the Nassau Community College campus to the north. Location 4 is the Marriott Hotel property (a residential-type property [where people sleep] within the subject property, which would continue to operate), and Location 5 is representative of the Purcell Preserve to the east. Location 6 corresponds to the Kellenberg athletic fields and the residences to the south of Hempstead within the hamlet of Uniondale. Location 7 represents the MSKCC property.

The subject property is located in well-developed area. The existing noise environment includes sound levels from vehicular traffic on Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, other local roadways, Meadowbrook State Parkway, commercial activities, institutional activities, and residential activities. The noise monitoring program was designed to capture existing sound level data to establish existing sound levels, which are influenced by these activities. Figure 46 depicts the noise receptor locations that were monitored along with the locations of the future central utilities plants (CUPs), which are relevant to the description of the potential stationary noise sources, discussed later in this section of the DEIS.

Noise monitoring data have been collected at the receptor locations with measurements conducted in conformance with the FHWA noise monitoring guidelines (“Measurement of Highway-Related Noise,” United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-PD-96-046, May 1996). The monitoring program was conducted from 1:00 PM on Friday, November 17, 2023 to 3:00 PM on Tuesday, November 21, 2023 and the monitoring data are included in Attachment A of Appendix 3.7-1. The existing sound levels were measured using a Type 1 sound level meter (NTi Audio). A porous windscreen was used on each sound level meter, during all measurement periods. Continuous noise monitoring data were collected to include typical weekday and weekend daytime and nighttime hours at the seven receptor sites indicated in Figure 46 .257

The measured sound level data under the existing condition is dominated by roadway noise from Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Meadowbrook State Parkway, as well as other local roadways. The average Leq weekday sound levels at the receptor locations ranged from 59 dBA to 74 dBA during the weekday daytime period and 57 dBA to 70 dBA during the weekend daytime period. The weekday and weekend nighttime average Leq sound levels ranged from 53 dBA to 65 dBA and 51 dBA to 62 dBA respectively.

Table 58 and Table 60 present the measured average sound level data for the weekday and weekend, respectively.

The highest Leq weekday daytime sound levels (highest levels over a one-hour period) at the receptor locations ranged from 61 dBA to 78 dBA and 60 dBA to 72 dBA during the weekend daytime period. The weekday and weekend nighttime highest Leq sound levels ranged from 58 dBA to 71 dBA and 55 dBA to 67 dBA respectively. These sound levels are typical for areas located adjacent to major roadways. Table 59 and Table 61 present the measured highest sound levels for the weekday and weekend, respectively.

‌257 Some gaps in the data captured at some of the receptor locations were experienced between 3:00 AM and 12:00 PM on November 20th as the noise monitoring equipment was checked, data downloaded and collected and the monitoring equipment recalibrated for continued monitoring. However, these gaps do not affect the overall results of the noise monitoring.

‌Table 58 Average Existing Weekday Noise Receptor (Baseline) Sound Level (dBA)

Average Existing Sound Levels
	Average Weekday Daytime (7AM – 10PM) (Leq)	Average Weekday Nighttime (10PM – 7AM) (Leq)
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	70	62
2 – Omni Commercial Property	65	56
3 – Engie Facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	74	65
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	60	53
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	59	53
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	67	63
7 – MSKCC Property	59	53
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 59 Highest Existing Weekday Noise Receptor Sound Levels (dBA)

Highest Existing Weekday Sound Levels
	Highest Daytime Weekday Daytime (Leq)	Highest Nighttime Weekday Nighttime (Leq)
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	75 (8:00AM – 9:00AM)	69 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
2 – Omni Commercial Property	67 (8:00AM – 9:00AM)	63 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	78 (11:00AM – 12:00PM)	71 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	62 (7:00AM – 8:00AM)	59 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	61 (1:00PM – 2:00PM)	58 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
6 – Residences and High School Properties	70 (4:00PM – 5:00PM)	68 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
7 – MSKCC Property	63 (8:00AM – 9:00AM)	58 (6:00AM – 7:00AM)
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 60 Average Existing Weekend Noise Receptor (Baseline) Sound Levels (dBA)

Average Existing Sound Levels
	Average Weekend Daytime (7AM – 10PM) (Leq)	Average Weekend Nighttime (10PM – 7AM) (Leq)
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	68	61
2 – Omni Commercial Property	61	54
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	70	62
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	57	51
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	57	51
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	66	62
7 – MSKCC Property	59	53
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 61 Highest Existing Weekend Noise Receptor Sound Levels (dBA)

Highest Existing Weekend Sound Levels
	Highest Daytime Weekend Daytime (Leq)	Highest Nighttime Weekend Nighttime (Leq)
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	72 (7:00PM – 8:00PM)	66 (10:00PM – 11:00PM))
2 – Omni Commercial Property	64 (2:00PM – 3:00PM)	58 (10:00PM – 11:00PM))
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	72 (12:00PM – 1:00PM)	67 (10:00PM – 11:00PM))
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	61 (11:00AM – 12:00PM)	55 (10:00PM – 11:00PM)
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	60 (5:00PM – 6:00PM)	56 (10:00PM – 11:00PM)
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	70 (2:00PM – 3:00PM)	65 (10:00PM – 11:00PM)
7 – MSKCC Property	64 (11:00AM – 12:00PM)	59 (10:00PM – 11:00PM)
Source: Longman Lindsey

Under the existing highest weekday noise conditions, Location 1 (Hofstra University at Earle Ovington Boulevard), Location 2 (the Omni), Location 3 (Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard) and Location 6 (Uniondale Residences and High School Property at Hempstead Turnpike) currently experience sound levels that equal or exceed the NYSDOT/FHWA highway criteria of 66 dBA. For existing highest weekend noise conditions, Location 1 (Hofstra University at Earle Ovington Boulevard), Location 3 (Engie facility. at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard) and Location 6 (Uniondale Residences and High School Property at Hempstead Turnpike) also exceed this criterion. Since the HUD criteria of 65 dBA applies to residential locations only, it is relevant only to Location 6 (Uniondale Residences and High School Property at Hempstead Turnpike), and the noise level at this location currently exceeds the HUD criteria of 65 dBA. All of these receptor locations are located adjacent to major roadways, and vehicular traffic is the primary source of noise for these receptor locations. The sound levels found at the receptors are typical for locations adjacent to major roadways.

Under the existing highest weekday noise conditions, Location 3 (Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard) currently experiences sound levels that exceed the noise criteria for the Town of Hempstead of 76 dBA for transient noise. As noted above, all of the receptor locations are adjacent to well-travelled local roadways. Vehicular traffic is the primary source of noise for these receptor locations, and the sound levels that were measured are typical for locations adjacent to major roadways and parkways.

Based on the tables above, the highest sound levels under the existing condition are equal to or exceed the NYSDOT/FHWA highway, HUD and Town of Hempstead criteria at a number of receptor locations.

‌Potential Impacts

Methodology
This noise analysis evaluates the mobile and stationary source sound levels associated with the proposed action to determine the potential change in sound levels at receptor locations on and in the vicinity of the subject property. The mobile source noise analysis evaluates daytime sound levels, as motor vehicles are the dominant daytime noise source. The stationary noise analysis evaluates nighttime sound levels since outdoor mechanical equipment is expected to be the dominant nighttime noise source. The future sound levels include cumulative impacts from traffic growth over time and increases in traffic from the proposed development in the Study Area.
Existing and future sound levels have been calculated following procedures and guidance of the FHWA, NYSDOT and CEQR Technical Manual .258 The future results represent the total sound levels that are expected to occur in the Study Area.
The noise analysis evaluates the projected vehicular traffic, the proposed CUPs, building mechanical equipment, and building operation sound levels from the proposed Integrated

‌258 The use of New York City’s 2021 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual projection method is the most efficient way of providing the traffic noise projections, as there is no SEQRA equivalent projection method. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/19_Noise_2021.pdf .

Resort as these are the sources with the potential to generate exterior noise that could impact existing area sound levels. There are no impulse-type noises, such as fireworks, bells, or sirens of any noticeable volume proposed as part of the Integrated Resort (except for possible alerts associated with an emergency, such as a fire alarm). Special events that may be held outdoors (for example in the Central Plaza), such as live music, performances, are expected to conform to Town of Hempstead noise criteria. If an event is being considered that would exceed such criteria, Town permission would be sought.
Accordingly, significant impacts from impulse-type noises are not anticipated. The existing sound levels were measured during the monitoring program, and future sound levels were calculated for each of the receptor locations shown in Figure 46 .
The noise analysis was conducted to calculate future project related sound levels. Roadway noise was calculated utilizing industry standard equations for noise estimation and projection and . compared to the NYSDOT impact criteria for highway projects. The sound levels from the CUPs and building mechanical equipment have been calculated using manufacturers’ reference sound levels for the proposed equipment, provided by the project MEP (Attachment D of Appendix 3.7-1), and the properties of sound propagation over distance and terrain.259 The results of the CUPs and building mechanical equipment noise analysis were compared to the NYSDEC and NYSDOT impact criteria for non-highway projects and the Town of Hempstead’s noise impact criteria.

Motor Vehicle Traffic-Related Noise
The traffic noise was evaluated using the NYSDOT and FHWA noise assessment procedures. Traffic data including traffic volumes and vehicle mix from the traffic impact study (Appendix 3.5-1 of the DEIS), as shown in Attachment B of Appendix 3.7-1) and applying the industry standard logarithmic equation for noise estimation and projection found in Chapter 19 – Noise of the CEQR Technical Manual ,260 the analysis calculated existing and future no build and future build sound levels at each of the receptor locations. The methodology, as generally adapted from Chapter 19, is as follows:
The results of the noise monitoring program at measurement receptor locations are reported as Existing Conditions in the environmental assessment.
To arrive at the Future No-Build/No Action noise condition, the results of the Future No-Build traffic analysis are used to compute total Noise Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs) passing each receptor site. For projects that generate a significant number of trucks and/or buses, which are considered to be "equivalent" to more than one car, such vehicle trips have been converted to Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs). From the existing and No-Build traffic data, existing and No- Build Noise PCEs are calculated in the following manner:

‌259 Noise propagation attenuation per distance per industry standards calculation as noted in the following: Harris, Cyril, Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw Hill-New York (1979) and Rindel, Jens Holger, Z. Maekawa, and Peter Lord, Environmental and Architectural Acoustics. CRC Press London (2010).
‌260 New York City CEQR. CEQR Technical Manual, Noise Chapter 19. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical- manual/19_Noise_2021.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

› Each Automobile or Light Truck: 1 Noise PCE
› Each Medium Truck: 13 Noise PCEs
› Each Bus: 18 Noise PCEs
› Each Heavy Truck: 47 Noise PCEs/
Following calculation and tabulation of the Noise PCEs at each receptor location, the No-Build noise levels are calculated using the following equation :
FNA NL =10 log (NA PCE/E PCE) + E NL
where:
FNA NL = Future No-Action Noise Level NA PCE = No-Action Noise PCEs
E PCE = Existing Noise PCEs E NL = Existing Noise Level
The calculation is conducted using the Leq(1) noise measurement results. Leq(1) refers to a one-hour measurement.
Finally, the identical analysis procedure is used to determine the Build Condition, with calculated total Noise PCEs derived from the Build traffic analysis.
The Traffic Data and PCE Breakdown Analysis, based on the Traffic Impact Study for the Integrated Resort is included in Attachment B of Appendix 3.7-1. The results of the analysis are described in Section 3.7.2.2, Noise Analysis Results, below.
Central Utilities Plants (CUPs) and Building Mechanical Equipment Noise
The noise analysis includes an evaluation of the CUPs that would house the development’s main mechanical, plumbing, electrical. services that then distribute across the entirety of the Integrated Resort. Based on information provided by the project MEP, the CUPs are proposed to include equipment, such as ASHPs, emergency generators, pumps, transformers, and related equipment that generate noise. The ASHPs are proposed to be located on the roof of the CUPs, and the ASHPs would not be enclosed. However, other equipment, as noted above, would be situated within the CUPs, which are proposed to be constructed with concrete masonry unit (CMU) and precast concrete panels. This design would serve to minimize potential noise impacts from the internal equipment. Furthermore, the emergency generators (which are expected to be used on a limited basis) would be situated within custom acoustical enclosures that have noise attenuating properties, thus minimizing the noise impacts associated with this equipment.
Specifications for typical CUP and outdoor mechanical equipment were used in the noise analysis. Manufacturers’ reference sound data were obtained for the outdoor mechanical equipment noise sources (i.e., ASHPs and emergency generators). Equipment specifications and noise attenuation measures/data are included in Attachment D of Appendix 3.7-1. Based on the use of these noise attenuation measures, the sound levels from the proposed equipment were adjusted to determine the stationary noise sound levels.

In addition to rooftop mechanical equipment, potential stationary noise sources include facility operations (loading/unloading) and special event activities. The loading and service activities for the Integrated Resort would be internally situated, within parking garages and underground areas, such that the buildings would screen the sounds associated with the loading activities from the surrounding neighborhood, resulting in no adverse noise impacts to the receptor locations from these activities.

Noise Analysis Results

Mobile Sources

During the daytime and nighttime, the dominant noise source under the existing, 2030 No-Build, and 2030 Build conditions is from vehicles traveling on the major roadways in the Study Area, such as Hempstead Turnpike, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard.

Exceedance of NYSDOT/FHWA highway, Town of Hempstead and HUD criteria were noted during noise monitoring of existing conditions. The noise analysis results for mobile sources contained in Table 62 through Table 65 demonstrate that under the 2030 Build condition, the maximum increase in sound levels from the existing condition for any receptor location ranges from 0 to one dBA for the weekday daytime and nighttime hours and from one dBA to four dBA for the weekend daytime and nighttime hours, all of which are less than the NYSDOT highway criteria of over six (+6) dBA and FHWA’s criteria of over ten (+10) dBA. As indicated in Section 3.7.1.1, above, a three dBA increase in sound level is just barely perceptible to the human ear, with four dBA being just above this. The Motor Vehicle Traffic Related Noise Study Projections for the 2030 No Build and 2030 Build conditions are contained in Attachment C of Appendix 3.7-1.

‌Table 62 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekday Daytime Sound Levels, in dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	2030 Build	Change between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	75	75	76	+1
2 – Omni Commercial Property	67	67	68	+1
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	78	78	79	+1
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	62	62	63	+1
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	61	61	62	+1
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	70	70	71	+1
7 – MSKCC Property	63	63	64	+1
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 63 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekday Nighttime Sound Levels, in dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	2030 Build	Change between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	69	70	70	+1
2 – Omni Commercial Property	63	63	63	0
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	71	71	72	+1
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	59	59	60	+1
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	58	58	59	+1
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	68	68	69	+1
7 – MSKCC Property	58	58	59	+1
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 64 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekend Daytime Sound Levels, in dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	2030 Build	Change between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	72	72	75	+3
2 – Omni Commercial Property	64	64	66	+2
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	72	72	74	+2
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	61	61	62	+1
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	60	60	62	+2
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	70	70	71	+1
7 – MSKCC Property	64	64	66	+2
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 65 Traffic Noise Projection Results (Highest Weekend Nighttime Sound Levels, in dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	2030 Build	Change between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	66	66	70	+4
2 – Omni Commercial Property	58	58	62	+4
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	67	67	70	+3
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	55	55	57	+2
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	56	56	58	+2
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	65	66	68	+3
7 – MSKCC Property	59	59	62	+3
Source: Longman Lindsey

As can be seen in Table 62 through Table 65, none of the changes between the existing and Build conditions in either weekend daytime and nighttime and weekend daytime and nighttime sound levels are over six dBA, which is NYSDOT’s highway criteria impact level. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact from traffic noise at the receptors.

Stationary Sources

During the nighttime period, the dominant stationary noise source from the Integrated Resort is expected to be CUPs and building mechanical equipment. As previously indicated, the CUPs would house a significant portion of the HVAC equipment and they would be constructed of CMU and concrete panels, thereby reducing potential noise impacts. However, the ASHPs would be located on the roofs of the CUPs and would not be enclosed.

The noise analysis determined that the 2030 No-Build condition sound levels at the receptor locations would be virtually the same as the existing condition sound levels, and where there would be changes, due to the proposed project’s contribution in the Build condition, the increase would be no greater than +2 dBA, which is within the NYSDOT non-highway impact criteria (+3 dBA or greater). Moreover, as noted earlier, changes of between one and two dBA are not perceptible to the average person. Table 66 and Table 67 summarize the sound level results associated with the CUPs and mechanical equipment during the weekday and weekend daytime periods, respectively. Table 68 and Table 69 summarize the sound level results associated with the CUPs and mechanical equipment at the weekday and weekend nighttime periods, respectively. As presented in these tables, the 2030 Build sound levels represent the proposed project’s sound levels added to the No-Build conditions. The stationary source noise projections for the 2030 No-Build and Build conditions are included in Attachment D of Appendix 3.7-1.

‌Table 66 Average Weekday Daytime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	Project Contrib.	2030 Build	Change Between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	70	70	48	70	0
2 – Omni Commercial Property	65	65	45	65	0
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	74	74	49	74	0
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	60	60	48	60	0
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	59	59	45	59	0
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	67	67	46	67	0
7 – MSKCC Property	59	59	47	59	0
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 67 Average Weekend Daytime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	Project Contrib.	2030 Build	Change Between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	68	68	48	68	0
2 – Omni Commercial Property	61	61	45	61	0
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	70	70	49	70	0
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	57	57	48	58	+1
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	57	57	45	57	0
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	66	66	46	66	0
7 – MSKCC Property	59	59	47	59	0
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 68 Average Weekday Nighttime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	Project Contrib.	2030 Build	Change Between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	62	62	48	62	0
2 – Omni Commercial Property	56	56	45	56	0
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	65	65	49	65	0
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	53	53	48	54	+1
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	53	53	45	54	+1
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	63	63	46	63	0
7 – MSKCC Property	53	53	47	54	+1
Source: Longman Lindsey

‌Table 69 Average Weekend Nighttime CUPs and Building Mechanical Equipment Sound Levels (dBA)

Receptor Location	2023 Existing	2030 No Build	Project Contrib.	2030 Build	Change Between Existing and Build
1 - Hofstra University at E Ovington Blvd	61	61	48	61	0
2 – Omni Commercial Property	54	54	45	55	+1
3 – Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Blvd	62	62	49	62	0
4 – Marriott Hotel at J Doolittle Blvd	51	51	48	53	+2
5 – Francis T. Purcell Preserve	51	51	45	52	+1
6 – Residences and High School Properties at Hempstead Tpke	62	62	46	62	0
7 – MSKCC Property	53	53	47	54	+1
Source: Longman Lindsey

As described in Section 3.7.1 and shown in Table 58 and Table 60, the Existing condition average daytime sound levels ranged from 59 dBA to 74 dBA during the weekday daytime and 57 dBA to 70 dBA during the weekend daytime. The Existing condition weekday average nighttime sound levels ranged from 53 dBA to 65 dBA during the weekday nighttime and 51 dBA to 62 dBA during the weekend nighttime. The quietest receptor sound level locations, Location 4 (Marriott Hotel) and Location 5 (Hempstead Plains), are set back from three of the major roadways in the Study Area, Hempstead Turnpike, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Meadowbrook State Parkway.

The 2030 Build Condition sound levels from proposed rooftop mechanical equipment range from 54 dBA to 65 dBA during the weekday nighttime period and 52 dBA to 62 dBA during the weekend nighttime period. However, as previously indicated and shown in Table 58 through Table 61, a number of the receptor locations currently experience sound levels that exceed the Town of Hempstead’s steady (versus transient) noise code criteria of 56 dBA. The dominant source of these sound levels at these locations is from the adjacent major roadways.

The results shown on Table 66 through Table 69 indicate that in the majority of cases, there would be no change in sound levels from the existing condition to the Build condition from proposed stationary sources at the Integrated Resort. In one case (Location 4 Marriott Hotel, situated on the subject property) there would be an increase of two dBA during the weekend nighttime period under the 2030 Build condition from the proposed stationary sources at the Integrated Resort. The remaining sound level changes reflect an increase of one dBA. Based on these results, since all of the changes are less than three dBA, they would be either not perceptible or only barely perceptible to the average person, and would not exceed the NYSDOT non-highway criteria of a three dBA or above increase.

The Town of Hempstead’s steady (versus transient) noise criteria of 56 dBA is currently exceeded at a number of receptor locations under the existing condition. The project contribution from the stationary noise sources at these receptors would range from 0 to an increase of two dBA, as noted above. Therefore, since the incremental increases in 2030 Build conditions from the existing steady noise sources would be only barely perceptible, they would not result in a significant adverse noise impact.

Also, to mitigate potential noise impacts to the residential community to the south, a vegetated berm is proposed to be constructed on the subject site along its boundary with Hempstead Turnpike, between the Integrated Resort and the neighborhood to the south. According to the NYSDOT, earthen berms are a type of noise barrier that can lower noise levels at receptor locations.261 Therefore, such vegetated berm would provide additional noise attenuation.

As evidenced by the analysis, the proposed Integrated Resort is being designed to minimize potential noise impacts to surrounding areas.

‌261 New York State Department of Transportation – The Transportation Environmental Manual § 4.4.18 Noise Analysis Policy and Procedures at https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and-guidance/epm/repository/4_4_18_Noise.pdf (page 39).

Construction-Related Noise Impacts

Construction activities would result in temporary increases in sound levels to nearby receptors due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction of the proposed project. Thus, construction impacts would be short-term, in that these impacts would cease upon completion of construction activities. Phase 1 would occur over a two-year period and Phase 2 would occur over a 4.5-year period, substantially overlapping with Phase 1 for a total construction period of five years.

The 2018 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018),262 which includes recommended noise and vibration criteria relating specifically to construction activities in Chapter 7 – Noise and Vibration During Construction, was used in the evaluation of the potential construction impacts associated with the proposed project. The FTA Manual also outlines best practices and procedures as related to noise and vibration from construction.

Additionally, the Town of Hempstead’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 144 of the Town Code) and NYSDEC’s program policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, have also been used as guidance for construction-related noise evaluation. The Town’s Code does not contain specific noise impact criteria for construction. However, Section 144-3G of the Town Code states:

The erection, including excavating, demolition, alteration or repair, of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays, except in a case of urgent necessity in the interest of public safety, and then only with a permit from the Department of Buildings…

Construction activities would be scheduled in conformance with the applicable regulations of the Town Code. Construction activities beyond normal daytime work hours would require permission from the Town of Hempstead.

Furthermore, the NYSDOT has established procedures (Transportation Environmental Manual – Section 4.4.18, “Noise Analysis Policy and Procedures”) for evaluating sound levels and potential impacts from construction of proposed projects. These procedures state that “construction noise impact would not normally occur at levels under Leq = 80 dBA.”

The construction noise analysis has been performed in conformance with and review of the FTA Manual, the requirements of Town of Hempstead’s noise ordinance (as indicated above), NYSDEC’s program policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, the NYSDOT TEM and FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. More specifically, noise propagation attenuation per distance utilizing industry standard calculations, as noted in texts such as the Handbook of Noise Control by Cyril Harris, Cyril (1979) and Environmental and Architectural Acoustics by Jens Holger Rindel, et al. (2010), have been used for analysis of construction noise in lieu of FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model. This methodology is equivalent to and an acceptable industry standard alternative to the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model.

‌262Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment- manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

Section 7 of the FTA Manual includes typical noise emission levels form standard construction equipment. These standard emission values have been examined for the purposes of studying the potential impact of the proposed development’s construction on adjacent properties.

The FTA Manual also provides recommended criteria for construction noise as measured at adjacent properties per usage, as summarized in Table 70 .

‌Table 70 FTA-Recommended Criteria for Construction Noise as Measured at Adjacent Properties Per Usage

One-hour Leq (dBA)
Land Use	Day	Night
Residential	90	80
Commercial	100	100
Industrial	100	100
Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018

Where a more refined analysis is needed, predictions of the noise level in terms of 8-hour Leq and 30-day averaged Ldn were compared to criteria in Table 71.

‌Table 71 FTA-Recommended Criteria for Construction Noise as Measured at Adjacent Properties per Usage in Terms of 8-hour Leq and 30-day averaged Ldn

8-hour Leq (dBA)
Land Use	Day	Night	Ldn (dBA) 30-day Average
Residential	80	70	75
Commercial	85	85	80*
Industrial	90	90	85*
Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018 * Use a 24-hour L eq(24hr) instead of Ldn. equip (30 day)

Equipment to be used during the construction project include non-vibratory impact pile drivers, front end loaders, grader, bull dozers, backhoes, dump trucks, concrete mixer trucks, concrete pump trucks, cranes, flatbed trucks, pavement scarifier, pavers, hoist, excavators and pick-up trucks. Construction period activities may temporarily increase nearby sound levels due to the intermittent use of machinery during the construction of the project.

According to the NYSDEC noise policy, the projected sound levels at receptor locations are calculated using the inverse square rule whereby sound is attenuated over distance. Each doubling of the distance from the source of a noise decreases the sound pressure level by 6 dB(A) at distances greater than 50 feet.

Given the noise levels for typical construction equipment per the FTA typical construction equipment noise emission levels and the nearest potential residential/residential-type receiving

properties,263 which are the existing Marriott Hotel (proposed to remain) and the closest off-site residence on Cunningham Avenue, both approximately 300 feet south (worst-case scenario) of the construction activity associated with the new building components of the proposed Integrated Resort, the most intensive anticipated construction noise would not exceed the most stringent construction noise criteria, as outlined in Table 70 and Table 71 , above. Any receptors situated at greater distances from the construction activity would be less impacted by the construction than the receptors shown in Table 72. For example, both Hofstra University and NCC were considered as part of the analysis, and were found to be approximately 650 feet and 800 feet away from the construction activity, respectively. These receptors would be much less impacted by the construction than the receptors detailed in Table 72, and noise levels (which range from about 54 dBA for saws and concrete vibrators to 79 dBA for pile drivers at 300 feet) would not exceed the most stringent construction noise criteria (80 dBA during the daytime, as noted in the tables above).

‌Table 72 Calculated Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 300 feet per FTA Compared to Criteria

Equipment	Typical Noise Level 50 ft from Construction Source, dBA	Residential Criteria (strictest), dBA	Noise Level at 300 ft (closest residential-type property at Marriott Hotel) from Source, dBA	Noise Level at 300 ft (closest residential property at Cunningham Ave.) from Source, dBA
Air Compressor	80	80	58	58
Backhoe	80	80	58	58
Ballast Equalizer	82	80	60	60
Ballast Tamper	83	80	61	61
Compactor	82	80	60	60
Concrete Mixer	85	80	63	63
Concrete Pump	82	80	60	60
Concrete Vibrator	76	80	54	54
Crane, Derrick	88	80	66	66
Crane, Mobile	83	80	61	61
Dozer	85	80	63	63
Generator	82	80	60	60
Grader	85	80	63	63
Impact Wrench	85	80	63	63
Jack Hammer	88	80	66	66
Loader	80	80	58	58

‌263Although MSKCC, which is an outpatient facility, is located closer to certain construction activities (particularly Garage C) than the Marriott Hotel and closest residence on Cunningham Avenue, it is considered a clinical facility and noise criteria for such uses are less stringent as compared to residential/residential-type properties. Even though, based on guidance provided by ASHRAE Handbook for Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems and Equipment, Chapter 48: Noise and Vibration Control, Table 1 - Design Guidelines for HVAC-Related Background Sound in Rooms, MSKCC is considered a clinical facility (which aligns with the commercial use criteria of per FTA recommended criteria per usage) for purposes of conducting the noise assessment (i.e., it is outpatient, having no overnight patient stays), it still meets the more restrictive NAC of 67 dBA per Table 2.

Equipment	Typical Noise Level 50 ft from Construction Source, dBA	Residential Criteria (strictest), dBA	Noise Level at 300 ft (closest residential-type property at Marriott Hotel) from Source, dBA	Noise Level at 300 ft (closest residential property at Cunningham Ave.) from Source, dBA
Paver	85	80	63	63
Pile-driver (Impact)	101	80	79	79
Pile-driver (Sonic)	95	80	73	73
Pneumatic Tool	85	80	63	63
Pump	77	80	55	55
Rail Saw	90	80	68	68
Rock Drill	95	80	73	73
Roller	85	80	63	63
Saw	76	80	54	54
Scarifier	83	80	61	61
Scraper	85	80	63	63
Shovel	82	80	60	60
Spike Driver	77	80	55	55
Tie Cutter	84	80	62	62
Tie Handler	80	80	58	58
Tie Inserter	85	80	63	63
Truck	84	80	62	62
Source: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No. 0123). United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, September 2018 – Table 7-1 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels for Typical Noise Levels at 50 feet and Longman Lindsey for remainder of table calculations. Additionally, noise propagation attenuation per distance per industry standard calculation, as noted in the following: Harris, Cyril, Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw Hill-New York (1979) and Rindel, Jens Holger, Z. Maekawa, and Peter Lord, Environmental and Architectural Acoustics. CRC Press London (2010).

Based on the construction logistics, it is possible that the cumulative noise from concurrent construction activities would be somewhat higher than the projected levels, depending on the specific equipment and location of each piece of equipment, operating at any given point in time, relative to any given receptor location. The analysis provided herein is intended to reflect a worst-case noise level scenario from typical construction activities and equipment.

While construction activities would result in temporary noise impacts to receptor locations, Sands would conduct such activities in accordance with the Town of Hempstead Noise Ordinance (Chapter 144) to minimize potential noise impacts to the site and surrounding area to the greatest extent practicable. The Town ordinance prohibits loading and unloading containers and building materials in such a manner that creates unreasonable noise during nighttime hours. As indicated above, Chapter 144 also prohibits construction activities such as the erection, excavating, demolition, alteration or repair, of any building other than between the hours of 7:00

a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Construction activities beyond normal daytime work hours would require permission from the Town of Hempstead.

In addition, to further minimize potential construction noise impacts, Sands has incorporated measures, including the requirement for equipment to be kept in good repair and equipped with mufflers. Additionally, idling of equipment not in use would not be permitted. Also, quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) back-up alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet applicable regulations.

Where possible, construction equipment would be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible. Also, perimeter construction fencing would be installed to provide site security and a visual screen. Internally, a hoarding wall would be installed, which would be occasionally relocated during the construction period as the location of the construction activities moves around within the subject property. Both of these fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking and shown in Appendix 3.15-1, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise impacts), during the construction period, construction vehicles would be routed along primary streets and highways, and would not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets.

A Construction Management Plan would also be developed to ensure compliance with the noise regulations.

Based on the distance between the construction activities and the nearest receptors, and with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant adverse noise impacts are expected during the construction period.

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts

The primary source of vibration from the proposed project is expected to be short-term construction operations that include large construction vehicles and non-vibratory pile driving. Vibrations are spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. The level of vibrations is typically measured in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in the units of inches per second (in/sec). The FTA Manual guidelines provide thresholds for identifying the vibration sensitivity of buildings.

It is noted that MSKCC may contain vibration-sensitive equipment in its facility. Therefore, to minimize vibration impacts across the site, including areas near MSKCC, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed on the site. However, it is noted that other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the construction manager would coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction.

The FTA Manual documentation, referenced above, includes reference vibration levels from standard construction equipment and the criteria as not to result in damage or be disruptive at adjacent properties (as shown in the column entitled “Ref. Vibration Levels” in Table 73.

‌Table 73). These values were used to calculate the expected vibration levels at the nearest residential-type and residential properties, which are the existing Marriott Hotel (to remain) and the closest residence on Cunningham Avenue, both located approximately 300 feet away from construction activities, as summarized in Table 73 .

‌Table 73 Calculated Vibration Levels at Nearest Properties per FTA Compared to Criteria

Ref. Vibration Levels				Criteria		Calculated
Equipment		PPV (in/sec)	Lv (VdB 264 re: 1 µin/sec)	PPV (in/sec)	Lv (VdB re: 1 µin/sec)	PPV (in/sec)	Lv (VdB re: 1 µin/sec)
Pile Driver (impact)	Upper Range	1.518	112			0.037	80
Pile Driver (impact)	Typical	0.644	104			0.015	72
Pile Driver (sonic)	Upper Range	0.734	105			0.018	73
Pile Driver (sonic)	Typical	0.170	93			0.004	61
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall)		0.202	94 265			0.005	62
Hydromill (slurry wall)	In Soil	0.008	66			0.000	34
Hydromill (slurry wall)	In Rock	0.017	75	0.12	90	0.000	43
Vibratory Roller		0.210	94			0.005	62
Hoe Ram		0.089	87			0.002	55
Large bulldozer		0.089	87			0.002	55
Caisson drilling		0.089	87			0.002	55
Loaded trucks		0.076	86			0.002	54
Jackhammer		0.035	79			0.001	47
Small bulldozer		0.003	58			0.000	26

Source: Longman Lindsey

As noted in the right-hand column of Table 73, it is expected that the most vibration-intensive construction activities would be below the most stringent vibration criteria at the 300-foot distance for both damage to structure and annoyance per the FTA Manual guidelines. Any Th at greater distances from the construction activity would be less impacted by construction-related vibration. Based on the foregoing, the off-site impacts of vibration from construction are expected to be minimal.

‌264VdB is the vibration velocity level in decibel scale, according to the FTA Manual at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment- manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf

‌265 Micro-inch per second.

Proposed Off-Site Mitigation Locations
Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway
Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway The proposed traffic mitigation measures along the Meadowbrook State Parkway include the widening of northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to four lanes from Old Country Road to the Northern State Parkway interchange, and the widening of the ramp to the eastbound Northern State Parkway to a two-lane ramp onto Northern State Parkway. These widenings (to create one additional travel lane on the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway and ramp to eastbound Northern State Parkway) are expected to require relatively minor regrading and/or clearing of areas immediately adjacent to the existing pavement within the established highway right-of-way. The anticipated limits of disturbance are described further in Section 3.15.10, Construction, and are depicted on the figures in Appendix 3.1-7. Other off-site traffic mitigation measures, including additional improvements to the Meadowbrook State Parkway, are also proposed. However, the specific widening described above (i.e., at northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway and the ramp to
eastbound Northern State Parkway) is the only area where roadway mitigation is proposed that is proximate to residential land uses (to the east of the existing roadway).
The Meadowbrook State Parkway is under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT, and NYSDOT would be required to review, approve and issue permits for proposed mitigation. Sands would coordinate with NYSDOT throughout the permitting process to design and refine, as may be required by NYSDOT, the proposed roadway mitigation measures. For the purposes of the NYSDOT’s review of the specific design of planned roadway mitigation, as the improvements require physical alterations to the existing roadway (i.e., addition of a travel lane), NYSDOT would review the specific noise impacts of such improvement upon their design. The results of that noise assessment would be evaluated to determine the noise impact based on two criteria, including:
1. if sound levels approach (within one dBA) or exceed the NAC for the specific land use (Table 55); and
2. whether a substantial increase of noise levels (six dBA or more) above the existing noise level would result from the addition of the travel lane (Table 56).
  It is noted that a doubling of a noise source is generally expected to result in a three dBA increase in noise levels.266 In the case of the proposed roadway improvements along the Meadowbrook State Parkway, where the project-generated traffic would represent a fraction of the existing and future no-action traffic levels on the established highway, it is not expected that the proposed action would result in a substantial increase in noise levels at any receptor location. Nonetheless, if either of the above two criteria are met, analyses of noise abatement would be required.
  There are various forms of abatement that could be considered by the NYSDOT including traffic management, earthen berms, noise barriers, or noise insulation, among others. Evaluation of specific noise abatement measures is based on two primary criteria -- feasibility and reasonableness. Feasibility takes into consideration engineering constraints, drainage of the
  
  ‌266 Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, FHWA-HEP-10-025. December 2011.
  
  roadway, safety, and the ability for noise reduction to be achieved at the impacted receptors. Reasonableness considers various other factors including the cost of the abatement measure, impacts to surrounding environment, and viewpoints of the benefitted properties (e.g., input from and the preferences of the affected members of the public). Ultimately, following these processes and considering these multiple variables (including variables that cannot be accurately predicted, such as the viewpoints of the benefitted properties), the decision whether to require any noise abatement measure would be made in the future by the NYSDOT during the permitting process for the roadway improvements.
Conclusions
Based on the noise monitoring program that was conducted at and around the subject property, the highest sound levels under the existing condition are equal to or exceed the NYSDOT/FHWA highway, HUD and Town of Hempstead criteria at a number of receptor locations. All of the receptor locations are adjacent to well-travelled local roadways, and vehicular traffic is the primary source of noise for these receptor locations. The sound levels that were measured during the noise monitoring program are typical for locations adjacent to major roadways and parkways.
The noise analysis results for mobile sources demonstrates that under the 2030 Build condition, the maximum increase in sound levels from the existing condition for any receptor location ranges from 0 to one dBA for the weekday daytime and nighttime hours and from one dBA to four dBA for the weekend daytime and nighttime hours, all of which are less than the NYSDOT highway criteria of over six (+6) dBA and FHWA’s criteria of over ten (+10) dBA. It is noted that a 0 – one dBA increase is not perceptible and a three dBA increase in sound level is just barely perceptible to the human ear, with four dBA being just above this.
The noise analysis also determined that the 2030 No-Build condition sound levels at the receptor locations would be virtually the same as the existing condition sound levels with respect to stationary sources, and where there would be changes, due to the proposed project’s contribution in the Build condition, the increase would be no greater than +2 dBA. In fact in the majority of cases, there would be no change in sound levels from the existing condition to the Build condition from proposed stationary sources at the Integrated Resort. Based on these results, since all of the changes are less than three dBA, they would be barely perceptible, and would meet the NYSDOT non-highway criteria of a three dBA or above increase.
The construction of the proposed Integrated Resort, with appropriate mitigation measures incorporated (as described herein and summarized in Section 3.7.3, below, is not anticipated to result in long-term adverse noise impacts from either mobile or stationary sources.
In the short-term, construction noise may result in temporary increases in ambient noise at some sensitive receptor locations. Sound levels would be evaluated at each phase of construction to determine if additional construction noise mitigation measures are necessary. In addition, based on the analysis of vibration, construction of the Integrated Resort would not be disruptive to adjacent properties.

‌Proposed Mitigation
The proposed Integrated Resort has been designed to minimize construction and operational sound levels to the surrounding areas to the maximum extent practicable and would implement mitigation measures to reduce or minimize noise from construction activities. Such mitigation measures are anticipated to include the following:
› Most of the HVAC equipment would be housed within the CUPs, to be constructed of CMU and concrete panels, which would minimize potential noise impacts from this equipment
› Emergency generators would be housed within custom acoustical enclosures that would attenuate noise associated with generator operation (which is expected to be limited)
› A vegetated berm is proposed to be constructed at the southern boundary of the subject site along the north side of Hempstead Turnpike, between the Integrated Resort and the neighborhood to the south. Such berms are a type of noise barrier that mitigate noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the proposed vegetated berm would provide additional noise attenuation to the residential community to the south.
› A Construction Management Plan would be developed to ensure compliance with the noise regulations
› The performance of construction activities would adhere to the Town of Hempstead Noise Ordinance (Chapter 144), which restricts construction in the more sensitive overnight hours
› Construction equipment would be required to have properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems
› Construction activities would require proper operation and maintenance, and prohibition of excessive idling of construction equipment engines
› Perimeter construction fencing would be installed along with a hoarding wall, which would be y relocated during the construction period as the construction activities move around within the subject property. Both of these fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area
› Where possible, construction equipment would be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible
› Construction equipment would be required to be kept in good repair and equipped with mufflers
› Quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) back-up alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet applicable regulations
› As indicated in Section 3.5.3, Transportation and Parking, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise), during the construction period, construction vehicles would be routed through primary streets and highways, and would not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets
› To minimize vibration impacts across the site, including areas near MSKCC, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed on the site. However, it is noted that other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the CM would coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction.

‌Public Health – Problem Gambling
1. ‌Existing Conditions
  According to the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS):
  Gambling is defined as the act of risking something of value on a game of chance for the desired result. Usually, gambling addiction is discovered when there is a loss of accessibility to money and/or negative actions occur. Gambling Addiction or Problem Gambling is known as
  the “hidden addiction” because there are no visible signs. Unlike alcohol or drug addiction, you can’t visibly see the effects of someone’s gambling. For example, if someone has been drinking, you may smell alcohol, or they may be slurring their speech. Because of the lack of visibility, often those suffering from a gambling addiction can hide it longer than someone with an alcohol or drug problem.267
  It is further noted by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), a not-for-profit corporation that increases public awareness about problem gambling and advocates for support services for affected persons, that problem gambling:
  …includes all gambling behavior patterns that compromise, disrupt or damage personal, family or vocational pursuits. The symptoms include increasing preoccupation with gambling, a need to bet more money more frequently, restlessness or irritability when attempting to stop,
  “chasing” losses, and loss of control manifested by continuation of the gambling behavior in
  spite of mounting, serious, negative consequences.268
  In New York State, if a casino sells alcohol, such as proposed at the Integrated Resort, you must be 21 years of age to enter the casino floor.269 While the various forms of wagering provide an opportunity for gambling, they neither cause a person to gamble nor create the problem.
  Approximately 85 percent of adults in the United States have gambled at least once. About 60 percent have gambled in the last year, as legalized gambling has become widely available across the United States.270 Of the adults that have gambled, the NCPG estimates that two million (or one percent of the adult population) “meet the criteria for severe gambling problems in a given year.” Another four-to-six million are considered to have mild or moderate problems. These people do not meet the “full diagnostic criteria for gambling addiction,”271 but experience problems due to their behavior. The NCPG indicates that “[r]esearch also indicates that most adults who choose to gamble are able to do it responsibly.”
  
  ‌267 New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports. Problem Gambling Prevention & Responsible Play. Available at: https://oasas.ny.gov/prevention/gambling. Accessed June 2024.
  ‌268 NCPG. FAQs: What is Problem Gambling? Available at: https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/faq/. Accessed June 2024.
  ‌269 N.Y. Rac. Pari-Mut. Wag. & Breed. Law § 1332: 1. No person under the age at which a person is authorized to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages shall enter, or wager in, a licensed gaming facility; provided, however, that such a person may enter a gaming facility by way of passage to another room, and provided further, however, that any such person who is licensed or registered under the provisions of this article may enter a gaming facility in the regular course of the person's permitted activities.
  ‌270 Some form of gambling is legal in all states, with the exception of Hawaii and Utah.
  ‌271 NCPG. FAQs: What is Problem Gambling? Available at: https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/faq/. Accessed June 2024.
  
  As explained in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits, revenues from gambling provide significant tax benefits to New York State. New York State collected approximately $3.7 billion in gaming revenue in fiscal year 2019-20. Of this, approximately $3.66 billion went to fund education, $74 million was distributed to municipalities that host certain gaming venues, and $66 million went to the New York State General Fund. The majority of revenue generated (just over two-thirds) was from traditional lottery games, with a small percentage (approximately 5.1 percent) generated from traditional casinos.272 On October 11, 2023, NEWSDAY reported that New York State collected approximately $4.8 billion in tax revenues for fiscal year 2022-23 from all forms of gambling, with the lottery accounting for more than half of the revenue (approximately $2.7 billion), and the largest increase coming from mobile sports betting.
  NEWSDAY indicated that the New York State Comptroller reported that the State collected $727 million in tax revenue related to mobile sports betting during the 2022-23 fiscal year, more than double the $361 million it collected in 2021-22.273
  In the 2020 report entitled, A Question of Balance, Gaming Revenues and Problem Gambling in New York State, NYS Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli explained that New York State recognizes that there are individuals with problem gambling and the state has employed measures to address this issue, particularly through New York State’s OASAS. According to OASAS, spending by New York State on problem gambling services was projected at $5.7 million in the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
  Problem gambling can affect any age group, and the OASAS provides educational materials regarding gambling based on various ages. For instance, seniors come from a generation where issues like addiction were not discussed and help was not sought, so it can be hard for this group to get help if they are problem gambling.274
  Problem gambling does not only affect adults and seniors; problem gambling can develop at any age. In the 2014-2015 NYS OASAS Youth Development Survey,275 it was shown that 39 percent of children in grades 7-12 have gambled at least once within the past year, including betting money on raffles, charity games, or sports. In media, including television and film, gambling is shown as fun, exciting, and an easy way to make money. Given the site’s location proximate to higher educational institutions, comments have been raised regarding the proposed Integrated Resort’s potential impact on gambling among college students. Since so many forms of gambling, including online and mobile gambling, have become popular, it has become more accessible than it has ever been. Due to televised gambling tournaments and increased accessibility of gambling due to the internet (both online and by use of mobile phones), gambling amongst college students has become increasingly popular.
  A large number (approximately 75 percent) of college students gamble, and two thirds participate in online/mobile sports betting specifically. Despite this and that one in 20 college students can be categorized as compulsive gamblers, less than a quarter of colleges and
  
  ‌272 Office of the New York State Comptroller. A Question of Balance, Gaming Revenues and Problem Gambling in New York State (November, 2020). Pages 5, 6 and 8.
  ‌273 Newsday. State sees big tax haul from mobile sports betting; calls to gambling hotline also up (October 11, 2023)
  ‌274 New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports. Problem Gambling and Seniors. Available at: https://oasas.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/03/problem-gambling-seniors-2.25.20.pdf. Accessed June 2024.
  ‌275 New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. Youth Development Survey 2014-2015 Report. 2015.
  
  universities have policies surrounding gambling and programs for gambling and other behavioral addictions.276
  According to a 2023 article by Birches Health,a virtual gambling addiction specific treatment program based in Phoenix, Arizona, “. . .the incidence of college students gambling is getting progressively worse.”277 The LI ADVOCATE, in an article, dated August 4, 2023, indicated that “[a]t Hofstra University, and across the nation, college students are participating in online sports gambling at a growing rate. The proliferation of gambling apps, easily accessible on any smartphone, is the primary cause for the surge in gambling. The apps afford students the opportunity to gamble anytime, anywhere, in almost complete anonymity.”278 There are various existing resources that can assist college students facing gambling problems, including:
  › Campus Counseling Services
  › Support Groups (such as Gamblers Anonymous)
  › Helplines and Hotlines, such as the OASAS HOPEline (1-877-846-7369)
  › Online Resources, such as those of the NCPG and OASAS
  › Therapy and Treatment Programs.
2. ‌Potential Impacts
  As explained above, problem gambling has existed for some time, and with the advent of mobile/online betting, there are more opportunities for people of various ages to gamble. Also, there are many resources currently available to address these issues, and New York State is cognizant of the need to balance the benefits of revenues from gambling and its effects.
  Moreover, New York State has legislation in effect that prohibits persons under 21 years of age from gambling, and those under 21 would be prohibited from the casino floor of the proposed Integrated Resort. Accordingly, the development of the casino component of the proposed Integrated Resort would not provide an additional opportunity for gambling to those under 21 years of age.
  Sands has experience in ensuring Responsible Gaming and is incorporating extensive measures into the proposed Integrated Resort and its operations to help prevent, recognize, and address problem gambling. Sands has developed a responsible gambling mission, which includes:
  › Developing and sustaining an internal culture and awareness of responsible gambling through continuous training, publicity, and active Team Member engagement
  › Exercising Corporate Social Responsibility through active participation in and sponsorship of a variety of responsible gambling partners and events
  
  ‌276 Reardon, L. Colleges lack addiction resources for online sports gambling surge, TheNewsHouse – The S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University (January 23, 2023). Available at https://www.thenewshouse.com/off-campus/colleges- lack-addiction-resources-for-online-sports-gambling-surge/. Accessed June 2024.
  ‌277 Birches Health. Gambling and Sports Betting Among College Students (July 8, 2023). Available at: https://bircheshealth.com/resources/gambling-college-students. Accessed June 2024.
  ‌278 The Long Island Advocate. Online gambling growing in popularity among college students, worrying many (August 4, 2023). Available at: https://longislandadvocate.com/online-gambling-growing-in-popularity-among-college-students-worrying-many/. Accessed June 2024.
  
  › Developing and maintaining effective relationships with key stakeholders such as regulators, other gaming operators, community partners, academics, and research organizations
  › Operating in collaboration with the local government
  › Implementing responsible gambling measures validated by scientific research
  › Being aware of emerging themes in Responsible Gambling both locally and internationally
  › Providing patrons with information on responsible gaming and the harm caused by problem gambling
  › Making annual contributions to organizations that support research into the prevention of gambling related harms and the treatment services that assist individuals who suffer from problem gambling
  Sands has implemented an evidence-based philosophy, based around shared responsibility, the implementation of evidence-based initiatives and reducing the occurrence of gambling related harms. Sands utilizes many problem gambling prevention measures in its operations that would be applied at this location, and as indicated above, has a mission to create a culture of responsible gambling through training, publicity, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sands is dedicated to promoting an entertainment experience free of social harm. Below are specific descriptions of the measures that would be employed.
  
  On-site Resources and Assistance and Treatment Facilitation
  On-site resources would consist of responsible gambling signage and responsible gambling collaterals, including information on Self-Exclusion, the signs of problem gambling and HOPEline (1‐877‐8-HOPENY), to facilitate access to local, national and/or global assistance with problem gambling.
  The Sands Exclusion Program focuses on prohibiting casino entry to patrons who have been identified by Sands as displaying observable and verbal signs of potential problematic gambling behavior. The Sands Exclusion Program complements the exclusion protocol of the New York Gaming Commission, which provides that “[i]ndividuals who recognize they may have a gambling problem may self-exclude from all gaming opportunities available in New York State.” In order to do so, an individual must complete and submit the Request for Voluntary Self-Exclusion Form, and New York State would have them barred from all gaming properties and applications.279 Sands would remain vigilant in its participation in self-exclusion, as applicable to all operations under the regulatory control of the New York State Gaming Commission.
  To ensure that excluded persons do not enter the Sands gaming premises, Security would be stationed at all entrances, and facial recognition would be used. A photograph of the excluded individual would be registered in Sands’ facial recognition database, and facial recognition software would be incorporated into the video surveillance system. Security would receive alerts from the facial recognition system of persons on the exclusion database that attempt to enter, and Security would deny entry to those persons. Sands has been successful with facial recognition technology at its other properties and has extensive experience in identifying excluded persons and denying their entry to the gaming floor. As an example, Security uses facial
  
  ‌279 New York State. Request for Voluntary Self-Exclusion from All Gaming Opportunities. Available at: https://www.ny.gov/services/request- voluntary-self-exclusion-all-gaming-opportunities. Accessed June 2024.
  
  recognition technology at its Sands Macao operation to deny entry to approximately 150 – 200 excluded persons per day. Additionally, as explained earlier, New York State law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 to be on the gaming floor longer than it takes them to reach their destination. All persons under the age of 21 would require an escort to walk through the gaming floor of the Integrated Resort to ensure that no underage gaming takes place. No one under 21 is permitted to wager or purchase or consume alcohol.
  Sands’ responsible gaming program for the proposed Integrated Resort is being created in collaboration with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, OASAS, NCPG, and the International Gaming Institute at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV). All of Sands’ responsible gaming programs are specifically tailored to the jurisdiction in which the gaming facility is situated. This includes:
  › Involvement in community events to promote responsible gaming
  › Investments in services that address problem gambling
  › Extensive team member training on the signs of problem gambling and responsible gaming techniques
  › Responsible advertising
  › Youth gambling prevention
  › Partnerships with the local health services groups
  › Implementing science based, evidence driven programs unique to landscape in the community.
  Sands has teamed with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to get the word out on problem gambling, provide treatment for those who suffer from problem gambling, and initiate grassroot efforts to educate and inform the community on the importance of responsible gaming. Furthering Sands’ assurance to provide resources to address problem gambling, Sands has committed $200,000 to the Family and Children’s Association toward the establishment of two new Gambling Support and Wellness Centers, in Hempstead and Hicksville.
  In addition to the services provided by Sands, OASAS has a local facility in Uniondale, the Long Island Problem Gambling Resources Center (https://oasas.ny.gov/location/long-island-problem- gambling-resource-center), which serves Nassau and Suffolk Counties and provides education and training, referrals to appropriate resources, assessment, treatment, and referrals for recovery support.
  Specific measures that would be employed at the Integrated Resort include:
  
  Signs/Alerts in the Gaming Facility
  Sands would implement a system to disseminate information on responsible gambling to all casino patrons and provide casino patrons with information to make informed decisions on gambling. Such information would include the signs and risks of problem gambling and gambling-related problems, the social safeguard measures made available by the NCPG, and Sands Responsible Gambling program. Casino patrons would receive available treatment services and counseling programs, and Sands would refer casino patrons who may display potential problematic gambling behaviors to the OASAS HOPEline (1-877-8-HOPENY) for further
  
  assistance. Sands would maintain records of the number of casino patrons who have been identified.
  Employee Training
  Sands would establish, implement, and operate a Responsible Gambling training program for all casino employees. The practices of the proposed Integrated Resort would be guided by the practices of the parent company, Sands. In tailoring its approach towards Responsible Gambling methods, Sands adopts a comprehensive evidence-based research approach in tailoring its Responsible Gambling practices. When a casino employee identifies a casino patron who requests information on problematic gambling behavior or needs aid, the patron that requires assistance would be referred to a Responsible Gambling Ambassador who would provide the casino patron with information on counselling programs and treatment services available and the Exclusion Program.
  All casino employees would be required to complete their training on New Hire Training Day before working their first shift. All casino employees would be required to complete a refresher training via online training module at least once a year for the duration of their employment with Sands. At the end of each training session (including refresher training), casino employees would be required to complete an assessment with the results being a key performance indicator to the efficacy of Sands’ Responsible Gambling program.
  Sands would provide training to casino employees on the observable behavioral signs of potential problematic gambling and how to identify these signs and the harms associated with problem gambling. Casino employees would be taught to recognize potential behavior and verbal signs exhibited by a casino patron that may indicate problematic gambling. Although casino employees are not mental health professionals and would not be trained to diagnose whether or not a casino patron is suffering from problem gambling, they would be trained on how to connect the casino patron with trained professionals. Casino employees would also be trained on procedures/protocols to report identified patrons to a Responsible Gambling Ambassador.
  Responsible Gambling Ambassadors would be trained on techniques and protocols to communicate with an identified patron and provide information on Sands’ Responsible Gambling Program, counseling programs and treatment services. Sands’ Responsible Gambling Ambassador Program was developed in conjunction with international experts in the field of Responsible Gambling from Harvard Medical School and the International Gaming Institute at UNLV. The Responsible Gaming Ambassador training, facilitated by the International Gaming Institute, is the only in-house responsible gambling training in the world that consists of an
  eight-hour intensive university level course, taught by world-renowned Responsible Gambling experts and other experts from the local area.
  Responsible Gambling Ambassadors are specially trained team members who not only assist patrons who may have difficulty with their gambling behavior, but also refer them to the government-funded support services that provide the ongoing support a person may require. Sands’ values its relationship with the International Gaming Institute and looks forward to continuing that program in New York with local partners, including the Family and Children’s Association. When observable signs of problem gambling are present, a Responsible Gaming
  
  Ambassador would have a discreet conversation with the casino patron on the dangers of problem gambling and the services available in their local area. The Ambassadors would be able to communicate with the casino patron on what happens when someone calls the helpline, the success rates of treatment, and make the connection to the professionals who are trained to help. The Responsible Gaming Ambassador would also explain the programs available through Sands, such as the Self-Exclusion Program and the enrollment process.
  Sands would have a Responsible Gambling Director who would be responsible for the Responsible Gambling Program. The Responsible Gambling Director’s duties would be to oversee implementation and have overall responsibility for operational monitoring of the program. The Responsible Gambling Director would stay up-to-date on the emerging science on problem gambling and effectiveness of responsible gambling programs by attending conferences on the topics.
  A periodic review of the Program would be conducted by the International Gaming Institute of the UNLV. The Responsible Gambling Director, together with UNLV and the New York partners in problem gambling (including the Family and Children’s Association), would conduct a review of this Program to ensure that it reflects the current and relevant science in the responsible gambling and problem gambling fields and to assess the efficiency of the Program in connecting identified patrons to the right help.
  Sands would continue to build out sustainable and meaningful partnerships in the areas of responsible gaming and problem gambling services. This would include the Office of Addiction Services and Supports and the New York Council on Problem Gambling. Sands is currently partnered with the National Council on Problem Gambling, The International Center for Responsible Gaming, The International Problem Gambling Center, The Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, and a variety of local councils and service centers in Singapore and Macau that promote responsible gaming and/or the treatment of problem gambling.
  
  Exclusion Policy
  Sands would implement an Exclusion Program to complement that of the New York Gaming Commission. The Sands Exclusion Program would focus on prohibiting entry into the casino for patrons who have been identified by the Sands team as displaying observable signs of potential problematic gambling behavior. Any casino patron identified displaying observable signs of potential problematic gambling behavior may be excluded from the casino premises. To ensure that excluded persons do not enter the gaming premises, as explained above, Security would be stationed at all entrances and facial recognition would be used. Additionally, as previously explained, no one under the age of 21 is permitted to be on the gaming floor longer than it takes them to reach their destination. All persons under the age of 21 would require an escort to walk through the gaming floor to ensure that no underage gaming takes place, and that no one under the legal age purchases or consumes alcohol.
  
  Employee Assistance Program
  Sands has established an employee assistance program through Behavioral Healthcare Options. This program is a confidential life and wellbeing program that helps Sands’ team members and their household members at no cost to them. It provides services to support wellbeing and
  
  prevention, short-term counseling, consultation, and referral programs relating to problem gambling, alcohol/drug use, parenting, marital problems, grief and loss, divorce recovery, military/veterans, domestic violence, life changes, job stress, childcare, elder or disabled caregiving, work/life balance and depression or anxiety.
  Overall, the processes proposed to address problem gambling by Sands include extensive responsible gaming training, problem gambling education for both patrons and employees, and connections to local support organizations. Support is made available to not only the person experiencing harm from their gambling, but also family members and friends of that person.
  Sands continues to partner with leading institutions280 to advance its research into responsible gaming practices. Additionally, Sands is the contributor to the International Center for Responsible Gaming, which produces independent, peer-reviewed, impactful research that has advanced the latest science on problem gambling and best practices for responsible gaming.
  Based on the foregoing, as the proposed Integrated Resort is prohibited from allowing anyone under 21 on the casino floor, the casino component of the development would not contribute to increased gambling for those under 21. Furthermore, Sands has committed to implementing a multi-faceted approach to identifying and assisting those with problem gambling. In addition, Sands has committed $200,000 to the Family and Children’s Association toward the establishment of two new Gambling Support and Wellness Centers, in Hempstead and Hicksville.
3. ‌Proposed Mitigation
  As explained above, Sands has incorporated extensive measures into its proposed Integrated Resort to identify and assist persons with problem gambling. The following is a list of the measures to be employed by Sands at the proposed Integrated Resort to minimize potential problem gambling issues:
  › Incorporating on-site resources to promote responsible gambling and provide assistance with problem gambling, including signage, collaterals and access to the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports HOPEline (1-877-8-HOPENY) for further assistance.
  › Implementing an Exclusion Program to complement the exclusion regime provided by the New York Gaming Commission, focusing on prohibiting from entry into the casino for patrons who have been identified as displaying observable signs of potential problematic gambling behavior. Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 is permitted to be on the gaming floor longer than it takes them to reach their destination. All persons under the age of 21 would require an escort to walk through the gaming floor to ensure that no underage gaming takes place.
  › Maintaining records and reporting of the Exclusion Program under the New York Gaming Commission.
  › Stationing Security at all entrances who would have access to the Sands facial recognition system.
  › Partnering with the New York State office of Children and Family Services and other local support facilities, and contributing financially to organizations that provide problem gambling
  
  ‌280 Includes Harvard Medical School, UNLV International Gaming Institute, International Center for Responsible Gaming, and the National Council on Problem Gambling.
  
  education, treatment for those who suffer from problem gambling, and information on the importance of responsible gaming.
  › Committing $200,000 to the Family and Children’s Association toward the establishment of
  two new Gambling Support and Wellness Centers, in Hempstead and Hicksville.
  › Establishing, implementing, and operating a Responsible Gambling training program for all casino employees. Casino employees would be trained to recognize potential behavior and verbal signs exhibited by a casino patron that may indicate problematic gambling behavior, and in procedures/protocols to report identified patrons to a responsible Gambling Ambassador.
  › Training Responsible Gambling Ambassadors on techniques and protocols to communicate with an identified patron and provide information on Sands’ Responsible Gambling Program, counseling programs and treatment services.
  › Continuing to review the problem gaming programs on a regular basis with experts in the field to ensure the programs reflect current and relevant science in the responsible gambling and problem gambling fields.
  › Establishing an employee assistance program that would provide services to support wellbeing and prevention, short-term counseling, consultation, programs and referrals to Sands’ team members.

‌Socioeconomics

To quantify the effects that the construction and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would have upon the local community and surrounding region, Sands retained EY, a multinational professional services firm, to evaluate economic conditions and expected economic impacts (see Appendix 3.9-1 for economic analyses provided by EY). Beginning with an understanding of current economic and demographic conditions, and using data inputs from Sands and the results of EY’s economic modeling and analyses, this section of the DEIS provides an assessment of the economic impacts (including positive impacts or benefits) that would be generated by the proposed action.281

‌Existing Conditions

Existing Economic Activity
Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum
As explained in Section 2.2.4, Historical and Current Level of Activity on the Site, activity at the Coliseum has significantly declined over the years, particularly since the departure of the New York Islanders. Employment at the Coliseum is approximately 478 persons, and economic activity related to the Coliseum’s operations support an additional 66 secondary (i.e., indirect and induced) jobs. In total, when considering direct, indirect, and induced contributions, EY calculated that the facility generates approximately $14 million of labor income, $19 million in value added and $29 million in total economic output in New York State, annually.
From a fiscal perspective, under existing conditions, annual revenues from Coliseum operations to government entities are generated from rental payments, unemployment insurance (UI) and re-employment service fund (RSF) payroll taxes, individual income taxes, the metropolitan commuter transportation mobility tax (MCTMT), and entertainment taxes for state and local governments. The relatively low economic outputs reflect the aforementioned decline in operations that have been experienced over the years. Considering continued Coliseum operations and lease payments in the future, EY calculated the total revenue impact from the Coliseum to be approximately $5 million annually. Table 74, below, shows the current site revenue generated by the Coliseum.

‌281 Analyses by EY utilize IMPLAN LLC economic data/models, which are widely used throughout the United States for economic impact analyses by state and local economic development agencies, private-sector companies, and trade associations.

‌Table 74 Current Tax Revenues – Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Tax Type
Amount
Annual Rental Payments
$4 million
UI and RSF Payroll Tax
$0.5 million
Individual Income Tax
$0.7 million
MCTMT Tax
$0.02 million
Entertainment Tax
$0.1 million
Total
$5 million
Source: Sands, EY analysis

Marriott Hotel
Under existing conditions, the Marriott Hotel has approximately 239 employees, with a total payroll of approximately $16,840,870 (i.e., an average annual compensation of approximately
$70,464). An existing PILOT agreement initially included annual payments of $2,000,000 beginning in 2016, increasing beginning in 2023 until reaching $2,587,213 in the final year of the agreement (i.e., 2035). The economic activity associated with the Marriott is not analyzed further in this DEIS, as the existing operations are not proposed to change as a result of implementation of the proposed action.

Existing Demographic Conditions

Population

Nassau County has experienced notable demographic and economic changes over the past several decades. After reaching a peak of over 1.4 million residents in 1970, the population declined to fewer than 1.3 million residents in 1990, and from 1990 through 2010, the population began rebounding.282

As shown in Table 75, Nassau County has close to 1.4 million residents (as of 2020). The Town of Hempstead contains almost 60 percent of Nassau County’s population, with approximately 793,400 residents (as of 2020). The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for both Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead between 2000 and 2020 was 0.2 percent, slightly less than in New York State as a whole. Within the Town of Hempstead, the Uniondale census designated place (CDP), where the subject property is located, has about 32,500 residents.

‌Table 75 Population Growth, 2000 – 2035

	2000 Resident Population	2010 Resident Population	2020 Resident Population	Est. 2035* Resident Population	2000- 2010 % CAGR	2010- 2020 % CAGR	2000- 2020 % CAGR
NY State	18,976,457	19,378,102	20,201,249	20,621,186	0.2%	0.4%	0.3%
Nassau County	1,334,544	1,339,532	1,395,774	1,424,929	0.0%	0.4%	0.2%
Town of Hempstead	755,924	759,757	793,409	809,982	0.1%	0.4%	0.2%

‌282 U.S. Geological Survey. Population graph Nassau County 1900-2010 by New York Water Science Center. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/population-graph-nassau-county-1900-2010. Accessed May 2024.

2000

Resident Population

2010

Resident Population

2020

Resident Population

Est. 2035* Resident

Population

2000-

2010 % CAGR

2010-

2020 % CAGR

2000-

2020 % CAGR

Uniondale**

N/A

24,759

32,473

33,151

N/A

Source: US Census Bureau Population Estimates, 2000, 2010, 2020. Oxford Economics forecasts derived from US Census Bureau data, as compiled by EY.

*2035 population estimates are grown from 2020 using forecasts from Oxford Economics derived from US Census Bureau data for New York State and for the Nassau County-Suffolk County Metropolitan Statistical Area Division (MSAD). The growth rate for Nassau County-Suffolk County MSAD is applied to all municipalities within Nassau County.

**Uniondale CDP expanded from 2010 to 2020, incorporating East Garden City into the census designated place boundary, thus the 2020 data includes a broader geographic area. The boundary changes makes comparison of population growth over time difficult to discern.

Population throughout all identified municipalities is expected to increase, with the estimated 2035 populations shown in Table 75. Both Nassau County’s and the Town of Hempstead’s populations are expected to increase by approximately 2.0 percent between 2020 and 2035, which is less than the growth rate in the previous 20 years.

Nassau County has a racially and ethnically diverse population, with a composition of 56.7 percent White, 11.1 percent Black, 11.2 percent Asian, 17.5 percent Hispanic/Latino and less than

5.0 percent other races and ethnicities (Table 76). The Town’s racial and ethnic composition is also diverse, but Hispanics/Latinos comprise a slightly higher percentage than the County (at 21.3 percent) and Blacks also comprise a higher percent than the County (at 16.9 percent). The hamlet of Uniondale, where the subject property is located, contains proportionally much larger Hispanic and Black populations, with 40.3 percent and 35.9 percent of the population, respectively, which substantially exceed the County and Town rates for Hispanic and Black populations. Together these two population groups comprise over three-quarters of Uniondale, as compared to a third of the population of New York State, 27 percent of the County and 38 percent of the Town.

‌Table 76 Population by Race and Ethnicity, by Location, 2022

Percentage of population
Place	Population	White	Black	Asian	NHOPI	Native American	Other	Two or More Races	Hispanic/ Latino
NY State	19,994,379	53.8%	13.8%	8.8%	<0.1%	0.2%	0.8%	3.1%	19.5%
Nassau County	1,389,160	56.7%	11.1%	11.2%	<0.1%	0.1%	0.9%	2.5%	17.5%
Town of Hempstead	789,763	50.8%	16.9%	7.4%	<0.1%	0.1%	0.9%	2.7%	21.3%
Uniondale	33,192	18.2%	35.9%	2.2%	<0.1%	0.0%	0.7%	2.7%	40.3%
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2018-2022, as compiled by EY Notes: Hispanic/Latino refers to individuals who self-identify as ethnically Hispanic or Latino and non-white. The other demographic groups are exclusively non-Hispanic. NHOPI is Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Reflecting the ethnic diversity and income levels (discussed later in this section), portions of the area surrounding the subject property have been identified as a Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). As noted on the NYSDEC website:

According to the NYSDEC mapping tool for PEJAs: 283

PEJAs are U.S. Census block groups of 250 to 500 households each which, in the Census, had populations that met or exceeded at least one of the following statistical thresholds:

At least 52.42% of the population in an urban area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or
At least 26.28% of the population in a rural area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or

At least 22.82% of the population in an urban or rural area had household incomes below the federal poverty level.

While the subject property itself is not within an identified PEJA, since it contains no permanent population, areas to the south of Hempstead Turnpike and to the west of Hofstra University within the Town of Hempstead (e.g., Uniondale, Roosevelt, parts of West Hempstead, Lakeview, Baldwin), the Village of Hempstead and the Village of Freeport are located within such designated area (as shown in Figure 47). While a few of the Census block groups in the PEJA meet criteria 3 (poverty level), the majority meet criteria 1 (urban area minority group).

‌283 NYSDEC. Maps & Geospatial Information System (GIS) Tools For Environmental Justice. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/get- involved/environmental-justice/gis-tools. Accessed September 2024.

Figure 47: Potential Environmental Justice Areas

Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

bur

ood

Roslyn Heights Jericho

North Hills

Albertson Williston Park

New Cassel

Jerus

Westbury

Hicksville

North New Hyde Park

New Hyde Park

Garden City

m Av

Nassau Community College

Salisbury

Levittown

ale

Bethpa

ral Park

Stewart Ave

East Meadow

Judy

Memorial High School

Plainedg

Franklin

t Square

Hempstead

Franklin Elementary School

Jacobs-Parkway

Elementary School

North Wantagh

North Bellmore

Stream

Malverne

Lynbrook

Hempstead Lake State Park

Rockville Centre

Baldwin

Roosevelt

Freeport

Merrick

Bellmore

Seaford

Ave

East Rockaway

Oceanside

Baldwin Harbor

Atla

ntic

Great Island

0 2,000 Feet

Study Area

Subject Property

Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA) Communities

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, NYSDEC

Age Cohorts

Table 77 provides an overview of local gender and age characteristics in the Town of Hempstead and the broader Nassau County and New York State, showing similar gender and age demographics. Gender is split about 50/50 among each area, though Uniondale is slightly skewed female and, with the exception of Uniondale (which skews younger), over half of the population is age 25 to 64.

‌Table 77 Gender and Age by Location, 2021/2022

			Age
Place	Total Population	Female	Younger than 16	16 to 24	25 to 64	65 and Older
New York State	19,994,379	51.1%	18.3%	11.6%	53.1%	17.0%
Nassau County	1,389,160	50.8%	18.8%	11.4%	51.8%	18.0%
Town of Hempstead	789,763	50.9%	19.0%	11.8%	52.2%	16.8%
Uniondale	33,192	52.3%	17.0%	19.9%	45.8%	17.2%
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2018-2022 for population and age, as compiled by EY. Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Income

Generally, Nassau County has a higher median income and lower poverty rate than New York State, but there is considerable variation across cities, towns and villages within the County, and the subject property is located in an area of relatively lower income. The median household income in 2022 for Nassau County ($137,709) is higher than that of New York State ($81,386), as shown on Table 78. Median household income within the Town of Hempstead ($132,468) is lower than that of the County, and in Uniondale ($107,885), median household income is even lower. The poverty rate in Nassau County is 5.4 percent, which is well below the New York State rate of 13.6 percent. Uniondale’s poverty rate of 9.6 percent is higher than both the Town and County. However, Uniondale has seen a modest decrease in the poverty rate between 2012 and 2022.

‌Table 78 Households and Median Household Income, 2012-2022

Households			Median Household Income (nominal)					Poverty Rate
Place	2012	2022	CAGR	2012	2022	CAGR	2012	2022	Percentage Point Change
NY State	7,230,896	7,604,523	0.5%	$57,683	$81,386	3.5%	14.9%	13.6%	-1.3
Nassau County	442,869	454,771	0.3%	$97,049	$137,709	3.6%	5.8%	5.4%	-0.4
Town of Hempstead	243,135	249,460	0.3%	$93,140	$132,468	3.6%	6.4%	5.6%	-0.7
Uniondale	6,043	8,696	3.7%	$72,370	$107,885	4.1%	10.5%	9.4%	-1.2

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-year samples 2018-2022, 2008-2012, as compiled by EY Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Household income reflects all forms of income including wages, salary, social security, public assistance, and retirement from all individuals over age 15 within a household.

Employment and Unemployment

As illustrated in Table 79 , since 2015, the civilian labor force in Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead284 has increased, while the unemployment rate decreased in each area. The civilian labor force has grown at a modest compound annual growth rate of 0.59 percent in Nassau County and 0.56 percent in the Town of Hempstead since 2015. For Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead, the unemployment rate declined by at least 1.5 percentage points. During the pandemic, more than 138,500 workers lost jobs in Nassau and Suffolk counties, and many of these workers have now re-entered employment. In fact, the current unemployment rate of 3.0 percent throughout the Nassau-Suffolk region is at the lowest point since 1990 when data was first available through the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

‌Table 79 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Trends in Nassau County and Town of Hempstead

Year	Nassau County		Town of Hempstead
Year	Civilian Labor Force	Unemployment Rate (%)	Civilian Labor Force	Unemployment Rate (%)
2015	696,394	4.3%	397,102	4.5%
2016	700,139	4.0%	398,786	4.2%
2017	719,512	4.1%	409,887	4.2%
2018	721,744	3.5%	410,661	3.6%
2019	727,084	3.3%	413,529	3.4%
2020	710,248	8.0%	405,377	8.4%
2021	708,286	4.5%	403,511	4.7%
2022	725,734	2.8%	413,005	3.0%
*CAGR/pp	0.6%	-1.5pp	0.6%	-1.5pp

*For the 2015-2022 period, reflects compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, and percentage point (pp) change for unemployment rates.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics, non-seasonally adjusted, as compiled by EY.

People of color have disproportionately higher unemployment rates than white residents in Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead. Table 80 shows that, for Nassau County, White non-Hispanics make up 57.8 percent of the labor force but 53.0 percent of unemployed, while Black, non-Hispanics make up only 11.9 percent of the labor force but 18.3 percent of unemployed. In the Town of Hempstead, more than a quarter of unemployed workers are Black, even though they represent fewer than one in five workers in the labor force. Similar disparities exist for Hispanic/Latino and multi-racial workers, and to a lesser extent, for other people of color.

‌284 Data included in this table is not available at the CDP level.

‌Table 80 Percent Labor force and Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity, 2017-2021

Nassau County Town of Hempstead

% of Labor Force % Unemp. % of Labor Force % Unemp.

Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
White, non-Hispanic	57.8%	53.0%	52.1%	43.3%
Black, non-Hispanic	11.9%	18.3%	17.6%	26.4%
Asian, non-Hispanic	10.5%	7.7%	6.8%	4.1%
NHOPI, non-Hispanic	0.0%	<0.1%	0.0%	<0.1%
Native American, non- Hispanic	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%	0.4%
Other, non-Hispanic	0.6%	0.8%	0.6%	1.2%
Two+ Races, non- Hispanic	1.9%	2.8%	2.1%	3.4%
Hispanic/Latino	17.2%	17.2%	20.8%	21.3%

Source: US Census American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY

Notes: The employment data represent a 5-year sample from US Census American Community Survey and may differ from annual estimates in the tables in this chapter referencing Bureau of Labor Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

Hispanic/Latino refers to individuals who self-identify as ethnically Hispanic or Latino and non-white. The other demographic groups are exclusively non-Hispanic.

Workers with lower educational attainment are also more likely to be unemployed than college- educated workers in Nassau County (Table 81). For example, in Nassau County, individuals with solely a high school diploma or GED comprise only 17.3 percent of the labor force population, but a greater share (21.6 percent) of all unemployed in the population. This percentage point gap is even larger in the Town of Hempstead, where the population with solely a high school degree or GED comprises 19.9 percent of the labor force and 25.4 percent of those who are unemployed. As such, across Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead, individuals without college degrees are overrepresented in the unemployed population when compared to their overall share of the labor force.

The population with a bachelor’s degree or higher shows the opposite trend of those with a high school diploma or GED. For Nassau County, the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher comprises 54.4 percent of the labor force and only 41.5 percent of the unemployed population, meaning those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are underrepresented in the unemployed population compared to their share of the labor force. The same is true for the Town of Hempstead, where 48.7 percent of individuals in the labor force have a bachelor’s degree or higher, while the same population only comprises 35.5 percent of the unemployed population in the area.

‌Table 81 Percent Labor Force and Unemployment by Educational Attainment Ages 25-64, 2017-2021

Nassau County			Town of Hempstead
	% of Labor Force	% of Unemployed Population	% of Labor Force	% of Unemployed Population
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Less than High School	5.9%	6.5%	6.9%	8.5%
High School Diploma or GED	17.3%	21.6%	19.9%	25.4%
Some College or Assoc. Degree	22.4%	30.5%	24.5%	30.6%
Bachelor's degree or higher	54.4%	41.5%	48.7%	35.5%
Source: US Census American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY Note: The employment data represent a 5-year sample from US Census American Community Survey and may differ from annual estimates in the tables in this chapter referencing Bureau of Labor Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Sample is restricted to only workers between 25 and 64 years old.

Housing

In 2021, there were approximately 475,700 housing units across Nassau County, of which 77.8 percent were owner-occupied, 17.5 percent were renter-occupied, and 4.7 percent were vacant, as detailed in Table 82 . More than half of Nassau County’s vacant units are situated within the Town of Hempstead. Across all residential properties in Nassau County, approximately 2,250 units are on the market for purchase each month, with new monthly sales listings averaging between 850 and 1,550 units over the past 5 years.285 For comparison purposes, 12.6 percent of Suffolk County’s approximately 579,600 housing units are vacant, and 9.3 percent of housing units in Queens are vacant.

Additionally, as compared to New York State as a whole, the County and the Town have very high owner-occupancy rates and much higher median values than the rest of the state.

However, the Uniondale median owner-occupied unit value is lower than the Town and County. With regard to renter-occupied units, median rents in the County, Town and Uniondale are substantially higher than New York State, with Uniondale having a significantly higher median rent than the rest of the Town and County.286

‌285 Redfin. United States Housing Market. Available at: https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market. Accessed May 2024.

‌286 The median renter-occupied units in Uniondale are influenced by a number of higher-end rental communities located within the northern part of the hamlet, including Avalon Garden City and Avalon Westbury, which are situated within the Uniondale CDP.

‌Table 82 Estimated Distribution of Housing Units (2017-2021)

Place	Total housing units	Percentage owner- occupied	Median owner- occupied unit value	Percentage renter- occupied	Median renter- occupied unit rent	Percentage vacant
New York State	8,449,178	48.47%	$340,600	40.6%	$1,390	10.9%
Nassau County, NY	475,728	77.85%	$560,100	17.5%	$1,940	4.7%
Town of Hempstead	260,153	78.26%	$499,700	17.4%	$1,841	4.3%
Uniondale	8,915	68.17%	$412,500	27.0%	$2,356	4.8%
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY

Table 83 further breaks down the population of renter-occupied housing units in Nassau County. Most of the renter-occupied units are multi-family housing units (69 percent). Across all unit types, approximately 58 percent of total rental units have a monthly rent of less than $2,000.

‌Table 83 Number of Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Nassau County, 2017-2021

Type	Multi-family	One-family house detached	One-family house attached	Other	Total	All unit types as percentage of total
Total renter-occupied units	53,987	21,040	3,091	126	78,244	100%
Monthly gross rent
Below $1,000	9,378	927	494	-	10,799	14%
$1,000 to $1,499	10,910	2,361	396	86	13,753	18%
$1,500 to $1,999	16,044	3,925	704	-	20,673	26%
$2,000 to $2,499	9,277	4,584	530	40	14,431	18%
$2,500 to $2,999	4,212	3,091	376	-	7,679	10%
Above $3,000	4,166	6,151	590	-	10,907	14%
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY

When adjusted for inflation, property values have increased modestly in Nassau County over the decade of 2013 to 2023 with a 3.3 percent increase for all residential property, 2.9 percent for condos/co-ops, and 3.2 percent for single-family homes (Table 84).

‌Table 84 Median Sales Prices by Building Type, 2013-2023

Place	Median Sales Price, 2023	2013-2023 CAGR (Real growth)	Median Price Per Sq. Ft	2013-2023 CAGR (Real growth)
Nassau County (All Residential)	$689,000	3.3%	$440	3.4%
Single-Family	$707,000	3.2%	$443	3.5%
Condos/Co-ops	$439,000	2.9%	$423	2.5%
Source: Redfin Regional Housing Market Data, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Consumer Price Index for All Consumers: All Items Less Shelter in New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA, as compiled by EY

For the past seven years, monthly rents in Nassau County have increased at a faster rate than median home sales prices.287 Currently, more than 45 percent of existing renters in Nassau County spend 30 percent or more of their household income on gross rent, which is higher than the 40 percent of renter households seen nationally.288 Rental hardships are disproportionate for communities of color in Nassau County, with 56 percent of Hispanic workers, 55 percent of Black workers, and 37 percent of Asian workers facing moderate to severe rental burdens compared with 34 percent of White, non-Hispanic workers.

As shown in Table 85, below, from 2019 to 2021, the number of rent-stabilized apartments in Nassau County has declined from 7,441 units in 2019 to 6,625 in 2021. Nassau County’s decline in rent-stabilized housing has been faster than neighboring New York City and the rest of the state. Within the Town of Hempstead, Hempstead’s Housing Authority operates more than 1,300 rent-stabilized apartments.

‌Table 85 Number of Rent Stabilized Housing Accommodations by Location, 2019-2021

Place	2019	2020	2021	2019-2021 CAGR
New York State	964,251	935,328	889,507	-4.0%
New York City	925,552	898,418	856,101	-3.8%
Nassau County	7,441	7,650	6,625	-5.6%
Source: New York State. 2022 Annual Report Office of Rent Administration, Rent Regulated Apartment Supporting Data, Retrieved by EY from: https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/12/rent-annual-report-

2022_final.pdf

‌Potential Impacts

From a socioeconomic standpoint, development of the proposed Integrated Resort would result in myriad and substantial benefits, both during construction and in the long-term operation of the proposed Integrated Resort.

As further explained below, significant construction-phase benefits include the creation of over 7,000 on-site construction jobs over the period of construction, with total labor income of $1.68 billion and a total economic output of over $5 billion including direct and secondary (i.e., indirect and induced) economic effects.289

Economic impacts of operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would also be significant and include, among other things, recurring taxes and other revenues that would be generated for the various taxing districts. These include, at Full Build, total projected gaming tax contribution of

$563 million (including $54 million to the Town of Hempstead and $52 million to Nassau County), hotel sales taxes of $21 million, annual rental payments to Nassau County of $10 million (increasing to $12 million), and a projected PILOT of $4 million per year (increasing to $5 million

‌287 Market real rental prices, adjusted for inflation, have increased in Nassau County faster than housing sales prices in the past seven years by a compound annual average growth rate of 5.5 percent. Zillow Observed Rent Index (ZORI). Available at: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/. Accessed September 2024.

‌288 US Census Bureau American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2017-2021.

‌289 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the license is granted, the design is finalized, and bids are received. Thus, the projected socioeconomic impacts presented in this DEIS are conservative.

per year).290 These economic benefits are in addition to various others, such as nearly $50 million in annual sales and use taxes, annual Community Benefits Program payments of $4 million, and the rippling economic effects of the substantial economic activity that the Integrated Resort represents, estimated to generate over $4 billion in total economic output, annually, at Full Build.

Economic and Fiscal Benefits

The incremental economic impacts of the Integrated Resort’s construction and its annual operations were projected by EY using detailed economic models that incorporate industry- specific employee compensation for New York State, Nassau County, and Suffolk County. Total economic impacts occurring in Nassau County were apportioned to the Town of Hempstead based on the town’s share of total Nassau County employment by place of work. The economic model’s database, constructed by IMPLAN LLC,291 is widely used throughout the United States for economic impact analyses by state and local economic development agencies, private-sector companies, and trade associations. The direct, indirect and induced economic impact results presented in this section of the DEIS were estimated using standard economic contribution estimation techniques and a widely used economic model, the IMPLAN model.

As indicated by IMPLAN, the economic contributions are measured in four metrics: employment, labor income, gross value added, and gross economic output. These metrics, specific to New York State, are defined as follows:

› Employment: Full-time and part-time jobs across New York State.

› Labor income: Salaries, wages, bonus, benefits, and employer-paid payroll taxes

› Value added: Labor income plus indirect business taxes, consumption of fixed capital (depreciation), and mixed income.

› Economic output: Sum of value-added and intermediate input (supplier) purchases. This is usually equivalent to an industry’s revenue and is considered the broadest measure of economic activity.

For each economic impact metric, three economic effects are calculated: direct, indirect, and induced. These effects, specific to the proposed project, are defined as follows:

› Direct economic contributions are expressed in employment, labor income, value-added, output, and state and local taxes resulting from the Integrated Resort’s employees. Direct effects include Integrated Resort employees and wages paid to them.

› Indirect economic contributions are estimated in terms of employment, labor income, value added, and output resulting from intermediate purchases from local suppliers, including real estate, utility service, and insurance companies. The indirect effects also include a second- round contribution from the local suppliers who support the businesses contributing to the Integrated Resort.

‌290 The actual PILOT payment would be finalized upon further consultation with NCIDA. For the purpose of this analysis, the PILOT is assumed to be $4 million.

‌291 IMPLAN LLC economic data/models. Available at: https://implan.com/. Accessed September 2024.

› Induced economic contributions consist of employment, labor income, value added, and output resulting from spending by the Integrated Resort workforce, employees of other businesses supporting the Integrated Resort, and their suppliers’ employees.

Construction and incremental operations impacts (each discussed in the corresponding subsections below) were quantified and analyzed by EY, and the impact of the Integrated Resort was compared to the current economic benefits of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum292 on the New York and Nassau County economy by estimating the total impact for New York State and then disaggregating the information for the County and Town.

Construction Period

Construction of Phase 1 of the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to result in a cumulative total of $232 million in direct labor income and total labor income of $438 million. Total economic output from Phase 1 construction is projected at over $1.41 billion. For the Full Build (i.e., from the start of Phase 1 construction in 2026 through the completion of the Full Build in 2030), direct labor income is estimated at $882 million, with a total economic output of $5.30 billion. The total development cost (including labor, materials, equipment and soft costs) is estimated at over $5 billion,293 representing a significant investment by Sands that would have extensive economic effects throughout the local and regional economies as further discussed below.

Sales and use taxes would be levied by New York State, Nassau County, the Town of Hempstead, and the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District (MCTD) during the construction phase. Sales and use taxes in New York are applied to tangible property, utilities, selected services, admissions charges and dues, and food and beverages sold by restaurants and drinking establishments. Purchases for resale, sales of food for home consumption, medicine, and most services are exempt from sales and use tax.

Revenues from direct State, County, Town and MCTD sales taxes, to be paid by Sands for its purchases from its suppliers, were estimated by EY by multiplying the total spending for materials and equipment by local purchase percentages for New York State and Nassau County.

In total, direct sales and use taxes due to the Integrated Resort would equal $14 million during Phase 1 and $41.7 million during the Full Build. When also considering the Integrated Resort’s indirect and induced employment contribution, total sales taxes are estimated to total $16.6 million during Phase 1 and $49.2 million at Full Build.

‌292 As no changes to the Marriott Hotel are proposed with the exception of parking reconfiguration, there would be no direct changes in economic impacts at the Marriott Hotel. However, like various other businesses, the Marriott Hotel is expected to benefit from increased tourism associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, as discussed in Section 7, Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action.

‌293 These estimates reflect the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the design is finalized and bids are received. Thus, the projected socioeconomic impacts presented in this DEIS are conservative.

‌Table 86 Cumulative Sales Tax Contributions During Construction by Region, Impact and Phase ($ millions)

Phase 1								Full Build
	New York State	Nassau County	Town of Hempstead	MCTD	Total	New York State	Nassau County	Town of Hempstead	MCTD	Total
Direct	$12.1	$0.8	$0.00	$1.1	$14.0	$36	$2	$0.00	$3	$41.7
Indirect	$1.2	$0.1	$0.00	$0.1	$1.4	$3.4	$0.3	$0.00	$0.3	$4.0
Induced	$0.9	$0.2	$0.01	$0.1	$1.2	$2.6	$0.6	$0.03	$0.2	$3.5
Total	$14.2	$1.2	$0.01	$1.3	$16.6	$42	$3	$0.03	$4	$49.2
Source: Sands, as compiled by EY Note: All tax revenue impacts presented in this table are annual figures. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Based on information provided to EY by Sands, it is estimated that over the construction period (including Phase 1 and Phase 2), the project would generate over 7,000 on-site construction jobs. In both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the construction period, approximately 85 percent of the jobs would be sourced from within New York State.

According to Sands, the following are the construction job categories, with their ranges of annual compensation:

‌Table 87 Construction Worker Job Category and Compensation Range (in $)

Job Category	Compensation Range (in dollars)
Operating Engineers	$74,880	to $87,360
Formwork Carpenters (Timberman)	101,192	to 118,040
Laborers / Cement Masons	81,058	to 94,578
Iron Workers	107,078	to 124,925
Surveyor	88,275	to 102,981
Lathers	106,621	to 124,384
Masons	122,408	to 142,813
Glaziers	122,886	to 143,354
Heat & Frost Insulation	131,997	to 154,003
Roofers	104,374	to 121,763
Plasterer	86,112	to 100,464
Painters	96,782	to 112,923
Millworkers	104,374	to 121,763
Tile Setters	117,894	to 137,550
Drywall Carpenters	104,374	to 121,763
Floor Coverers	103,064	to 120,224
Ornamental Ironworkers	87,797	to 102,440
Stone setters	117,603	to 137,197
Spray Fire-proofers	95,472	to 111,384
Elevator Constructors	145,059	to 169,229

Job Category	Compensation Range (in dollars)
Plumbers	107,141	to 124,987
Pipe Fitters	87,963	to 102,627
Boiler Makers	126,131	to 147,160
Sprinkler Fitters	129,376	to 150,946
Sheetmetal Workers	112,216	to 130,915
Steam fitters	129,376	to 150,946
Electricians	111,384	to 129,958
Teamster	66,955	to 78,125

Source: Gardiner & Theobald

This compensation would make up the direct labor costs of $232 million for Phase 1 of construction and $882 million over the course of the Full Build.

Sands has committed to a number of programs regarding the development of the local employment base for both construction and operation. With respect to construction, Sands has pledged to work with Minority Millennials regarding a pre-apprenticeship fair, where local unions and training centers can recruit new members for potential construction-related opportunities.

Additionally, Sands is partnering with Empower, Assist, Care (EAC) Network to support local community recruitment plans and identifying key stakeholders to provide awareness of job opportunities at the Integrated Resort.

With respect to construction, a project labor agreement (PLA)294 would be implemented, and negotiations are underway with the building trades. Sands is committed to executing a PLA for the construction of the Integrated Resort.

From a socioeconomic standpoint, the construction of the proposed Integrated Resort would have significant positive economic impacts, including the creation of thousands of construction jobs, within the Town, County, region and beyond.

Operational Period

The post-development overall economic benefits, including net benefits associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, are projected to be significant. Table 88, below, shows the total and net impact of the proposed Integrated Resort for both Phase 1 and Full Build, for all taxing jurisdictions, including New York State. The figures below account for only new construction and do not include existing conditions of the Marriott Hotel, as no changes to the operations are proposed. Details regarding these benefits and benefit types are included later in this section.

‌294 PLAs are pre-hire collective bargaining agreements negotiated between construction unions and construction contractors that establish the terms and conditions of employment for construction projects. Available at: https://www.dol.gov/general/good- jobs/project-labor-agreement-resource-guide, Accessed May 2, 2024

‌Table 88 Summary of Tax Benefits of Integrated Resort Operation (Total and Net), All Jurisdictions

Benefit Type	Coliseum Total		Total Integrated Resort Impact		Net Impact
Benefit Type	2028 dollars	2031 dollars	Phase 1	Full Build	Phase 1	Full Build
Property Tax/PILOT	--	--	$4 million	$4 million****	$4 million	$4 million
Annual Rental Payment	$5 million	$5 million	$10 million	$11 million	$5 million	$6 million
Public Safety Contribution	--	--	$2 million	$2 million	$2 million	$2 million
Annual Community Benefits Program Payment (CBP)	--	--	$4 million	$4 million	$4 million	$4 million
Additional CBP ($25 million)	--	--	$12 million*	$0	$12 million	$0
UI and RSF Payroll Tax	--	--	$3 million	$11 million	$3 million	$11 million
Individual Income Tax	--	--	$25 million	$69 million	$24 million	$69 million
Corporate Income Tax**	--	--	$20 million	$62 million	$21 million	$62 million
MCTMT Tax	--	--	$1 million	$3 million	$1 million	$3 million
Gaming Tax	--	--	$274 million	$563 million	$274 million	$563 million
Hotel Sales Tax	--	--	$0	$21 million	$0	$21 million
Sales and Use Taxes (minus Hotel)	--	--	$14 million	$42 million	$15 million	$42 million
Entertainment Tax	--	--	$0	$0.6 million	$-0.1 million	$0.6 million
Total Taxes and Commitments	$5 million	$5 million	$369 million	$792 million	$364 million	$786 million
Racing Support Payment***	--	--	$113 million	$97 million	--	--

Source: Sands, as compiled by EY. Notes: May not sum due to rounding.

The Phase 1 represents the 2028 annual impacts, which occur after the construction of all Phase 1 components are complete in December 2027. The Full Build represents the 2031 annual impact, which occurs after all Phase 2 components are completed in December 2030. Coliseum operational lease annual rent for the first three years (2024, 2025, and 2026) is $1 per year, and it then increases to $5 million for 2027 and escalates by two percent per year thereafter.

*Reflects the balance of the $25 million CBP, following an initial payment that would be made prior to the opening of the Integrated Resort at the end of Phase 1.

**This includes annual New York State Corporate income tax and MTA surcharge. During both phases, over 75% of the total New York State corporate income tax and MTA surcharge contributions would go to New York State. The remainder would go the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District.

***New York’s racing tracks receive support payments from casinos. Based on the guidance from Gaming Facility Location Board, it is anticipated that racing support payments would be divided between all downstate licensees proportionate to the gross gaming revenue (GGR) of the licensees. The estimated share of total downstate GGR, the support payments are forecast to total $113 million in Phase 1 and $97 million in the Full Build. Because these racing payments are not new, they are not included in the incremental revenue impact from the Integrated Resort.

****Reflects the PILOT payment at the time the Full Build is operational. Does not include escalation.

As the above data demonstrates, operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would result in substantial economic and fiscal benefits, positively impacting a range of local, County and State agencies or entities (including local schools). Most notably, the $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues generated by the operation of the Integrated Resort would be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead;

$52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively. Altogether, a total of $369 million in taxes and commitments (net $364 million) would result from implementation of Phase 1, increasing to $792 million (net $786 million) at Full Build. The various totals presented in Table 88, above, are similarly broken down and discussed in detail in the following subsections.

Employment, Income and Economic Impacts

As with construction, EY utilized IMPLAN modeling software and operations data provided by Sands to determine the economic impact of the Integrated Resort on local, county, regional and state economies and jobs.

To operate the Integrated Resort, Sands would employ over 2,900 workers during Phase 1 and over 7,800 workers (approximately 5,000 FTE) during the Full Build with the largest number of employees expected to work at the casino (48 percent), followed by food and beverage employees (17.63 percent), and general/administrative employees (12.3 percent). From Phase 1 through the Full Build, employment at the Integrated Resort is planned to be escalated as operations expand and additional program elements come online. These estimates include employees that would be hired by third-party tenants/vendors operating on the premises.

From Phase 1 to Full Build, non-labor costs as a share of total operating costs remains at approximately 35 percent, while total number of operational jobs more than doubles due to the opening of a new hotel towers, increased casino capacity, and the opening of various amenities such as the live performance venue and meeting and conference space. Table 89, below summarizes annual labor and non-labor operating costs and total workers by phase.

‌Table 89 Annual Revenue, Operational Jobs and Operating Costs by Phase ($ millions)

Phase	Total Revenue	Total Operational Jobs	Labor Cost	Non-Labor Cost 295	Total Cost
Phase 1	$1,285	2,945	$304	$172	$467
Full Build	$2,974	7,895	$880	$473	$1,352
Source: Sands, as compiled by EY

As the above table indicates, the number of operational jobs during Phase 1 and at Full Build are substantial (i.e., 2,945 and 7,895), respectively), resulting in substantial payroll costs of $304 million and $880 million. Table 90, below, characterizes the various job categories with compensation and benefit ranges that would make up this payroll, as provided by Sands. These job categories do not include those associated with third-party tenants (e.g., restaurants and bars), not operated by Sands.

‌Table 90 Job Categories with Associated Salaries and Benefits (in $)

Compensation Range ($)			Benefits Range ($)		Total Range ($)
Casino
Director	$187,153 -	$305,922	$24,061-	$28,087	$211,213 -	$334,110
Manager/Supervisor	101,653 -	224,123	21,095 -	58,662	122,748 -	282,785
Dealers/Technician	101,749 -	146,128	41,354 -	58,662	143,102 -	204,790
Cashier/Attendant/ Representatives	72,359 -	84,430	29,892 -	34,599	102,251 -	119,029
Hotel
Director & Above
	143,549 -	341,940	22,827 -	31,644	166,375 -	373,585
Manager	97,646 -	104,563	21,614 -	21,763	119,260 -	126,326
Housekeeper/ Hotel Staff	71,441 -	341,940	29,533 -	33,333	100,974 -	375,273
Management and Administrative
Director & Above
	177,248 -	1,004,497	23,779 -	43,220	201,027 -	1,047,717
Engineering	226,174 -	226,174	26,723 -	26,723	252,898 -	252,898
Manager	113,227 -	141,907	22,046 -	23,043	135,272 -	164,950
Analyst/Specialist	81,332 -	115,928	21,225 -	25,445	103,056 -	141.374

‌295 Includes items such as Gaming supplies (playing cards, chips, promotional items), Hotel (bedding, towels, cleaning supplies), Food and beverage (food, wine, beer, soft drinks), Entertainment (shows, artists, entertainers), Marketing, advertisements, and print media (media, events, print), Utilities (electricity, gas, water, waste, and recycling), Renovations & Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (furniture, fixtures, carpet, small renovation projects), Facilities (mechanical, plumbing, electrical, property repairs), Technology (software, hardware, audio visual), Other professional services such as accounting, laundry, and transportation, Other operating supplies (uniforms, cutlery, dinnerware, floral, paper products).

Compensation Range ($)			Benefits Range ($)		Total Range ($)
Admin/Coordinator	75,770 -	88,456	28,985 -	34,177	104,755 -	122,633
Facilities
Director & Above
	177,952 -	409,159	23,822 -	30,230	201,774 -	439,390
Engineer/Technician	130,720-	130,720	52,652 -	52,652	183,372 -	183,372
Manager	104,094 -	156,944	21,978 -	23,785	126,071 -	180,730
Analyst/Specialist	79,372 -	84,430	32,627 -	34,599	111,998 -	119.029
Admin/Coordinator	82,429 -	82,429	33,819 -	33,819	116,248 -	116,348
Security
Director & Above
	163,718 -	575,854	23,346 -	34,560	187,064 -	610,414
Manager/Supervisor	100,273 -	203,732	21,788 -	25,194	122,061 -	228,925
Engineer/Developer	160,343 -	160,343	24,165 -	24,165	184,508 -	184,508
Analyst/Specialist	98,880 -	115,253	21,874 -	22,537	120,754 -	137,790
Technician	79,018 -	84,430	32,488 -	34,599	111,506 -	119,029
Support Services	79,018 -	84,430	31,687 -	34,599	110,704 -	119,029
Admin/Coordinator	81,182 -	83,347	33,333 -	34,177	114,515 -	117,524
Food and Beverage
Director & Above
	109,085 -	384,318	24,580 -	29,494	133,665 -	413,812
Manager/Supervisor	84,430 -	125,724	21,575 -	34,599	106,055 -	160,324
Chef/Cook/Steward	83,347 -	109,542	21,917 -	34,599	105,265 -	144,141
Attendant/Steward	80,100 -	83,347	32,911 -	34,177	113,011 -	117,524
Host/Server/Bartender	76,238 -	84,430	31,404 -	34,599	107,642 -	119,029
Meeting
Director	101,796 -	171,847	21,499 -	23,563	123,294 -	195,410
Manager/Supervisor	91,743 -	108,350	20,929 -	21,961	122,672 -	130,311
Chef/Cook/Steward	84,430 -	86,595	34,599 -	35,444	119,029 -	122,038
Host/Server/Bartender	76,238 -	84,430	31,404 -	34,599	107,642 -	119,029
Entertainment
General Manager	235,510 -	235,510	26,464 -	26,464	261,974 -	261,974
Manager/Supervisor	105,700 -	159,118	21,982 -	24,169	127,682 -	183,286
Admin/Technician	82,265 -	84,430	33,755 -	34,599	116,020 -	119,029
Support Venue Cleaner/Usher	79,018 -	80,100	32,488 -	32,911	111,506 -	113,011
Retail

Compensation Range ($)			Benefits Range ($)		Total Range ($)
Manager/Supervisor	101,796 -	101,796	22,015 -	22,015	123,810 -	123,810
Accountant/Accounts Officer	80,695 -	80,695	21,181 -	21,181	101,877 -	101,877
Clerk	79,018 -	79,018	32,488 -	32,488	111,506 -	111,506
Spa/Fitness Center
Manager	104,563 -	104,563	21,744 -	21,744	126,307 -	126,307
Instructor/Assistant	79,018 -	79,018	32,488 -	32,488	111,506 -	111506

Source: Sands. Projected compensation, subject to change with market conditions.

Based on data on target professions and commuting habits throughout the region, EY estimates that nearly all of the workforce for the Integrated Resort would come from within New York State (aside from a limited number of out-of-state commuters and approximately 246 employees expected to relocate to Nassau County from out of the area, as explained below), with approximately 75 percent of employees expected to be from Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

Sands would give priority to hiring individuals from the local area, including recent high school graduates and the unemployed workforce, through partnerships with local colleges and nonprofits for recruitment, hiring and training. Subsequently, additional hires would be drawn from neighboring communities if the local workforce cannot meet the demand. EY’s estimates prioritize those who are unemployed and living in the Town of Hempstead and other nearby communities. The analysis assumes that currently unemployed individuals and new graduates who take jobs at the Integrated Resort would commute at rates similar to those of workers in target occupations currently commuting to Nassau County. Among commuters, 50 percent of commuters in Uniondale and 44 percent of commuters in the Town of Hempstead commute to Nassau County. Approximately 16 percent of commuters across Suffolk County and 10-to-20 percent of New York City commuters commute to Nassau County for work. Up to 10 percent of commuters from other counties in New York State (e.g., Westchester, Rockland Counties) also commute to Nassau County. Two percent of workers in target occupations currently commute to Nassau County from locations outside of New York State. EY estimates that the remainder of jobs not filled by these commuters would be filled by approximately 246 employees that would relocate to Nassau County to fill jobs at the Integrated Resort (explained below). Potential impacts associated with this are discussed in the section entitled Impact to Housing, below.

Operational jobs are expected to be filled from the existing area’s currently unemployed workers and new high school graduates entering the workforce. Across these categories, there are job titles that correspond directly with the occupations that Sands is looking to fill, as well as related job titles for those with similar skills and experience levels needed to complete the job.

For unemployed workers in related job titles, EY’s estimates assume there is a 30 percent

likelihood of individuals changing job titles or careers during their search for new employment.296

‌296 Murray, J, Indeed. Survey: 27% of Unemployed Respondents Seek Career Change During Pandemic (February 27, 2023). Available at: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/unemployed-seeking-career-change-during- pandemic#:~:text=In%20a%20recent%20Indeed%20survey%C2%B9,were%20looking%20to%20switch%20fields. Accessed May

Across the region and commuting zone, including New York City, there are about 175,000 workers meeting these criteria and thus have the necessary experience and/or skillset to fill available roles. Of this pool of 175,000 available workers, approximately 84 percent are currently unemployed and 16 percent are new high school or college graduates who would be available for entry-level employment.

The total potential worker supply is then adjusted based on current commuting flows, under the assumption that the typical percentage of individuals employed, unemployed, or graduates likely to be employed in these occupation titles follow similar percentage shares of those typically working in Nassau County and commuting from within or outside the County. After adjusting the supply by current commuting flows, the available workforce is reduced to 39,810 people. To estimate this pool of workers, the analysis by EY assumes that no one is shifting jobs from their current workplaces, resulting in all jobs being considered as incremental additions to the community.

As described above, when assuming the future employees of the Integrated Resort would represent a mix of employees based on standard commuting patterns to Nassau County, existing residents from the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, and neighboring counties are expected to fill the vast majority of available positions for operational employment. Approximately 246 employees are estimated to be potential movers from outside of Nassau and Suffolk counties, neighboring New York City boroughs, or several nearby counties in and outside of New York State.

‌Table 91 Estimated Distribution of Operations Employees, by Location and Phase

	Total	Town	County, except Town	Suffolk	NYC	Rest of NYS Commuters	Out of State Commuters	Potential Movers
Phase 1	2,945	2,742	170	14	19	0	0	0
Full Build	7,895*	4,695	947	324	1,639	29	14	246
Source: As compiled by EY, *Represents approximately 5,000 FTE

It is anticipated that there would be a large and beneficial incremental impact on job creation and unemployment rates. Approximately one third of job titles required by the Integrated Resort can be supplied from the regional unemployed workforce. According to 2022 JobsEQ and US BLS labor market data, there are approximately 4,494 unemployed workers in Nassau County with the specific skills and necessary experience for the project. About 3,730 of these are within the Town of Hempstead. Based on 2022 figures, unemployment could decline by 4,494 workers in Nassau County from direct operational jobs created for the project. In this scenario, the Nassau County unemployment rate could decline from 2.8 percent to 2.2 percent. Unemployment within the Town of Hempstead could decline by 3,730 workers, decreasing the rate from 3.0 percent to 2.1 percent.

2024. U.S. Department of Labor National Bureau of Labor Statistics. Number of Jobs, Labor Market Experience, Marital Status, and Health for Those Born 1957-1964 (August 22, 2023). Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf. Accessed May 2024. 2024. BLS data implies a likelihood of 33% job switching at any given time, calculated as 12.7 job switches over 38 years (ages 18 to 56).

‌Table 92 Estimated Impact on Unemployment Rates in Nassau County and Town of Hempstead

Nassau County Civilian

labor

Civilian Unempl. labor

Town of Hempstead

Unempl.

force Empl. Unempl.

Rate

force Empl. Unempl.

Rate

2022 employment	725,734	705,413	20,321	2.8%	413,005	400,615	12,390	3.0%
Potential employment after Full Build Phase	725,980	710,152	15,827	2.2%	413,209	404,548	8,660	2.1%
Incremental impact on employment	+246	+4,739	-4,494	-0.6pp	+204	+3,933	-3,730	-0.9pp

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics, JobsEQ, as compiled by EY Note: Totals do not sum due to rounding.

Sands is committed to engaging with partners in Nassau County and investing in opportunities for local residents to advance their careers through educational training paired with hands-on experience at the Integrated Resort. More specifically, Sands is partnering with the NCC to create a workforce development training hub. Pursuant to their agreement, the college, located across Charles Lindbergh Boulevard from the subject property, would become the primary employee training center for the proposed Integrated Resort. The collaboration would feature programs in hotel and casino management, security and surveillance, meetings and banquets, entertainment, and food and beverages, as well as include an internship and experiential learning component for NCC students.297

Sands is also partnering with NCC and LIU to create a new comprehensive hospitality program that would enable NCC graduates to advance their two-year associates degree to a four-year bachelor’s degree at LIU’s campus.298 Sands is further partnering with Minority Millennials, a Long Island-based not-for-profit organization, to build a diverse local talent pipeline for pre- apprenticeships and procurement opportunities associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. The partnership involves a campaign leaning heavily on social media in addition to in-person events such as hosting a Procurement Academy for Minority- and Women-Owned Businesses

(MWBEs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses (SDVOBs), a resume writing workshop, and a pre-apprenticeship fair where local unions and training centers can recruit new members for potential construction-related opportunities.299 Sands is also working with EAC Network to

‌297 Sands New York. Nassau Community College to Serve as Training Hub for Potential Sands Resort at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (January 30, 2023). Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/nassau-community-college-to-serve-as-training-hub-for- potential-sands-resort-at-nassau-veterans-memorial-coliseum/. Accessed May 2024.

‌298 Sands New York. Long Island University to Partner with Nassau Community College and Las Vegas Sands to Develop World Class Hospitality Program for Long Island College Students (March 10, 2023). Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/long-island- university-to-partner-with-nassau-community-college-and-las-vegas-sands-to-develop-world-class-hospitality-program-for- long-island-college-students/. Accessed May 2024.

‌299 Sands New York. Las Vegas Sands Partners with Minority Millennials to Build Diverse, Local Talent Pipeline in Preparation for Career and Procurement Opportunities (February 7, 2023). Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/las-vegas-sands-partners-with-minority- millennials-to-build-diverse-local-talent-pipeline-in-preparation-for-career-and-procurement-opportunities/. Accessed May 2024.

support local community recruitment plans and identifying key stakeholders to provide awareness of job opportunities at the Integrated Resort.

As described above, the Integrated Resort would provide job opportunities for those relatively higher unemployed populations. The Integrated Resort has plans to work with local community colleges and nonprofits to ensure there is adequate recruitment, training, and support to directly hire a diverse population from communities in the Town of Hempstead.

Based on the IMPLAN analysis, the annual gross impact from the operations of the Integrated Resort are 4,816 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced), $464 million in total labor income, and

$1.7 billion in economic output for Phase 1. By Phase 2, the Integrated Resort would annually support 12,908 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced), $1.3 billion in total labor income, and

$4.1 billion in economic output in New York State.

As noted in Section 3.9.1, above, the Coliseum currently employs 478 workers, with a labor income of approximately $14 million and supporting a total economic output of $29 million (including indirect and induced effects). After subtracting the impacts of existing Coliseum operations, it is expected that the incremental annual operations of the Integrated Resort would support 4,272 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced), $450 million in total labor income, and

$1.7 billion in annual economic output in Phase 1. By Full Build, the Integrated Resort would annually support 12,365 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced), $1.3 billion in total labor income, and $4.0 billion in total economic output. Table 93 shows the gross, current, and incremental annual economic impacts of the Integrated Resort and the Coliseum.

‌Table 93 Gross, Current, and Incremental Annual Economic Impacts from Operations ($ millions)

Phase 1						Full Build
Impact	Annual jobs	Labor income	Value added	Output	Annual jobs	Labor income	Value added	Output
Gross impact from the Integrated Resort
Direct	2,945	$322	$1,142	$1,333	7,895	$911	$2,556	$3,055
Indirect	764	$65	$105	$182	1,962	$159	$261	$448
Induced	1,107	$76	$135	$214	3,087	$208	$368	$585
Total	4,816	$464	$1,382	$1,728	12,908	$1,278	$3,185	$4,088
Current impact (Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum)
Direct	478	$9	$11	$15	478	$9	$11	$15
Indirect	30	$2	$4	$6	30	$2	$4	$6
Induced	36	$2	$4	$7	36	$2	$4	$7
Total	543	$14	$19	$29	543	$14	$19	$29
Incremental impact from the Integrated Resort
Direct	2,467	$313	$1,131	$1,317	7,417	$902	$2,545	$3,039
Indirect	734	$62.9	$101	$175	1,897	$157	$257	$442
Induced	1,071	$74	$130	$207	3,051	$205	$364	$578
Total	4,272	$450	$1,363	$1,700	12,365	$1,264	$3,166	$4,059
Note: Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Source: Sands, IMPLAN LLC, as compiled by EY

The incremental annual impacts are broken down by direct, indirect, and induced contributions in Table 94. Based on EY’s calculations, every direct job would support 0.7 additional jobs in all of New York State. Each dollar in labor income paid to direct employees supports $0.40 in labor income paid to other workers throughout New York State.

‌Table 94 Total Annual Incremental Economic Impacts from Operations, New York State ($ millions)

Phase 1 Full Build

Total impact Direct Total Multiplier Direct Total Multiplier

Jobs	2,467	4,272	1.7	7,417	12,365	1.7
Labor income	$313	$450	1.4	$902	$1,264	1.4
Value added	$1,131	$1,363	1.2	$2,545	$3,166	1.2
Output	$1,317	$1,700	1.3	$3,039	$4,059	1.3

Source: IMPLAN LLC, Sands data, as compiled by EY

Note: Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. A small number of direct jobs at the Integrated Resort would be held by non-New York State residents. The impact from non-residents is included in the direct impacts but has been excluded from the total impacts representing a leakage from the New York economy. Data is as compiled by EY. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The annual economic impacts supported by the operations of the Integrated Resort by geography: the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, and the rest of New York State (Balance of State) are discussed below. Table 95 shows the total incremental contributions by impact category in each region over the two phases of the proposed development.

Phase 1 Full Build
	Annual	Labor	Value	Annual	Labor	Value
Region	jobs	income	added	Output jobs	income	added	Output

‌Table 95 Total Annual Economic Impacts from Operations, by Region ($ millions)

Nassau County	4,086	$434	$1,335	$1,656	11,236	$1,181	$3,021	$2,304
Town of Hempstead	2,459	$261	$804	$997	6,762	$711	$1,818	$2,304
Balance of State	100	$10	$16	$26	813	$62	$107	$170
Total NY State	4,272	$450	$1,363	$1,700	12,365	$1,264	$3,166	$4,059

Source: Sands, IMPLAN LLC, as compiled by EY

Note: Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Impacts of Operations on the Town of Hempstead

The relevant impacts to the Town of Hempstead are presented below in Table 96, which shows that annual operations are estimated to contribute 1,485 direct jobs and $189 million of labor income in the Town of Hempstead during Phase 1. These impacts are expected to nearly triple by Full Build, with 4,464 direct jobs and $543 million of direct labor income. These benefits are separate and apart from those derived from taxes, fees and other payments that would be directly received by the Town of Hempstead, as further detailed throughout this section.

Phase 1 Full Build
	Annual	Labor	Value	Annual	Labor	Value
Impact	Jobs	income	Added	Output Jobs	income	Added	Output

‌Table 96 Annual Economic Impacts from Operations – Town of Hempstead ($ millions)

Direct	1,485	$189	$681	$793	4,464	$543	$1,532	$1,829
Indirect	412	$34	$55	$96	1,057	$85	$139	$240
Induced	563	$38	$68	$108	1,241	$83	$147	$234
Total	2,459	$261	$804	$997	6,762	$711	$1,818	$2,304

Source: Sands, IMPLAN LLC, data as compiled by EY

Note: Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Impacts of Operations on Nassau County

Approximately 60 percent of the total economic impact in Nassau County occurs within the Town of Hempstead. Annual operations of the Integrated Resort would support 2,467 direct jobs and

$313 million in labor income in Nassau County during Phase 1. By Full Build, the number of direct jobs supported annually increases to 7,417 and direct labor income supported increases to $902 million. Total output in Nassau County is estimated to exceed $1.6 billion and $3.8 billion annually, respectively.300 These benefits are separate and apart from those derived from taxes, fees and other payments that would be directly received by Nassau County, as further detailed throughout this section.

‌Table 97 Total Annual Economic Impacts from Operations – Nassau County ($ millions)

Annual

Labor

Value

Phase 1

Annual

Labor

Full Build Value

Impact

jobs

Income

added Output

Jobs

income

Added Output

Direct	2,467	$313	$1,131	$1,317	7,417	$902	$2,545	$3,039
Indirect	685	$57	$92	$159	1,757	$141	$232	$399
Induced	935	$64	$113	$180	2,062	$138	$244	$389
Total	4,086	$434	$1,335	$1,656	11,236	$1,181	$3,021	$3,827

Source: Sands, IMPLAN LLC, data as compiled by EY

Note: Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Impacts of Operations on New York State

Table 98 reflects the total economic impacts from operations of the Integrated Resort on the State of New York. Annual operations would support 4,272 statewide jobs in Phase 1 (direct, indirect and induced), and 12,365 jobs at Full Build. This corresponds to $1.7 billion and $4.1 billion in annual economic output, respectively. These benefits are separate and apart from those

‌300 Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Data; GDP and Personal Income. CAGDP1 County and MSA gross domestic product (GDP) summary, current-dollar Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (2021). Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index.html?appid=70&stepnum=40&Major_Area=4&State=36000&Area=XX&TableId=533&Statistic

=3&Year=2021&YearBegin=-1&Year_End=-1&Unit_Of_Measure=Levels&Rank=0&Drill=1&nRange=5&AppId=70. Accessed May 2024.

derived from taxes, fees and other payments that would be directly received by New York State, as further detailed throughout this section.

‌Table 98 Total Annual Economic Impact from Operations – New York State ($ millions)

Phase 1						Full Build
Impact	Annual jobs	Labor Income	Value added	Output	Annual Jobs	Labor income	Value Added	Output
Direct	2,467	$313	$1,131	$1,317	7,417	$902	$2,545	$3,039
Indirect	734	$63	$101	$175	1,897	$157	$364	$578
Induced	1,071	$74	$130	$207	3,051	$205	$364	$578
Total	4,272	$450	$1,363	$1,700	12,365	$1,264	$3,166	$4,059

Source: Sands, IMPLAN LLC, data as compiled by EY

Note: Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The indirect and induced impacts of annual operations outside of Long Island are expressed in Table 99. Operations of the Integrated Resort would support 100 annual jobs outside of these counties in Phase 1 and 813 jobs by Full Build. The indirect and induced effects from annual operations would result in a total economic output of $26 million and $170 million, respectively.

‌Table 99 Total Annual Economic Impacts from Operations – Balance of State ($ millions)

Phase 1 Full Build

Impact

Annual jobs

Labor Income

Value

added Output

Annual Jobs

Labor income

Value

Added Output

Direct	0	$0	$0	$0	0	$0	$0	$0
Indirect	36	$5	$7	$12	106	$13	$20	$33
Induced	64	$5	$9	$14	707	$49	$87	$137
Total	100	$10	$16	$26	813	$62	$107	$170

Source: Sands, IMPLAN LLC, data as compiled by EY

Note: The balance of the state includes all regions in New York State not located in Nassau or Suffolk counties.

Dollar figures are in nominal amounts. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Comparison of Potential Costs to Potential Revenue for Schools, Local Government and Other Services

Total Impact on Local Government

The total impact on local government revenue due to the operations of Integrated Resort comes from two primary sources. First, it comes from direct payments that Sands has committed to different jurisdictions, for example, lease payments, one-time commitments, public safety contributions, and gaming tax guarantees. Second, the impacts come from direct, indirect, and induced tax impacts due to activities associated with operating the proposed Integrated Resort (e.g., sales and use taxes, hotel room taxes, entertainment tax, payroll taxes, etc.). As discussed throughout this DEIS, Sands has made various commitments that would impact local government revenue.

› Initial Lease payment: Sands made a one-time payment of $54 million to Nassau County in June 2023.

› Annual Rent payment: Sands would make annual rental payments to Nassau County of $10 million subject to a two percent annual escalation.

› Police services: Pursuant to the lease agreement, Nassau County would provide police services for crowd control and general safety. Sands would make contributions to Nassau County for the provision of exterior policing and security. Initial payments would total

$900,000 per year until the opening of the casino, subject to a 2 percent annual escalation. After opening, the payments would increase to $1.8 million subject to a 2% annual escalation. Sands would also construct the shell of an approximately 1,500 square foot police substation on the site and would reimburse the county up to $500,000 for the cost of the interior fit-out, which is not included in the analysis below.

› Community Benefits Program (CBP): Sands would implement a community benefits program designed to ensure that Sands helps to address the needs of the surrounding area. After the opening of the Integrated Resort, the annual payment associated with the CBP would total $4 million. In addition, Sands would make a one-time $25 million payment. All payments would be distributed to affected communities in the following proportions: Uniondale (40 percent), East Meadow (40 percent), and the Village of Hempstead (20 percent). It is noted that per the terms of the proposed lease with Nassau County, an advisory committee would be established for the CBP, comprising an equal number of representatives appointed by Sands and the County Executive and one representative appointed by each of the following: (i) the Majority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature;

(ii) the Minority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (iii) the Town of Hempstead Supervisor; and (iv) the Hempstead Town Board. The Advisory Committee would review and advise regarding the elements of the CBP. The Advisory Committee’s recommendations for the CBP would be focused on how best to allocate the community benefit funding. The CBP shall be the basis for a CBA between the County and Sands that shall include a provision for an independent compliance monitor.

› Property Tax: Sands anticipates making PILOT payments, annually, after the opening of Phase 1, to be distributed amongst the relevant taxing jurisdictions. The actual PILOT payment would be finalized upon further consultation with NCIDA. For the purpose of this analysis, the PILOT is assumed to be $4 million to escalate over the life of the PILOT agreement to over $5 million.

› Gaming tax guarantee: Sands has committed to $25 million guaranteed annual tax payments to Nassau County and $10 million to the Town of Hempstead for the initial operating period (Phase 1). The payments would increase to $50 million to the County and

$20 million to the Town after the facility is fully operational (at the of completion Phase 2). For both phases, a two percent annual escalator would apply. Sands would guarantee the difference in the event that gaming taxes actually collected fall short of the statutory calculation.

In August 2023, the New York State Comptroller published a report301 examining the revenue impact of upstate casinos on upstate local governments. The report found that the main issue experienced by local governments was the inability to budget and plan spending based off gaming tax revenues due to the perceived uncertainty of the revenue streams. Sands, through its unique gaming tax structure, aims to mitigate such uncertainties by committing to minimum gaming tax revenue guarantees for Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead, in addition to fixed contributions to public safety and community benefits, irrespective of Sands' gaming revenue generation. These minimum guarantees, described above, reduce unpredictability in tax revenue generation for the local governments, helping in multi-year financial planning for these jurisdictions. Table 100 provides a projection of the specific payments/contributions to local governments over a ten-year period. It is noted that the casino license fee (to be paid by Sands to New York State), which is not included in this table, totals $500 million.

‌Table 100 Sands Revenue Commitments to Local Governments (Nominal $ millions)

Revenue stream	Prior to Year 1	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8	Year 9	Year 10	Year 11	Total
Lease payment	$54	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$54
Property tax – PILOT	--	$0	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$5	$5	$5	$5	$5	$45
Annual rental Payments	$37	$1	$10	$10	$11	$11	$11	$11	$12	$12	$12	$12	$150
Public safety Contribution	$4	$0	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$24
Police substation Construction	$1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$1
Annual community benefits program payment (CBP)	--	$0	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$4	$40
Additional $25M CBP	$13	$1	$12	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$25
Uniondale	$5	$1	$6	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$26
Village of Hempstead	$3	$0	$3	$1	$1	$1	$1	$1	$1	$1	$1	$1	$13
East Meadow	$5	$1	$6	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$2	$26
Subtotal (excluding gaming tax commitments)	$108	$3	$32	$21	$21	$21	$22	$22	$22	$23	$23	$23	$339
Gaming Tax – Town of Hempstead	--	$1	$10	$18	$20	$21	$21	$22	$22	$22	$23	$23	$179
Gaming Tax -	--	$2	$25	$44	$51	$52	$53	$54	$55	$56	$57	$59	$449

‌301 New York State Office of the State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments. August 2023.

Revenue stream	Prior to Year 1	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8	Year 9	Year 10	Year 11	Total
Nassau County
Subtotal (gaming tax commitments)	--	$3	$36	$61	$71	$72	$74	$75	$77	$78	$80	$82	$628
Total commitments	$108	$6	$67	$82	$92	$94	$95	$97	$99	$101	$103	$105	$967
Source: Sands, as compiled by EY Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

In addition to the specific taxes and revenue generated by the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands has made other commitments/contributions, including:

› Police substation fit-out (up to $500,000)

› Construction of a veterans memorial of no less than $1 million

› Projected $8.75 million fee to the NCDPW for the 239-f review

› Construction of a new water supply well 302

› Improvements to roadway network

› Construction or expansion of PSEG Long Island substation.303

These other commitments and contributions, including monetary contributions, are over and above those incorporated into the tables within this section of the DEIS.

In addition to commitments that Sands has already made, additional recurring revenue for local jurisdictions would be collected during operations of the Integrated Resort. These revenue streams are described and are organized by tax type below.

Gaming Revenue and License Fees

Gaming revenue would be taxed by New York State and distributed among the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), local schools, the Town of Hempstead, and the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. According to New York Senate, gaming tax revenue is to be split among the MTA (40 percent), local schools (40 percent), the Town of Hempstead (10 percent), Nassau County (five percent), and the surrounding counties within the region on a per capita basis (five percent). Based on guidance provided by the New York Gaming Facility Location Board in its request for proposals, this analysis is based on the minimum statutory gaming tax rates of 25 percent for slot machines and 10 percent for table revenues.

Annual gross gaming taxes in Phase 1 are expected to total approximately $279 million, while at Full Build, the total is expected to rise to approximately $563 million. These Phase 1 and Full Build totals include $108 million and $217 million to local schools; $27 million and $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $26 million and $52 million to Nassau County; $13 million and $27 million to Suffolk County; and $106 million and $213 million to the MTA, respectively. It is

‌302 If significant additional users are identified for the new water supply well, cost sharing may be employed.

‌303 If significant additional users are identified for the substation, cost sharing may be employed.

important to note that Sands has committed to substantial guarantees associated with the projected revenues, including but not limited to the following:

› Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation.

› Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of

$10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation.

These are guaranteed minimums such that, if the gaming revenues actually generated by Sands would yield tax revenues in excess of those set forth above, the County and the Town would receive those actual higher tax revenues. These guarantees establish the minimum that the County and Town would receive.

Taxes from Hotel Room Sales

Sales and use taxes on hotel revenues would be levied by New York State, Nassau County, the MCTD, and the Town of Hempstead. As there would be no new hotels in Phase 1, the figures below represent the totals at Full Build. Direct taxes on hotel stays would be collected by Sands and then remitted to the appropriate jurisdiction. The sales tax rate imposed on hotel revenues is four percent in New York State, four percent in Nassau County, 0.25 percent in the Town of Hempstead, and 0.38 percent in the MCTD. Hotels in Nassau County also pay a three percent hotel tax in addition to the four percent county sales tax. To calculate the direct hotel tax liability to be paid to each jurisdiction, hotel room revenue was multiplied by the statutory tax rate.

Table 101 shows the annual direct hotel tax revenue with a breakdown by recipient.

‌Table 101 Annual Hotel Tax Contributions by Municipality/Entity

Municipality/Entity	Total
New York State	$7.1 million
Nassau County	$12.5 million
MCTD	$0.7 million
Town of Hempstead	$0.4 million
Total	$20.7 million
Source: Sands, EY analysis. Note: All tax revenue impacts presented in this table are annual figures. All hotel tax revenues cited in the table are direct contributions. No indirect nor induced contributions are anticipated. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Sales and Use Taxes (Excluding Hotel Room Sales)

Direct sales taxes for New York State, Nassau County, the MCTD and the Town of Hempstead would be paid by Sands for its purchases from suppliers, and would be collected from sales to visitors. These taxes would be remitted to the appropriate jurisdictions. Direct sales and use tax impacts due to supplier purchases were calculated by multiplying tax bases provided by Sands by statutory sales tax rates for each jurisdiction. Direct sales and use tax impacts were then calculated by multiplying taxable sales of the Integrated Resort provided by Sands by the applicable sales tax rates. Direct sales and use tax impacts due to third-party tenants were

calculated by multiplying taxable sales of the tenants, also provided by Sands by the statutory sales tax rates for each jurisdiction.304 The statutory sales tax rates are listed below:

› New York State: 4.00%

› Nassau County: 4.00%

› MCTD: 0.38%

› Town of Hempstead: 0.25%.

Indirect and induced sales and use taxes for New York State, Nassau County, MCTD, and the Town of Hempstead due to Integrated Resort operations were calculated by multiplying the incremental indirect and induced income effect from the Integrated Resort with the ratio of sales and use tax collections to personal income for each jurisdiction as listed below:305

› New York State: 1.02%

› Nassau County: 1.02%

› MCTD: 0.08%

› Town of Hempstead: 0.11%.

By Full Build, it is anticipated that total sales tax collections would reach $41.9 million. The largest annual contributions would be to New York State and to Nassau County. Table 102 shows the sales tax contributions due to Integrated Resort operations by jurisdiction, development phase and type of impact.

‌Table 102 Annual Sales Tax Contributions by Municipality/Entity, Impact and Phase ($ millions)

Phase 1								Full Build
Impact	New York State	Nassau County	MCTD	Town of Hempstead	Total	New York State	Nassau County	MCTD	Town of Hempstead	Total
Direct	$5.5	$5.4	$0.5	$0.3	$11.8	$16.2	$16.2	$1.5	$1.0	$34.9
Supplier purchases	$2.5	$2.5	$0.2	$0.2	$5.4	$6.4	$6.4	$0.6	$0.4	$13.8
Integrated Resort sales	$1.2	$1.2	$0.1	$0.1	$2.5	$6.3	$6.3	$0.6	$0.4	$13.5
Third-party (tenant) sales	$1.8	$1.8	$0.2	$0.1	$3.9	$3.5	$3.5	$0.3	$0.2	$7.5
Indirect	$0.6	$0.6	$0.1		$1.3	$1.6	$1.4	$0.1	$0.1	$3.3

‌304 New York State, Nassau County, the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District, and the Town of Hempstead also levy taxes on sales of hotel rooms, which are reported in the prior section (see Taxes on hotel room sales) and, therefore, are excluded from this section. The taxable sales of the Integrated Resort used to estimate taxes due to Integrated Resort visitor spending excludes hotel room sales.

‌305 The ratios of sales tax collections to personal income were calculated as total New York State, Nassau County, or Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District sales tax collections as reported by the United States Census Bureau or certified Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports from the respective jurisdiction as a share of the total personal income in that jurisdiction from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and United States Census Bureau.

Phase 1								Full Build
Impact	New York State	Nassau County	MCTD	Town of Hempstead	Total	New York State	Nassau County	MCTD	Town of Hempstead	Total
Induced	$0.8	$0.6	$0.1	$0.0	$1.5	$2.1	$1.4	$0.2	$0.1	$3.8
Total	$6.9	$6.7	$0.6	$0.4	$14.6	$19.9	$19.0	$1.8	$1.2	$41.9
Source: Sands, EY analysis. Note: All tax revenue impacts presented in this table are annual figures. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (MCTMT)

The metropolitan commuter transportation mobility tax (MCTMT), administered for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), is imposed quarterly on employers with over

$312,500 in quarterly payroll expenses doing business within MCTD.306 The MCTD covers New York City (Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and other New York State counties including Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester.

Quarterly payroll expenses of the Integrated Resort are expected to be in excess of $437,500, in which case the applicable MCTMT rate would be 0.34 percent. Direct annual MCTMT was calculated by multiplying the rate by direct annual payroll expenses.

Indirect and induced MCTMT due to Integrated Resort operations were calculated by multiplying the incremental indirect and induced income effect from the Integrated Resort with the ratio of MCTMT annual collections to total personal income in the MCTD (0.15 percent).307 Table 103 shows the MCTMT contributions due to Integrated Resort operations by development phase and type of impact. Direct MCTMT is estimated to total $2.5 million annually by Full Build. When accounting for the Integrated Resort’s indirect and induced employment contribution, MCTMT is estimated to total $3.0 million annually.

‌Table 103 Annual Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax (MCTMT) ($ millions)

Tax base

Phase 1

Projected tax

contribution Tax base

Full Build

Projected tax contribution

Direct	$313	$0.9	$902	$2.5
Indirect	$63	$0.1	$157	$0.2
Induced	$74	$0.1	$205	$0.3
Total	$450	$1.1	$1,264	$3.0

Source: Sands, EY analysis.

Note: All tax revenue impacts presented in this table are annual figures. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

‌306 Employers with quarterly payroll expenses between $312,500 and $375,000 are subject to a 0.11% MCTMT rate. Those between

$375,000 and $437,500 in quarterly payroll expenses are subject to a 0.23% MCTMT rate. Finally, Employers with over $437,500 in quarterly payroll expenses are subject to a 0.34% MCTMT rate.

‌307 The ratio of MCTMT collections to personal income was calculated as total MCTMT collections as reported by the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s certified budget as a share of the total personal income in the counties that comprise the MCTD as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Corporate Income Tax and MTA Surcharge

Corporate income tax and a Metropolitan Transportation Business Tax (MTA surcharge) would be levied by New York State and paid directly by Sands. The tax amount is based on estimated pre- tax income and applicable tax rates. The State corporate income rate is currently 7.25 percent for corporations with business income in excess of $5 million. The analysis assumes the corporate income tax rate remains fixed for the duration of the projection period. The MTA Surcharge also applies to corporations that do business in the MCTD. The MTA Surcharge rate is 30 percent of the corporate income tax rate, or 2.175 percent.

Indirect and induced New York State corporate income taxes from operations were calculated by multiplying the ratio of State corporate income tax collections to State personal income (0.33 percent) by the indirect and induced labor income contributions.308 Similarly, indirect and induced MTA surcharge collections were calculated by multiplying the ratio of MTA surcharge collections to MCTD personal income (0.11 percent) by the indirect and induced labor income contributions.309

The table below shows the New York State corporate income tax and MTA surcharge contributions due to Integrated Resort operations by jurisdiction, phase, and type of impact. Direct contributions including both New York State corporate income taxes and the MTA surcharge are estimated to total $59.9 million annually. When accounting for indirect and induced employment contribution, total collections would reach $61.7 million. New York State corporate income taxes would comprise over 75 percent of the total contributions. The remainder would go the MCTD. Total annual MTA surcharge contributions to the MCTD including direct, indirect, and induced effects would total $14.2 million.

‌Table 104 Annual New York State Corporate Income Tax and MTA Surcharge Contributions ($ millions)

New York

Phase 1

New York

Full Build

Impact

State MCTD Total

Direct	$15.3	$4.6	$20.0	$46.1	$13.8	$59.9
Indirect	$0.2	$0.07	$0.3	$0.5	$0.2	$0.7
Induced	$0.3	$0.08	$0.4	$0.9	$0.2	$1.1
Total	$15.9	$4.8	$20.6	$47.4	$14.2	$61.7

Note: All tax revenue impacts presented in this table are annual figures, as compiled by EY. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

‌308 The ratio of MTA corporate surcharge collections to personal income was calculated as total MTA corporate surcharge collections as reported by the 2023 Adopted Budget as a share of the total personal income in the MCTD as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

‌309 The ratio of New York State corporate income tax collections to personal income was calculated as total New York State corporate income tax collections as reported by the United States Census Bureau as a share of the total personal income in the state as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Nassau County Entertainment Tax

An entertainment tax would be levied by Nassau County as a $1.50 surcharge per ticket on events at facilities with a permanent seating capacity of over 2,500. For its proposed 4,500-seat performance venue, annual ticket sale estimates provided by Sands (371,250) were multiplied by the surcharge to yield a direct tax liability of $557,000. Indirect or induced entertainment tax liabilities were not included as they are expected to be negligible.

Total Local Tax Contributions (including Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects)

Local recurring tax contributions are estimated to total $288 million annually at the Phase 1 opening and $616 million annually at Full Build. These would be distributed amongst Nassau County ($84 million), Suffolk County ($27 million), the MCTD ($233 million), local schools ($217 million), and the Town of Hempstead ($55 million), at Full Build.

When combined with Sands’ other commitments, including the CBP, annual revenue contributions increase by $21 million across all jurisdictions, and the total revenue contribution to Nassau County increases to $98 million at Full Build and to $56 million to the Town at Full Build.

During Phase 1 and Full Build, an additional $3 million are committed to local schools, and an additional $1 million is committed to the Town of Hempstead. During Phase 1, Uniondale, the Village of Hempstead, and East Meadow would each receive payments as part of the CBP totaling $6 million, $3 million, and $6 million, respectively. These amounts are $2 million, $1 million, and $2 million, respectively during the Full Build.

The table below shows the gross annual tax contributions by tax type, phase, and jurisdiction, plus other Sands commitments.

‌Table 105 Total Local Tax Impact Tax Type, Phase, and Jurisdiction ($ millions)

Tax type	Nassau County	Suffolk County	MCTD	Town of Hempstead	Local Schools	Uniondale	Village of Hempstead	East Meadow	Total
Phase 1
MTA surcharge	--	--	$5	--	--	--	--	--	$5
MCTMT Tax	--	--	$1	--	--	--	--	--	$1
Gaming Tax	$25	$13	$104	$26	$106	--	--	--	$274
Hotel Sales Tax	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Sales and Use Tax (excluding hotel)	$7	--	$1	$0	--	--	--	--	$8
Entertainment Tax	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Subtotal (Recurring Taxes)	$32	$13	$110	$26	$106	--	--	--	$288
Other Sands Commitments (Excluding Gaming Commitment)	$13	--	--	$1	$3	$6	$3	$6	$32
Total	$45	$13	$110	$27	$108	$6	$3	$6	$319
Full Build
MTA surcharge	--	--	$14	--	--	--	--	--	$14
MCTMT Tax	--	--	$3	--	--	--	--	--	$3
Gaming Tax	$52	$27	$213	$54	$217	--	--	--	$563
Hotel Sales Tax	$12	--	$1	$0	--	--	--	--	$14
Sales and Use Tax (excluding hotel)	$19	--	$2	$1	--	--	--	--	$22
Entertainment Tax	$1	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$1
Subtotal (Recurring Taxes)	$84	$27	$233	$55	$217	--	--	--	$616
Other Sands Commitments (excluding gaming commitment)	$14	--	--	$1	$3	$2	$1	$2	$21
Total	$98	$27	$233	$56	$220	$2	$1	$2	$638
Source: Sands, as compiled by EY Note: All tax revenue impacts presented in this table are total contributions and, therefore, include direct, indirect, and induced contributions. *Gaming tax and fee contributions includes the maximum of the estimated gaming revenue tax and the gaming tax guarantee plus New York State license fees. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The primary driver of recurring tax collections is the gaming tax, estimated to reach about 60 percent of annual tax collections for Nassau County, over 90 percent for the MCTD, and over 95 percent for the Town of Hempstead. Sales and use taxes, primarily driven on purchases of materials to operate the Integrated Resort would generate approximately $8 million annually during Phase 1. During the Full Build, sales and use and hotel taxes would generate $22 million

and $14 million, respectively. By the opening of Phase 1, the total revenue impact to governments is $319 million annually. By Full Build, the total impact to governments is $638 million annually.

Impact on School Districts

With respect to the impacts upon local schools, as indicated by EY’s estimates presented in Table 105, above, the proposed Integrated Resort would generate gaming tax revenues and other fees earmarked for local schools of $108 million at Phase 1, and approximately $217 million annually at Full Build.

Costs to local public school districts that would result from operation of the Integrated Resort have been estimated by projecting the number of school-aged children that would reside in the new local households generated by the relocation of future employees to Nassau County from outside of the area, and estimating the potential costs to the local school districts associated with educating those additional potential children.

As discussed in Section 3.9.2.2 and indicated in Table 91 , above, it is projected that there would be 246 new employees moving to Nassau County to fulfill operational jobs generated by the Integrated Resort. These 246 employees would form 246 new households, which, in turn would generate an estimated 37 new school-aged children, based on the Stony Brook University College of Business report310 It is expected approximately 33 students would enroll in public schools, with an additional four enrolling in private schools.

In order to determine the potential impact on the Nassau County school districts from the projected number of school-aged children due to the proposed action, the school districts where these students would attend public school must be identified, and the total school enrollment in these districts must be considered. EY identified 11 public school districts as being those most likely to receive the children generated from new households in Nassau County, based on their relative proximity to the subject property. This is a conservative estimate, as there are approximately 56 public school districts in Nassau County, and the actual distribution of the 246 new households may be more widespread. Table 106, below, shows the total student enrollment across all school districts in Nassau County in the 2021-2022 school year. Of the total public school enrollment of 200,465 in Nassau County, 47,585 students were enrolled in the 11 public school districts for which EY has predicted a potential for additional enrollment associated with newly-formed households that relocate for permanent employment at the Integrated Resort. Based on the current distribution of school enrollments across all schools in the county, under the total estimate of 33 public school-aged children, the impacts would range from one new student each in the Carle Place UFSD and North Merrick UFSD to five new students in the East Meadow UFSD. The Uniondale UFSD, in which the site is located, would see an increase of up to approximately four new students.

‌310 London, M., Deery, S., Pennetta, D, & Rosen, M. Impact of Market Rate Apartments on School District Enrollment (April, 2019). REI at Stony Brook University College of Business.

‌Table 106 Projected Increase in Student Enrollment – Full Build Phase

School District	Enrollment (2021- 22)	Project Enroll. Increase	Projected Enrollment	Percentage Increase
Total school districts in Nassau County	223,302	+37	223,339	0.02%
Private school districts in Nassau County*	22,837	+4	22,840	0.01%
Public school districts in Nassau County	200,465	+33	200,498	0.02%
Uniondale UFSD	6,388	+4	6,392	0.06%
Baldwin UFSD	4,468	+3	4,471	0.07%
Bellmore-Merrick CHSD	5,186	+4	5,190	0.08%
North Merrick UFSD	1,203	+1	1,204	0.08%
Carle Place UFSD	1,265	+1	1,266	0.08%
East Meadow UFSD	7,545	+5	7,550	0.07%
Garden City UFSD	3,956	+3	3,959	0.08%
Hempstead UFSD	6,473	+5	6,478	0.08%
Mineola UFSD	2,884	+2	2,886	0.07%
Roosevelt UFSD	3,228	+2	3,230	0.06%
Westbury UFSD	4,989	+3	4,992	0.06%
Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education verse Survey", 2017-18 v.1a, 2018-19 v.1a, 2019-20 v.1a, 2020-21 v.1a, 2021-22 v.1a., as compiled by EY *U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics data is only available through 2019-20 for private schools. Note: Analysis estimates the total impact would be distributed across the 11 public school districts shown in the table above.

The overall impact on Nassau County’s public schools is expected to be minimal, representing an increase of 0.02 percent in enrollment overall and less than one tenth of one percent in any one local district. As noted above, a total of approximately four students are likely to attend private schools, which is negligible and would not significantly impact any one school.

The potential costs to these districts associated with educating the minor incremental additional children that would result from the proposed Integrated Resort have been estimated using per- pupil expenditure data for each relevant district. While the average total per-pupil expenditure is a useful metric for certain tasks, such as overall district budgeting, it is not appropriate for evaluating the marginal cost of educating a new student. This is because the average cost includes administrative and capital expenditures that are not affected by the introduction of new students (e.g., superintendent salary, capital projects, debt service). Program (instructional) expenditures provide a more accurate assessment of the cost of educating additional students generated by new residences. Further, only a portion of the instructional cost is paid by the local real estate property tax levy, whereas the balance is funded by other sources (e.g., state aid).

Table 107, below, estimates the total spending for each district based on the corresponding expected increase in enrollment and that district’s per pupil expenditures derived from the local tax levy.

‌Table 107 Estimated Total Spending Associated with Public School Student Population Increases

Public School District	Per-Pupil Operational Expense from Local Tax Levy	Projected Enroll. Increase	Total Spending from Local Tax Levy
Uniondale UFSD	$15,631	+4	$62,522
Baldwin UFSD	$17,468	+3	$52,404
Bellmore-Merrick CHSD	$18,667	+4	$74,667
North Merrick UFSD	$15,557	+1	$15,557
Carle Place UFSD	$28,542	+1	$28,542
East Meadow UFSD	$15,470	+5	$77,348
Garden City UFSD	$20,865	+3	$62,595
Hempstead UFSD	$10,283	+5	$51,416
Mineola UFSD	$21,951	+2	$43,903
Roosevelt UFSD	$5,379	+2	$10,758
Westbury UFSD	$14,254	+3	$42,763
TOTAL:	- -	+33	$522,475
Sources: NYSED 2024-25 Property Tax Report Card, available at: https://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/propertytax/. Accessed September 2024. Three Part Budget Data obtained for 2024-25 school year, published by each respective School District.

The data presented above demonstrates that the cost to educate the relatively few children that would be generated in each school district would be relatively minor, and that the cumulative total cost of educating the 33 public school-aged children throughout the 11 listed districts (i.e.,

$522,475) reflects a small fraction of the over $200 million in revenues that would be generated to local school districts as a result of the proposed Integrated Resort.

Overall, a substantial annual economic benefit upon local schools would result from implementation of the proposed action.

Incremental (Net) Impact to Local Government

In order to derive the incremental (net) impact of the proposed Integrated Resort, the impacts from the current on-site operations of the Coliseum (as shown in Table 74) were subtracted from the gross impacts of the proposed project, which are shown in Table 108 .

‌Table 108 Total and Incremental (Net) Impact of Integrated Resort Operations on Local Government Revenue by Tax Type and Phase

Total Integrated Resort Impact			Net Impact
Benefit Type	Phase 1	Full Build	Phase 1	Full Build
Property Tax/PILOT 311	$4 million	$4 million	$4 million	$4 million
Annual Rental Payment	$10 million	$11 million	$5 million	$6 million
Public Safety Contribution	$2 million	$2 million	$2 million	$2 million
Annual Community Benefits Program Payment (CBP)	$4 million	$4 million	$4 million	$4 million
Additional CBP ($25 million)	$12 million*	$0	$12 million	$0
MCTMT Tax	$1 million	$3 million	$1 million	$3 million
MTA Surcharge	$5 million	$14 million	$5 million	$14 million
Gaming Tax	$274 million	$563 million	$274 million	$563 million
Hotel Sales Tax	$0	$14 million	$0	$14 million
Sales and Use Taxes (minus Hotel)	$8 million	$22 million	$8 million	$22 million
Entertainment Tax	$0	$0.6 million	$0	$0.6 million
Total Taxes and Commitments	$319 million	$638 million	$314 million	$632 million

Source: Sands, as compiled by EY Notes: May not sum due to rounding.

*A portion of the $25 million CBP would be made prior to the opening of the Integrated Resort at the end of Phase 1.

Based on the table above, in Phase 1, the net impact differs from the gross impact by a margin of approximately $5 million, as the existing Nassau County rent payments on the Coliseum in that amount would be foregone. Similarly, in the Full Build condition, the net impact differs from the gross impact by a margin of $6 million, which is attributable to the same loss of existing rent payments. Overall, the net benefits to virtually all of the local taxing jurisdictions and entities would be substantially positive under both the Phase 1 and Full Build condition.

Demographics

Population

No housing units are included as part of the proposed Integrated Resort, thus, there would be no direct population increase as a result of implementation of the proposed action. EY estimated that there would be approximately 246 employees moving to Nassau County to fill jobs at the Integrated Resort (see Housing subsection, below). To determine the total potential population associated with the 246 employees moving to Nassau County, a population projection was undertaken, as shown in Table 109 .

‌311 The actual PILOT payment would be finalized upon further consultation with Nassau County IDA. For the purpose of this analysis, the PILOT is assumed to be $4 million.

‌Table 109 Potential Households and Residents

Housing Type	Household Members per household	Current Share of housing with project-related workers	Total New Households	Total new Residents
Multifamily	2.17	16%	38.3	83.2
Single-Family Attached	2.49	3%	6.4	15.9
Single-Family Detached	3.14	82%	200.6	629.8
Other	3.57	0%	0.7	2.6
Total		100%	246	732

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY.

As demonstrated above, the 246 employees potentially moving to Nassau County are expected to form 246 new households, resulting in a total projected population of 732. This represents approximately 0.05 percent of the total population of Nassau County. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly alter County population.

School-Aged Children

The 246 new households described above informs the estimated number of school-aged children generated and the overall impacts on the school districts that would be potentially impacted by the construction of the Integrated Resort. A multiplier of 0.09 school-aged children per multifamily household in Nassau County, which reflects research by REI at Stony Brook University College of Business on 14 market-rate multifamily apartment complexes in Nassau and Suffolk counties.312 The US Census Bureau American Community Survey data were used to calculate the number of school-aged children for the single-family detached, single-family attached and “other” housing unit types.313

Based on the number of potential new households (246) and total projected population (732), EY has estimated that the total number of school-aged children expected to reside among these households is 37, as shown in Table 110 .

‌312 London, M., Deery, S., Pennetta, D, & Rosen, M. (2019, April). REI at Stony Brook University College of Business. From: https://www.reisb.org/.

‌313 US Census Bureau American Community Survey. 5 year estimates for 2021, as compiled by EY

‌Table 110 Estimated Distribution of New Households and Residents and School-Aged Children to Nassau County

Housing Type	School-Aged Children Factor	Total New Households	New School-Aged Children
Multifamily	0.09	38.3	3.5
Single-Family Attached	0.10	6.4	0.6
Single-Family Detached	0.16	200.6	32.5
Other	0.20	0.7	0.1
Total		246	37

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY for single-family attached, single-family detached and “other” housing types, London, M., Deery, S., Pennetta, D, & Rosen, M. (2019, April). REI at Stony Brook University College of Business. From: https://www.reisb.org/ for the multifamily housing type.

School district enrollment is discussed in Section 3.9.2.4, below and in Section 3.10, Community Facilities and Services. The Community Facilities and Services analysis explains that the projected school-aged children are expected to be distributed among approximately 11 school districts within Nassau County, and the potential overall addition of 37 total school-aged children would not have a significant adverse impact on enrollment in any of the school districts, as the number of new students would range between one and five new students per district.

Housing

Project-related employment would be predominately drawn from the existing labor supply in Nassau and Suffolk counties and New York City boroughs. As described above, based on a review of workforce in target occupations and existing commuting patterns, EY estimates that 246 future employees of Sands would relocate from out of the area (rather than commute).

Therefore, an additional 246 local households are expected to be created as a result of the proposed Integrated Resort operations.

Based on US Census Bureau American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample data (2017-2021), there are approximately 6,668 single- and multi-family homes in Nassau County that are currently vacant that could absorb the projected incremental demand. As previously described (see Section 3.9.1), more than half of Nassau County’s vacant units are situated within the Town of Hempstead. Across all residential properties in Nassau County, approximately 2,250 units are on the market for purchase each month, with new monthly sales listings averaging between 850 and 1,550 units over the past 5 years.314 These figures demonstrate that the existing housing stock turns over, and would be available for incoming households.

In addition to existing housing, based on input received from the Town of Hempstead, there are at least an additional 650 units approved and planned for or under construction in the hamlets of West Hempstead and Baldwin alone that would help increase available supply. Thus, it is expected that there would be sufficient existing housing to cover the 246 units (new households) of incremental demand predicted by EY (Table 111). The impact of new residents on housing

‌314 Redfin Regional Housing Market Data, Retrieved from: https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market

supply would, therefore, be minimal given that the 246 housing units constitute only 3.4 percent of total vacant and planned units in the county.

‌Table 111 Estimated distribution of new households to Nassau County

Description	Share of units by occupations related to Integrated Resort	Estimated new housing unit demand		Vacant units	Estimated new housing unit demand as % of vacant units	Share of rental units type out of total rental units	Estimated new rental unit demand share
Housing type
Single-family detached	81.6%	201		5,372	3.7%	26.9%	13
Single-family attached	2.6%	6		408	1.6%	4.0%	2
Multi-family units	15.6%	38		908	4.2%	69.0%	34
Total units	100%	246		6,668	3.7%	100.0%	49
Approved and planned units to be constructed	---	---	650
Total vacant and newly constructed units	---	---	7,338		3.3%

Note: The estimated 49 new rental units are calculated as 19.8% (share of occupied rental units out of total housing units) of the 246 estimated new housing unit demand. Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY.

As demonstrated in the table, there is sufficient supply of vacant units to absorb the new residents moving to Nassau County for employment at the Integrated Resort. Therefore, the proposed action would not have a significant impact on housing.

Conclusions
Based on the detailed socioeconomic analyses presented above, it is concluded that construction and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would generate significant positive economic impacts, including:
› The creation of over 7,000 construction jobs at the site of the proposed Integrated Resort.
› For Phase 1, the total amount of direct labor income in the construction period is expected to be $232± million, with a total direct output of $830± million. Cumulatively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to generate $882± million in labor income, with a total direct output of $3.03± billion for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› In addition to the direct impacts, during the five-year construction period, there would be total indirect and induced labor income, as well. Together, the total labor income would be
$438± million at Phase 1, increasing to $1.68± billion at full operations, with a total output of

$1.42± billion, rising to $5.30± billion at full operations for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› During the construction period, Nassau County is expected to receive approximately $5.0± million in sales and use tax.
› During the operational period, the proposed Integrated Resort would create over 2,900 direct jobs during Phase 1 and over 7,800 jobs (5,000 full-time equivalents) at full operations, representing $911 million in labor income and $3.06 billion in total direct economic output for all of New York State (including the County and Town), annually.
› In addition to direct impacts, in the operational period, there would be indirect and induced jobs, as well. Together with the direct impacts, a total of over 4,800 jobs in Phase 1, with close to 13,000 jobs at full operations. The total labor income generated would be $464 million in Phase 1 and over $1.2 billion at full operations. The total annual economic output would be $1.7 billion in Phase 1, increasing to over $4.0 billion at full operations for all of New York State (including the County and Town).
› A total of $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues generated by the operation of the Integrated Resort would be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively.
The economic output during both the construction and operational periods would be substantial, and the fiscal benefits generated by the construction of the Integrated Resort would continue far into the future. The anticipated annual gaming revenue (with the guaranteed minimums to Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead), combined with the substantial community benefits commitments, and PILOT payments, are expected to exceed the costs to provide public services. The impact to housing is expected to be minimal, while the school districts and local government services would see a significant surplus based on the amount of revenue projected to be generated by various sources, including, but not limited to: rent payments; fees; hotel taxes, sales taxes, entertainment taxes; income and corporate taxes; community benefit payments, as well as the considerable gaming revenues, which Sands has guaranteed.

‌Proposed Mitigation
As no significant adverse socioeconomic impacts have been identified, as described in detail above, no mitigation is necessary.

‌Community Facilities and Services

‌Existing Conditions

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services

In Nassau County, fire protection is typically provided by volunteer fire departments and companies. While there are some paid employees (e.g., dispatchers), the majority of firefighting personnel are trained volunteers. The Nassau County Fire Marshal oversees fire protection across the County, and the volunteer fire departments and companies provide firefighting services. The Nassau County Fire Marshal provides support services to the 71 volunteer fire departments and

1.5 million residents of Nassau County and conducts inspections and other activities to provide safety and aid to Nassau County.315

To protect its population, Nassau County has an efficient and well-coordinated mutual aid system that allows multiple fire companies from different areas to work together during emergencies. The benefits of this are obvious as it ensures that there are ample personnel and equipment to address emergencies within Nassau County, despite what specific fire department’s jurisdiction the emergency occurs. Without this coordinated and collaborative mutual aid system, a fire department could find itself without sufficient resources to handle a large-scale emergency or multiple emergencies at the same time. Thus, this system allows for coordinated responses to emergency situations, which benefits all of Nassau County.316

When a specific fire department receives an emergency call, the Incident Commander would go to the scene, assess the situation and determine whether additional resources (e.g., personnel, standard equipment, specialized equipment that the department where the emergency is occurring does not possess) are needed. If additional resources are required, FIRECOM (Nassau County Fire Communications) is contacted to coordinate the mutual aid response from other departments. This mutual aid system has been effective in improving emergency response and in promoting collaboration and education, as the personnel from various departments learn from each other’s experiences, which leads to improved emergency response capabilities. The efficacy of the mutual aid system has also improved over the years, and the Nassau County Fire Commission has worked to facilitate those improvements. As an example, the Fire Commission implemented a standardized communication systems for all fire departments, which has improved the effectiveness of communications among fire personnel.

The Nassau County Fire Commission is comprised of nine fire commissioners, representing each of nine fire battalions within Nassau County. The Chief Fire Marshal serves as the Executive Officer to this Commission.317

‌315 Nassau County Fire Commission Office of the Fire Marshal. Annual Report 2021. Accessed September 2023.

‌316 Bayville Fire Company. The Power of Collaboration: The Mutual Aid System for Fire Companies In Nassau County, NY (March 2, 2024). Available at: https://www.bayvillefirecompany.com/the-training-process-for-firefighters-in-nassau-county-ny. Accessed April 2024.

‌317 Nassau County New York. Fire Commission Meetings. Available at: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/404/Fire-Commission-Meetings .

Accessed April 2024.

The subject property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Uniondale Fire Department (UFD), which provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. The headquarters is located at 501 Uniondale Avenue in the hamlet of Uniondale, approximately 1.03 miles south of the subject property. The UFD is bounded by Stewart Avenue to the north, Meadowbrook State Parkway to the east, Southern State Parkway to the south and Nassau Road to the west.

The UFD consists of over 110 members and operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.318 It is composed of four companies (one of which [Sherman Van Ness] includes an Emergency Management Services [EMS] squad and Rescue team). In 2018,319 the UFD received approximately 1,900 calls – 80 percent residential calls and 20 percent commercial calls. In 2022, the number of calls responded to dropped to approximately 1,400, according to the latest information available on the website. The members of the UFD include volunteers, who also respond on the ambulances, four employed medics, an EMS supervisor and a Fire Prevention Officer. The average response time is five minutes upon receipt of an alarm.

The Sherman Van Ness Fire Station is the closest fire station to the subject property, located approximately 0.30 mile south of the subject property at 154 Uniondale Avenue. This fire station is home to Emergency Company 1, which is divided into two parts, Rescue and EMS. The Rescue department consists of members of the fire department who are trained in special areas like confined space rescue and vehicle extrication. The Rescue team responds to all firefighting alarms and assists the EMS Squad when in need of an ambulance. The EMS Squad’s main responsibility is to help community members who may be sick or injured. All members of the Emergency Company 1 are trained as EMTs. Emergency Company 1 is equipped with two ambulances and a heavy rescue truck.

In addition to Emergency Company 1, the Manor Fire Company 3 is located at the Sherman Van Ness Fire Station. Manor Fire Company 3’s primary role is fire suppression and extinguishment while responding to all firefighting alarms such as building fires, car accidents and brush fires.

Protection Ladder Company No. 4 is located on the corner of Uniondale Avenue and Lafayette Street, approximately one mile south of the subject property. Company No. 4 is a ladder company, also known as a truck company, has a tower ladder truck, an aerial truck, and a special service vehicle, which is used to transport members and carry specialty equipment. This company is also trained in rope rescue and elevator emergencies.

The UFD protects diverse residential uses as well as major commercial and institutional uses. Specifically, the UFD serves parts of the Meadowbrook State Parkway and the Southern State Parkway, the Coliseum and properties containing high-rise buildings such as the Long Island Marriott Hotel, the Omni building, RXR Plaza, Hofstra University Residence Halls, and Nassau Community College Administration Building (refer to Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources for a graphic depicting the heights of these and other surrounding buildings).

‌318 Uniondale Fire Department. Uniondale Fire Department. Available at: https://www.uniondalefd.org/. Accessed June 2024.

‌319 Data regarding the number of calls responded to in 2018 was obtained from review of the Uniondale Fire Department website in August 2019, as part of a prior development application for the subject property.

Surrounding the UFD’s jurisdictional area are the following fire departments:

› East Meadow Fire Department (EMFD): The EMFD, which is adjacent to the UFD to the east, spans over 7.5 square miles and provides fire protection to East Meadow, and parts of Levittown and Westbury. There are over volunteer 220 members and five fire stations that are available to respond 24-hours a day.320

› Westbury Fire Department (WFD): The WFD is adjacent to the UFD to the north/northeast.

There are four main squads that provide fire protection to portions of the Village of Westbury, and hamlets of New Cassel and Salisbury. The WFD maintains nine fire trucks, two ambulatory vehicles, and four response fleet vehicles.321

› Garden City Fire Department (GFD): The GFD is adjacent to the UFD to the west and serves fire protection to the Village of Garden City via volunteer membership. The GFD has three stations and ten officers across three companies.322

› Hempstead Fire Department (HFD): The HFD is located west of the UDF, and south of the GFD. The HFD operates under five engine companies, two truck companies, three hose companies, a fire police squad, a rescue squad, and over volunteer 200 members. The service area spans nearly 4 miles and provides fire protection to more than 55,000 residents in the Village of Hempstead.323

› Roosevelt Fire Department (RFD): The RFD is located directly south of the UFD and provides fire protection to the hamlet of Roosevelt. The RFD is comprised of volunteer members including firefighters, medical technicians, and fire police organized into four companies.324

The Office of the Fire Marshal was contacted on October 2, 2023 regarding service availability and other relevant information (Appendix 3.10-1). No response has been received to this request. However, as explained in the impacts discussion in Section 3.10.2.1, several meetings were held to discuss the scope and potential impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort, the site plan review process that would be conducted (which would include review by the Fire Marshal), and various measures to minimize impact on emergency services.

The Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) also provides emergency medical services to the subject property through the NCPD EAB, as discussed in Section 3.10.1.2, below. The police medics of the EAB are the primary emergency medical service providers for the majority of Nassau County, including the Coliseum, and handles most of the 911 calls for medical assistance. The UFD provides back-up to the EAB. However, if the UFD is called directly, the Uniondale EMS Squad would provide primary EMS. The UFD is a volunteer organization, and funding comes mostly through property taxes and donations. The NCPD EAB is primarily funded through property taxes.

‌320 East Meadow Fire Department. East Meadow Fire District. Available at: https://eastmeadowfd.com/district/. Accessed June 2024.

‌321 Westbury Fire Department. Westbury Fire Department. Available at: http://www.westburyfd.org/. Accessed June 2024.

‌322 Garden City Fire Department. Garden City Fire Department. Available at: https://www.gcfdny.com/. Accessed June 2024.

‌323 Hempstead Fire Department. About the Hempstead Volunteer Fire Department. Available at: https://www.hempsteadfd.org/about-us .

Accessed June 2024.

‌324 Roosevelt Fire Department. About Us. Available at: https://rooseveltfd.org/about/. Accessed June 2024.

According to correspondence from the Nassau County Police Department, dated January 26, 2024 (Appendix 3.10-1), there are two hospitals that provide primary support for the Coliseum area:

› Nassau University Medical Center (NUMC) contains 530 beds and is located 1.8± miles east of the subject property.

› NYU Langone – Long Island contains 591 beds and is located 2.8± miles northwest of the subject property.

These hospitals are two of the three Level-1 Trauma Centers in the county. Additionally, NUMC contains the County’s Burn Center. There are also numerous other hospitals in the vicinity of the subject property to which potential patients can be transported, as detailed in Table 112 below. There are over 4,100 beds provided by these hospital/medical centers within Nassau County. A number of hospitals are located in western Suffolk County, including Huntington Hospital, Good Samaritan Hospital and South Shore University Hospital, which provide an additional 1,100+ beds.

‌Table 112 Local Hospitals and Medical Centers

Facility Name	Beds1	Distance from the Subject Property (miles)
Mercy Hospital	375	2.9±
Mount Sinai-South Nassau Hospital	455	5.0±
St. Joseph’s Hospital	203	5.6±
Long Island Jewish Medical Center	1,004	6.3±
Cohen Children’s Hospital (the closest Pediatric Trauma Center)	206	6.4±
North Shore University Hospital	756	6.7±
Northwell Syosset Hospital	103	7.2±
Northwell Plainview Hospital	204	6.7±
St. Francis Hospital	364±	8.0±
Northwell Glen Cove Hospital	204	10.2±
Long Island Jewish (Valley Stream)	284	10.5±
1 New York State Department of Health. NYS Health Profiles. Available at: https://profiles.health.ny.gov/hospital/county_or_region?countyRegion=county:103&service=. Accessed June 2024.

Police Protection/Security
The NCPD, primarily funded through property taxes, comprises eight police precincts, which serve the majority of Nassau County. Some areas within the county (e.g., incorporated villages) have their own police departments. The subject property is situated within the jurisdiction of the NCPD Third Precinct, with headquarters located approximately 4.0 miles northwest of the subject property, at 214 Hillside Avenue, in the hamlet of Williston Park. The headquarters are open 24 hours a day, seven days per week.325 Correspondence was transmitted to the NCPD on October 2,

‌325 Nassau County Police Department. About Third Precinct. Available at: https://www.pdcn.org/278/About-Precinct. Accessed September 2023.

2023 requesting information, and a response was received from Commissioner Patrick Ryder on January 26, 2024 providing information regarding the Third Precinct and the NCPD EAB (Appendix 3.10-1).
The Third Precinct covers 41 square miles and serves the following communities within Nassau County, the Town of Hempstead and the Town of North Hempstead: Albertson; Bellerose Terrace; Bellerose Village; Carle Place; East Garden City; East Meadow; East Williston; Floral Park Center; Garden City Park; Herricks; Mineola; New Cassel; New Hyde Park; North New Hyde Park; Roslyn Heights; Salisbury; Searingtown; Stewart Manor; Uniondale; Westbury; and Williston Park. Furthermore, among other major facilities, the Third Precinct covers: the subject property (including the Coliseum and Marriott Hotel); Nassau County offices; Nassau County courts; Nassau Community College; Hofstra University; Eisenhower Park; Mitchel Athletic Complex; Museum Row; Nassau University Hospital; NYU Langone Long Island Hospital; and Roosevelt Field mall.326
According to correspondence from the Nassau County Police Department (Appendix 3.10-1), there is one station house, located in Williston Park, one sub-station and 11 police booths within the Third Precinct. There are also 25 fixed patrol posts throughout the precinct. The average response time to a call for service is three-to-four minutes. Sworn staffing consists of 204 police officers, 23 supervisors, 26 detectives, one inspector and one deputy inspector. Civilian members include crossing guards, parking enforcement aides and five civilian staff members. There are 64 vehicles (marked and unmarked). In addition to the police officer’s standard equipment, marked vehicles are equipped with ballistic vests and helmets, breaching tool, first-aid kits, fire extinguisher, AED, oxygen, cell phones, CO detectors, personal protection kits and radios. Other available equipment includes electronic message boards, handheld laser speed guns, and license plate readers.
Over the last three years (2021 through 2023), the Third Precinct has responded to 187,623 calls, including 360 at the Coliseum and 548 at the Marriott Hotel (Appendix 3.10-1).
‌Table 113 Third Precinct Calls Dispatched 2021-2023

Year
Total Calls Dispatched
Coliseum
Marriott Hotel
2021
58,611
134
164
2022
64,023
110
203
2023
64,989
116
181
Total
187,623
360
548
In addition to the typical police services detailed above, the NCPD provides ambulances and emergency medical services through its EAB. The EAB is the primary ambulance provider in Nassau County, with 132 police medics actively staffing 28 ambulances. The average response time of an ambulance staffed with a police medic is approximately six minutes or less. However, a police officer, who is a first responder and part of the ambulance crew, many times arrives prior to the ambulance.

‌326 Ibid.

Additional information from the Nassau County Police Department (Appendix 3.10-1), indicates that the Third Precinct responded to 34,658 emergency medical service calls over the last three years (2021-2023), including 40 calls at the Coliseum and 81 calls at the Marriott Hotel.
‌Table 114 Third Precinct EMS Calls Dispatched 2021-2023

Year
Total EMS Calls Dispatched
Coliseum
Marriott Hotel
2021
10,987
14
30
2022
12,038
14
29
2023
11,633
12
22
Total
34,658
40
81
The NCPD Center for Training and Intelligence is located 0.3± mile northeast of the subject property within the campus of Nassau Community College. This state-of-the-art facility offers police, intelligence and counter-terrorism training, with access to the most advanced technology and data analytics to proactively address threats that may face the area and region.

In addition to coverage by the Nassau County Third Police Precinct, the subject property has its own, privately-funded, on- site security associated with the Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel. Currently, there are staffed entry booths to the parking areas during events at the Coliseum. The Coliseum provides its own security, and guests are subject to bag searches and scanning. The NCPD provides exterior patrols (vehicular,
mounted police) during certain events.
The Marriott Hotel has third-party private security from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., daily.

Educational Facilities

Looking northeast towards several of the entry booths at the Coliseum.

The subject property is located within the Uniondale Union Free School District (UFSD). The Uniondale UFSD maintains nine schools, including:

› Uniondale Pre-K (Pre-K)

› California Avenue School (Grades: Kindergarten through 5)

› Grand Avenue School (Grades: Kindergarten through 5)

› Northern Parkway School (Grades: Kindergarten through 5)

› Smith Street School (Grades: Kindergarten through 5)

› Walnut Street School (Grades: Kindergarten through 5)

› Lawrence Road Middle School (Grades: 6 through 8)

› Turtle Hook Middle School (Grades: 6 through 8)

› Uniondale High School (Grades: 9 through 12).

Based on publicly available information from the New York State Education Department (NYSED),327 the total enrollment of the Uniondale UFSD is 6,070 students for the 2023-2024 school year. According to NYSED PreK-Grade 12 enrollment data, as shown in Table 115 below, the Uniondale UFSD’s enrollment has been decreasing over the past six years.

‌Table 115 Uniondale UFSD Enrollment by Year

School Year	PreK-Grade 12 Enrollment	Increase (+)/Decrease (-) From Prior School Year
2023-24	6,070 (preliminary)	-14 (-0.02±%)
2022 – 23	6,084	-202 (-3.2±%)
2021 – 22	6,286	-475 (-7.0± %)
2020 – 21	6,761	-310 (-4.4± %)
2019 – 20	7,071	-137 (-1.9± %)
2018 – 19	7,208	-57 (-0.8± %)
2017 - 18	7,265	223 (+3.2± %)
2016 - 17	7,042	163 (+2.4± %)
2015 - 16	6,879	270 (+4.1± %)
2014 – 15	6,609	--
Source: New York State Education Department. Public School Enrollment. Available at:

https://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/enroll-n- staff/ArchiveEnrollmentData.htm l

Based on publicly available resources from the Uniondale UFSD, the total voter adopted budget for the District (2023-2024 school year) was $256,006,719328 (of which approximately 51 percent, or $130,132,626 was from the local property tax levy). The proposed 2024-25 budget was approximately $267 million,329 with approximately 50.4 percent ($135 million) coming from the local property tax levy.

In addition to the above-listed public schools within the Uniondale UFSD, The Academy Charter- Elementary School, Middle School, and High School is located at 100 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard in Uniondale (approximately one-half mile northwest of the subject property), as well as The Academy Charter Schools for Hempstead Elementary, Middle School and High School, which are situated at several locations on North Franklin Street in Hempstead, and serve school- aged students in neighborhoods proximate to the subject property. Any child who is qualified under New York State laws for admission to public school is qualified for admission to The

‌327 New York State Education Department. Public School Enrollment. Available at: https://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/enroll-n- staff/home.htm l. Accessed September 2023.

‌328 Lagnado, M. M. (2023, April 4). 2023-2024 Budget Presentation Uniondale Public Schools. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ts07qlYNVp9B7ijH6dua0vshSSp8Bs1n/view

‌329 Lagnado, M. M. (2023, April 9). 2024-2025 Budget Presentation Uniondale Public Schools. Retrieved from https://desireforuniondale.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/April-9-2024-2025-Proposed-Budget.pdf

Academy Charter School, tuition free.330 The Uniondale Academy Charter schools had a total enrollment of 1,550 students for the 2023-24 school year, and the Hempstead Academy Charter schools had a total enrollment of 1,775 students for 2023-24.331

Kellenberg Memorial High School, a private parochial high school offering Grades 6 – 12, is located approximately one-third mile south of the subject property along Glenn Curtiss Boulevard, with athletic fields located just south of Hempstead Turnpike. Kellenberg High School has an enrollment of approximately 2,600 students.332

Two higher education institutions, including NCC and Hofstra University, are located proximate to the subject property. NCC, which opened in 1960, is part of the State University of New York (SUNY) system. At 225 acres, it is the largest single-campus community college in New York State. The campus is located on the north side of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard across from the subject property. Enrollment at NCC is approximately 12,000.333

Hofstra University, located west and southwest of the subject property, is bounded by Earle Ovington Boulevard on the east, just west of Oak Street on the west, South Road on the south and north of Hofstra Boulevard/Colonial Drive to the north. It is generally divided into north and south campuses by Hempstead Turnpike/Fulton Avenue. Hofstra is a private four-year university with a total Fall 2023 enrollment of approximately 10,400 students (60 percent undergraduate). The university includes a graduate program, as well as a law school and medical school.334

The subject property does not include any permanent population and does not generate any school-aged children.

Solid Waste (Collection and Disposal)
The subject property is situated within the Town of Hempstead Refuse and Garbage District. However, solid waste from the Coliseum property is collected by a private carter and brought to ReworldTM Hempstead facility (formerly Covanta) located at 600 Merchants Concourse in Westbury, approximately 0.85-mile northwest of the subject property. ReworldTM Hempstead processes over one million tons of waste per year that would have otherwise ended up in landfills. The facility uses waste to produce 72± megawatts of electricity 24/7 and recovers 35,600± tons of metal for recycling annually.

‌330 According to its website, “[c]harter schools are independently operated public schools. All charter schools operate under a contract with a charter school authorizer. They hold the charter school to a high standard outlined in their “charter.” There is no fee to attend. Students are entered into the school through a lottery system.” From https://academycharterschool.org/enroll/. Accessed February 2024.
‌331 SUNY Charter Schools Institute. The Academy Charter School. Available at: https://www.newyorkcharters.org/charter-schools/academy- charter-school/. Accessed February 2024.
‌332 US News. Kellenberg Memorial High School. Available at: https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/new-york/kellenberg-memorial- high-school-310033. Accessed June 2024.
‌333 Nassau Community College has a total enrollment of 11,996 (all undergraduate students) for the academic year 2022-2023. By attending status, there are 6,931 full-time and 5,697 part-time students. Nassau Community College is offering the distance learning opportunity (online degree program) and total 6,958 students have enrolled online program exclusively. From https://www.univstats.com/colleges/nassau-community-college/student- population/#:~:text=Nassau%20Community%20College%20has%20a%20total%20enrollment%20of,male%20%285%2C976%20st udents%29%20and%2052.68%25%20female%20%286%2C652%20students%29. Accessed February 2024.
‌334 Hofstra University. All About Hofstra. Available at: https://www.hofstra.edu/about/glance.htm l. Accessed February 2024.

At its peak usage, according to the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for The Lighthouse at Long Island, Hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, as lead agency, by Lighthouse Development Group, LLC, and dated June 2009, the Coliseum property and the Marriott property together generated approximately 181 tons per month of solid waste. Based on information provided by Sands, approximately 24± tons per month of solid waste are generated by the Marriott Hotel, with approximately 157 tons per month generated by the Coliseum. The Coliseum property recycles numerous materials and a portion of the serving items at the concession stands are compostable. According to Sands, the Marriott Hotel has a robust recycling program (approximately 1.1 tons per week) and there is a single-stream recycling program through Winters Brothers.
According to the Town of Hempstead website,335
The Department of Sanitation operates as the solid waste planning unit for the entire Town of Hempstead. The department is responsible for the disposition of all solid waste generated within the boundaries of the town. Simply put, the department oversees the disposal of an estimated 670,000 tons of garbage each year. That which is not recycled is processed in a state-of-the-art waste-to-energy facility, creating both an environmental and economic benefit for all town residents.
In accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Status of Local Solid Waste Management Plans,336 the Town of Hempstead, as the Local Planning Unit (LPU) for the area, has submitted a Draft Local Solid Waste Management Plan, for which comments have been issued.337 Since the final Hempstead plan is not yet publicly available, the NYSDEC solid waste management plan entitled Building the Circular Economy Through Sustainable Materials Management (2023 – 2032) was consulted. According to the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan website,338
To protect communities and mitigate the effects of climate change, the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) builds upon sustained efforts to reduce waste and advance the state's transition to a circular economy, helping to change New Yorkers' understanding of waste and their relationship to it. The Plan intends to guide actions over the next decade, from the beginning of 2023 to the end of 2032, and builds upon the State's 2010 Beyond Waste Plan.
This plan focuses on waste reduction and reuse; recycling and recycling market development and resiliency; product stewardship and extended producer responsibility; organics reduction and recycling; toxics reduction in products; and advanced design and operation of solid waste management facilities and related activities. The action items cited above “are designed to move New York State to an 85% total waste stream recycling rate by 2050.”

‌335 Town of Hempstead. Sanitation Department. Available at: https://hempsteadny.gov/223/Sanitation-Department. Accessed June 2024.
‌336 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Status of Local Solid Waste Management Plans (LSWMP). Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/65541.html. Accessed February 2024.
‌337 Ibid. Comments Issued means that a Draft LSWMP has been submitted and commented on; however, the LPU has not yet submitted a response to these comments or an updated draft LSWMP.
‌338 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan: Building the Circular Economy Through Sustainable Materials Management (2023 - 2032). Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental- protection/waste-management/solid-waste-management-planning/nys. Accessed February 2024.

Moreover, according to the NYSDEC Division of Materials Management, in accordance with the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law (effective January 1, 2022),339 NYSDEC must annually publish a list of designated food scrap generators (DFSG), which are businesses and institutions that generate two tons or more food scraps per week and are required to comply with the law. Included on the 2024 “List of DFSGs” are casinos, full-service restaurants and hospitality venues.340 These facilities, among others, are required to:
› separate their excess edible food for donation for human consumption to the maximum extent practicable, and in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations related to food donation
› if located within 25 miles of an organics recycler and the recycler has the capacity, donate food scraps to such organics recycler
› separate its remaining food scraps from other solid waste
› ensure proper storage for food scraps on site which shall preclude such materials from becoming odorous or attracting vectors
› have information available and provide training for employees concerning the proper methods to separate and store food scraps
› obtain a transporter that would deliver food scraps to an organics recycler, self-haul its food scraps to an organics recycler, or provide for organics recycling on-site via in vessel composting, aerobic or anaerobic digestion or any other method of processing organic waste that the department approves by regulation, for some or all of the food waste it generates on its premises, provided that the remainder is delivered to an organics recycler
› submit an annual report to the department summarizing the amount of edible food donated, the amount of food scraps recycled, the organics recycler or recyclers and associated transporters used, and any other information as required by the department.

‌339 New York State Senate. Legislation (February 10, 2021). Available at: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/A27T22. Accessed June 2024; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/recycling-composting/organic-materials-management/food-donation-scraps- recycling-law. Accessed June 2024.
‌340 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2024 List of Designated Food Scrap Generators (January 24, 2024).
Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/dfsglist2024.pdf. Accessed June 2024.

Open Space and Recreational Resources

With respect to the subject property, as the activity and viability of the Coliseum has been declining since the departure of the New York Islanders, there are limited entertainment and sporting events that currently occur within the Coliseum. There are also limited recreational offerings, including autocross racing and the state fair that occur within the parking lot. The Coliseum property contains a

Looking west towards the Coliseum and Veterans Memorial Plaza.

veterans memorial plaza, monument and flags on the eastern side of the building, which was updated as part of the 2017 renovation of the Coliseum building.

The Coliseum property has been utilized by Sands to host several seasonal events for members of the Long Island community. In December 2023, Sands hosted “Season of Sparkle,” which attracted over 2,000 community members and featured holiday decorations, entertainment, and food vendors.341 Sands has also utilized the Coliseum property to host the “Chambers Clink and Collaborate” networking event which featured over 450 Long Island-based small business owners.342 Sands has displayed commitment to utilizing the Coliseum property for entertainment and business opportunities for Long Island communities.

There are numerous active and passive open spaces, recreational resources, parks, and preserves within the vicinity of the subject property. Some of the larger park/preserves include the 930- acre Eisenhower Park, which contains recreation and open space facilities (the Harry Chapin Lakeside Theatre, Veterans Memorial and Walls of Honor and 9/11 Memorial, Firefighters Memorials, Nassau County Aquatic Center, Northwell Health Ice Center, golf courses, ballfields, cricket fields, football fields, tennis courts, a fitness trail, playgrounds, picnic areas, and lakeside theater).

‌341 Sands New York. Sands New York’s “Season of Sparkle” Welcomes over 2,000 Long Islanders for Christmas Tree Lighting and Live Performances. Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/sands-new-yorks-season-of-sparkle-welcomes-over-2000-long-islanders- for-christmas-tree-lighting-and-live-performances/. Accessed June 2024.

‌342 Sands New York. Sands New York Hosts “Chambers Clink and Collaborate” Networking Event Inside the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/sands-new-york-hosts-chambers-clink-and-collaborate-networking-event- inside-the-nassau-veterans-memorial-coliseum/. Accessed June 2024.

Looking east towards the Mitchel Field Athletic Complex football field and track.

Looking northwest towards the Marriott property from the Purcell Preserve.

Looking east along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, with the multi-use path on the right of the photograph.

The 49± acre Mitchel Field Athletic Complex, located just to the northwest of the subject property, contains various ballfields, a stadium for football, lacrosse, soccer, including a track and field venue, and the Nassau County Rifle & Pistol Range (the only such public facility in the county). The Mitchel Field Athletic Complex hosts local high school and collegiate athletic events and local sports leagues.

The Francis T. Purcell Preserve featuring Hempstead Plains grasslands and walking trails, is located along the east side of James Doolittle Boulevard across from the Marriott property.

There are numerous other parks/fields that serve the surrounding community located within the vicinity of the subject property, including, but not limited to Bernard Brown Park, Cedar Street Park, Uniondale Avenue Park, East Meadow Ballfield Complex and Salisbury Park Drive Ballfields.

A multi-use path system for pedestrians/bicyclists surrounds the subject site. Multi-use paths exist along each of the roadways surrounding the subject site, including Hempstead Turnpike, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and Earle Ovington Boulevard. The paths eventually connect to the Mitchel Field pedestrian path and bikeway, which provides connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the area as a whole.

‌Potential Impacts

As explained in Section 2.5, Purpose, Need and Benefits of the DEIS, the proposed lease commits Sands to providing community benefits payments of $4 million per year, if a gaming license is granted, or $2 million per year upon substantial completion of development of an alternative plan (with no casino), if a gaming license is not granted. These payments would support and enhance fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers; school districts; libraries and library districts; athletic fields, ballfields and parks; and other community facilities. Forty percent of these community benefits payments would be designated for community facilities in Uniondale. As part of the proposed lease, Sands has also committed to providing $25 million to be divided amongst Uniondale ($10 million), East Meadow ($10 million) and the Village of Hempstead ($5 million) for community benefits to be paid upon Sands being selected by New York State to receive a commercial gaming license.343

Per the terms of the proposed lease with Nassau County, an advisory committee would be established for the community benefits payments, comprising an equal number of representatives appointed by Sands and the County Executive and one representative appointed by each of the following: (i) the Majority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (ii) the Minority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (iii) the Town of Hempstead Supervisor; and

(iv) the Hempstead Town Board. The Advisory Committee would review and advise on the allocation of community benefits funding, and a CBA would be executed between Nassau County and Sands that would include an independent compliance monitor for these payments.

In addition to the community benefits payments and the various other revenue and payments (Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics, of this DEIS), Sands is also proposing a $4 million annual PILOT, divided amongst various jurisdictions (which would be finalized upon further consultation with the NCIDA), as shown in Table 116 .

‌Table 116 PILOT Payment Breakdown by Jurisdiction

	PILOT %	PILOT $
County	16.80%	$672,000
Town	24.60%	$984,000
School	58.60%	$2.344 million
Total PILOT	100.00%	$4.0 million

Together, the County and Town would receive $1.656 million in annual PILOT payments and the School District would receive approximately $2.344 million per year, as estimated based on current tax rates by jurisdiction. Further breaking down the County and Town PILOT payments by jurisdiction, among other entities, a portion of these payments are annually distributed to the County Police and Police Headquarters ($434,500±), Uniondale Fire District ($189,300±), Town Refuse and Garbage District and Refuse Disposal District ($366,100) and Town Parks District ($114,400±), as indicated below.

‌343 An agreement regarding this payment scenario has been executed between Nassau County and Sands.

The above is in addition to the $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues that would be generated by the operation of the Integrated Resort, which would be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively.

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Sands has designed the proposed Integrated Resort to meet or exceed all requirements of the New York Building and Fire Codes and to be a model for sustainability. The proposed Integrated Resort would be built to the latest New York Building and Fire Codes with appropriately designed water supply and infrastructure systems to support fire protection needs, as described in Section 3.2, Water Resources and Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities. The proposed Integrated Resort, including the hotel towers, would be designed with state-of- the-art fire protection and fire suppression systems. Safety of employees and guests has been a key focus of Sands and its design team, and the fire and emergency services systems planned for the Integrated Resort reflect this focus, and as is further explained below, Sands has incorporated mitigation into the design of the Integrated Resort to minimize potential impacts to fire and emergency services.
Sands and its representatives have had several meetings with the Nassau County Office of the Fire Marshal, the Uniondale Fire District Commissioners Executive Board and the Nassau County Fire Commission between March and September of 2023344 to introduce them to the proposed project. Issues discussed during these meetings included site design, phasing of the proposed project, requirements for site plan review, fire apparatus access, staging for first responders, water resources, mutual aid with other departments, fire sprinkler requirements, fire alarm requirements, communications and notifications for first responders. It was noted that due to the size and heights of the proposed building, high-rise training would be required. It was also discussed that formal comments would be provided as part of the site plan review process, which would be initiated upon completion of site plans by Sands and its consultants and site plan submission.
Sands would continue to meet and collaborate with the Nassau County Office of the Fire Marshal and the Fire Commissioners on the development and deployment of fire safety measures at the proposed Integrated Resort. Upon site plan submission, design meetings would be held to discuss, among other issues that may arise, how Sands’ design conforms to the requirements of the New Building Code, Fire Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Life Safety and other applicable requirements of New York State, Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead.
Based in part on these initial discussions, the project team for the Integrated Resort has developed and designed a comprehensive fire safety program. It would include a Fire Command Center, which would be located in the Integrated Resort’s Security Center, and would include a full fire alarm control panel. The existing fire alarm system in the Coliseum would be removed, and a facility-wide fire alarm communication system would be provided, such that each

‌344 Sands met with Uniondale Fire Commissioners on March 29, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. at the Uniondale Fire District in Uniondale; with the Nassau County Fire Commissioners and chief officers of proximate fire departments (Uniondale, East Meadow, Westbury, Hempstead, Garden City) on July 10., 2023 at 6:00 p.m. at the Nassau County Fire Marshal’s Office in Westbury; and with the Nassau County Fire Marshal on September 26, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. at the Nassau County Fire Marshal’s Office in Westbury.

Integrated Resort component would receive alarm notifications from each building component. Each building component would also be provided with a two-way communication phone that is capable of communicating with each building. A complete two-way voice communication system would provide two-way voice communication for the Fire Department via an in-building Emergency Responder Radio Communication System. Radio frequency coverage would be provided throughout the building.
Each component of the Integrated Resort would be provided with a new addressable fire alarm system345 in compliance with the applicable provisions of the New York State Building Code and other relevant Codes, including those of the National Association of Professionals for Fire Protection (e.g., NFPA 72-2016) and the applicable version of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
A full evacuation fire alarm system with a positive alarm sequence is proposed in the casino. There would be an Automatic Fire alarm system with one-way voice/fire department communication system and an emergency responder radio communication system. The fire alarm system would be constantly monitored, and alarm signals would be acknowledged within 15 seconds. If a signal is not acknowledged, a full evacuation inclusive of visual and audible alarms activate throughout the facility. If alarms are acknowledged and a positive alarm sequence is initiated, trained personnel would have a 180-second investigation phase to evaluate the fire condition and reset the system. If a system reset does not occur in 180 seconds, the full evacuation sequence would initiate the automatic fire alarm system with one-way voice/fire department communication system and emergency responder radio communication system.
In the hotel towers, there would be automatic and manual fire alarm systems with two-way voice/fire department communication system and emergency responder radio communication system. In the meeting and conference space and the theater, there would be a manual fire alarm system with positive alarm sequence and full evacuation. Manual fire alarm initiation would consist of addressable pull stations at each entrance to exit stairs and exits from the building.
Furthermore, all parking garages would have sprinkler monitoring systems.
For high-rise portions of the proposed building, audible alarm signals would be transmitted to the floor of the alarm, the floor above and the floor below. In addition, activation of an alarm zone of the fire alarm system would cause an inquiry tone to sound on all other floors. For low- rise buildings, audible alarm signals would be transmitted to all floors, as full evacuation is required for these buildings.
A complete visual alarm system would accompany the audible alarm system utilizing strobe light signaling devices in accordance with ADA requirements. The speaker/strobes outdoors, on roofs and in parking areas, would be weatherproof.

‌345 According to “Safe and Sound Security,” addressable fire alarms are fire protection systems where each device within the system has its own “address” or location. Each device detects changes in its immediate atmosphere to determine the exact location of a fire within the building. The system tracks its progress through the building, allowing rescue personnel to evacuate occupants from dangerous areas proactively. Unlike conventional systems installed to create individual zones, an addressable fire alarm system consists of networks, one interface, and central monitoring location; linking all smoke, fire, gas, emergency, and security devices throughout a home or property. Available at: https://getsafeandsound.com/2022/07/addressable-fire-alarm- system/#:~:text=Addressable%20fire%20alarms%20are%20fire,a%20fire%20within%20the%20building. Accessed February 2024.

The combination standpipe sprinkler system serving the subject site, as noted above, would be supplemented with fire department connections located around the base of the building, as required by New York State Building Code and local regulations. Fire Department connections would serve the standpipe zones, and dedicated sprinkler zones, when applicable. The majority of the Integrated Resort would be protected by sprinklers, except for some utility and electrical spaces, as well as the elevator machine rooms and stairs (except top and bottom). Most areas would be served by wet sprinklers, but the areas subject to freezing (e.g., loading docks, parking areas, unconditioned space) would be served by a dry sprinkler system. There would also be a foam suppression system within specific areas of the building.
H2M has prepared a Life Safety Plan for Phase 1 and for Full Build of the proposed Integrated Resort that would be submitted to the Office of the Fire Marshal for review as part of the site plan submission (Appendix 3.10-2). These plans show the location of existing fire hydrants, new fire hydrants, fire department connection points, water mains, hose run routes, as well as staging areas for fire hoses throughout the site. One or more new fire department connections would be established adjacent to each component of the Integrated Resort building and around Parking Garage A. According to the Life Safety Plans, in accordance with the International Fire Code, the aerial fire apparatus access roads would have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of a building more than 30 feet in height. Also, as required, at least one of the required access routes meeting this condition would be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building and would be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The Life Safety Plan for proposed Integrated Resort would meet all applicable requirements of the International Fire Code.
Sands would have EMTs on staff within the proposed Integrated Resort to provide immediate, on-site medical assistance, thereby helping to mitigate potential impacts to public emergency
medical services, which would also serve the site. A fire/EMT substation is proposed to be located within Parking Garage A, adjacent to the proposed police substation. Ambulance/EMT vehicles would be stationed adjacent to the substation, within Parking Garage A, to provide immediate emergency services to patrons in need at the proposed Integrated Resort. Additional public ambulance/EMT vehicles would also be able to stage at this location.
With respect to financial commitments to fire protection/emergency medical services, in addition to a percentage of the proposed PILOT (approximately $189,300 would be distributed to the Uniondale Fire Department, annually), Sands has committed to supporting fire departments and districts, and local ambulance service/EMS providers through a community benefits program. As explained above, the Lessee has agreed, as documented in the proposed lease, to provide $4 million in community benefits payments, if a gaming license is granted. As stated above, these community benefits payments would be allocated for the support and enhancement of fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers, amongst other local service providers, with 40 percent of the payments designated for community facilities in Uniondale. In addition, the Lessee has committed to provide $25 million, to be paid by Sands upon its selection by New York State to receive a gaming license, which would be divided among Uniondale ($10 million), East Meadow ($10 million) and the Village of Hempstead ($5 million).
With respect to actual distribution of the funds, the proposed lease provides that an advisory committee would be established, comprised of an equal number of representatives appointed by

Sands and the County Executive and one representative appointed by each of the following: (i) the Majority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (ii) the Minority caucus of the Nassau County Legislature; (iii) the Town of Hempstead Supervisor; and (iv) the Hempstead Town Board. The Advisory Committee would provide recommendations for the allocation of the community benefit funding, and an agreement would be executed between Nassau County and Sands regarding the distribution of funds, which shall include provision for an independent compliance monitor.
Based on the foregoing, Sands would provide a state-of-the-art fire protection system within the proposed Integrated Resort, would employ trained personnel as part of its staff to handle fire and medical emergencies. Additionally, Sands would provide community benefit funding designed to support and enhance, amongst other community services, fire protection and emergency services. Thus, Sands has incorporated substantial mitigation to minimize potential impacts to fire protection/EMS services.
Police Protection/Security
Sands is proposing a comprehensive security program for the Integrated Resort that contains multiple layers of operational security officers and technical security systems that would assist in detecting, assessing, preventing, and responding to threats and other issues, which would help to minimize impacts to police services. Sands has also met with the NCPD to discuss security at the Integrated Resort and to coordinate its proposed program with that of the NCPD.
Sands emphasizes having highly trained security personnel at their facilities. The security program is being developed and would be implemented in accordance with Nassau County and New York State rules, regulations, and laws. Security staff is proposed to be comprised of former law enforcement, military, private security, and casino security professionals who have experience in effective security programs. Sands also plans to hire persons with experience from Nassau County’s local police, fire, and first responder government agencies as well as local persons who worked in the private sector and/or have served as military personnel. When special events are planned at the property, Sands would have extra security, including off duty police officers, to further mitigate potential impacts to NCPD. Sands has further agreed to cooperatively work with the NCPD throughout development, deployment, and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort, to adjust security measures, as may be needed, to benefit overall site security.
Sands’ proposed internal security and surveillance would include approximately 60 surveillance operators assigned to the casino and over 400 security officers throughout the property. The security staff is expected to handle most of the security incidents that occur within all portions of the proposed Integrated Resort, reducing the potential impacts on municipal law enforcement personnel.
The security department would have three sections - security operations, security support and technical systems, and business continuity management. The security operations section would manage uniformed security members and their daily operations. All officers would be required to complete a training academy and attend refresher courses. The security support and technical systems section helps enhance security operations. The technology being used includes CCTV, which involves cameras with facial recognition. Other technology includes an access control/door locking system, a license plate recognition system, panic alarms, x-ray machines, metal detectors,

and a criminal and terrorism information system. Some technology being considered and evaluated for use includes drone detection, body cameras, gunshot detection software, and chemical/biological detection. The business continuity management (BCM) program supplies the framework for identifying threats, responding to emergencies, and managing crises. There are four main components of BCM: response, recovery, restoration of technology functions, and business unit continuity. It is up to security to both maintain and test BCM plans and strategies. One annual exercise involving business disruption would be conducted as a training exercise.
Video surveillance is an integral part of the security program, and video surveillance coverage would be provided for the building perimeter, building entrances, loading dock, building lobbies, elevator lobbies, stairwells, major MEP rooms, technology rooms, counting/cash rooms, secure storage, all doors that require card access, visitor gates license plate reader, employee gates license plate reader and parking areas. The video management software would be fully integrated into the card access system, such that a forced-open or alarm condition would provide full-motion recording. A viewing station with select cameras would be provided at the lobby desk, loading dock office, engineering suite, surveillance offices and reception, with remote viewing access for authorized security personnel.
An intercom system would be integrated into the access control system. The master station intercom would be at several locations, and there would be remote intercoms located throughout the facility. In addition, there would be an intrusion detection system connected to a 24/7 operated security desk. The system components include motion sensors, door contacts, window contacts and glass break detectors.
Casino security includes surveillance with cameras located through the casino floor, including at ATMs and cash kiosks, cashier windows, transaction windows, count rooms, and entrances and exits. Access control would be provided for all doors associated with the casino function. There would also be dedicated surveillance cameras for all entrances and exits from the hotel, all doors with card access, the hotel lobbies/concierge, all front-of-house amenity spaces and restaurants and for guest room elevator lobbies. Access control would be provided for all doors associated with the hotel back-of-house function, and there would be a wireless lock system for all the guest rooms within the hotels.
As described in greater detail in Section 3.8, Public Health – Problem Gambling, Sands would implement an Exclusion Program to complement that of the New York Gaming Commission. The Sands Exclusion Program would focus on prohibiting from entry into the casino patrons who have been identified by the Sands team as displaying observable signs of potential problematic gambling behavior. Any casino patron identified displaying observable signs of potential problematic gambling behavior may be excluded from the casino premises. To ensure that excluded persons do not enter the Sands gaming premises, Security would be stationed at all entrances, and facial recognition would be used. A photograph of the excluded individual would be registered in Sands’ facial recognition database, and facial recognition software would be incorporated into the video surveillance system. Security would be stationed at all entrances and would receive alerts from the facial recognition system of persons on the exclusion database that attempt to enter, and Security would deny entry to those persons. Sands has been successful with facial recognition technology at its other properties and has extensive experience in identifying excluded persons and denying their entry to the gaming floor. As an example,

Security uses facial recognition technology at its Sands Macao operation to deny entry to approximately 150 – 200 excluded persons per day.
Additionally, as also explained in Section 3.8, Public Health – Problem Gambling, New York State law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 to be on the gaming floor longer than it takes them to reach their destination. All persons under the age of 21 entering the gaming area would be required to present identification to show that they are at least 21 years of age. Sands security team would staff checkpoints at all points of entry to the gaming area. No one under 21 is permitted to wager or purchase or consume alcohol. The Sands Security team would also be responsible for monitoring and implementing these requirements.
Sands prioritizes coordination and continued relationships with law enforcement, other government agencies, and medical services to protect its workers and patrons. There would be a continued focus on gathering and sharing information with relevant government agencies, including NCPD, involving potential criminal or terrorism activities. Both security and non- security team members are trained to report suspicious behavior when it is seen. As explained in Section 3.14, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Sustainability, the procedures for coordination with local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and other first responders are included in Sands’ emergency action plan and protective action plan (which are part of Sands’ BCM documents). Additionally, Sands operational teams maintain response plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to aid in coordination with external agencies during incidents. A component of the pre-incident planning and preparation includes the interaction and discussion with first responders and their emergency management teams within the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County. As is done in its other integrated resorts, Sands proposes to periodically conduct ground deployment and tabletop exercises for Sands team members from various departments and local external partners including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, emergency management teams and other organizations. Sands operational teams would train with law enforcement and invite these external agencies to the property to use the facilities to enhance their training exercises.
Additionally, as part of its security program, as noted above, Sands would have EMTs on staff within the Integrated Resort to provide immediate, on-site medical assistance, thereby serving to minimize impacts to public emergency medical services.
As explained more fully in Section 3.14, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability, Sands has developed a sophisticated emergency preparedness and security program. In the event of an emergency at the proposed Integrated Resort that limits the ability of employees and patrons to leave the facility (for example, as a result of a hurricane), a support plan would be developed to provide shelter, food, water and other essential needs and services for at least three days. These support sites would also provide communication, visitor/family unification services, basic medical treatment, and wellness services. As in other Sands’ integrated resorts, interior and exterior staging and relocation sites would be identified at the proposed Integrated Resort, and people would be directed to the most appropriate locations based on the type of emergency (meeting spaces, open areas). The proposed Integrated Resort would have a robust service capability to meet these needs, due to the size of the venue, ability to feed and house people as well as having a large loading dock and warehouse storage capacity. Physical protection, sustainability, and redundancy of critical operating components are mitigation and preparedness features that would be incorporated into the design of the proposed Integrated

Resort. Critical infrastructure would be designed to eliminate single points of failure and adequate backup systems would allow for a satisfactory level of continued operation. Sands is also committed to working with Nassau County to provide community support, as needed, in the event of an emergency/disaster.
In addition to the measures that are being incorporated into the Integrated Resort to minimize potential impacts to police and other emergency services, as part of the proposed lease, Sands has also committed to the following:
› Prior to the casino opening, Sands would pay Nassau County $900,000 per year, subject to a
2.0 percent annual escalation, as a contribution toward the County’s provision of exterior police and security at the premises. After the casino opening, this would rise to $1.8 million annually, with a 2.0 percent annual escalation
› Sands would construct a 1,500-square-foot police sub-station on the subject site, with police vehicles maintained on-site. Sands would also provide up to $500,000 to equip this substation. This substation would be located on the ground level within Parking Garage A, along with a fire/EMT substation and K-9 unit kennel, adjacent to various utility rooms within CUP-1. Parking for the first responders would be located within the garage, adjacent to the substation.
As described above, Sands would also be providing a PILOT from which the NCPD (County Police and Police Headquarters) is expected to receive approximately $434,500, annually.
As demonstrated herein, based on its experience with similar facilities, Sands is proposing a comprehensive security system within the proposed Integrated Resort that would serve to minimize potential impacts to emergency services. Additionally, Sands would provide an annual monetary contribution to the NCPD, as well as construct an NCPD substation at the subject property. These measures would serve to minimize potential impacts to emergency services to the maximum extent practicable.

Educational Facilities

K-12 Facilities

The proposed action does not include residential development, and, therefore, would not directly generate any school-aged children. However, as explained in Section 7, Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action, there may be secondary impacts associated with potential future employees of the Integrated Resort moving to the area, which may result in the addition of school-aged children to various proximate school districts.

As documented in Section 3.9.2.1, Socioeconomics, EY has projected that approximately 246 persons would relocate to Nassau County to work at the Integrated Resort, thus creating 246 “new” households. These 246 new households (which, as documented in the Housing subsection of Section 3.9.2.1, Socioeconomics, of this DEIS, can be accommodated by existing units and units that are approved but not yet constructed) would, based on projections prepared by EY, result in an increase of 33 school-aged children who would attend public schools, with an additional four school-aged children who would attend private schools.

EY’s estimate of school-aged children is based on the use of a multiplier (rate of school-aged children to household members), which is applied to the average household members per household type (Table 117). The estimate utilizes a multiplier of 0.09 school-aged children per multifamily household in Nassau County, which reflects research by REI at Stony Brook University College of Business on 14 market-rate multifamily apartment complexes in Nassau and Suffolk counties.346

Multipliers

Estimated new residents

Housing type

Household members

School-

aged children

Current share of housing with project-

related workers

Total new households

Total new residents

New school- aged children

‌Table 117 Estimated Distribution of New Households, Residents and School-Aged Children in Nassau County

Multi-family	2.17	0.09	16%	38.3	83.2	3.5
One-family house attached	2.49	0.10	3%	6.4	15.9	0.6
One-family house detached	3.14	0.16	82%	200.6	629.8	32.5
Other	3.57	0.20	0%	0.7	2.6	0.1
Total			100%	246	732	37

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY.

‌Table 118 Historical Annual Student Enrollment for Selected Nassau County Schools

School district			Historical Data
School district	2017- 18	2018- 19	2019- 20	2020- 21	2021- 22	Prior 5-yr CAGR1
Private school districts in Nassau County2	18,996	20,917	22,837	-	-	-
Total public and private school enrollment in Nassau County	225,030	225,606	228,039	-	-	-
Public school districts in Nassau County (all 56 public school districts and 4 charter schools)	206,034	204,689	205,202	200,609	200,465	-0.7%
Uniondale Union Free School District	7,397	7,371	7,156	6,890	6,388	-3.6%
Baldwin Union Free School District	4,627	4,625	4,593	4,538	4,468	-0.9%
Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District	5,397	5,319	5,328	5,234	5,186	-1.0%
North Merrick Union Free School District	1,191	1,189	1,183	1,183	1,203	0.3%
Carle Place Union Free School District	1,368	1,334	1,350	1,299	1,265	-1.9%

‌346 London, M., Deery, S., Pennetta, D, & Rosen, M. Impact of Market Rate Apartments on School District Enrollment (April, 2019). REI at Stony Brook University College of Business.

School district

Historical Data

2020- 21

2021- 22

Prior 5-yr CAGR1

East Meadow Union Free School District	7,232	7,273	7,368	7,374	7,545	1.1%
Garden City Union Free School District	3,904	3,915	3,976	3,951	3,956	0.3%
Hempstead Union Free School District	8,258	7,700	7,563	6,708	6,473	-5.9%
Mineola Union Free School District	2,920	2,909	2,949	2,907	2,884	-0.3%
Roosevelt Union Free School District	3,514	3,423	3,588	3,376	3,228	-2.1%
Westbury Union Free School District	5,464	5,398	5,411	5,038	4,989	-2.2%

2017- 18

2018- 19

2019- 20

Sources: EY analysis. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education verse Survey", 2017-18 v.1a, 2018-19 v.1a, 2019-20 v.1a, 2020-21 v.1a, 2021-22 v.1a.

1 CAGR = Compounded Annual Growth Rate.

2 Private school data is only available through U.S. Department of Education, Nation Center for Education Statistics data is only available through 2019-20 for private schools.

EY identified 11 public school districts, proximate to the subject property that are most likely to be affected by the increase in households. Table 118 , above, shows the historical annual enrollment in these 11 school districts. According to the socioeconomic projections prepared by EY, and as shown on Table 118 and Table 119 , the student population for these schools for the 2021-2022 school year ranges from about 1,200 to 7,500. For most schools and school districts, the student population has had an overall decline in compound annual growth rate over the past five years. However, some of these reductions, such as in the Uniondale and Hempstead Union Free School Districts, appear to primarily be associated with students switching to recently created charter schools in the area.347 Additionally, approximately 10 percent of total school enrollment in the county is accommodated by private schools, according to the 2019-2020 U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics data.

In order to determine the potential impact on the Nassau County school districts from the projected number of school-aged children associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, total school enrollment needs to be established. Table 119, below, shows the total student enrollment across all school districts in Nassau County in the 2021-2022 school year. Of the total public school enrollment of 200,465 in Nassau County, 47,585 students were enrolled in the 11 public school districts for which EY has predicted a potential for additional enrollment associated with newly-formed households that relocate for permanent employment at the proposed Integrated Resort. Based on the current distribution of school enrollments across all schools in the County, the potential impacts would range from adding one new student each in Carle Place UFSD and North Merrick UFSD to five new students in the East Meadow UFSD under the estimate of 33 public school-aged children.

The overall impact on Nassau County’s public schools is expected to be minimal, with a projected increase of 0.02%-0.07%. As noted above, a total of approximately four students (10 percent) are

‌347 When comparing US Department of Education data for the 2021-2022 school year versus the 2017-2018 school year, there is a 1,009 student decline for the Uniondale Union Free School District compared to a 931 student increase (e.g., up from 0 students) for the recently created Academy Charter School-Uniondale.

likely to attend private schools, which is negligible and would not significantly impact any one school.

‌Table 119 Projected Increase in Student Enrollment – Full Build

Recent year

School district 2021- 22

Projected enrollment increase

Estimate

Projected student enrollment

Total school districts in Nassau County	223,302	+37	223,339
Private school districts in Nassau County*	22,837	+4	22,840
Public school districts in Nassau County	200,465	+33	200,498
Uniondale Union Free School District 348	6,388	+4	6,392
Baldwin Union Free School District	4,468	+3	4,471
Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District	5,186	+4	5,190
North Merrick Union Free School District	1,203	+1	1,204
Carle Place Union Free School District	1,265	+1	1,266
East Meadow Union Free School District	7,545	+5	7,550
Garden City Union Free School District	3,956	+3	3,959
Hempstead Union Free School District	6,473	+5	6,478
Mineola Union Free School District	2,884	+2	2,886
Roosevelt Union Free School District	3,228	+2	3,230
Westbury Union Free School District	4,989	+3	4,992

*U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics data is only available through 2019-20 for private schools. Note: Analysis estimates the total impact would be distributed across the 11 public school districts shown in the table above.

According to U.S. Department of Education Common Core of Data statistics from the “School District Finance Survey” for the 2018-2019 school year, per pupil spending in Nassau County is approximately $30,807 at the same time that tax revenue per pupil is about $30,592. Ultimately, when taking the estimated total expenditure per pupil multiplied by 33 new public-school pupils, the total cost would be less than $1.0± million (Table 120). However, it is worth noting there would be a corresponding increase in revenue per pupil associated with the taxes paid by the 246 new households moving into the various school districts.

‌348 As the Subject Property is situated within the Uniondale School District, Sands has reached out to the Uniondale School District on a number of occasions, including via a letter to the Dr. Mary Bediako, President of the Board of Education on May 19, 2023 (Appendix 3.10-1), requesting a meeting with representatives of the Board of Education, Superintendent of Schools and the District’s counsel to discuss the proposed project. The School District has not agreed to meet with Sands.

‌Table 120 Estimated Total Spending Associated with Public School Student Population Increases

Estimate
School districts	Current exp. per pupil	Full Build enrollment increase	Total incremental cost
Uniondale Union Free School District	$28,293	4	$126,585
Baldwin Union Free School District	$27,528	3	$86,145
Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District	$29,424	4	$106,872
North Merrick Union Free School District	$30,041	1	$25,312
Carle Place Union Free School District	$41,172	1	$36,478
East Meadow Union Free School District	$28,871	5	$152,566
Garden City Union Free School District	$28,038	3	$77,686
Hempstead Union Free School District	$32,467	5	$147,191
Mineola Union Free School District	$33,596	2	$67,861
Roosevelt Union Free School District	$31,651	2	$71,557
Westbury Union Free School District	$28,183	3	$98,477
*Nassau County public non-charter schools with increase	$29,907	33	$996,731

Moreover, as discussed in Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics, gaming revenue generated by the proposed Integrated Resort would be taxed by New York State with almost 40 percent going to local schools, according to EY. At Full Build, with direct, indirect and induced gross annual tax contributions, local schools would receive a total projected gaming tax of $217 million349 annually (Table 105). Furthermore, as noted above, Sands’ PILOT allocation to the Uniondale UFSD would be approximately $2.34 million, annually. Additionally, revenues from the CBP, including a portion of $4 million (with casino) or $2 million (without casino) may be provided for local schools, as recommended by the community benefits advisory committee, as described above.350

Higher Education Facilities

Sands has committed to partnering with NCC, a public college, and LIU to create a new, comprehensive hospitality program for Long Island’s college students. The strategic partnership would generate new career opportunities for students and graduates interested in hospitality management and culinary arts industries, both of which are expected to see significant local job growth with the proposed Sands Integrated Resort. This collaboration would support sustainable job growth, economic development, and new career opportunities for students on Long Island and throughout the New York metropolitan region. The partnership is helping to build a bridge

‌349 Gaming tax and fee contributions include the maximum of the estimated gaming revenue tax and the gaming tax guarantee plus New York State license fees.

‌350 Sands has reached out to the Uniondale School District on a number of occasions, including a letter to the Dr. Mary Bediako, President of the Board of Education on May 19, 2023 (Appendix 3.10-1), requesting a meeting with representatives of the Board of Education, Superintendent of Schools and the District’s counsel to discuss the proposed project.

between the two colleges, empowering NCC graduates to advance their two-year associate degrees to four-year bachelor’s degrees at LIU’s nearby campus. The collaboration is expected to lead to programs in hotel and casino management, security and surveillance, meetings and banquets, entertainment, and food and beverage. Sands and NCC would explore a variety of learning models, including internship and experiential learning components for students. LIU would also seek approval for additional bachelor’s and master’s degree offerings that support in- demand careers in Hospitality Management and Culinary Arts.

This partnership is an extension of Sands’ long history of partnering with educational organizations, investing to build a strong local workforce, and advancing the skills of the hospitality industry in the communities it calls home. Sands’ hospitality education initiatives span contributions to higher education institutions, scholarship programs, on-property and industry- supported training opportunities for students and hospitality professionals, and mentorship support from company leaders and experts, as demonstrated in its collaborations in Northampton County, Pennsylvania with its former Bethlehem integrated resort. In Las Vegas, Sands co-founded and continues to support the Sands Center for Professional Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Harrah College of Hospitality. The company recently established a $1 million scholarship program to help advance hospitality careers in Singapore in conjunction with its Marina Bay Sands resort, which also regularly hosts, trains and employs hospitality students on-site through a variety of developmental programs.

Based on the foregoing, there is a potential for a small number of new school-aged children to enroll in area school districts that could be generated by future Integrated Resort employees moving into Nassau County. The substantial continuous guaranteed revenue from the gaming tax ($217± million, annually), PILOT allocation to the Uniondale UFSD (approximately $2.34 million, annually) and potential funding from the CBP would result in significant benefits to the Uniondale UFSD and surrounding school districts.

Furthermore, Sands partnership with NCC and LIU would have a positive impact on these two institutions with respect to expanding their academic offerings and providing programs that could lead to careers and employment opportunities, not only at Sands, but in the broader area of hospitality management and culinary arts throughout the region.

Solid Waste

Projected Solid Waste Generation, Collection and Disposal

As no expansion of or changes to the Marriott Hotel are proposed as part of the proposed action, no changes to solid waste generation (e.g., 24± tons per month) or collection/disposal methods at the hotel would result.

Based on the proposed development program, Sands has provided the following estimate of annual solid waste generation and amount of recycling, by use associated with the proposed Integrated Resort:

‌Table 121 Projected Solid Waste Generation

Project Component	Waste Generation (Pounds per Year)	Recycling (Pounds per Year)
Hotel	3,261,306	742,829
Podium/Retail/Back-of- House	4,532,997	1,125,340
Casino	4,513,126	1,287,098
Meeting and conference space	1,385,308	315,532
Entertainment	1,268,240	288,868
Total	14,960,977	3,759,667
Source: Sands

In tons per month, the amount of solid waste generation would be approximately 623 tons, and the amount of recycling would be approximately 157 tons.

On-site collection of solid waste is proposed to occur within underground loading docks and service areas, particularly in Parking Garages A and C. There are no proposed exterior solid waste collection enclosures on the site.

Other than certain wastes described below, solid waste generated on the subject property during operations would be collected by a licensed private carter and disposed at ReworldTM Hempstead, which confirmed that it would be able to accept post-recycled solid waste (Appendix 3.10-1) Sands is in the process of identifying potential licensed facilities that would accept recycled materials from the proposed Integrated Resort.

Addressing many forms of waste is a critical component of Sands’ strategy to conserve resources. The comprehensive waste management plan for the Integrated Resort would incorporate strategies such as composting if reasonably available, recycling, and waste reduction programs and would primarily focus on managing the largest waste streams, which are food service and construction.

Operational Waste

Sands has been evolving its solid waste management program for more than a decade across all of its facilities, including segregating and measuring waste product categories. Sands has developed strategies around waste reduction and recycling, which would be implemented at the proposed Integrated Resort, including:

› Maximize recyclable and recycled materials

› Implement recycling for products and materials and train staff on material separation and recycling

› Continue intelligence, education and partnerships to improve operational waste handling.

The use of smart waste management technologies to improve food waste collection efficiency is being explored to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the waste management program.

Food Waste

Sands employs a number of strategies including technology, processes, training and engagement, for reducing food waste, which would also be applied at the proposed Integrated Resort. Food waste would be addressed through a three-pronged strategy: prevention of food waste (reduction of food waste generation by, for example, avoiding overproduction by obtaining accurate guest counts), food rescue (donation of recovered food to benefit people and causes in communities), and diversion (treating food waste using anaerobic digesters or other waste processing technologies).

Analyzing food production to prevent waste is important, and Sands would measure pre- and post-consumption food in the team member dining rooms and use digester data logs to track food waste. Sands would also conduct periodic audits and waste-characterization studies to understand the amount of food going into the general waste stream.

An important component of Sands food strategy is working with regional partners to repurpose food potentially headed to waste streams. Sands would work with local food banks and soup kitchens to safely donate unused food.

As one of the DFSGs, listed in 2024, the proposed Integrated Resort would comply with the applicable requirements of the New York State Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law, as described in Section 3.10.1.4, above by separating excess food for donation, donating food scraps to an organic recycler (based on facility availability and capacity), separating its remaining food scraps from other solid waste, training employees in the proper methods of for separating and storing food scraps, and submitting and annual report to the NYSDEC Division of Materials Management documenting donations, recycling, and other required information.

These food waste strategies, to be employed by the proposed Integrated Resort, would minimize the potential solid waste management impacts and would comply with the New York State Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law.

Construction Waste

Construction waste would be addressed both during the design and construction of the proposed Integrated Resort and during subsequent remodels and renovations. Sands’ construction waste management diversion objectives for new construction are aligned with LEED certification targeting minimum 50 percent diversion and aspiring to exceed 75 percent diversion, depending on the available local waste management infrastructure at the time the waste is generated.

As with operational waste, Sands is committed to identifying materials that could be replaced with renewable and sustainable alternatives. Sands would have a comprehensive construction waste management plan in place that would address collection, separation and recycling of the main construction waste streams, such as metal, lumber and concrete in addition to diverting materials such cardboard, plastic and wood pallets and crates. Furthermore, non-construction and demolition waste streams (e.g., food scraps, cups, bottles and cans) would be recycled.

Labeled waste containers would be provided in appropriate locations such as break and lunch areas. The recyclable construction waste and non-construction waste would not be intermingled. Additional construction-related waste reduction and recycling measures are discussed in Section 3.15, Construction.

Overall, while the proposed Integrated Resort would result in an increase in solid waste generation over the current use of the subject property, Sands would employ a comprehensive solid waste management program, which emphasizes reduction, reuse and recycling measures. Additionally, as described above, the Town’s Refuse and Garbage District and Refuse Disposal District would receive a portion of Sands’ PILOT of approximately $366,100, annually.

Accordingly, Sands has incorporated mitigation into its solid waste management practices such that overall impacts to solid waste management facilities would be minimized.

Open Space and Recreational Resources
With respect to open space requirements, as explained Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the existing MFM Zoning District requires that three percent of the site, exclusive of land set aside for public rights-of-way, be set aside as public open space. The proposed MF-IRD requires that at least three percent of the total land area of the MF-IRD be set aside as public open space, which in the case of the 86.3±-acre subject property would equal
2.59 acres.
Currently, even though the Coliseum property is publicly-owned, there is no designated publicly- accessible open space on the site. Sands has designed the Integrated Resort to incorporate varied types of open space, and as shown on the Dimensional Site Plan (Appendix 2-2) and on the Landscape Plan and Planting Plan (Appendix 3.3-3), the proposed development would provide approximately 3.4 acres of public open space exceeding the requirement noted above.

Digital rendering looking southwest towards the proposed Central (East) Plaza.

Digital rendering looking southeast towards the proposed West Plaza.

The proposed open spaces include outdoor public spaces, which are a primary feature and attraction of the proposed Integrated Resort, providing gathering spaces for visitors to the facility. The outdoor spaces, which would be designated for both guests of the proposed Integrated Resort and the community at large, offer diverse elements, including a large plaza, along with smaller, more intimate gardens. The Central (also known as East) Plaza (located on the east side of the facility between the proposed Coliseum Casino and the existing Marriott Hotel) would be similar in size to the western lawn at Bryant Park in Manhattan. The Central (East) Plaza would not only provide open space, it would also allow for hosting neighborhood events and local programming designed to bring the community together.
Additionally, landscaped terraces/green roofing is proposed, which would be accessible to guests of the proposed Integrated Resort. The green roofing allows for additional private outdoor recreational resources in areas that would otherwise be unvegetated and unused.
Moreover, Sands proposes to implement its own range of programming concepts including concerts, festivals, cultural and arts showcases, outdoor markets, and seasonal activities on the Central (East) Plaza, incorporating both passive and active recreational opportunities.

Rendering looking west towards the Central (East) Plaza showing potential recreational activities.
The proposed West Plaza, located near the proposed meeting and conference space, would contain a smaller, intimate garden area, with zones of substantial landscaping allowing for more passive activities such as relaxation and contemplation.
Per the proposed lease, Sands would spend at least $1 million on the construction of a monument, memorial, or other tribute to veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America to replace the existing memorial (see Section 3.10.1, above). The Lessee would engage Nassau County veterans in the design process for the new memorial wall and water feature within the Central Plaza to honor the site’s origins. The memorial would be situated within a grove of trees, and there would be permanent seating for quiet reflection, while also allowing the space to be set up for larger veterans’ events. Landforms would shelter this memorial space from activity on the internal roadways, promoting reflection and respect for the veteran community. In addition, the veteran’s memorial space would be able to accommodate veterans’ events.
Visitors to and patrons of the proposed Integrated Resort would have the opportunity to enjoy the multitude of surrounding open space and recreational resources in Nassau County and beyond (described in Section 3.10.1.5 above, Section 7.0, Growth Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action, and Section 9, Socioeconomics), including the three iconic golf courses at Eisenhower Park, which is expected to result in beneficial tourism impacts to existing recreational resources.
Proximity to the multi-use paths along Figure 27 in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, would enable pedestrians and bicyclists access to the amenities on the subject property. Bicycles would be accommodated in separate bicycle lanes along the primary roadways and shared bicycle lanes along the secondary roadways. At locations throughout the proposed Integrated Resort, internal bicycle lanes would connect to the external Mitchel Field pedestrian path and bikeway, which leads to the Long Island Motor Parkway Trail. Bike racks would be located throughout the proposed Integrated Resort. Sidewalks and crosswalks are proposed on the subject property to promote pedestrian safety.
Moreover, as indicated above, the Town’s Parks District would receive a portion of Sands’ PILOT, projected at over $114,400±, annually.

Based on the foregoing, implementation of the proposed action is expected to have a positive impact on open space and recreational resources.
Furthermore, operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would result in substantial economic and fiscal benefits, positively impacting a range of local, County and State agencies or entities (including local schools). Most notably, the $563 million in annual Gaming Tax revenues generated by the operation of the Integrated Resort would be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217+ million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; and $27 million to Suffolk County, respectively. Altogether, a total of $375 million in taxes and commitments would result from implementation of Phase 1, increasing to
$792 million at Full Build. These revenues could further enhance benefits to the community facilities and services within the various taxing jurisdictions.
As demonstrated above, and in Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics, of this DEIS, the economic output during both the construction and operational periods would be substantial, and the fiscal benefits generated by the construction of the Integrated Resort would continue far into the future. The anticipated annual gaming revenue (with the guaranteed minimums to Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead), combined with the substantial community benefits commitments, and PILOT payments, are expected to exceed the costs of required public services. The school districts and local government services would see significant revenues over expenses (associated with public services required by the proposed Integrated Resort) based on the amount of revenue projected to be generated by various sources, including, but not limited to: rent payments; fees; community benefit payments, as well as the considerable taxes and gaming revenues, for which Sands has guaranteed minimum revenues to the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County.

‌Proposed Mitigation
As indicated above, the economic output during both the construction and operational periods of the Integrated Resort would be substantial, and the fiscal benefits generated by the construction of the Integrated Resort would continue well into the future. The anticipated annual gaming revenue (with the guaranteed minimums to Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead), combined with the substantial community benefits commitments (that would be available to support fire departments, ambulance services, school districts, libraries, parks, and other community facilities), and PILOT payments, are expected to far exceed the costs to provide public services. As such, the school districts and local government services would see a significant surplus. Furthermore, to minimize potential impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort on community facilities and services, the following measures have been incorporated into the proposed action:
› The Integrated Resort would implement a comprehensive fire safety program featuring a Fire Command Center within the Integrated Resort’s Security Center. This center would house a full fire alarm control panel and a facility-wide fire alarm communication system, ensuring alarm notifications are transmitted to all components of the Integrated Resort.
› A state-of-the-art fire protection system and fire suppression system would be provided at the Integrated Resort.

› Sands would have trained staff within the proposed Integrated Resort to provide immediate on-site medical assistance, thereby reducing the demand on public emergency medical services.
› A fire/EMT substation is proposed within Parking Garage A next to the proposed police substation. Ambulance/EMT vehicles would be stationed nearby to provide immediate emergency services to patrons at the Integrated Resort.
› The proposed Integrated Resort would be constructed according to the latest New York Building and Fire Codes and would feature appropriate water supply and infrastructure systems to meet fire protection requirements.
› Each building component would be equipped with a two-way communication phone and an in-building Emergency Responder Radio Communication System, ensuring comprehensive radio frequency coverage and two-way voice communication for the Fire Department throughout the facility.
› Each component of the Integrated Resort would feature a new addressable fire alarm system compliant with the relevant New York State Building Code, National Association of Professionals for Fire Protection (e.g., NFPA 72-2016), and applicable ADA standards.
› For high-rise sections of the proposed building, audible alarm signals would be transmitted to the floor of the alarm, as well as the floors above and below. Additionally, activation of any alarm zone would trigger an inquiry tone on all other floors. For low-rise buildings, audible alarm signals would be sent to all floors, prompting a full evacuation.
› The Integrated Resort would be served by wet sprinklers, with areas subject to freezing (e.g., loading docks, parking areas, unconditioned space) served by a dry sprinkler system. There would also be a foam suppression system within specific areas of the building.
› A comprehensive security system would be integrated into the proposed Integrated Resort, with 60± surveillance operators and 400± security officers throughout the property.
› When special events are planned at the property, Sands would have extra security, including off duty police officers to further mitigate potential impacts to NCPD.
› A business continuity management program, which would supply the framework for identifying threats, responding to emergencies, and managing crises, would be implemented.
› The security program would be developed and implemented in accordance with Nassau County and New York State regulations. The security team would include former law enforcement, military, private security, and casino security professionals. Sands plans to recruit individuals with experience from local police, fire, and first responder agencies, as well as military personnel and those with relevant private sector experience from Nassau County.
› An Exclusion System would be implemented that prevents individuals who are on exclusion lists, as well as minors, from entering the casinos.
› Video surveillance would cover the building perimeter, entrances, loading dock, lobbies, elevator lobbies, stairwells, major MEP and technology rooms, counting/cash rooms, secure storage, doors requiring card access, visitor and employee gates with license plate readers, and parking areas.
› Sands would have emergency action and protective action plans that include procedures for coordination with local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and other first

responders, and also include the ability to make facilities and resources available for community use during times of emergency/disaster.
› The technology proposed for use as part of the security system includes CCTV, which involves cameras with facial recognition, as well as an access control/door locking system, a license plate recognition system, panic alarms, x-ray machines, metal detectors, and a criminal and terrorism information system.
› Sands proposes to periodically conduct ground deployment and tabletop exercises involving team members from various departments and local external partners, such as law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and emergency management teams. Sands operational teams would train with law enforcement and other external agencies on-site to enhance their training exercises.
› Prior to the casino opening, Sands would pay Nassau County $900,000 per year, subject to a
2.0 percent annual escalation as a contribution toward the County’s provision of exterior police and security at the premises. After the casino opening, this would rise to $1.8 million, annually, with a 2.0 percent escalation.
› Sands would construct a 1,500-square-foot police substation on-site, with accompanying police vehicles, and provide up to $500,000 for its fit out.
› Gaming revenue from the proposed Integrated Resort would be taxed by New York State, with nearly 40% allocated to local schools.
› At Full Build, local schools are projected to receive $217 million annually from gaming taxes and license fees. Additionally, the PILOT allocation to the Uniondale UFSD would be approximately $2.34 million, annually, based on a total PILOT of $4 million.
› Creation of a new comprehensive hospitality program for NCC and LIU students, including programs in hotel and casino management, security and surveillance, meetings and banquets, entertainment, and food and beverage.
› A comprehensive waste management plan would be prepared for the proposed Integrated Resort, incorporating strategies such as waste reduction and recycling programs in the areas of operational, food, and construction waste.
› Food waste would be managed through a three-pronged strategy: prevention (reducing waste generation by avoiding overproduction with accurate guest counts), rescue (donating recovered food to community causes), and diversion (using anaerobic digesters or other waste processing technologies).
› Sands would work with regional partners to repurpose food that might otherwise go to waste by donating unused food to local food banks and soup kitchens.
› Sands would implement construction waste management diversion objectives for new construction, aligned with LEED certification, targeting minimum 50 percent diversion, depending on the available local waste management infrastructure.
› Sands would comply with the New York State Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by separating excess food for donation, sending food scraps to an organic recycler (as available), separating remaining food scraps from other solid waste, training employees in proper separation and storage methods, and submitting an annual report to the NYSDEC Division of Materials Management documenting donations, recycling efforts, and other required information.

› Approximately 3.4 acres of public open space would be provided, which would be designed for the community at large and offer diverse elements, including a large plaza, along with smaller, more intimate gardens.
› At least $1 million would be allocated to construct a new monument, memorial, or tribute to
U.S. armed forces veterans, replacing the existing memorial. The design process would involve Nassau County veterans to create a new memorial wall and water feature in the Central Plaza.

‌Aesthetic Resources

‌Existing Conditions

Introduction
As discussed in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action, the purpose of the proposed action is to transform the underutilized Coliseum property into a world-class Integrated Resort that offers multiple components of leisure, business and entertainment amenities and provides a wide range of experiences and attractions to encourage tourism and support the local community. The Integrated Resort would transform the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum site into a next-generation, mixed-entertainment destination that fosters a sense of community and connectivity with its surroundings and draws people together through extraordinary experiences.
From a design perspective, the vision for the proposed project is to create a unique development for Nassau County that combines its history, culture and spaces with a view toward the future.
The Integrated Resort is envisioned as an iconic destination, to attract tourists and local residents alike, entice repeat visits and appeal to people of all ages and cultures. It would be a sustainable destination that is an asset to the community with its inspiring architecture, dynamic uses and diverse range of attractions and activities offered throughout the year. As described in Section 2.4, Description of Proposed Action, to achieve these goals, the following planning and design principles have been incorporated into the project: community integration; interconnected components; visually appealing design; memorable guest experiences; and environmental sustainability.
The proposed Integrated Resort would be a catalyst for positive transformation and revitalization of the underutilized Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property, and an anchor development that frames Nassau County as a world-class tourism destination and entertainment hub for local residents. To ensure that the goals of this transformation are achieved, the incorporation of iconic architectural features has been established as an essential design element of the proposed Integrated Resort. Accordingly, this section of the DEIS describes the existing aesthetic and visual conditions of the subject property and the surrounding area (from specific locations set forth in the Final Scope and discussed below).
To provide a basis for assessing the potential impact of the proposed action on aesthetic resources and to document the existing visual character of the subject property and surrounding area, a Study Area was established consistent with the requirements of the Final Scope. This Study Area is coincident with the Study Area utilized for the review of land use and zoning conditions, and is delineated on the Site and Surrounding Area Photographs map included in Appendix 3.11-1. Field inspections of the site and surrounding areas were performed on September 14, 2023, February 2, 2024, February 7, 2024, and April 5, 2024, the results of which are discussed in this section and are shown in the photographs contained in Appendix 3.11-1 of this DEIS.
In addition, a viewshed analysis was performed to support the analysis of aesthetic resources presented in this DEIS. Specifically, a preliminary viewshed analysis was conducted using

ArcGIS® Spatial Analyst, a modeling tool developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (Esri). The viewshed analysis Study Area for the proposed project is generally bounded by Southern State Parkway on the south, Northern State Parkway/New York State Route 25/Jericho Turnpike on the north, Wantagh State Parkway on the east, and Nassau Boulevard on the west. The viewshed refers to the areas on the ground from which the proposed project is expected to be visible. The viewshed analysis relies on Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data available within the Study Area.351 The LIDAR data was used to generate a Digital Surface Model (DSM) that represents ground elevations, trees, shrubs, buildings, structures and other stationary objects that could obstruct views. Using the DSM and data on the features of the proposed Integrated Resort, the model predicted all areas from which the proposed project would be visible. The results of the viewshed analysis are graphically depicted on Figure 48, and are discussed and referenced throughout the analysis below.
Photographs were taken of the existing visual conditions in the vicinity of the subject property. These include views of and from the site; surrounding community; public rights-of-way and major roadways; and historic, recreational and open space, and institutional locations. Existing conditions photographs depict views toward the subject property by an average individual as either a pedestrian or as a driver/passenger in a passing vehicle. Figure 49, below provides the photograph locations indicating the photograph number and view/direction for each of the existing conditions photographs taken within the Study Area. Appendix 3.11-1 contains a comprehensive set of photographs of the subject property and surrounding area.

Visual Characteristics of the Site

Set back from Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and surrounded by a large, flat, sea of asphalt parking fields, and the MSKCC facility, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum is a distinctive oval shaped structure with a domed roof that is visible from a distance, since the subject property is generally flat, and it is surrounded by vast surface parking lots with minimal intervening vegetation. The exterior façade, which was updated from 2015 – 2017 and possesses a unique architectural design, is predominantly composed of metal (4,700 aluminum fins), concrete and glass, and the building is immediately surrounded by a concrete plaza with limited landscaping. Minimal vegetation is present in the form of grass, decorative trees, and shrubs, primarily as part of the veterans memorial plaza. Other site features include lighting (both decorative and for parking areas), flag poles in the veterans memorial plaza, and traffic control devices such as gates, ticket booths, cones, handicap parking signs, and other site signage. One of the most dominant visual features of the subject property is the vast asphalt and concrete parking fields with minimal scattered landscaping. The site lacks shelter and shade.

To the east of the Coliseum property is the Marriott Hotel; an eleven-story, 121± foot tall, off- white structure with numerous angles along its front façade. The Marriott is surrounded by surface parking lots with minimal landscaping. The visual contribution of the overall subject property to the community character of the area is associated with the architecturally distinctive Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the tall Marriott Hotel, as well as the vast surface parking areas, which are predominantly vacant most of the time. The flat topography, lack of

‌351 Long Island, New York Sandy LIDAR, USGS (2014).

vegetation and vast amount of surface parking on both sites, contribute to the underutilized, uninviting character, particularly of the Coliseum property.

Views of the subject property from surrounding parcels and roadways are generally uninterrupted by buildings (with the exception of the MSKCC facility), landscaping, or natural vegetation. Photographs 1 through 7, below, depict the Coliseum, Marriott Hotel and various site features. See Appendix 3.11-1 for additional photographs of the existing conditions of the subject property. Figure 49, below, shows the locations of site and surrounding area photographs, as well as the direction the camera was pointing during photograph capture.

Figure 48: Viewshed Analysis

Sands New York Integrated Resort, 1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

'·.:·.<:.'.�.-:-:r�::'.�::(;.::�

<:.(;�-:�::..�::·.;� �•�·_-:::;

W -:

;1:;,�::,:;;� , ::·��

-- �(If/ ::

,:..:·:

:� �:�:: �

:(:\=;_�:'�-;�N�;�.:f��:-\\

> :::

�::�!:;:-��:·�::�:::.� � ',:,� -•• •

��t�?:�::::!::�;<-�� c;..,._

��i!��,."'.;�>t�-y �--•

·� \)

� ;;'

J - : : �: ,, '•� •• ' ,,•··:- ...

�i,�

❖'

•

‌9,\rl�•--· - -:--::-sf;., •.Searingto'w"ifllill•\i'1'•·•>'.tl-•'·-,:s•1·-·....,__..,A ;:;,:...::.c :::,····•t"•• ,•: ·:--·····�' 1; , • • ' ,,i �- ..--:.-;::-·..·;i.,,, ....·.•::-·.. ·/ '.,.·� ,�.:;::::--.,··..-..-·.··.:·-.�; ,...,,c<·'i.:,- ,: :,,\ ·- .• -· '�•:,:;;l•--1 ''. !!:;;;it�V·l,b

t _::; . . .\

-I -t �'

' _ ,,

Proposed Project Visibility

Low

\f;\l1\iil

00 p

· · . . . ..

;;::;::.:"•-Ji;: ::�1;•, :;;: ::--n.:·

""'ii':':4

·1d·

High

-;,,, - "::••/··:_·:-:··:-.' :. ·_,/�.<-::',- ,:- 1:,

- ......

':�

n. ..

\:;';-',r-l -'1/!/Jiii,/;; ..,.:.-,-s:ro,;.·tr>?:·,

I- ;y•<::.,,..: :-.., .. , :·- <-! I , • �------ ✓:ti:....:1?·,:..__.··.·::';; ___:·:·;:\' .,111,1 Sample spacing of 3 ft was used for the X and y axis. '§-

.- . -

105

_!t;-J}iP:j/i:./�,A2if/.fl�11.'·

��=1

······ M• •. --,;..:, .,..... ···•-t;..·-:,--• 1"<1�;::· ,; ._.J"t:._..;;,;-� ":;;--,:'.; ,:;. ·} 1 ('',>,.:. :-·;-i'.�:•..:;i.•<:•.,�; ·• .:'....,:-•::/t,/... , ·:•·l:•i,

,,... - VHB complefea 1s1b1hty analysis using Global Mapper's V1ewshed Analysis tool. 2l..

mg LIi i

XIS

- E

f"' , Analysis Extent

W•::r��

Source: Esri, Tom Tom, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS; Building footprints from NYSERDA

i; • � ••

,,,_ "'

/ 1-t

··-;,· • > :·: '--� -·: :·:·:-.:·:. ::::,.;:--::;,

A height of 5.5 feet above ground surface was used for the Receiver Elevation. �

‌Figure 49: Photograph Location Key for Site and Surrounding Areas

Sands New York Integrated Resort

Blv

k Ave

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

West Rd

h B

Miller Ave

7th St

lvd

lroad Av

5th St

Davis Ave

Nassau Community College

East 16

Meadow Brook Pond

Eisenhower Park Playground

gh Blv

les Lindber

Mitchel County Park

21 23

Merrick

s Lind

Ave

har

Path: \\vhb.com\gis\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel

6 Meadowbrook

3 Park

Char

e O

Earl

ury Blvd

empste

ad Tpke

Stone

25 1 14

Geral

Nassau

vington

Blvd

24 Veterans 7

ber

Memorial

Coliseum 12

Oak St

Warren St

26 4 9 18

n Dr

rma

Wic

5 11

nce

0 1,000 Feet

Mar

Hempstead Tpke

Hofstra University

len

n C

urt

iss

Blvd

shire Dr

Merrick Ave

Front S

Kellenberg

Gilroy Av

Walto

Subject Property Photograph Locations

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, Nearmap

Photo 1: Looking west towards the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and Veterans Memorial Plaza from the eastern portion of the parking lot.

Photo 2: Looking north towards the Coliseum from the southern portion of the parking lot.

Photo 3: Looking southwest towards the Marriott property.

Photo 4: Looking east towards the empty parking lots on the subject property, with RXR Plaza visible at the right of the photograph.

Photo 5: Looking west towards MSKCC from the southern portion of the parking lot.

Photo 6: Looking north towards the ticket pavilions at the northeastern entrance to the Coliseum property, with a portion of the Engie facility visible at the left rear of the photograph.

Photo 7: Looking south towards Hempstead Turnpike across the mostly empty, unkempt parking fields from the Marriott property.

Views from Surrounding Roadways

Views from public roadways in the area contribute to the visual character of the community as they are frequently traveled by a large number of viewers. The four major roadways from which the subject property, or parts thereof, are visible, are Hempstead Turnpike, Meadowbrook State Parkway, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and Earle Ovington Boulevard.

Hempstead Turnpike

Hempstead Turnpike runs in an east-west direction and is located to the south of the subject property. Access to the subject property from the south is provided through an entrance at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. Hempstead Turnpike is a major regional roadway that accommodates passenger and commercial vehicles traveling to and from various recreational, light industrial, commercial, office, and institutional properties in the area.

Appendix 3.11-1 contains photographs of the Hempstead Turnpike corridor in the vicinity of the subject property (see Photos 5 through 8 in Appendix 3.11-1). Additionally, Photos 8 through 12, below, present views of the subject property from various locations along Hempstead Turnpike.

Photo 8: View of the subject property from the intersection of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike facing northeast. The MSKCC facility is visible adjacent to the Coliseum building.

Photo 9: View of the illuminated signage at the Hempstead Turnpike frontage of the subject property, facing west. The MSKCC parking garage is visible beyond the signage.

Photo 10: View from Hempstead Turnpike, just east of Gilroy Avenue looking north towards the subject property. The MSKCC facility is visible at the left of the photograph, with the Coliseum building at the middle and the Marriott Hotel at the right of the photograph.

Photo 11: View from Hempstead Turnpike and the intersection of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard ooking north towards the subject property. The Marriott Hotel is visible toward the right of the photograph, with the Nassau Community College Administration Building located at a distance at center of the photograph.

Photo 12: View from Hempstead Turnpike, east of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard near RXR Plaza, ooking northwest towards the Francis T. Purcell Preserve and subject property

(Marriott Hotel property) beyond.

Traveling east along Hempstead Turnpike within the Study Area, the views along the south side of Hempstead Turnpike include institutional uses associated with Hofstra University between Oak Street and Uniondale Avenue (including some taller structures such as Axinn Library) followed by small, one-story commercial properties located close to the roadway, Kellenberg Memorial High School St. Charles Field, followed by the 175-foot tall twin glass façade buildings of RXR Plaza, slightly east of and across from the subject property.

The views along the north side of Hempstead Turnpike also consist of institutional uses associated with Hofstra University at the west end of the Study Area (including some taller structures such as the residence hall buildings); these buildings are located at greater distances from the roadway then those on the south side of Hempstead Turnpike. Moving eastward, after passing beneath the pedestrian overpass (Unispan) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue, the sense of building mass adjacent to the roadway changes as vast parking fields associated with the subject property line the north side of Hempstead Turnpike, interrupted only by MSKCC. Observers looking northward across the vast parking fields have views of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel building, with the Omni office building, NCC and Museum Row in the distance. The north side of Hempstead Turnpike in the vicinity of the subject property is characterized by the Purcell Preserve, a vegetated area located between the Marriott Hotel parking areas and the Meadowbrook State Parkway.

Photographs 5 – 8 in Appendix 3.11-1 depict the diverse appearance of Hempstead Turnpike in the vicinity of the subject property. Towards the western end of the corridor within the Study Area, looking east, views reflect more densely developed areas associated with Hofstra

University, the two pedestrian overpasses, and the varied one-story commercial uses (e.g., fast- food restaurants, delicatessens, gas stations, automotive-related uses, and small professional office uses) along the south side of Hempstead Turnpike. In contrast, towards the east end of the corridor, within the Study Area, and with the exception of RXR Plaza, the visual character is a more open viewshed due to presence of the Purcell Preserve, the flat topography that spans the area, the absence of other off-site buildings blocking views of the subject property, and lack of vegetative buffers.

Meadowbrook State Parkway

In the vicinity of the subject property, the Meadowbrook State Parkway runs both east and north of the subject property, due to its curved alignment. The roadway is generally at or below grade level proximate to the subject property (to the east), and is lined with substantial dense vegetation, making it difficult to view the subject property from most locations along the Parkway. As a result, with the exception of the upper portions of the Marriott Hotel, the remainder of the subject property is not visible from this roadway.

Photograph 13 below was taken travelling northbound on the Meadowbrook State Parkway. It shows that views to the subject property are not generally available due to dense vegetation within the right-of-way at this location. Photographs 13 through 18 below were taken from various locations travelling both north and south from the Meadowbrook State Parkway and its exit ramps.

Views from the Meadowbrook State Parkway ramps are similar to the views from the Parkway described above. Dense vegetation screens views of the subject property, except for upper portions of the Marriott Hotel.

In general, while the Meadowbrook State Parkway is a major roadway within the Study Area, viewsheds within this corridor include are intermittent and include only portions of the subject property due to topography, vegetation, or both.

Photo 13: View from the northbound travel lane on the Meadowbrook State Parkway, south of Glenn Curtiss Boulevard looking northwest towards the subject property.

Photo 14: View from the ramp from the Meadowbrook State Parkway to Hempstead Turnpike ooking west towards the subject property.

Photo 15: View from the northbound travel lane of the Meadowbrook State Parkway looking west towards the subject property.

Photo 16: View from Merrick Road towards the Meadowbrook State Parkway ramp to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard looking southwest towards the subject property.

Photo 17: View from the southbound travel lane of the Meadowbrook State Parkway looking west towards the subject property.

Photo 18: View of the southbound travel lane of the Meadowbrook State Parkway ramp to Hempstead Turnpike looking northwest towards the subject property from the northbound lane of the Meadowbrook State Parkway.

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard is a two-to-four lane County roadway that runs east-west along the northern portion of the subject property between the Meadowbrook State Parkway to the east, and Earle Ovington Boulevard to the west. It is generally at grade level with the subject property with a grass median between the travel lanes. The existing Marriott Hotel and Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum buildings, as well as the expansive surface parking lots, are visible from most areas of this roadway due to the building height, lack of vegetative buffers, and the flat topography of the area. Although the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel are both visible from this roadway, both are setback from the roadway approximately 550 feet, and separated by parking areas, limited grass buffer, and sidewalks that run along the perimeter of the subject property. Views along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard predominantly consist of taller buildings with surface parking lots and landscaping. Traveling along the road, observers can see Museum Row, the Omni, NCC Campus buildings, Hofstra University Campus Buildings, ReworldTM Hempstead, Nassau Energy Corporation (i.e., the Engie facility), RXR Plaza, MSKCC, and the subject property, among other tall commercial and institutional buildings. The Mitchel Field Athletic Complex, which includes athletic fields and buildings, also borders Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. Further east on the boulevard is the Purcell Preserve, which offers views of wooded and grassland vegetated areas. Photographs 19 through 23 below show views of the subject property from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard.

Photo 19: View from the westbound travel lane on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, proximate to the intersection of Perimeter Road (north side), looking southwest at the subject property.

Photo 20: Typical view of the subject property for observers traveling westbound on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard facing south.

Photo 21: View of the subject property from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard proximate to the Omni Building facing southeast towards the subject property.

Photo 22: Views along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard facing southeast towards the subject property proximate to Museum Row and the Mitchel Athletic Complex.

Photo 23: View from the intersection of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard looking south at the subject property.

Earle Ovington Boulevard

Earle Ovington Boulevard borders the subject property to the west. Views of the subject property from this roadway consist of the existing buildings and parking lots. Earle Ovington Boulevard runs northeast from the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike to the southern entrance of the NCC campus. The subject property is in full view from all points along Earle Ovington Boulevard due to the flat topography of the 3,500± foot road. Views from Earle Ovington Boulevard are consistent with a well-developed urbanized area. Tall structures from the Hofstra University campus, NCC campus, ReworldTM Hempstead, Nassau Energy Corporation (the Engie facility), RXR Plaza, MSKCC, and the Omni are all visible and characterize the visual landscape. Major views from Earle Ovington Boulevard are generally similar to those of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, particularly as they relate to the subject property. While surrounding land uses and views predominantly consist of tall commercial, institutional, and recreational buildings with associated parking, their uses are populated throughout the day. In contrast, the subject property appears to be underutilized to the average passerby due to large amounts of surface parking and little activity, particularly at the Coliseum property.

Photo 24: View from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard facing east towards Earle Ovington Boulevard, with the subject property visible in the distance.

Photo 25: View from the intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard facing east towards the subject property, with RXR Plaza visible at the right of the photograph.

Photo 26: View of the subject property from Earle Ovington Boulevard and East Gate Road (access to Hofstra University). The MSKCC parking garage is visible at the right of the photograph.

Views from Historic, Recreational and Open Space, and Institutional Locations in the Vicinity of the Subject Property
Views of the subject property from the following historic, recreational and open space, and institutional resources were reviewed and assessed. Images of these resources are included in Appendix 3.11-1 and analysis of the visual impacts to these facilities are discussed in Section 3.11.2, below.
› Museum Row (Appendix 3.11-1, Views 15 and 16) located adjacent to NCC and north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Davis Avenue (2,000± feet northwest of the subject property).
› Mitchel Field Officers’ Quarters (Appendix3.11-1 Views 17 and 18) located west of NCC, in the general area of Bane Road, Miller Avenue, Wheeler Avenue, and Seventh Street (2,800± feet north of the subject property)
› Francis T. Purcell Preserve (Hempstead Plains south) located east of James Doolittle Boulevard (Appendix 3.11-1, Views 19 and 20).
› Eisenhower Park (a Nassau County Facility) located east of Merrick Avenue and the Meadowbrook State Parkway (2,500± feet northeast of the subject property) (Appendix 3.11-1, Views 21 and 22). Eisenhower Park also contains the Staller Mansion/Lannin House and Cottage located east of Merrick Avenue (3,000± feet northeast of the subject property [Views 23 and 24]), and the Lanning (former the Carltun and also formerly Salisbury Golf Course Clubhouse) at 425 Merrick Avenue (5,000 feet northeast of the subject property [Views 25 and 26]).
› Hofstra University located on the west side of Earle Ovington Boulevard (300± feet west of the subject property [Views 27 and 28]).
› Mitchel Athletic Complex located 500± feet northwest of the subject property (Views 29 and 30).
› Nassau Community College located north of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (1,500± feet north of the subject property [Views 31 and 32]).
› Jones Beach State Park (a New York State-operated park) located on the barrier beach south of the site at the southern terminus of the Meadowbrook State Parkway (View 33).
The above-referenced viewshed analysis (as well as the digital renderings presented in Section 3.11.2.3, below, and in Appendix 3.11-2) confirmed there would be no visibility of the project from the following locations. Therefore, photographs are not included from these locations:
› Old Westbury Gardens (a New York State-operated park) located on the east side of Old Westbury Road between Jericho Turnpike and the Long Island Expressway in the Village of Old Westbury
› Hempstead Lake State Park (a New York State facility) located south of the Southern State Parkway and west of Peninsula Boulevard
› Norman J. Levy Preserve (Town of Hempstead Park) located south of the subject property on the south side of Merrick Road and East of the Meadowbrook State Parkway in Merrick
› Town of Hempstead Town Hall located on Washington Street between Peninsula Boulevard and Front Street, situated southwest of the subject property
› St. Paul’s School located at Rockaway Avenue and Stewart Avenue, west of the subject
property.
Visual Characteristics of the Surrounding Areas
The visual characteristics of a site in relation to its surroundings contribute to the overall character of a community. The height, mass, and architectural features of buildings, and their visibility within the overall visual environment are also important components of community character. When viewing the subject property, the defining character at most times is that of an underutilized Coliseum building, with a veterans memorial plaza (located on the eastern side of the building), surrounded by a vast, uninterrupted expansive sea of asphalt, containing light poles, concrete medians, and parking fee collection booths. The existing site is not appealing as there is little vegetation or attractive architectural features. Trees and other landscaping along with grassy areas line much of the Hempstead Turnpike frontage, and partly obscure the subject property from Hempstead Turnpike, but provide minimal relief from views of the vast asphalt parking fields. The Marriott Hotel is visible amongst existing parking lots. The hotel building and associated parking areas have limited vegetation with trees contained in a few of the parking lot islands closest to the building and dispersed trees outlining the eastern property boundary along James Doolittle Boulevard and adjacent to boundary with the Coliseum property. The structures that comprise the subject property, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and Marriott Hotel are visible to a large number of viewers as they are generally located along major roadways that traverse the Study Area.
The visual characteristics of the overall Study Area are diverse and defined by its varied land uses. The absence of streetscape elements along the surrounding roadways also contribute to the visual character of the area. As architectural styles vary greatly between various land uses developed throughout the last century, the Study Area does not have a strong sense of one particular visual character. Traditional, one-story brick military buildings, airplane hangars, modern office buildings, institutional-style educational buildings, one-and-two-story single family residences, and warehouse-style office/industrial facilities are all present, resulting in a mix of architectural styles that contribute to the diverse visual character of the Study Area.
More specifically, the Study Area is that of a well-developed suburban area with a mix of uses. Hofstra University and NCC are prominent land uses that contribute to a large portion of the visual landscape due to their campus sizes and the height of their buildings. The northern and southern borders of the Study Area consist of commercial corridors like Stewart Avenue (to the north) and Front Street (to the south). Front Street primarily features one-to-two-story commercial buildings with various architectural designs. Towards the eastern portion of the Study Area are several two-story single-family homes along this roadway. The Stewart Avenue commercial corridor includes larger single-and-two-story buildings that have different appearances but are typical of a mixed commercial and industrial area. Views of the subject property from Stewart Avenue and Front Street are limited due to the presence of vegetation and built structures that obstruct views.
Between Hempstead Turnpike and Front Street is a neighborhood of single-family homes that is characteristic of a well-developed suburban area. The houses in this neighborhood vary in aesthetic character but are predominantly two-story brick homes. Streets adjacent to Hempstead Turnpike, such as Cunningham Avenue, Marvin Avenue, Walton Avenue, and Gilroy Avenue, have
views of the existing Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and Marriott Hotel buildings, but views become increasingly obstructed travelling south within these neighborhoods.
There is no strong sense of a particular visual character in the area. The architectural styles vary considerably amongst the structures, as the area was developed throughout the last century. Traditional, one-story brick military buildings, airplane hangars, modern office buildings, institutional-style educational buildings, one- and-two-story single-family residences of vernacular style and warehouse-style office/industrial facilities are among the various architectural styles that combine to form the mixed visual character of the Study Area.
The absence of strong streetscape elements along the major roadways in the area contributes to the lack of overall visual character. The individual land uses on and near the subject property are mostly focused inward and do not physically or visually connect or blend with each other.
Overall, with the exception of the Coliseum and Marriott Hotel buildings, the visual character of the subject property is undistinguished and unremarkable; it is, for the most part, a flat, large and barren asphalt parking lot. The same is true for the surrounding area. Due to the flat topography and abundance of surface parking lots, the distinguishing features in the landscape are stand- alone, unrelated tall buildings. There is no visual connection or unity amongst the major visual features in the immediate area, and the aesthetic characteristics of the site and surrounding area do not contribute to the area’s vibrancy, nor do they make the subject site inviting.
The Study Area surrounding the subject property includes many of the tallest structures in the region. These taller buildings include Hofstra University’s library and six dormitory buildings, NUMC, NCC, several office buildings and a hotel. The most prominent of the tall structures located within the Study Area is the ReworldTM Hempstead stack at the north end of the Study Area. Also, buildings in the vicinity of the subject property associated with Hofstra University and NCC, and many existing office buildings fronting Hempstead Turnpike east of the subject property, all reach heights in excess of 100 feet. The existing RXR Plaza buildings and the Omni office building are dominant visual features that also contribute to existing visual character of the area. Figure 50, below, depicts the location of some of the tallest buildings and structures within the area and their relationship to the subject property, including:
› 382± feet ReworldTM Hempstead stack (1.0± miles north of the subject property)
› 299± feet NUMC (1.7± miles east of the subject property)
› 175± feet RXR Plaza (0.05± mile southeast of the subject property)
› 170± feet Hofstra University Residence Halls (0.5± west of the subject property
› 146± feet NCC Administration Building (0.33± mile north of the subject property)
› 122± feet Omni Building (0.05± mile northwest of the subject property).
Figure 50: Tall Buildings and Structures in the Surrounding Area
Sands New York Integrated Resort

N

0

1,500 Feet

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

‌The Omni (122± feet)

Hearth L

ate Dr

Stewart

n

Reworld Hempstead (382± feet)

Maxwell Rd

Russell Rd

Carman Ave

Dr

rk

ry

Salisbu

a

P

Sal

isbury

Kellu

Ave

Roosevelt Field Mall

Leffe

r

ts R

d

Wya

t

t R

d

Washingto

Hun

tin

g

to

n

R

d

n Ave

m Pl

Stewar

t Ave

Eisenhower County Park Golf Course

City

Garden

Hofstra University Residence Halls (170± feet)

Custer Park

Davis Ave

Stewart

Nassau Community College
Nassau Community College Administration Building (17E0is±enfeheotw) er
ick

Ave

Park Playgroun

Me

rr

Ave

d

11th St

East Meadow High School

Nassau University
aint James St N

Medical Center

Wash

ingt

Chestnut

St

S

on Ave

G

arde

Grove St

Boylston St

Hilton Ave

n

7th St

Locust St

Poplar St

St

Pine St

Willow St

Mitchel County Park

Marriott Hotel
5th St

St

Meadow St

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum
Meadowbr
ook

Park

3rd St

East Meadow Mall
2nd St

Oak St

Hempst

ead Tp

ke

Nassau University Medical Center (299± feet)

West

b

M

7th St

Bl

ury

vd

St

Axinn Library (145± feet)

Curt

d St

Glenn

Hofstra University

iss

Blvd

Devon St

8th St

ve

Merrick A

Front St

RXR Plaza (175± feet)

Yale St

Harvard

S

t

East Meado

ain St

w

Cli

nt

Spru

Cathedr

Hilton

Feni

Califor

spect Ave

24

o

nt St

Ave

al Ave

n

Meadow

E

n

ce L

Main St

N Fra klin

n St

St

Newp

Ma

Len

nia Ave

ort Rd

ple Av

more A

ox Ave

Pro

wers Ave

Fulton Ave

Fro

Subject Property

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI
Overall, the visually defining characteristics of the site and surrounding area are the flat topography, the adjacent and nearby major roadways, the vast surface parking areas (particularly those associated with the subject property and surrounding office buildings), the two college campuses, and the concentration of tall buildings (comprising a variety of uses) in the surrounding area.
Additional photographs depicting the visual character and the buildings within the Study Area are included in Appendix 3.11-1.

‌Potential Impacts

Visual Character, Design Intent and Overall Architectural Characteristics
The proposed Integrated Resort is envisioned as a world-class facility that offers multiple amenities and attractions to drive leisure and business tourism into the region and local community. The goal of the proposed Integrated Resort is to transform the underutilized Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property into a next-generation, mixed-entertainment destination that seamlessly integrates and connects with its surroundings to draw people together through extraordinary experiences. To achieve its goal of transforming the underutilized subject property into a regional destination, the Integrated Resort has been designed with iconic architectural features.
As documented above and in Appendix 3.11-1, there is no strong sense of one particular visual character in the Study Area. Instead, the visual character of the area is highly fragmented due to the variation in land uses and architectural styles within the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed Integrated Resort seeks to transform the lack of overall visual character by creating a definable destination, with a distinct architectural style, and improved pedestrian connectivity, public spaces, and landscaping.
As described in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action, creating architectural themes for the various programmatic elements that are distinct from one another, yet complementary, is a key aspect of designing a visually interesting and world-class destination. Sands would feature a cohesive design that allows programmatic elements to display distinctive identities. The Integrated Resort is proposing to use a variety of materials, colors and textures to create differentiation among components. Architectural renderings (daytime and nighttime) depicting the proposed aesthetic design of the Integrated Resort are provided in Appendix 3.11-5.
In terms of the building’s massing, the combination of the horizontally organized podium components352 with the verticality of the hotel towers reinforces the distinctly complimentary relationships of the whole. The composition of individual elements play off one another in a manner that manages scale while blending with and respecting the context. Articulated façade elements provide a final defining and unifying characteristic of the overall design. The use of exterior elements such as the horizontal and vertical louvers, podium cladding materials and fritted glazing (as described in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources) provide a series of elements

‌352 “Podium construction, also known as pedestal or platform construction, represents a unique building style with distinct horizontal divisions between an upper tower and a lower “podium.” https://www.arrantconstruction.com/constructing-podium-structures-a- comprehensive-guide/. Accessed June 11, 2024
that would enable the Integrated Resort to be respectful of its location and an architecturally timeless addition to the community. Representative exterior materials are provided in Appendix 3.11-6.
The building composition prioritizes horizontality over verticality to ensure that the project blends with its surroundings. The towers are clad with refined bronze shading elements to create an ephemeral visual quality, while managing inside heat gain. The podium design features a series of terraces/green roofs and setbacks that gradually step down the massing of the building. These terraces and setbacks would serve to break up the building’s scale, while creating a series of visual connections between different levels of the podium. The terracing of the building mass also allows for a transition between the podium and the hotel towers above, so there is not one solid wall of buildings. Horizontal articulation and proposed landscape features (discussed below and in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources), would provide visual interest to facades while allowing for appropriate amounts of daylight to penetrate into the building interior.
The concept of horizontality is a key design element in the development of the podium form. The variety of horizontal movements have been established to manage the visual impact of height and the sense of scale. Finding the right balance between an expansive horizontal podium and the hotel towers required a specific strategy to create a massing solution that also responds to the neighboring context, while creating visual prominence for the project.

Exterior lighting, as depicted on the Lighting Plans in Appendix 3.11-4, is proposed to be subtle and concentrated at the base of the towers to minimize visibility of the towers after dark. The lighting concept is discussed in detail in Section 3.11.2.5, below.
As described in more detail below and in Section 3.3.2, Ecological Resources, the planting approach would provide a unified landscape design that embraces the use of native species, a warm and welcoming color palette, and an overall look and feel that pays homage to the Hempstead Plains. The design incorporates a lush layer of wooded plantings along the property boundaries (particularly Hempstead Turnpike), which would connect to the surrounding neighborhood, providing greenery along the edges of the site. This would improve the pedestrian and biking experience along the surrounding multi-use pathways. Additionally, the goal is to use topography and grading (in some instances creating berms) to reduce the scale of the structures at the periphery of the site. Increasing the building setbacks and raising the grade in these areas is anticipated to help mitigate the visual impact of the garages while creating a
strong plane of vision for planting. By sloping the planting areas, passersby would see a deeper layering of planting zones set back from the edge of the property.
As described in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action, every element (including visual elements) of the proposed Integrated Resort would be carefully crafted to enhance the guest experience. The arrival experience is a critical element of any destination, as the first impression sets the tone for the entire visit and the experiences that are to come. The use of greenery in the arrival area would give the feel of a calming and relaxing area tucked away from the surrounding

environment. Water features, such as refined reflecting pools, are proposed to create a sense of tranquility.
Defining the guest journey throughout the proposed Integrated Resort is an important element in maximizing the overall resort experience. Pedestrian walkways would be incorporated throughout the development, creating a seamless circulation system. Open plazas
would provide gathering spaces for visitors, and indoor-outdoor spaces would allow visitors to effortlessly move between different areas and elements. Sands would incorporate seasonal displays, including holiday-themed installations, which would create a constantly evolving environment.
Impacts to Visual Characteristics of the Subject Property
As explained in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action, and reiterated above, Sands’ vision is to transform the subject property into Long Island’s premier destination offering an array of experiences. Each component of the Integrated Resort would be connected through a series of architectural and landscape elements, resulting in a cohesive development that feels like a series of interconnected destinations. A large public plaza Central Plaza (denoted on the Illustrative Site Plan Figure 51, as feature no. 08) would be located between the Coliseum Casino, which would be housed in the renovated Coliseum space, and the existing Marriott Hotel to the east, and would feature landscaped zones for passive and active recreational uses such as art shows, outdoor music performances, small festivals, and other community and cultural activities. A veterans memorial plaza would be a focal piece of this large outdoor public space, paying tribute to the site’s history. The visually appealing components of the Integrated Resort, including its iconic architectural elements as well as the plazas and landscaping elements, would replace the expansive parking spaces that currently surround the underutilized Coliseum property and dominate the visual character of the site.
The Marriott Hotel (denoted on the figure as feature no. 10), at 121 feet in height, would remain on the eastern portion of the subject property. The existing Coliseum building itself (feature no. 01) would be incorporated into the Coliseum Casino. The other portions of the Integrated Resort and the proposed parking garages would be approximately 95 feet in height.
The two visually dominant features of the site are expected be the two hotel towers (feature nos. 04 and 05), located near the center of the subject property, based on their relative height above the remaining proposed structures. These two hotel towers would be approximately 278 feet in height, extending to approximately 298 feet (including the parapet). These towers would be clad in the refined bronze shading elements (or similar). The entertainment venue (feature no. 03) would be up to 95 feet in height and visible from Hempstead Turnpike, and the meeting and conference space (feature no. 18), also up to 95 feet, would be visible along Earle Ovington Boulevard among proposed landscape plantings. The Central Plaza (feature no. 08) is proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the Integrated Resort between the proposed Coliseum Casino (feature no. 01) and the Marriott Hotel (feature no. 10). This plaza would contain a mix of landscape and hardscape, and would feature the proposed veterans memorial. Based on a review of the Conceptual Master Plan, this plaza is expected to be visible from internal roadways (North Drive and Sands Boulevard), and partially visible from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, given their location and the orientation of the surrounding buildings. The West Plaza (feature no. 07) situated on the western portion of the site between Hotel Tower 2 (feature no. 05) and the meeting and conference space (feature no. 18) would also be landscaped, and visible from Earle Ovington Boulevard, as well as the newly proposed North Drive.
As can be seen on Figure 51, the proposed Parking Garages A, B and C (feature nos. 11, 12 and 13, respectively) are located along the perimeter of the site and would be visible from the surrounding roadways. The area located between Parking Garage A and Earle Ovington Boulevard/Charles Lindbergh Boulevard is proposed to contain a wide landscaped buffer.
Additional landscaping along the property’s perimeter would help soften the views of the garages, particularly along their lower portions, as depicted on the Landscape Plans (Appendix 3.3-3). All three surface parking lots (Lot E, Lot F, and Lot G, feature nos. 14, 15 and 16, respectively) would be landscaped around their perimeters to minimize visual impacts to the
surrounding roadways, including Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Hempstead Turnpike at James Doolittle Boulevard/Sands Boulevard, and Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard, respectively, and landscaped islands would be installed throughout.
The landscape design strategy for the Integrated Resort represents a significant enhancement from the sea of asphalt that currently dominates the site. The Integrated Resort would utilize landscape features and tree lines along the periphery of the development to soften its edges and

minimize the perceived scale of the project. To achieve these goals, landscaping would feature a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers arranged in different configurations along the development’s borders. These plantings would create natural buffers between the development and the surrounding areas, and help to reduce noise and visual impact.
Tree lines would create visual interest and establish a sense of place. Distinct areas within the overall landscape design would be created by various methods, such as deploying trees along pedestrian promenades and in quiet seating areas. Tree-lined boulevards would be incorporated to direct the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, resulting in a more intuitive and user- friendly experience while simultaneously integrating the development into the surrounding community.
An outer layer of plantings would be incorporated along the edges of the site to connect the development to the surrounding areas. This planting strategy also would provide improve bicyclists’ experience along the adjacent public cycleways that surround the site.

At the interior of the site, the Integrated Resort would provide a series of public spaces that provide welcoming settings for visitors to enjoy the outdoors.
‌Figure 51: Illustrative Site Plan
Sands New York Integrated Resort
1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Some spaces would be manicured and horticultural, while other areas would reflect the character of the preserved low grasslands adjacent to the site.

As part of the tree planting strategy, the Integrated Resort would incorporate tree canopies to provide additional shade and promote thermal comfort. The majority of planting would be native, including a combination of meadows reminiscent of the Hempstead Plains, juxtaposed with more tailored lawn and tree combinations.
It is envisioned that the landscaping would contribute significantly to the overall look and feel of the property, while softening connections to the surrounding areas.
Along with the proposed landscaping, lighting is an important element in defining the look and feel of a development. The lighting concept for the Integrated Resort is discussed in detail in Section 3.11.2.5, below.
While visible to the surrounding community, the proposed Sands Integrated Resort has been designed to provide a dramatic improvement to the current stark, unwelcoming visual character of the Coliseum property. The proposed development is expected to transform a property that is often either observed to be a vast unoccupied parking lot, or a sea of automobiles surrounding an arena and hotel into a vibrant destination with architecturally significant and iconic buildings and walkable public and green spaces.
Visual Analysis Methodology
Preliminary Viewshed Analysis
As described above, and to assist in determining the specific locations within the Study Area to be evaluated for potential impacts to aesthetic resources, a preliminary viewshed analysis was conducted using ArcGIS® Spatial Analyst, a modeling tool developed by Esri (Figure 48). The viewshed analysis Study Area for the proposed project was generally bounded by Southern State Parkway on the south, Northern State Parkway/New York State Route 25/Jericho Turnpike on the north, Wantagh State Parkway on the east and Nassau Boulevard on the west.
The viewshed refers to the areas on the ground from which the proposed project is expected to be visible and that could be potentially affected by the proposed project in terms of the visual environment. The viewshed analysis relies on LIDAR data available within the Study Area. The LIDAR data was used to generate a DSM which represents ground elevations, trees, shrubs, buildings, structures and other visual objects. The DSM, together with data representing the features of the proposed Integrated Resort, allows the viewshed analysis to predict where from within the surrounding areas the proposed Integrated Resort would be visible among and between existing obstructions to the horizon. These results also provide a screening tool for use in selecting locations for further detailed analysis.

Digital Renderings
Based on the results of the viewshed analysis, and the guidance set forth by the NYSDEC publication, DEP-00-2 Assessing and Mitigating Visual and Aesthetic Impacts, digital renderings were prepared for 39 locations within the Study Area. These locations include potentially sensitive locations within proximate residential neighborhoods, State listed historic buildings, potential environmental justice area communities, State parks, local parks and nature preserves, and State scenic roads and byways. To create the digital renderings, the architectural massing model for the Integrated Resort (provided by Populous) was imported into Google Earth Pro, and from each location, a street view image was exported. Images were captured of the proposed Integrated Resort massing model on the bare earth 3D terrain and with 3D buildings. These images were then merged into Photoshop to facilitate integration of the proposed Integrated Resort with the street view image. The purpose of the digital renderings is to confirm the results of the viewshed analysis and to determine from what locations the proposed Integrated Report may be visible, partially visible or not visible. Digital renderings were prepared for the following locations, and can be found in Appendix 3.11-2.
1. Northern State Parkway at Jericho Turnpike (not visible)
2. Meadowbrook State Parkway exit ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (visible)
3. Meadowbrook State Parkway at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass (partially visible)
4. Meadowbrook State Parkway exist ramp at Hempstead Turnpike (visible)
5. Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Meadowbrook Road (partially visible)
6. Meadowbrook State Parkway at Southern State Parkway (not visible)
7. Museum Row (visible)
8. Old Westbury Gardens (not visible)
9. Hempstead Lake State Park (not visible)
10. Eisenhower Park (visible)
11. Jones Beach State Park (partially visible)
12. Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue (visible)
13. Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard (visible)
14. Hempstead Plains (visible)
15. Norman J. Levy Park and Preserve (not visible)
16. Hofstra University Athletic Field (visible)
17. Staller Mansion/Lannin House at Eisenhower Park (visible)
18. The Carleton at Eisenhower Park (not visible)
19. Mitchel Field Officers Quarters (not visible)
20. Meadowbrook State Parkway at Old Country Road (not visible)
21. Town of Hempstead Town Hall (not visible)
22. Intersection of 9th Street and Hilton Avenue (not visible)
23. Intersection of 5th Street and Hilton Avenue (not visible)
24. St. Paul’s School (not visible)
25. Intersection of Jericho Turnpike and Nassau Boulevard (not visible)
26. Northern State Parkway at Wantagh State Parkway (not visible)
27. Wantagh State Parkway at Southern State Parkway (not visible)
28. Intersection of Hempstead Avenue and Taylor Road (not visible)
29. Intersection of Nassau Boulevard and Stewart Avenue (not visible)
30. Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Nassau Boulevard (not visible)
31. Wantagh State Parkway at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike (visible)
32. Intersection of Carman Avenue and Salisbury Park Drive (not visible)
33. Intersection of Cherry Valley Avenue, 11th Street, and Hilton Avenue (not visible)
34. Intersection of Braxton Street and Uniondale Avenue (partially visible)
35. Intersection of Front Street and Bedford Avenue (visible)
36. Intersection of East Meadow Avenue and Lenox Avenue (not visible)
37. Intersection of School Street and Madison Street (not visible)
38. Intersection of Prospect Street and 2nd Street (not visible)
39. Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Merrick Avenue (visible).
  
  Photosimulations
  There are two components of the analysis of potential visual impacts – the internal visual character of the site, and the exterior visual character, that is, the appearance of the site presented to the surrounding community. The most effective means to evaluate the visual impacts associated with the proposed Integrated Resort is through photosimulations from various viewpoints within the surrounding areas. Based on the visibility of the proposed
  
  Integrated Resort from the above locations that were digitally rendered, photosimulations were prepared for the 16 of the 39 locations noted above that exhibited the greatest potential visual impact. These locations are as follows:
  › Meadowbrook State Parkway exit ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (Location 2)
  › Meadowbrook State Parkway at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass (Location 3)
  › Meadowbrook State Parkway exist ramp at Hempstead Turnpike (Location 4)
  › Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Meadowbrook Road (Location 5)
  › Museum Row (Location 7)
  › Eisenhower Park (Location 10)
  › Jones Beach State Park (Location 11)
  › Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue (Location 12)
  › Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard (Location 13)
  › Hempstead Plains (Location 14)
  › Hofstra University Athletic Field (Location 16)
  › Staller Mansion/Lannin House at Eisenhower Park (Location 17)
  › Wantagh State Parkway at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike (Location 31)
  › Intersection of Braxton Street and Uniondale Avenue (Location 34)
  › Intersection of Front Street and Bedford Avenue (Location 35)
  › Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Merrick Avenue (Location 39).
  These photosimulations depict the visual impact of the project using 3D models of the proposed structures, based on the architectural design information provided by Populous. The existing terrain was created with 1-meter LiDAR data in Autodesk Infraworks and overlaid with a high- quality aerial image from Nearmap. This terrain model was then exported to Trimble Sketchup, where the proposed architectural model and landscape plan were integrated to form a complete depiction of the proposed conditions. In this model, 3D representation of the landscape features replaced the 2D elements from the original landscape plan.
  Photographs of the current conditions were taken at each site using a high-quality DSLR camera with a 50mm lens, while GPS equipment recorded the location of each shot. Images were adjusted for color levels and exposure as needed for clarity. The photographs were then aligned with the proposed 3D model using Sketchup’s photo tool by identifying common reference points in both the photos and the aerial imagery. The finalized images from the 3D model were combined with the corresponding existing conditions photographs in Adobe Photoshop to create realistic photosimulations for each of the 16 locations identified as having the highest potential for visual impact. During preparation of the photosimulations, consultations were undertaken with the project architect, Populous, to confirm that the building attributes and colors accurately reflected the architectural design. These photosimulations, which are included as Figure 53 and within Appendix 3.11-3, illustrate the visual impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort and are keyed to a location map (Figure 52). A discussion of each photosimulation follows the figures.
  
  Figure 52: Photosimulation Locations Key Map
  Sands New York Integrated Resort
  
  N
  
  0
  
  4,000 Feet
  
  Ave
  
  n
  
  Unio
  
  ‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County
  
  d
  
  Carle Place
  
  106
  
  Wantagh P
  
  kw
  
  y N
  
  ve
  
  arm
  
  A
  
  an
  
  Old Count
  
  ry R
  
  Salisbury
  
  Ste
  
  art Av
  
  e
  
  w
  
  Nassau Community College
  7 2
  
  Oak St
  
  ad Tp
  
  14
  4
  Hempste
  
  16
  
  C
  
  17 Eisenhower Park Playground
  
  10
  
  kwy S
  
  ke
  
  39
  
  Levittown
  agh P
  
  Want
  
  ewbridge
  
  R
  
  d
  
  st
  
  p
  
  Hem
  
  31
  
  mpstead
  12
  Hofstra 13 3
  University
  
  5
  34
  Front St
  
  Merri
  
  35
  
  N
  
  102
  
  East Meadow
  
  Judy Jacobs-Parkway
  Elementary School
  
  wic
  
  en
  
  h St
  
  e
  
  Gr
  
  ck Ave
  
  Newbridge Rd
  
  Uniondale
  
  anklin entary
  chool
  
  mpstead
  
  ewbr
  
  N
  
  outh
  
  No Jones Be
  rth Bellmore
  
  State Pa
  u Rd
  
  11
  
  Nassa
  
  id
  
  Subject Property
  Photosimulation Locations
  
  * Boundaries are approximate
  
  Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, USDA, Nearmap
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 2: Meadowbrook State Parkway Exit Ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  
  Proposed Viewpoint 2: Meadowbrook State Parkway Exit Ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 2: Evening view of Meadowbrook State Parkway Exit Ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  
  Proposed Viewpoint 2: Evening view of Meadowbrook State Parkway Exit Ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 3: Meadowbrook State Parkway at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard Overpass
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 4: Meadowbrook State Parkway Exit Ramp at Hempstead Turnpike
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 5: Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Meadowbrook Road
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 7: Museum Row
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 10: Eisenhower Park
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 11: Jones Beach State Park
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 12: Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 12: Evening view of the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue
  
  Proposed Viewpoint 12: Evening view of the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 13: Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard
  
  Proposed Viewpoint 13: Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 13: Evening view of the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard
  
  Proposed Viewpoint 13: Evening view of the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 14: Hempstead Plains
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 16: Hofstra University Athletic Field
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 16: Evening view of the Hofstra University Athletic Field
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 17: Staller Mansion/Lannin House at Eisenhower Park
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 31: Wantagh Parkway at the Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 34: The Intersection of Braxton Street and Uniondale Avenue
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 35: The Intersection of Front Street and Bedford Avenue
  
  ‌Existing Viewpoint 39: The Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Merrick Avenue.
  
  Meadowbrook State Parkway exit ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard (Location 2)
  This viewpoint is located along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at the Meadowbrook State Parkway exit ramp, with portions of Nassau Community College located to the right of the photograph. Views from this location include the multi-story Marriott Hotel, visible on the left of the photograph, and the existing Coliseum building visible at center. Parking areas associated with these buildings are minimally visible from this viewpoint. Portions of the existing multi-story Hofstra University dormitory and other buildings can be seen in the background.
  As depicted in the photosimulation, Hotel Tower 1 is shown extending above the Marriott Hotel, with Hotel Tower 2 visible and the northern casino (encompassing the Coliseum structure) visible at the middle of the photograph. As indicated above, the towers are clad with refined bronze shading element to create an ephemeral visual cladding that would be reflective of the sky. The northern CUP and Parking Garage A, which partially block the lower portions of the proposed casino and Hotel Tower 2, are visible along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard from the exit ramp area. While there would be visibility of components of the proposed Integrated Resort from this viewpoint, the photosimulation demonstrates the benefits of the project’s architectural design features, including the cladding that surrounds the garage and the tower treatment, which serves to minimize the overall visual impact of the Proposed Action from this viewpoint.
  Meadowbrook State Parkway at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass (Location 3)
  The existing conditions photograph depicts the RXR Plaza buildings, with an associated parking garage and various existing landscaped trees along the roadway, from the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard overpass looking northwest to the subject property. The photograph shows leaf-off conditions to depict the worst-case condition. As can be seen in this photosimulation, a portion of the hotel tower would be visible through the trees and beyond the western RXR Plaza building. Existing trees obscure portions of the proposed Integrated Resort from this location, but a portion of the proposed entertainment venue and Parking Garage C would be visible from this location. As with the existing condition, when the trees are in bloom, a portion of the proposed Hotel Tower and entertainment venue would be more fully obscured from this location. The façade of the proposed facility complements the façade of the RXR Plaza buildings, both having a glass/metallic appearance that helps to blend the building with the background of the sky. The relative heights of the towers, entertainment venue and garage structures are substantially less than that of the RXR Plaza development, given the distance from the viewpoint location. While there would be a change in the visual character of the subject property, the views of the hotel towers from this vantage point are consistent and blend with the existing views that contain the RXR Plaza buildings.
  Meadowbrook State Parkway exit ramp at Hempstead Turnpike (Location 4)
  The view from Location 4 is along Hempstead Turnpike looking west toward the subject property as one approaches the property from the east. A grassy median separates Hempstead Turnpike from the multi-use path, shown at the right of the photograph. Off the photograph to the left is RXR Plaza. At the right of the photograph, moving toward the center, a vegetated perimeter is visible along the Marriott Hotel property, with the Coliseum property in the distance. None of the buildings or parking areas on the subject property are visible in the existing condition photograph.
  
  The photosimulation shows that Hotel Tower 1 and a portion of its podium would be visible from this location, with the podium and lower buildings partially obscured by existing vegetation to remain and upper portions of Hotel Tower 2 visible in the background (toward the center of the photosimulation). A portion of the entertainment venue and the Parking Garage are visible at the center of the photograph. When the trees along the property line near the center of the photograph are in bloom, they would offer some additional screening of the Hotel Tower 1 and other Integrated Resort components along Hempstead Turnpike.
  Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Meadowbrook Road (Location 5)
  The existing conditions photograph depicts a typical view of the Hempstead Turnpike corridor looking east toward the subject property, which is not visible in this photograph. Two of the Hofstra University Unispans (overhead pedestrian bridges) are visible in the photograph, along with utility poles and overhead wires on the right (south side of Hempstead Turnpike), commercial signage, and some additional utility poles and wires located on the north side of the roadway. Several of the taller Hofstra University buildings are visible through the trees and wires on the left side of the photograph.
  The photosimulation from this vantage point indicates that only a small portion of the top of Hotel Tower 1 is visible at the middle of the photograph, above the closest Unispan, and an even smaller area of the uppermost portion of Hotel Tower 2 is visible amongst the buildings, trees, and utility poles and wires. When the trees are in bloom, it is likely that Hotel 2 would not be visible from this location. Therefore, while small portions of the proposed Integrated Resort would be visible from this location, there are myriad visual elements in the horizon, as described above, that would screen most of the proposed development from this vantage point. Moreover, the relative heights of the Tower buildings from this viewpoint appear somewhat less than those of the existing Hofstra University buildings that are visible in the existing condition.
  Museum Row (Location 7)
  Location 7 is situated at the parking area adjacent to the vehicular entrance to Museum Row, adjacent to the NCC campus. The existing view encompasses parking lots with overhead lighting fixtures in the foreground, with the 10-story Omni office building on the right side of the photograph and the Marriott Hotel toward the middle of the photo, in the background. The RXR Plaza buildings are visible in the background between the Omni and the Marriott Hotel. The Coliseum is blocked from view in this photograph. This photosimulation shows that Hotel Tower 2 is visible behind and to the south of the Omni office building, with portions of Parking Garage A visible in the mid-ground. The Parking Garage cladding would, in part, screen the structure’s interior and would minimize visual impacts as compared with a traditional garage design. A small portion of the southernmost part of the Marriott Hotel remains visible beyond the new parking garage. The views of the site from this viewpoint would change; however, the new buildings would blend in with the established elements of the viewshed including the various other existing tall buildings that are present throughout the area (e.g., the Omni and the RXR Plaza buildings). Additionally, the façade of the proposed hotel towers similar in appearance to the glass/reflective banding around the Omni. The architectural treatment of the Hotel Tower’s façade allows the building to partially blend with its surroundings, thereby reducing its visual impact as demonstrated within this photosimulation.
  
  Eisenhower Park (Location 10)
  The existing conditions viewpoint is looking west toward the subject property from the entrance to the ice rink at Eisenhower Park. In the mid-ground, the New York State Police building, utility poles and numerous overhead wires are visible along Merrick Avenue from this viewpoint. While the Coliseum and associated parking areas cannot be seen from this location, the uppermost portion of the Marriott Hotel is visible at the right of the photograph. Other portions of the building are obscured by existing vegetation (to remain). The photosimulation shows that the upper portions of both proposed hotel towers would be visible from this location, beyond the New York State Police building and the other obstructions to the horizon. The upper portions of the Marriott Hotel remain visible at the right side of the photosimulation, and a small portion of Parking Garage A is barely visible in the distance at the extreme right of the photosimulation, at the treeline.
  Jones Beach State Park (Location 11)
  This photograph was taken looking north from a footpath off Bay Parkway at the West End 2 portion of Jones Beach State Park. The site is located approximately 10 miles to the north and is not visible from this location. Several water towers and buildings are barely visible as they are located at a great distance, but the mid-ground to background contains mostly water (Jones Bay), sand and vegetation. The photosimulation shows that the uppermost portions of the two hotel towers are barely perceptible at the background at the middle of the photograph, among the various other tall structures already present. Based on this photosimulation, the visual impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort are negligible from this viewpoint.
  Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue (Location 12)
  The existing conditions viewpoint is looking north along Cunningham Avenue toward the subject property. A portion of the Coliseum building is visible beyond the Starbucks coffee shop and utility poles with overhead wires at the right of the photograph. Portions of the vast and barren surface parking lot at the subject property is visible beyond Hempstead Turnpike, along with its various tall poles supporting parking lot lighting. The MSKCC parking garage can be seen at the left of the photograph, and the Omni office building along with its associated parking garage are visible at the center of the photograph. The photosimulation shows Parking Garage C in the foreground, blocking views of other portions of the subject property. The uppermost portions of Parking Garage B are partially visible beyond the MSKCC parking garage. Views of the lower portion of the MSKCC garage, which was visible in the existing condition, would be obscured by the proposed planted berm along Hempstead Turnpike. With the addition of the Integrated Resort, the Omni office building and its parking garage in the background, as well as the barren surface parking area associated with the Coliseum, in the mid-ground, would no longer be visible from this location. As seen in the photosimulation, landscaping (as superimposed from the landscaping plan) would be installed at various points along the proposed berm, including at the top, to soften the appearance of the lower portion of the garage, which actually sits below the other side of the berm. The proposed parking garage is the dominant feature in this photosimulation and, therefore, construction of this facility would result in a change in visual character from this location. This parking garage has been designed with decorative panels that would shield the internal structure of the garage from view. The colors of the parking garage are meant to reflect more natural tones that would help to soften the appearance.
  
  Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard (Location 13)
  The view from the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard, looking north-northeast shows the vast expanse of nearly vacant surface parking at the southwest corner of the Coliseum, along with a portion of the MSKCC facility and Coliseum near the right of the photograph at the mid-ground, with the Omni office building at the left side in the mid-ground and the Engie Facility, its stack, and Nassau Community College Administration building visible at the background. The foreground contains a narrow band of grass between the roadway and multi-use path. The flat topography and lack of vegetation and buildings in the foreground provide an expansive view across the subject property.
  In the photosimulation, the site is activated by the presence of the Integrated Resort, and views are enhanced by enlarged landscaped buffers, planted parking islands and street trees that work together to obscure and minimize views of the surface parking and soften views into the site.
  Parking Garage B, consistent with other elements of the proposed Resort, is clad with decorative panels that would shield the internal structure of the building from view. A portion of the MSKCC building remains visible at the right of the photograph, but also benefits from the addition of the proposed tree plantings and other landscaping. The upper portions of Hotel Tower 2 can be seen beyond Parking Garage B. Once again, this viewpoint highlights the benefits of the Hotel Tower buildings’ reflective glazed surfaces that help the buildings blend with its surroundings and minimize visual impacts of the tall structures.
  The proposed landscaping plan, which specifies mature plantings to maximize the visual benefits, was superimposed on this photosimulation. The simulation is intended to reflect the sizes of plantings shortly after the facility is completed (i.e., approximately three-to-five years after planting). The layering of plantings from the planting strip along the curbline to the perimeter vegetation along the proposed surface parking area to the trees within the parking lot islands provide screening of much of Parking Garage B from this vantage point. As the plantings continue to grow and mature, additional screening would be provided.
  Hempstead Plains (Location 14)
  The existing conditions photograph was taken from an opening to the Hempstead Plains at the Purcell Preserve along the east side of James Doolittle Boulevard, looking west directly at the subject property. Beyond James Doolittle Boulevard, located at the middle of the photograph, is a portion of the Marriott Hotel surface parking lot, with the Coliseum visible at the right of the photograph. Some of the taller Hofstra University dormitory buildings are visible on the horizon. The surface parking lot contains perimeter vegetation and several lighting poles. The view from this location, looking west, would be altered upon implementation of the proposed action, as shown in the photosimulation. While there would still be surface parking visible in the mid- ground, the proposed podium and entrance to Hotel Tower 1 are seen on the left and center of the photosimulation, while Hotel 2 and a portion of the podium are visible on the right side of the photosimulation. Such changes to views from this location are to be expected, given that this viewpoint location is immediately adjacent to the subject property and project area. It is noted that due to the architectural treatment of the facades of both hotel towers, they would be reflective of and blend with the sky.
  
  Hofstra University Athletic Field (Location 16)
  The existing conditions photograph is taken from adjacent to one of Hofstra University athletic fields (i.e., University Field), looking east toward the subject property. This viewpoint is separated from the subject property by various paved surface parking areas and the Earle Ovington roadway corridor. This photograph depicts a portion of the University’s David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex building on the right, with the 15-story RXR buildings in the background along with a portion of the existing Coliseum building. Tall lighting structures associated with additional athletic fields and existing parking areas are also visible, along with mature landscaped vegetation among and between parking fields.
  The photosimulation shows that the proposed Integrated Resort would be visible from this location. In the mid-ground of the photosimulation, Parking Garage B can be seen, with Hotel Tower 1 visible beyond. At the right of the photosimulation, a portion of Parking Garage C can be seen (with the existing RXR Plaza still visible beyond). On the left side of the photosimulation, a portion of Hotel Tower 2 and the Coliseum Casino are visible. When the trees are in full leaf-on conditions, portions of the new building components would be screened from this vantage point. The benefits of the Hotel Tower façade design and the cladding to surround the proposed parking garages are evident in this photosimulation. Additionally, while not visible in the photograph, this portion of the Hofstra University campus is situated near the existing 10-story Omni office building, which, together with the various other existing structures mentioned above, contribute to the established visual character of the area.
  Staller Mansion/Lannin House at Eisenhower Park (Location 17)
  The Staller Mansion/Lannin House is located slightly northeast of the property within Eisenhower Park, east of Meadowbrook State Parkway and Merrick Avenue. The views looking toward the subject property show a portion of the Omni office building, mostly obscured by vegetation in the leaf-off condition. Also visible from this vantage point are utility poles and overhead wires, as well as highway signage which traverses the roadways. The subject property, including the Coliseum and Marriott Hotel buildings, are not visible from this viewpoint due to the topography and vegetation situated between the site and the viewpoint. The photosimulation illustrates that through the existing overhead wires and vegetation, segments of the upper portions of Hotel Tower 1 (near the middle of the photosimulation) and Hotel Tower 2, to the left side, would be visible from this vantage point. Additionally, a portion of Parking Garage A would be seen to the right of and at the lower portion adjacent to Hotel Tower 1. When the vegetation is in the full leaf-on conditions, portions of the Integrated Resort would be screened from this location. The garage structures would have a minimal discernible visual impact from this viewpoint among the existing vegetation, signage, other tall buildings and other existing obstructions to the horizon.
  
  Wantagh State Parkway at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike (Location 31)
  Under the existing condition, this photograph, which was taken along Hempstead Turnpike from immediately west of the Wantagh State Parkway overpass looking west toward the subject property, shows a commercial corridor, containing utility poles, overhead wires and overhead signage, with minimal vegetation along the roadway. Also prominent in this photograph is the 300-foot tall NUMC, situated at the mid-ground of this photograph.
  The viewshed analysis included in this section (Figure 48), as well as the digital rendering using Google Earth Pro street view imagery (see Appendix 3.11-2), predicted potential limited visibility of the proposed project from this viewpoint. However, as shown in the photosimulation, the proposed Integrated Resort would not be visible from this location, due to the presence of NUMC, other buildings and other obstructions to the horizon. Therefore, the actual visual impacts from this viewpoint, if any, would be negligible.
  Intersection of Braxton Street and Uniondale Avenue (Location 34)
  This location is representative of the views from residential neighborhoods south of Hempstead Turnpike, south of the subject property. The existing conditions photograph shows typical one- and two-story single-family homes on local roadways containing utility poles, numerous overhead wires and roadway signage. Large trees are visible along the roadway and in residential backyards. The subject property is not visible from this location under the existing condition. The photosimulation shows that the very top of one of the hotel towers is visible through the overhead wires and trees, near the middle of this viewpoint. With leaf-on conditions, portions of the top of the proposed hotel tower would be screened. Therefore, while a small portion can be seen from this vantage point, there is limited visibility of the proposed Integrated Resort.
  Intersection of Front Street and Bedford Avenue (Location 35)
  The existing conditions photograph shows views toward the subject site from a representative neighborhood street within the residential area located southwest of the subject property.
  Single-family homes are visible in the foreground to mid-ground, with a portion of the California Avenue Elementary School visible beyond these homes near the left of the photograph. Typical of local residential neighborhoods, there are utility poles with overhead wires, street signs and trees and other vegetation located in front yards and backyards of the houses. The subject property is not visible from this vantage point under the existing condition. Toward the center of the photosimulation, the top portions of one of the hotel towers are barely visible in the distance amongst the trees, buildings and overhead wires. As with Location 34, the majority of the proposed Integrated Resort is not visible from this vantage point.
  Intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Merrick Avenue (Location 39)
  The existing conditions photograph depicts the existing view from this location facing west along the Hempstead Turnpike corridor toward the subject property. Multistory buildings associated with RXR Plaza are visible among other commercial development, large overhead highway signage, other roadway signage, traffic signals, overhead wires, and limited vegetation along the roadside. As depicted by the photosimulation, portions of the Integrated Resort are visible in the distance along the Hempstead Turnpike corridor. Additional portions of the Integrated Resort (e.g., the hotel towers) are partially visible from this viewpoint beyond the roadway signage and vegetation. Overall, the proposed facility would be partially visible from this vantage point, but
  
  would be compatible with the established viewshed and would not result in a significant change in visual conditions due, in part, to the presence of existing multistory commercial development and various other existing obstructions in the horizon.
  
  Nighttime Photosimulations
  Four of the viewpoint locations described above were selected for analysis under dusk/nighttime conditions, based on their proximity to the subject property and the visibility of the proposed Integrated Resort and associated site areas (upon review of the digital renderings and daytime photosimulations) (Appendix 3.11-3). These include Location 2 (Meadowbrook State Parkway exit ramp at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard); Location 12 (intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Cunningham Avenue); Location 13 (intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard); and Location 16 (Hofstra University Athletic Field).
Shadow Analysis
A shadow analysis was performed to identify and analyze shadow conditions at the subject property, currently and upon implementation of the proposed action, to facilitate an assessment of the potential shadow impacts of the proposed action upon surrounding properties and resources.
Background
The shadow assessment was performed using a combination of 3D modeling and publicly available spatial data to provide a graphic representation of the shadows generated from the proposed structures to determine the post-development impact. The longest shadow that a given structure can cast at the latitude of the Town of Hempstead occurs on the morning of the winter solstice and is approximately 4.1 times the height of the structure. Using this metric, a radius around the proposed building complex was projected to represent the maximum shadow length. The analysis used 3D modeling software to model and geolocate the proposed building envelope and evaluate the potential shadow over the course of representative days. As part of the analysis, terrain is incorporated into the model to account for how changes in elevation throughout the Study Area can influence shadows that could be cast by the proposed building envelope.
Shadows vary over the course of the year due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the Sun. Accordingly, several dates were selected for analysis represent the full range of shadow conditions that can be expected throughout the year. Specifically, the analysis dates include December 21 and June 21, representing the winter and summer solstices, respectively (i.e., the approximate shortest and longest days of the year); March 21/September 21, representing the vernal and autumnal equinoxes; and May 6/August 6, which fall approximately halfway between the summer solstice and the equinoxes. Each analysis day considers those shadows occurring between 1.5 hours after sunrise and 1.5 hours before sunset in the absence of intervening buildings or foliage. These days were selected to reflect the full range of potential impacts as a result of the proposed action. The dates selected represent the growing and cold seasons as well as the longest and shortest duration of sunlight during the year. Shadows occurring earlier and later are long, move fast, and tend to blend with shadows from other structures or objects. At times outside the timeframe window of analysis, the sun is located near the horizon, and the

sun’s rays reach the Earth at close to tangential angles, diminishing the amount of energy delivered by the sun’s rays and producing shadows that grow in length exponentially until the sun reaches the horizon and sets.

Existing Shadow Conditions
Figure 54, below, and Appendix 3.3-2 displays the shadows cast by the existing Coliseum and Marriott Hotel buildings onto adjacent properties. Shadows from the Coliseum building are confined to the subject property during all time periods analyzed. The Marriott Hotel building casts afternoon shadows on the adjacent Purcell Preserve daily, affecting the northwestern border areas of the preserve. Shadow encroachment to the adjacent Purcell Preserve is limited to afternoon hours, with hours of effect ranging from two to three-and-a-half daily hours, depending on the time of year. Morning shadow effects were not measured, as encroachment on off-site properties do not occur.

Future Shadow Conditions
The results of the shadow analysis based on the project architect’s model of the proposed
Integrated Resort is presented below in Figure 54 and Appendix 3.3-2.
A review of the series of shadow analysis results across the different times of year indicates that shadows predominantly remain within the boundaries of the subject property. In the early morning study periods (i.e., approximately 1.5 hours after sunrise), the Hotel Towers, the Meeting and conference component of the Integrated Resort and Garage B cast shadows to the west, onto and beyond a segment of Earle Ovington Boulevard. On the December 21 analysis date, the proposed Hotel Tower 2 shadow extends onto a portion of the Omni office building. It is noted that the model predicts shadows on the footprint of this building, and shadows from Hotel Tower 2 would not be expected to extend to the upper floors of the 10-story office building. On all other analysis dates, morning shadows extend past the roadway onto only parking areas, a vacant field and the outfield of a ballfield at the Mitchel Athletic Complex. All of these shadows would continue for a short duration during the morning hours only, and none of the affected areas would be considered sunlight-sensitive. As such, no significant adverse shadow impacts are anticipated during the morning study period.
A review of the series of results for the afternoon study periods (i.e., approximately 1.5 hours before sunset) indicates that shadows from the proposed Integrated Resort would remain almost entirely on-site on all analysis dates. On the May, June and August analysis dates, Garage C and the entertainment venue would cast shadows onto portions of the adjoining Hempstead Turnpike right-of-way. These shadows are not predicted during the remaining analysis dates (i.e., March, September and December), such that this condition is seasonal and would only occur in the late afternoon, and no significant adverse impacts shadow impacts are expected.
In each of the afternoon study periods, the uppermost portions of the proposed Hotel Tower 1 would cast a shadow upon a limited portion of the adjacent Purcell Preserve. This resource is considered sunlight sensitive, as it contains resident plant communities that could potentially be hindered if access to sunlight is significantly altered through incremental additional shading due to new development. A detailed analysis of the potential shadow impacts upon this resource is presented in Section 3.3, Ecological Resources. This analysis demonstrates that, similar to the existing condition where the Marriott Hotel building casts shadows during limited periods, the

incremental shadows resulting from the construction of Hotel Tower 1 would be limited to only 2.0-to-3.5± hours per day in the evening or late afternoon hours. The affected areas would continue to receive six hours or more of direct sunlight in excess of the minimum sunlight requirements for most relevant grassland plant species, and the effects of the incremental shading upon the ecological community(ies) at the Purcell Preserve would be negligible.
Accordingly, no significant adverse shadow impacts upon this sunlight sensitive resource are anticipated.

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

Overall, given the limited presence of sunlight-sensitive resources in the area surrounding the subject property (i.e., only the Hempstead Plains), and the limited extent of shadows to be cast by the proposed structures as demonstrated herein, there would be no significant adverse shadow-related impacts upon implementation of the proposed action.

Proposed Lighting Concept

Sands has designed the lighting to be respectful of the natural environment and surrounding area and to minimize the potential for light trespass beyond property boundaries. The goal of the lighting is to provide a warm and subtle nighttime atmosphere while minimizing light spill or visual brightness at adjacent properties. The proposed design of the exterior lighting systems utilizes fully dimmable, glare controlled, low brightness luminaires and avoids excessive contrast between the various components of the Integrated Resort, as depicted on the Lighting and Photometric Plans (Appendix 3.11-4).

Specifically, as provided by the project’s lighting designer (Tillotson Design Associates), the lighting system is designed to:

› Provide illuminance levels appropriate for users, activities and tasks, referencing the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America recommendations as a guideline 353

› Use high-efficiency lamps and luminaries to optimize energy efficiency

› Incorporate automated controls to adjust electric lighting and reduce energy consumption in response to daylight and occupancy

› Be considerate of system maintenance, including anticipated life, accessibility, cleaning and re-lamping

› Utilize light-emitting diode (LED) luminaires

› Meet American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2016354 and LEED Gold targets.

‌353 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. ANSI/IES RP-8-21, Recommended Practice: Lighting Roadway and Parking Facilities. 2021.

‌354 The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE’s) Standard 90.1-2016, Energy Efficiency

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings provides the minimum requirements for energy-efficient design of most buildings, except low-rise residential buildings. It offers, in detail, the minimum energy efficiency requirements for design and construction of new buildings and their systems, new portions of buildings and their systems, and new systems and equipment in existing buildings, as well as criteria for determining compliance with these requirements. https://www.ashrae.org/about/news/2018/ashrae-standard-90-1-2016-receives-determination-from-u-s-department-of- energy#:~:text=This%202016%20version%20of%2090.1,except%20low%2Drise%20residential%20buildings. Accessed August 2024

As depicted on the Overall Lighting Plan and Photometric Lighting Plan sheets in Appendix 3.11-4, the lighting design achieves the intended lighting levels throughout the proposed Integrated Resort through a combination of pole lights (such as within surface parking areas), recessed ceiling lighting, and lit bollards along walking paths, as well as recessed uplighting and other specialized fixtures (e.g., tape light, surface mounted lights, grazers, etc.) to highlight selected building features and landscaping plantings. The lighting plans include a luminaire schedule that indicates the specific fixtures proposed, and the plans indicate the specific proposed locations of each. Additionally, the Photometric Lighting Plan sheets provide the anticipated lighting levels across the subject property and outward from the boundaries of the subject property to indicate the predicted total lighting levels expected to be achieved at each data point/location (arranged in a grid) as a result of the combined illumination by the proposed fixtures. Existing light poles to remain (indicated on the plan as “EPR”) are also indicated and are included in the calculated lighting levels where relevant.

Key elements of the lighting design include concealed and integrated exterior building lighting, fully shielded lighting systems to mark access points, and pole-mounted full-cutoff luminaires at surface parking areas. The system of concealed up-lights that would wash the building exteriors would gradually shift to a reduced output at the outward-facing elevations (i.e., those facing off- site). Plaza lighting and a series of light columns along the center median of the two primary drive aisles are also proposed. Entry portals would be lit, and the porte-cochere drop-offs at the hotel entries would include soft, indirect cove lights at the canopies. Small accents lights are included at the pedestrian areas along drive aisles. Parking garage interiors are proposed to include non-directional, shielded, surface-mounted cylinders directing light downward to minimize potential light-spill. Perimeter walking paths would be light with low-level bollards. The Central Plaza and the proposed veterans memorial would receive in-grade paver lights and narrow beam LED up-lights to illuminate flags. Water features, site furnishings and signage would include concealed, integrated lighting. Entry canopies would include fully shielded lighting systems, and no additional façade lighting is included at the tower level, which would reduce potential sky glow.

Glazed apertures (e.g., windows, glazed doors, etc.) are proposed to have a soft glow from the interior layers of lighting, but exterior façade lighting would be minimized to reduce the effect on surrounding areas. Vertical mullions at windows are expected to baffle interior lighting as perceived from exterior portions of the site and off-site areas.

The proposed Integrated Resort would also feature visible dynamic or media-based lighting sources (e.g., illuminated signs/LED boards), which would be selectively deployed for wayfinding or informational purposes at primary entries or within architectural surfaces that are inward- facing to the property to minimize potential off-site lighting impacts. The LED board signage would utilize software and ambient light sensing technology to moderate light emissions, and would utilize a through-hole design that would focus the viewing area, minimizing the potential for light pollution and preventing LED light from spilling toward the sky. As indicated in Photo 9, an illuminated sign currently exists on the subject property along Hempstead Turnpike.

As shown by the photometric data on the Photometric Lighting Plan (see Appendix 3.11-4), lighting levels vary across the site and are greatest where lighting is needed for key functions, such as wayfinding (e.g., at site and building access/drop-off areas), vehicular circulation (e.g., main internal driveways) and plaza areas at the site interior. Lighting levels reduce to zero at and

near the site boundaries, and at other locations throughout the site where illumination is not required for key functions and security (e.g., walking paths and parking areas). This demonstrates the effectiveness of the lighting design and cutoff fixtures at minimizing potential off-site light spill. Specific lighting levels achieved by the proposed design are provided in Table 122 , below, as provided by the project lighting designer (in footcandles):355

‌Table 122 Light Levels

Project Element	Light Level (in footcandles)
Canopied entries	0.92 footcandles (fc) maintained
Paths	0.37 fc maintained
Porte-cochere	1.8 fc maintained
Plazas	0.18 fc maintained
Parking garages vehicular entries	16 fc at daytime, 0.9 fc at nighttime
General areas	0.2 min horizontal
Stairs	4.6 fc
Surface parking	1.5 min, 5.0 fc max at grade

There are limited locations where the Photometric Lighting Plan predicts lighting levels above zero at the site perimeters, such as where the main site driveways intersect with Hempstead Turnpike, Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, where lighting is used to promote ingress, and at limited other portions of the site boundary where existing poles to remain (i.e., EPR) are present as part of the local streetlighting on these adjacent roadways. The subject property is surrounded by public roadways where existing streetlighting is present and would remain upon implementation of the proposed action.

Overall, the proposed lighting has been designed to comply with the U.S. Green Building Council’s recommendation to not exceed 0.10 fc of vertical illuminance at the project boundary in order to minimize light trespass.356 Businesses within the Town of Hempstead are precluded from shall emit glare upon an adjacent or nearby residential dwelling, as set forth at Article XXXI,

§ 302.P of its Building Zone Ordinance, which indicates the following:

No parcel of real property improved with a business, dwelling or multiple dwelling may be maintained in such a manner that a light-emitting device or facility, including but not limited to a spotlight or floodlight, shall emit glare (visible light) from any point upon the parcel onto any part of an adjacent or nearby residential dwelling. Any such light shall be deemed in compliance with this section if it is hooded or shielded in such a manner as shall direct the glare downward and away from adjacent or nearby dwellings, or if the light emits 1,500 lumens (one- hundred-watt bulb) or less.

The nearest residential properties are situated to the south of the subject property, beyond the Hempstead Turnpike corridor and the existing commercial development fronting along same, a minimum of 275± feet from the nearest boundary of the site. Numerous overhead lighting

‌355 Footcandles are the most common unit of measure used by lighting professionals to calculate light levels in businesses and outdoor spaces. A footcandle is defined as the illuminance on a one square foot surface from a uniform source of light. https://www.lightingdesignlab.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Footcandle_Lighting%20Guide_Rev.072013.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

‌356 USGBC. Light pollution reduction. Allowable light trespass by lighting zone (GIBc17)

fixtures, commercial signage and site/building lighting is present along the Hempstead Turnpike corridor in this area. The exterior lighting systems have been designed to result in subtle transitions between the varied zones of the lighting program, and utilizes fully dimmable, shielded luminaires that would comply with the above-referenced requirements of the Town of Hempstead.

To the extent that the proposed Integrated Resort (or any component[s] thereof) is classified by the Town of Hempstead as a place(s) of public assembly, light would not be permitted to shine beyond the property line, and all exterior lights must be shielded and be directed on and toward the premises (per §96-14.A of the Town Code). The proposed lighting would comply with these requirements, if and as applicable.

The architectural lighting design aims to fully support the Integrated Resort’s goals of reducing energy consumption, being mindful of glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill from the lighting systems, and incorporating automated controls that allow for dim capabilities and time- clock settings or having sensors that provide illumination where needed for safety and security.

‌Proposed Mitigation
In order to minimize potential impacts of the proposed development on aesthetics and visual resources, the following measures have been incorporated into the design of the Integrated Resort.
› The podium design features a series of landscaped terraces and setbacks that gradually step down the massing of the building. These terraces and setbacks would serve to break up the building’s scale, while creating a series of visual connections between different levels of the podium. The terracing of the building mass also allows for a transition between the podium and the hotel towers above, so there is not one solid wall of buildings.
› The towers would be clad with refined bronze shading elements or similar to create an ephemeral visual quality, while managing inside heat gain.
› The choice of building materials and the composition of the building components on the site would ensure a visually appealing design
› The proposed project would incorporate a comprehensive landscaping plan that would provide visual relief from the proposed buildings, partially screening and softening them, as well as the entire perimeter of the property and the internal roadways.
› The proposed surface parking areas would be landscaped, which would help screen them from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. Landscaped islands within these areas would also minimize the visual impact of the asphalt and concrete parking lots, and would help screen the vehicles parked within these surface lots.
› The proposed lighting has been designed to comply with the U.S. Green Building Council’s recommendation to not exceed 0.10 fc of vertical illuminance at the project boundary in order to minimize light trespass and consistent with applicable Town of Hempstead requirements.

› All lighting fixtures within 35 feet inboard of the site boundary would either be existing light poles to remain, or low bollards aiming into the property only.
› The lighting plan incorporates a variety of measures to mitigate potential light pollution and avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to local insect populations. These include concealed and integrated exterior building lighting, fully shielded lighting systems to mark access points, pole-mounted full-cutoff luminaires at surface parking areas, soft, indirect cove lights at the hotel entry drop-off points, perimeter walking paths illuminated with low- level bollards, in-grade paver lights at the proposed veterans memorial plaza, parking garage interiors lit with non-directional, shielded, surface-mounted cylinders that would directs light downward to minimize potential light-spill, and vertical mullions at windows to baffle interior lighting as viewed from exterior areas.
› The lighting plan has been designed to support the goals of reducing energy consumption, being mindful of glare, skyglow, light trespass and light spill from the lighting systems, and incorporating automated controls that allow for dim capabilities and time-clock settings or having sensors that provide illumination where needed for safety and security.

‌Cultural Resources

‌Existing Conditions

To determine the existence of potential cultural resources on or substantially contiguous to the subject property357 as well as those that could potentially be impacted by implementation of the proposed action, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS)358 was accessed and reviewed on June 28, 2023. The review revealed that the subject property is not located within an archaeologically- sensitive area, as shown in Figure 56 below. Moreover, no State or National-Register-Eligible or Listed buildings situated on or substantially contiguous to the subject property were identified.

‌Figure 56 OPRHP CRIS Map

Source: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS)

‌357 The SEQR Handbook (page 21 of the text) states “[t]he term ‘substantially contiguous,’ as used in 617.4(b) (9, 10), is intended to cover situations where a proposed activity is not directly adjacent to a sensitive resource but is in close enough proximity that it could potentially have an impact.” An example provided notes: “construction of a structure across a residential or downtown two- to four-lane street from a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be substantially contiguous. However, if the street were a six-lane limited-access highway with a 100-foot-wide median, it would not be substantially contiguous.”

‌358 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. Cultural Resource Information System. Available at: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/. Accessed June, 2023.

Based on the CRIS review, the closest historic buildings/districts/structures to the subject property include:

› The National-Register-listed District associated with the Mitchel Air Base and Flight Line (17NR00115). This District is located within the Nassau Community College (NCC) campus, over 1,500± feet to the north of the subject property and separated by Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, the Nassau Energy Corp. (Engie) facility, Museum Lane and North-South Road. This district includes numerous separately listed buildings, the Mitchel Air Base and Flight Line, Museum Row, and what are known as the Officers’ Quarters and Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) Housing.

› Museum Row, located a minimum of 1,700± feet from the subject property, consists of a number of facilities, including the Long Island Children’s Museum, Cradle of Aviation Museum, the Nassau County Firefighter Museum and Education Center, and Nunley’s Carousel Building, which were former airplane hangars associated with the Mitchel Air Base. These hangars have been altered to accommodate their new uses as museums and entertainment centers and are surrounded by large-scale development that has occurred since their original uses as part of a military air base. Museum Row is separated from the subject property by the Omni office building, surface parking lots with light poles for the NCC campus, Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard.

1: View looking northeast towards Museum Row, including the Nassau County Firefighters Museum, Cradle of Aviation Museum, and the Donald Everett Axinn Air & Space Museum Hall.

p v

View looking southeast towards the subject roperty from Museum Row. The Omni building is isible on the right.

› The Officers’ Quarters and NCO Housing formerly associated with Mitchel Air Base are generally situated along Bane Road, Miller Avenue, Wheeler Road and Seventh Street. These buildings are located a minimum of 2,800± feet from the subject property and are visually and physically separated from the subject property by existing vegetation, buildings associated with the NCC campus, Museum Row, other development (including the Nassau Energy Corp. facility and large office buildings), and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, as shown in photographs below. The Officers’ Quarters and NCO Housing are now owned by a government entity and used for residential purposes. The Nassau County Veterans & Military Housing at the Mitchel Air Base borders the NCC campus and contains military housing north of Miller Avenue and south of Railroad Avenue. Modern developments have been constructed in the areas surrounding these properties.

3: View looking west towards the NCO Housing on Bane Road within the Mitchel Air Base and Flight Line Historic District.

4: View looking southeast towards the subject property from the NCO Housing on 7th Street within

the Mitchel Air Base and Flight Line Historic District.

The areas surrounding the overall Mitchel Air Base and Flight Line Historic District are populated with modern developments that can be seen from within the District. For instance, from the Officers' Quarters and NCO Housing, modern commercial properties and multifamily residential developments along Stewart Avenue are visible. To the south of the District, near Museum Row, the surrounding land uses and views are primarily composed of more modern buildings that were constructed after the District received its historic designation.

› Staller Mansion (listed) (USN359 05901.000037) and Cottage (eligible) (USN 05901.000038) (known as the Lannin House), are located 0.6 mile northeast of the subject property within Eisenhower Park. According to the resource evaluation from 1995, the former Staller Mansion is architecturally significant as an example of Tudor Revival residential architecture in Nassau County. It was constructed circa 1925 and used as the Nassau County Historical Museum between 1958 and 1993. An adjacent cottage, built at the same time as the main residence, and landscape features contribute to the significance of the property. The Lannin House has undergone interior alterations. As can be seen in Photograph 6 below, there are overhead utility lines that are part of the visual horizon between this historic resource and the subject property. The subject property is generally blocked from view by vegetation along Merrick Avenue and the Meadowbrook State Parkway, as well as buildings along Merrick Avenue and parts of NCC and vice versa.

‌359 USN – Unique Site Number

5: View looking northeast towards the Staller Mansion and Cottage/The Lannin House within Eisenhower Park.

6: L

View looking southwest towards the subject property from the Staller Mansion and Cottage/The annin House within Eisenhower Park.

› Former Salisbury Golf Course Clubhouse (formerly known as The Carltun, known now as The Grand Lannin) (eligible), (USN 05901.000036) is located within Eisenhower Park, 0.9 mile northeast of the subject property. According to the resource evaluation from 1995, the building is architecturally significant as a representative example of Italian Renaissance style recreational architecture in Nassau County. It was built circa 1916 as a private residence or restaurant and served as one of the clubhouses of the Salisbury (now Eisenhower Park) golf courses. The Grand Lannin has undergone significant alterations and renovations since the time it was originally constructed. The subject property is not visible from this location nor is this site visible from the subject property.

7: View looking southeast towards The Grand Lannin (formerly known as the Salisbury Golf Course Clubhouse/Carltun) within Eisenhower Park.

View looking southwest towards the subject property from The Grand Lannin within Eisenhower

rk.

The locations of the above-mentioned cultural resources are represented in Figure 57 below.

‌Figure 57: Cultural Resources Photograph Locations

Sands New York Integrated Resort

1,000 Feet

Stewart Ave

1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

Blv

Merrick Ave

3 8/7

Eisenhower County Park Golf Course

Miller Ave

t Ave

ai road A

5th St

Nassau Community

7th St

Blvd

4 College

East Meadow Brook Pond

5/6

Eisenhower Park Playground

Merrick

Oak St

West Rd

Lind

Davis Ave

es Lindber

Ave

Path: \\vhb.com\gis\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel

arl

lvd

gh B

Grove St

Mitchel County Park

Meadowbrook Park

shire Dr

Wic

Merrick Ave

Charl

Oak St

vington

Earle

lvd

Grant Av

aurice

Blvd

rgh

mpste

ad Tpke

Stone Ave

Gerald Ave

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Hofstra University

ury

Lawr

airview B

Hempstead Tpke

Subject Property Photograph Locations

n C

urt

s Blvd

n Dr

Kellenberg

Gilroy

Wal

ront St

* Boundaries are approximate

The Photograph Locations show the location of the photographs discussed in- text in relation to the subject property, as well as the direction the camera was pointing when the photographs were taken.

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, Nearmap

In addition to the OPRHP CRIS database research, the Town of Hempstead’s list of landmarks found on the Town’s website360 was also reviewed, and there are no Town landmarks identified either on or substantially contiguous to the subject property.

As indicated above, the CRIS system indicates that the subject property is not situated within or substantially contiguous to an archaeologically-sensitive area. Moreover, as part of a prior environmental review conducted on the subject property,361 coordination with OPRHP was undertaken and a site-specific cultural resources survey (Phase 1A Literature Search and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment [Phase 1A Study]) was conducted, a copy of which is included in Appendix 3.12-1. The Phase 1A study concluded that the subject property has virtually no sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric or historic period archaeological sites and no further investigations were recommended.

‌Potential Impacts
There are no archaeological or historical resources, archaeologically-sensitive areas or Town designated landmarks on or substantially contiguous to the subject property. The various listed and eligible historic properties detailed in the section above are situated 1,500±-4,000± feet away from the subject property and are separated from them by modern developments and roads. As demonstrated in the photographs above, views from those properties toward the subject property contain infrastructure that is typical of a well-developed suburban commercial area (e.g., major roadways, commercial buildings, utility infrastructure).
To assess potential aesthetic impacts on cultural resources, the specific visibility of the proposed Integrated Resort was modeled from various vantage points, and the results of that visual analysis are set forth in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources and Appendix 3.11-2 of the DEIS. The visual analysis includes a viewshed analysis (see Figure 48 in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources) and renderings of the proposed project from locations within the viewshed Study Area, including historic properties. The renderings in Appendix 3.11-2 demonstrate that the proposed project would be visible or partially visible from Museum Row (View 7) and the Staller Mansion/Lannin House (View 17). Appendix 3.11-3 includes photosimulations of the proposed action from these locations to provide a representation of views towards the subject property from these resources. Currently, views of the subject property from Museum Row (view 7) include a large, surface parking area in the forefront with multi-story buildings and landscaping between the parking area and the subject property. As demonstrated by the photosimulations, the view of the proposed development from Museum Row would primarily include portions of one of the hotel towers, the northernmost parking garage, and site landscaping amidst existing development in the area. The current view of the Marriott would be obscured by the proposed buildings. Upon implementation of the proposed action, the views would still include the surface parking area in the forefront and multi-story buildings behind the parking area and landscaping. As depicted in the photosimulations, the views of the proposed development would be consistent with the existing visual character of the area and would not significantly alter views from Museum Row.

‌360 Town of Hempstead. Landmark Preservation. Available at: https://hempsteadny.gov/580/Landmarks-Preservation. Accessed March, 2024
‌361 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for “The Lighthouse at Long Island” Hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, prepared on behalf of Lighthouse Development Group, LLC, last revised June 2009

Views of the proposed development from the Staller Mansion/Lannin House (view 17) would primarily include the two hotel towers among the existing Meadowbrook State Parkway, vegetation, and utility lines. A small amount of rooftop from other portions of the proposed development would be visible from the Staller Mansion/Lannin House, with vegetation screening the remainder of the development. Currently, views from the Staller Mansion/Lannin House in the direction of the subject property consist of the Meadowbrook State Parkway in the forefront with vegetation in the background. While development is visible from this viewpoint, buildings are not a prominent feature and would not result in a significant change in the existing views from the Staller Mansion/Lannin House.
While portions of the proposed Integrated Resort would be visible from several of the historic resources described above, as indicated in Section 3.11, Aesthetic Resources, the landscape in this area has already been considerably altered by human disturbance, including extensive commercial, institutional, utility and roadway development of varying heights and architectural styles. Views of the proposed Integrated Resort from historic resources would be present, but not out of character with the existing development of the area, which is already seen from the existing historic resources. Further, the presence of the proposed Integrated Resort would not result in changes to the current or past uses or the aesthetic character of historic buildings.
Moreover, the proposed Integrated Resort would bring additional visitors to the area who may also visit the Mitchel Air Base area, including Museum Row and Eisenhower Park, supporting a major goal of the Nassau County Hub (attracting people to the cultural anchor). The Cradle of Aviation Museum, which is part of Museum Row, has endorsed the proposed Integrated Resort saying that it “aligns with our mission of promoting education, culture and the overall well-being of Long Island.” The proposed action would “be a catalyst for economic growth in the region” and has the “potential for collaborative events and partnerships between the resort and cultural institutions like the Cradle of Aviation” fostering a “vibrant cultural scene, enriching the lives of residents and visitors alike.” Accordingly, it is expected that the Integrated Resort would enhance the visitation to the existing cultural resources.
Given that there are no archaeological or historical resources, archaeologically-sensitive areas or Town designated landmarks on or substantially contiguous to the subject property, the proposed action would not result in significant adverse impacts to same. Moreover, as the surrounding landscape has already been considerably altered by human disturbance, including extensive commercial, institutional, utility and roadway development, implementation of the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact upon the Mitchel Air Base Historic District or any of the aforesaid historic properties. In fact, due to the increased visitation to the area associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, some of the historic properties (e.g., Museum Row, Eisenhower Park) may benefit from increased tourism in the area. Accordingly, the proposed action would not result in impacts to such cultural resources.
‌Proposed Mitigation
As there would be no direct impacts to any archaeological or historical resources or designated landmarks on or substantially contiguous to the subject property and the nearest historic properties are already impacted by intervening development, no mitigation is required.

‌Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities

‌Existing Conditions
Under the existing condition, and based on information provided by Sands, average electricity usage at the Coliseum property averages approximately 413,000 kWh per month. Existing PSEG Long Island service routes to the Coliseum property through the Nassau Energy Corporation property (known as “Engie”), underneath Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and into a Service Room on the east side of the Coliseum at the Event Level. There are also 12-inch chilled water lines (for air conditioning) and 6-inch hot water lines (for heating).
The Marriott property is served by PSEG, and electrical service from the existing Marriott Hotel is independent from that of the Coliseum. Based on information provided by Marriott, average electricity usage is approximately 466,000 kWh per month.
Natural gas is currently supplied to the subject property by National Grid. The existing Coliseum property currently receives high-pressure natural gas from the street main located in Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and average usage is approximately 509 therms per month. The existing six-inch high-pressure natural gas sub-main runs south through the Coliseum property to Hempstead Turnpike. The sub-main through the property branches west to serve the Coliseum property and branches east into the Marriott property.
Based on information provided by Marriott, average natural gas usage is approximately 8,200 therms per month.
As the Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel were both constructed over four decades ago, neither was developed with significant energy efficiency or conservation measures.

‌Potential Impacts

As no changes are proposed to the Marriott Hotel (with the exception of parking reconfiguration), implementation of the proposed action would not affect the Marriott’s existing electrical or natural gas infrastructure or usage profiles. The Engie facility would continue to serve the Marriott Hotel. Thus, there would be no impacts from the proposed Integrated Resort on the use and conservation of energy at the Marriott Hotel.

Implementation of the proposed action would result in the disconnection of services from the Engie facility to the Coliseum property and the establishment of new utilities, including the construction of central utilities plants (CUPs) for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Integrated Resort (CUP-1 and CUP-2, respectively). For natural gas services, the Integrated Resort would disconnect from the existing north-south gas line, mentioned above, and would have two new natural gas connection points.

The energy strategy for the Integrated Resort is consistent with Sands’ overall commitment to

sustainability as set forth in the Sands ECO360 program.362 The ECO360 program works to

‌362 Sands. Our Planet. Available at: https://www.sands.com/responsibility/planet/. Accessed August 2024.

minimize Sands’ environmental impact and reflects its vision to lead the way in sustainable building development and resort operations. As explained in greater detail below, Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site is natural gas for commercial kitchens and two diesel-fueled emergency generators for emergency power supply.363 The proposed HVAC systems for the proposed Integrated Resort have been designed with energy efficiency and conservation as the focus. The HVAC mechanical systems would all be electric driven, use high performance and very efficient heat pump technology with heat recovery, and would not burn any fossil fuels such as gas in a boiler or furnace to make hot water or steam.

One of the primary benefits of the high-performance heat pumps is their ability to simultaneously and efficiently provide space heating energy and air conditioning cooling energy with heat recovery. The benefits of these high-performance heat pumps are further increased when they are installed in the CUPs serving the entire development to take advantage of HVAC load diversity across the site. For example, in wintertime certain internal areas of the development with high equipment density still need air conditioning while other perimeter areas such as the hotel towers require space heating. These high-performance heat pumps in CUPs would efficiently move available heat from warm areas to the cold areas, avoiding separate and additive utilization of air conditioning energy and space heating energy typical of conventional building design. Through their ability to generate air conditioning alone and space heating alone, these high-performance heat pumps in the CUPs would provide a more efficient cooling and heating system than could be provided with conventional smaller independent units distributed throughout the development. Overall, this proposed energy strategy, by conserving electricity and fossil fuels, also minimizes potential carbon emissions. Another benefit of air source heat pumps is the avoidance of significant water consumption associated with conventional campus air conditioning that relies upon evaporative cooling towers typically used to generate chilled water for air conditioning. Furthering Sands’ commitment to energy conservation and clean energy generation, the roofs of the proposed parking garages, meeting and conference space, and entertainment venue would include the integration of solar PV panels, as described later in this section.

The proposed Integrated Resort would use passive design strategies to minimize energy use intensity and meet high-efficiency project expectations. Sands would focus on building exterior wall thermal performance and other building performance criteria (e.g., material selection, internal operations, building form) as part of Sands’ commitment to achieving LEED certification and is also planning to pursue LEED for Communities.364 LEED for Communities would help Sands plan, develop, and operate the complex in a way that enhances sustainability and quality of life by focusing on natural systems and ecology, transportation and land use, water efficiency, energy and GHG emissions, materials and resources, quality of life, and innovation.

A key feature of this program is the use of HVAC equipment and operations strategies that would result in high-performance and efficient design. These strategies include the integration of

‌363 Sands is also in the process of evaluating the potential for use of renewable natural gas.

‌364 Sands is committed to achieving LEED certification for the Integrated Resort under the Building Design and Construction commercial building rating system and for the entire complex under the LEED for Communities rating system. Its target is LEED Gold Certification; however, the ultimate determination of the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized.

high-efficiency mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems, using energy-efficient appliances and equipment, and smart zoning of climate design conditions throughout the building components, as more fully described below.

High-Efficiency HVAC Systems

There are several strategies centered around the proposed HVAC systems:

› In addition to high performance heat pumps in CUPs, the balance of HVAC systems are also all electric. Mechanical ventilation is proposed to be supplied either by multiple Energy Recovery Ventilators (ERVs) with heat recovery or air handling units with direct outside air connections. These would supply fresh air requirements based on demand-controlled ventilation or minimum ventilation requirements depending on the space. For demand- controlled ventilation, the air volume intake through the ERVs would be based on occupancy, using carbon dioxide sensors in the interior to regulate the volume of air intake to ensure good indoor air quality and energy efficiency. Open gaming areas are supplied with single zone variable air volume – entire zone where air volume varies in response to the load to minimize HVAC energy use.

› Heat recovery is a priority in the proposed design and is maximized by integrating it where there is a reasonable heat capture opportunity. The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate energy recovery from the fresh air supply, heat recovery and transfer from cooling-dominated spaces to heating-dominated spaces via the hydronic systems.365

› HVAC equipment serving individual areas would use efficient hydronic heating and cooling from the CUPs where appropriate. Hydronic heating and cooling with efficient electronically commutated (EC) motor-based fan coil units optimizes both interior comfort and energy efficiency. Hydronic systems are an efficient option for space heating and cooling because water transports heating and cooling much more efficiently than air and requires less extreme temperatures for conditioning.

› The proposed Integrated Resort would require domestic hot water heating to serve the hotel rooms and food and beverage venues. Efficient electric-driven water source heat pumps would be used that simultaneously produce domestic hot water and chilled water generation rather than separate domestic hot water heating and chilled water generation. This type of heat recovery technology minimizes domestic hot water heating energy, avoids fossil fuel use, and is well aligned with New York State renewable energy goals.

› To further reduce loading upon the electrical transmission grid during peak electrical demand periods, the proposed Integrated Resort is considering a stratified chilled water thermal storage tank to shift a portion of the electrical demand of the heat pumps from the warmest part of the day. Sands is also considering a battery storage system to shift a portion of electrical demand by discharging stored battery energy when the grid is highly loaded to the middle of the night when grid loading is reduced. This type of load shift has significant benefits to the electric grid and other customers served by the grid as it reduces the need for expensive peak load generating and minimizes required distribution capacity.

‌365 A hydronic system is one where heating or cooling occurs by means of the forced circulation of liquids or vapors through a set of pipes. From Collins Dictionary. Hydronic. Available at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/hydronic. Accessed June 2024.

Energy-Efficient Appliances and Equipment

› Lighting represents a significant electrical load in the proposed development, making up approximately 18 percent the proposed Integrated Resort’s total energy load. Energy reduction strategies would be incorporated to reduce the electrical load, including daylighting strategies, all-LED lighting, assessing light power densities and minimizing loads, as well as using smart sensors. Occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting would be used in all public spaces, hotel rooms, and office areas.

› The proposed Integrated Resort would use Energy Star-rated appliances and equipment where feasible, and larger walk-in coolers and freezers would use efficient variable speed parallel rack type refrigeration systems to minimize associated energy consumption.

› Sands would implement plug load management/control, where feasible, to refine energy- saving efforts by automatically discontinuing power to designated plug loads when a space has been vacated. Plug load control prevents “standby” or “vampire” loads, which waste energy by continuing to draw electricity when the device appears to be off. Sands is also proposing to develop and implement a management plan that reminds occupants to switch off devices when not in use.

Smart metering and methods for sharing information regarding energy usage for the building components would be implemented. Sands proposes various submeter stations within the proposed Integrated Resort to identify electricity, chilled and hot water use for each building component, and submeters for major mechanical equipment and subsystems such as lighting. Similar to Sands’ other resorts, the proposed Integrated Resort would employ facility engineers who continually monitor performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation and minimize utility consumption. All new building components would meet or exceed the requirements of the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State.

Calculations of estimated electrical load service demand for the proposed action were prepared by JB&B, the MEP for the project, and were set forth in a request for service availability submitted to PSEG Long Island on August 8, 2023 (see Appendix 3.13-1). A summary of the calculations submitted to PSEG – Long Island is presented in Table 123 below:

‌Table 123 Proposed Action Energy Use Calculations

Structure	Description	Service Demand kVA*
Phase 1 Development
Casino Phase 1	Existing Coliseum renovated to support Casino Gaming Area with associated Food and Beverage	5,134
Central Utility Plant (CUP 1)	Multi-Story Structure to support central utilities for Phase I, and ½ of Phase 2	5,742
Exterior Works	Pedestrian pathways, security, veterans memorial, roadway lighting, etc.	47
Parking Garage A	Multi-Story Parking Garage with EV Charging for 2% of Spaces	894

Structure	Description	Service Demand kVA*
Surface Parking Lot E	Parking Lighting and EV Charging for 2% of Spaces	70
Surface Parking Lot F	Parking Lighting and EV Charging for 2% of Spaces	77
Phase 1 Subtotal		11,964
Phase 2 Development
Casino Phase 1	No change	+0
Casino Phase 2	A second Casino Gaming Area with associated Food and Beverage	7,886
Central Utility Plant (CUP 1) Expansion	Addition of more air source heat pumps and associated infrastructure in CUP 1 to support Phase 2 development	+4,658
Central Utility Plant (CUP 2)	Multi-Story Structure to support central utilities for second ½ of Phase 2	8,734
Exterior Works Expansion	Additional pedestrian pathways, security, roadway lighting, etc.	+64
Hotel No. 1	Guest Room Hotel	1,775
Hoten No. 2	Guest Room Hotel	1,076
Meeting and Conference Center	Business Center supporting Meeting and conferences	1,133
Museum/Interactive	Indoor, Public, Interactive Art Exhibit	954
Parking Garage A EV Increase	Additional EV charging for 8% of Parking Spaces	+910
Parking Garage B	Multi-Story Parking Garage EV charging for 10% of Spaces	1,076
Parking Garage C	Multi-Story Parking Garage EV charging for 10% of Spaces	1,078
Phase 2 Coliseum Extension	Expansion of the Coliseum Concourse level areas to include additional gaming, gaming support and retail	502
Retail	Indoor, public enclosed pedestrian mall with additional dry retail, Food and Beverage connecting the Casinos, Hotels and Entertainment Venues	2,171
Surface Parking Lot E EV Increase	EV charging for additional 8% of Parking Spaces	+120

Structure	Description	Service Demand kVA*
Surface Parking Lot F EV Increase	EV charging for additional 8% of Parking Spaces	+133
Surface Parking Lot G	Parking lighting and EV charging for 10% of Parking Spaces	264
Theater	Theater to support concerts, plays and similar exhibitions	2,083
Phase 2 Subtotal		34,617
GRAND TOTAL		46,581
Source: Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B) Consulting Engineers, LLC, Load Letter Calculations, Schematic Design, June 30, 2023. * kVA is kilo-volt-ampere. The primary difference between kW (kilowatt) and kVA (kilovolt-ampere) is the power factor. kW is the unit of real power and kVA is a unit of apparent power. The power factor, unless it is defined and known, is therefore an approximate value (typically 0.8), and the kVA value would always be higher than the value for kW. From Generator Source. Industrial Generator FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https://www.generatorsource.com/Generator_Faq.aspx#:~:text=kW%20is%20the%20unit%20of,than%20the%20value%20for %20kW. Accessed September 2024.

As shown in Table 123, upon completion of Phase 1 of the proposed Integrated Resort, the service demand was calculated by JB&B to be 11,964 kilovolt-ampere (kVA) (10,242 kW). At Full Build (completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2), the overall service demand is projected to be 46,581 kVA (40,805 kW).

As described below, the proposed Integrated Resort would be supported by new utility service from PSEG Long Island, which would supply a centralized set of switchgear that would interface with diesel generators on-site that would provide emergency power back-up.

Sands received a letter of service availability from PSEG Long Island, dated December 8, 2023, indicating that it would provide service to the subject property (Appendix 3.13-1). PSEG Long Island has further indicated that it would install four dedicated underground electrical feeders originating from the existing Lindbergh Substation, located on the north side of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at the south entrance to Nassau Community College. The feeders would be installed in a generally western direction, terminating at manholes to be installed near the intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Sands Boulevard.

Sands has requested a total electrical service capacity of 47 megavolt ampere (MVA). Preliminary review by PSEG Long Island has indicated that in order to support this ultimate capacity, power would be provided from a combination of existing capacity at the 69kV Lindbergh Substation, as well as the construction of an additional substation/expanded substation in the general vicinity of this existing substation (alternative locations are currently being explored). For the initial phase of the proposed Integrated Resort, it is projected that four (4) 10MVA, 13.2kV feeders would be provided from the existing Lindbergh Substation to provide 20MVA of capacity in a 2N configuration.

Sands has committed to continuing to work with PSEG Long Island and to participating in funding of the substation expansion/new substation needed to meet the energy demand of the Integrated Resort.366

To minimize the use of energy from traditional sources and to reduce emissions associated with the day-to-day operation of the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands intends to exceed the requirements of the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State. Energy simulation modeling performed by JB&B in 2024 estimated that a minimum of eight percent of the proposed Integrated Resort’s electricity consumption would be supplied by the on-site solar PV system (Appendix 3.13-2). The PV system is planned to feature an approximately 8,400 kW solar array estimated to generate 10,387,000 kWh of electricity annually. The PV panels would be installed on top of Parking Garages A, B, and C, as well as on top of the meeting and conference space and entertainment venue. Sands is planning to enter into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase a minimum of 20 percent of the Integrated Resort’s electricity needs from off-site renewable sources. Sands is striving to achieve even greater carbon emissions reduction in the future in alignment with its company-wide global carbon emissions reduction goal. The proposed project is striving to reach 60 percent renewable energy use by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050, following the Climate Group’s RE100 renewable energy guidelines.367

To increase awareness of the importance of energy efficiency and to inform the public about the amount of renewable energy produced on-site and off-site, Sands would install informational displays in the lobbies of the hotels and casino to showcase the renewable electricity production data in real time.

As indicated above, the only non-electric use on-site would be related to commercial kitchen natural gas use and diesel-fueled emergency power generators. In Phase 1, it is estimated that the connected load (in cubic feet per hour [CFH]) for the food and beverage load would be 15,625 CFH. For Phase 2, the estimated additional connected load for the food and beverage load would be 24,574 CFH, for a total of approximately 40,200 CFH at Full Build. This total is equivalent to 3,648,295 therms of direct natural gas usage, annually.

In a letter dated August 17, 2023 (Appendix 3.13-1), the MEP requested that National Grid confirm that the high-pressure natural gas sub-main connection occurs at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, and that the service is adequate to support the natural gas loads associated with both Phases 1 and 2, which are expected to be minimal, as indicated above. Joe Scibelli, Lead Account Manager of Customer Gas Connections for National Grid, issued an email, dated July 22, 2024 (Appendix 3.13-1) indicating that the load letter submitted has been approved and capacity for this project would be reserved until December 31, 2024. Once an application is made, it would be extended for an additional year.

Based on the foregoing, Sands is committing to an almost 100 percent electricity-based development, which would incorporate energy-reduction and conservation measures, as well as energy-efficient design. Consultations have been undertaken with the service providers, who

‌366 If significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

367 https://www.there100.org/. According to its website, “RE100 is the global corporate renewable energy initiative bringing together hundreds of large and ambitious businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity.”

have confirmed that they would supply the Integrated Resort, and Sands would participate in funding the required substation expansion/new substation associated with its energy demand. The proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the use of renewable energy through the installation of an on-site solar PV system and would continue to explore other renewable energy options through the design process. Therefore, the proposed development is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on the use of energy or utilities.

‌Proposed Mitigation
Sands is proposing a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric facility, with minimal use of fossil fuels. While the proposed Integrated Resort would generate an increased demand for energy, would incorporate energy efficiency and conservation strategies , install an on-site solar PV system, and purchase renewable energy from the electricity provider via a power purchase agreement. PSEG Long Island and National Grid have provided letters of service availability for electricity and natural gas, respectively. Proposed measures to mitigate energy use and utilities include:
› HVAC systems would be electric and would not burn fossil fuels through gas or steam. High performance efficient heat pump technology with heat recovery would also be used.
› Central utility plants would be used, which provide more efficient cooling and heating energy generation equipment shared across the site than distributed independent smaller equipment unable to move thermal energy across the site.
› High efficiency air source and water source heat pumps with heat recovery would be used in the two CUPs for the production of chilled water, space heating hot water, and domestic hot water heating.
› Air-side systems would be used and include provisions for outside air demand response and enhanced filtration (higher grade minimum efficiency reporting value [MERV] rating) for indoor air quality and efficiency measures.
› Lighting controls would be arranged to allow for intelligent dimming and control and incorporate occupancy monitoring.
› All lighting would be LED, and smart sensors would be used. Daylighting would also be incorporated into the development, and occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting would be used in all public spaces, hotel rooms, and office areas.
› Energy Star-rated appliances and equipment would be used to keep the energy use intensity as low as possible.
› Larger walk-in coolers and freezers would use efficient variable speed parallel rack type refrigeration systems.
› A plug load management/control plan would be implemented to switch off devices and/or programmed to minimize energy use when not in use in areas that are unoccupied.
› PV panels would be integrated into the roofs of the proposed parking garages, meeting and conference space, and entertainment venue. Sands is targeting a minimum of eight percent of the overall energy consumption of the proposed project to be supplied through on-site renewable energy via installation of PV systems. Sands also aims to procure off-site renewable energy within the same grid as the Integrated Resort via a power purchase agreement with the local energy provider.

› A stratified chilled water thermal storage tank is under study to shift a portion of the electrical demand of the heat pumps from the warmest part of the day, as well as a large- scale battery storage system also providing uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to business- critical loads to shift a portion of electrical demand when the grid is highly loaded to the middle of the night when grid loading is reduced.
› Smart metering and methods for sharing information regarding energy usage for the building components would be implemented.
› Sands is committed to achieving LEED third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort. Its target is LEED Gold under the Building Design and Construction rating system, though the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized. Sands is also planning to pursue certification of the entire Sands complex under the LEED for Communities rating system.
› The Integrated Resort would incorporate energy recovery from the fresh air supply, heat recovery and transfer from cooling-dominated spaces to heating-dominated spaces via the hydronic systems. Efficient EC motor-based fan coil units that optimize both interior comfort and energy efficiency would be used to minimize HVAC fan energy.
› Sands would employ facility engineers who continually monitor performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation.
› Sands would continue to work with PSEG Long Island and has committed to participate in funding a substation expansion/new substation to meet the energy demands of the Integrated Resort.

‌Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability

‌Existing Conditions
1. Introduction
  Climate change refers to the long-term change in the average weather patterns that define the Earth’s local, regional, and global climates.368 Climate change is attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, which include air pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases.369 CO2 is the primary GHG emitted through human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation.370 The following subsections review the regulatory requirements and policies for GHG emissions and analyze the potential impacts of the project as it relates to GHG emissions, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainability, and resiliency and emergency/disaster preparedness measures that have been incorporated into the proposed Integrated Resort.
2. Regulatory and Regional Context
  The following provides the regulatory requirements and policies at the federal, state, and local levels to provide context of the information provided herein.
  Federal
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act, which regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources, including GHG emissions from sources like power plants and vehicles. The USEPA issued an endangerment finding in 2009 under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, which stated that GHGs threaten public health and welfare, providing the basis for regulating these emissions. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance serves as the federal government’s GHG reporting protocol and defines Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions.371
  The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) is responsible for the country’s energy policy and research, including efforts to reduce GHG emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The USDOE also regulates energy production and consumption, including the standards for energy efficiency in buildings.
  
  ‌368 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. What is Climate Change? (updated January 30, 2024). Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/what-is-climate-change/. Accessed February 2024.
  ‌369 USEPA. Overview of Greenhouse Gases (updated April 11, 2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview- greenhouse-gases. Accessed February 2024.
  ‌370 U.S. Global Change Research Program. Fourth National Climate Assessment (November 2018). Available at: https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4. Accessed September 2024.
  ‌371 Council on Environmental Quality. Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance (January 17, 2016). Available at: https://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=30742 .
  
  State
  New York State policies and guidelines were reviewed to assess the proposed action’s potential
  impacts regarding sustainability, climate change, and GHG emissions. These include the:
  › Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements
  › Energy Conservation Construction Code
  › Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
  › Climate Action Council Scoping Plan
  › New York State Environmental Quality Review - The SEQR Handbook: Climate Change
  › Cleaner Greener Long Island Regional Sustainability Plan.
  
  Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements
  To guide SEQRA compliance regarding GHG emissions, the NYSDEC developed guidance entitled Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements (the “NYSDEC GHG Policy”).372 The NYSDEC GHG Policy requires project sponsors/applicants to quantify direct and indirect GHG emissions from the project and identify measures to minimize mobile and stationary source GHG emissions.
  Direct GHG emissions result from combustion processes or other polluting processes that occur on-site. This also includes vehicles that are owned and operated on-site (fleet vehicles) and emissions from fugitive sources. Indirect GHG emissions occur from off-site activity, such as electrical power generation or from vehicles travelling to and from the site.
  The NYSDEC GHG Policy describes the methodology for estimating emissions from each direct and indirect source associated with a project. The methodologies used to estimate GHG emissions for the project are consistent with the NYSDEC GHG Policy and have been updated where improved or updated assessment techniques have been developed. These methodologies are described in each assessment below.
  The NYSDEC GHG Policy stipulates that an EIS should also include a review and assessment of mitigation measures applicable to the proposed action, including calculations of the projected reduction in GHG emissions that would result from each mitigation measure. Finally, for projects where a potential adverse impact has been identified, the NYSDEC GHG Policy lists potential mitigation measures (refer to pages 12 to 14 of the NYSDEC GHG Policy).373 Measures are suggested under the categories of Building Design and Operation, Efficiency or Mitigation Measures for On-Site Sources, Site Selection and Design, Transportation, and Waste Reduction and Management. The NYSDEC places preference on on-site mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions in the interest of influencing project design and maximizing the energy efficiency of new facilities. Example mitigation measures included in the NYSDEC GHG Policy include designing an energy efficient building envelop to reduce cooling/heating requirements, installing a high-efficiency HVAC system, incorporating on-site renewable energy sources, conducting third
  
  ‌372 NYSDEC. Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements (July 15, 2009). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf .
  ‌373 Ibid.
  
  party building commissioning to ensure energy performance, providing access to public transportation, and using low-impact development for stormwater design.
  Energy Conservation Construction Code
  The Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State (ECCCNYS) mandates that economically reasonable energy conservation techniques be used in the design and construction of all public and private buildings in the State. The ECCCNYS is promulgated pursuant to
  Article 11 of the Energy Law and is contained in Title 19 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 1240. The ECCCNYS establishes minimum energy conservation requirements for commercial buildings and low-rise residential buildings and addresses HVAC, lighting, water heating, and power usage for appliances and building systems. These include minimum requirements for exterior building envelope insultation, window and door insulation factors, solar heat gain coefficient ratings, duct insulation, lighting and power efficiency, and water distribution insulation. The ECCCNYS commercial building provisions apply to: (1) the construction of new commercial buildings; (2) additions to and alterations of existing commercial buildings; and (3) additions to and alterations of building systems in existing commercial buildings.374
  
  Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
  In 2019, New York enacted the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (the Climate Act) per Senate Bill 6599,375 which amended the ECL by adding Article 75. Per the Climate Act, NYSDEC adopted 6 NYCRR Part 496, Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission Limits ,376 which contains limits on the emission of GHGs in 2030 and 2050 as a percentage of 1990 emissions. The rule established 410 million metric tons (mmt) of CO2e as the 1990 baseline and, per the Climate Act, the State committed to the following requirements:
  › 40 percent GHG emissions reduction from 1990 baseline level by 2030 (60 percent of 1990 emission levels, which equates to 246 mmt CO2e)
  › 85 percent GHG emissions reduction from 1990 baseline level by 2050 (15 percent of 1990 emission levels, which equates to 61 mmt CO2e)
  › net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (the remaining 15 percent achieved through GHG emissions offset projects).
  Part 496 applies to all emission sources in the State, although it does not itself impose compliance obligations. Part 496 identifies seven total GHGs required under the scope of the Climate Act, including CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (i.e., the six original “Kyoto” gases),377 and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
  
  ‌374 International Code Council and New York State Department of State. 2020 Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State
  (November 2019). Available at: https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/09/2020-ecccnys-november-2019.pdf .
  ‌375 State of New York. Senate Bill 6599 (June 18, 2019). Available at: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S6599 .
  ‌376 Title 6 of the New York Codes. Rules and Regulations, Chapter IV: Quality Services, Subchapter I: Climate Change, Part 486, Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Limits, as established in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, Chapter 106 of the Laws of 2019 (Environmental Conservation Law Article 75-0107).
  ‌377 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount, Section 5.2.1, “Requirements,” page 50 (November 2008). Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf .
  
  The evaluation contained in this section quantitatively assesses the proposed action to determine the potential emissions of these GHGs and the overall CO2e per year, which were calculated using the 20-year global warming potentials (GWPs) of each GHG developed by the IPCC.378
  Climate Action Council Scoping Plan
  The CAC was established to develop strategies to achieve the GHG emission reduction goals of the Climate Act. On December 19, 2022, the CAC voted to advance the Scoping Plan379 for the Climate Act, which serves as the framework for how New York would reduce GHG emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy use, and ensure communities equitably benefit in the clean energy transition. The Scoping Plan sets forth policies and recommendations that cover six sectors: transportation, buildings, electricity, industry, agriculture and forestry, and waste.
  For transportation, the Scoping Plan recommends transition to zero-emission vehicles and equipment and access to low-carbon modes of transport. For electricity – to transform power generation by scaling up clean energy resources and to enhance the grid. For buildings – to reduce energy demand by improving energy efficiency, switching to equipment powered by renewable sources such as solar, and by reducing embodied carbon associated with building construction through building reuse and through using lower-carbon materials. The Scoping Plan follows the cap-and-invest program that enables public agencies to focus investment to accelerate transition to clean energy.
  
  State Environmental Quality Review Act – The SEQR Handbook: Climate Change
  The SEQR regulations at Part 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(i) require that an EIS must identify and discuss where potential impacts are “relevant and significant” … “measures to avoid or reduce both an action's impacts on climate change and associated impacts due to the effects of climate change such as sea level rise and flooding.” The SEQR Handbook provides guidance in considering climate change in environmental impact statements. Associated impacts, as noted above, measure “increased precipitation, increased temperatures, flooding, storm surge, and sea-level rise” (page 124).380 The SEQR Handbook notes that some projects clearly require analysis since they are located within either a 100-year or 500-year floodplain or within a NYSDEC-mapped Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA). This is not the case for the subject property, which is not located
  within a flood zone or special flood hazard area and is not located within a CEHA. It is also noted that other projects may be considered with respect to their potential to result in substantial GHG emissions affecting climate change. The SEQR Handbook also notes that a discussion of ways to reduce a project’s impact on climate change may be warranted. These measures/methods include: 1) reducing the carbon footprint of a project, 2) promoting green infrastructure and energy efficiency, 3) using renewable forms of energy to power a project, and 4) promoting increased accessibility or usage of public transit at the project site (page 125).
  
  ‌378 World Resource Institute, Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Global Warming Potential Values (March 2017). Available at: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_0.pdf .
  ‌379 New York State Climate Action Council. Scoping Plan (December 2022). Available at: https://climate.ny.gov/resources/scoping-plan/.
  ‌380 NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits. The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition (March 2020). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf .
  
  A discussion of these measures with respect to the proposed action is contained in
  Section 3.14.2 below.
  Additionally, The SEQR Handbook indicates that:
  measures to avoid or reduce the associated impacts of climate change include, but are not
  limited to, the following: locating projects outside of the regulatory floodplain where practical…
  (page 125).
  As indicated above, the subject property is not located within a regulated floodplain. Therefore, coastal or riparian flooding and storm surge risks are not relevant to this analysis.
  Cleaner Greener Long Island Regional Sustainability Plan
  Administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the Cleaner Greener Communities (CGC) program was established in 2011 to empower regions to lead the development of sustainability plans and create more sustainable communities by funding smart growth development practices. Funding for CGC was derived from New York State’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and was made available to New York’s 10 regions through a competitive grant process.
  Published in 2013 by the Cleaner Green Consortium of Long Island, the Cleaner Greener Long Island Regional Sustainability Plan381 (the CGLI Plan) defines a community-based vision for a more sustainable Long Island. Many strategies in the CGLI Plan focus on GHG emissions reduction and economic development. As part of the baseline scenario data collection, a GHG inventory was performed using the New York Community and Regional GHG Inventory Guidance .382 The CGLI Plan identified baseline 2010 emissions as 36 mmt CO2e and established a 2020 target reduction of 15 percent (31 mmt CO2e).
3. GHG Conditions
  Pursuant to Section 75-0105 of the ECL, the 2019 Climate Act requires the NYSDEC to issue an annual report on statewide GHG emissions to measure progress at reducing GHG emissions. Per the NYSDEC 2023 Statewide GHG Emissions Report ,383 statewide gross GHG emissions in 2021 were approximately 368 mmt CO2e.384 Total statewide gross emissions in 2021, when assessed using the Climate Act accounting and the most up-to-date methodologies, were about 9 percent below 1990 levels, 20 percent below 2005 levels, and 3 percent below 2019 (pre-pandemic) levels. Statewide emissions are 10 percent below the 1990 baseline (410 mmt CO2e) established
  
  ‌381 The Cleaner Greener Consortium of Long Island. Cleaner Greener Long Island Regional Sustainability Plan (April 2013). Available at: https://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/CGLI_Plan_FINAL_1.pdf .
  ‌382 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. New York Community and Regional GHG Inventory Guidance, Version 1.0 (September 2015). Available at: https://climatesmart.ny.gov/fileadmin/csc/documents/GHG_Inventories/ghgguide.pdf .
  ‌383 NYSDEC. 2023 Statewide GHG Emissions Report. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/climate- change/greenhouse-gas-emissions-report .
  ‌384 GHG emissions are typically reported in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Because GHGs have varying heat trapping abilities and atmospheric lifetimes, they are converted to CO2e to facilitate comparison. GHGs are multiplied by their global warming potential (GWP) value using the emission factors published by the USEPA (https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission- factors-hub). The GWP represents the heat-trapping impact of a GHG relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a GWP of 1.0, and functions as a warming “index.” For instance, methane (CH4) has a GWP of approximately 25, so each metric ton of CH4 emissions has 25 times the impact on global warming (over a 100-year time horizon) as one metric ton of CO2 emissions.
  
  by ECL 75-0107 and used in the 6 NYCRR Part 496 regulation. Accounting for 31 mmt CO2e removed by various methods, net GHG emissions for 2021 totaled approximately 325 mmt CO2e. New York State does not report GHG emissions on the county or municipal levels.
  CO2 and CH4 comprised the largest portion of GHG emissions by gas, accounting for 57 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Energy was the largest source of GHG emissions (76 percent).
  The USEPA tracks GHG emissions as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). The GHGRP (codified at 40 CFR Part 98) requires reporting of GHG data and other relevant information from large GHG emission sources, fuel and industrial gas suppliers, and CO2 injection sites in the U.S.
  The program includes reporting requirements for both direct emitters (facility-level) and upstream suppliers:
  › Direct emissions reported under the program fall under Scope 1 and are reported at the individual facility level, although U.S. parent company information is also collected. Total reported emissions from these facilities are about 3 billion metric tons CO2e, which accounts for about 50 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions
  › Suppliers report the amount of CO2e that would be released if the products they produce, import, or export (e.g., fossil fuels) were released, combusted, or oxidized. These are reported at the corporate level and fall under Scope 3 emissions.
  Data reported from both direct emitters and upstream suppliers combined cover 85-90 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. The GHGRP reporting program does not include emissions from:
  › Agriculture
  › Direct emissions sources that have annual emissions of less than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e, unless the source is required to report regardless of their total annual emissions
  › Sinks of GHGs
  › The reporting of data on electricity purchases or indirect emissions from energy consumption, which falls under Scope 2 emissions.
  The USEPA’s Facility Level Information on Green House Gases Tool (FLIGHT)385 provides information about GHG emissions from large facilities across the country that are required to report emissions to the USEPA annually in accordance with 40 CFR Part 98 and the USEPA’s GHGRP as described above. In general, only large suppliers of GHG emitting products, or facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (roughly equivalent to the CO2 emitted from the burning of 136 rail cars of coal), are required to report their GHG emissions.386 Over 8,000 facilities and suppliers reported GHG data to EPA for 2022, covering approximately 85 to 90 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.387
  
  ‌385 USEPA. Facility Level Information on GreenHouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT). Available at: https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do .
  ‌386 Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98.2. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, (42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.), established October 30, 2009.
  ‌387 USEPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). GHGRP and the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (updated May 15, 2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-and-us-inventory-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks .
  
  According to FLIGHT, 39.7 mmt CO2e were emitted from 212 large reporters across the state in 2022. Of the 39.7 mmt CO2e, 28.8 mmt CO2e (approximately 73 percent of the statewide total) were from power plants.
  FLIGHT indicates that there were eight reporting facilities in Nassau County in 2022 totaling
  1.9 mmt CO2e.388 Six power generating facilities emitted 1.3 mmt CO2e, while the remaining emissions were from fossil fuel utility systems and waste processing facilities. There is one large GHG emitter in the Town of Hempstead, which is the ReworldTM Hempstead (formerly Covanta Hempstead) waste-to-energy facility in Westbury (approximately one mile north of the subject property). FLIGHT shows this facility produced 0.3 mmt CO2e in 2022.
  Again, it should be noted that these are only direct emissions reported by facilities required to report to USEPA. No indirect (Scope 2) emissions are included, nor are any county or municipal GHG emissions generated by smaller sources or mobile sources included in these totals.
  In August 2024, the NYSDEC released its report on the Community Air Monitoring Initiative for Hempstead, New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, and Westbury.389 Information regarding the Community Air Monitoring Initiative is included in Section 3.6.1.5, Air Quality.

‌Potential Impacts

The analysis of GHG emissions includes direct emissions (Scope 1) from on-site stationary and mobile sources and indirect emissions (Scope 2) for off-site stationary sources, mobile sources, and solid waste. The calculation methodology for each emissions source is presented below.

Direct Emissions (Scope 1)
As described in the CEQ’s Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance ,390 direct or Scope 1 GHG emissions are the emissions released to the atmosphere as a direct result of an activity, or series of activities at a facility level. The following presents a discussion of the direct emissions projected by the proposed action for both the stationary sources (e.g., operations of the buildings) and the mobile sources (e.g., the fleet vehicles).

Stationary Sources
As required by the NYSDEC GHG Policy, the direct GHG stationary source assessment estimates GHG emissions associated with the combustion of fuel and natural gas in the stationary sources supporting the proposed Integrated Resort. As described in Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, the proposed Integrated Resort would consist of a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. No combustion equipment is expected to be used on site to produce heat,

‌388 The eight reporting facilities in Nassau Country for 2022 included the Bethpage Energy Center power plant in Hicksville, ReworldTM Hempstead (formerly Covanta) waste-to-energy facility in Westbury, E F Barrett power plant in Island Park, Equus Power 1 power plant in Freeport, Freeport Power Plant No. 2 in Freeport, Glenwood Landing Energy Center power plant in Glenwood Landing, Glenwood power plant in Glenwood Landing, National Grid in Hicksville, Nassau Energy LLC power plant in Garden City, and the Town of North Hempstead Port Washington Landfill in Port Washington.
‌389 NYSDEC. Community Air Monitoring: Hempstead including New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, & Westbury (July 2024). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/camfshemp.pdf .
‌390 Council on Environmental Quality. Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance, Section 2.2.1, “Scope 1,” pages 16-17 (January 17, 2016). Available at: https://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=30742 .

steam, or hot water. Natural gas associated with the commercial kitchens (e.g., ranges and cooktops, ovens, griddles, fryers, steam cookers, etc.) is anticipated to be the only non-electric use proposed on-site.391 Annual estimates of natural gas consumption were provided by the MEP design contractor based on factoring the estimated peak load.
Expected annual natural gas consumption from on-site commercial kitchens was estimated at a total of 364,829 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of natural gas (Appendix 3.14-1). This consumption was converted to CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions using standardized conversion factors provided by the USEPA in their “2024 GHG Emission Factors Hub.”392 The resulting annual GHG emissions due to on-site natural gas consumption is an estimated 19,378 metric tons per year of CO2.
Two proposed 4,000 kW diesel-fueled emergency generators are expected to be a negligible source of emissions as they would only operate during short durations for testing and emergency power supply. For the analysis, each emergency generator was conservatively assumed to operate a maximum of 500 hours per year. Assuming a typical 4,000 kW generator full load fuel flow for each generator, a total of up to 2,695 metric tons per year of CO2e is expected (combined total for the two generators). The total GHG emissions due to direct stationary sources (on-site natural gas consumption and diesel-fueled emergency generators) in the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) would, therefore, equal 22,073 metric tons per year of CO2e. Sands is also continuing to explore additional energy efficiency opportunities to reduce peak demand on the grid, such as battery storage, and would work with NYSERDA and PSEG Long Island to determine feasibility as the project design progresses.
In the proposed action (with mitigation), Sands is anticipated to reduce natural gas consumption by a minimum of 10 percent compared to the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) by using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens (Appendix 3.14-1). Use of Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances are conservatively projected to reduce natural gas consumption by 10 percent to an estimated 328,347 MMBtu per year. This results in approximately 1,938 metric tons per year emissions of CO2e avoided.
A 10 percent reduction in natural gas usage is considered a conservative estimate since, compared to standard appliance models, the USEPA states that Energy Star-certified products are approximately 30 percent more efficient for combination ovens; 20 percent more efficient for commercial ovens; 14 percent more efficient for standard-sized commercial fryers; 35 percent more efficient for large vat fryers; and 60 percent more efficient for steamers have a sealed cooking cavity.393
In the proposed action (with mitigation), the total direct stationary source GHG emissions from natural gas and diesel fuel combustion are an estimated 20,136 tons per year of CO2e (Appendix 3.14-1).

‌391 Two diesel-fueled emergency generators are also proposed, but they would only operate during testing and emergency conditions.
‌392 USEPA. 2023 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (modified June 5,2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub .
‌393 USEPA. ENERGY STAR® Guide for Cafes, Restaurants, and Commercial Kitchens, EPA 430-R-09-030, 2017-2018. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ES%20Restaurant%20Guide%202017-2018%20v16.pdf .

Mobile Sources
Direct emissions from mobile sources are determined by quantifying emissions from fleet vehicles operating on-site. These are vehicles that are owned and operated by Sands and are directly associated with the operations of the Integrated Resort (e.g., security vehicles, shuttle buses, maintenance vehicles). In accordance with the CEQ’s Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance ,394 vehicle operation associated with patrons and employees are defined as indirect emissions.
It is expected that the GHG produced by vehicles directly associated with the proposed action would primarily result from shuttle bus activities. Other project-owned or managed vehicles such as security vehicles are expected to produce a much smaller amount of GHG emissions.
Sands-sponsored shuttle buses are proposed to make an approximately 5.66-mile loop from the parking area west of the Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center and across from the Hempstead LIRR Station to the Integrated Resort using the Hempstead Turnpike. Shuttles would then loop around the project site, northbound on Earle Ovington Boulevard, eastbound on Charles Lindbergh Boulevard with a stop at a parking garage, southbound on James Doolittle Boulevard, then back westbound on Hempstead Turnpike. As described in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, and as noted above, the Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center is directly across from the Hempstead LIRR station and provides connection to the LIRR and additional NICE bus routes that service a larger area. The Sands LIRR shuttle is anticipated to make round trips between the Integrated Resort and the Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center/LIRR Station up to 10 times per hour. For purposes of calculating vehicle miles traveled (VMT), it is assumed that over the course of 24 hours, there would be 100 round trips. This would result in roughly 566 VMT daily and 206,590 VMT annually.
The local shuttles are expected to divert 25 passengers from local roadway traffic per trip, resulting in approximately 12 vehicles removed per shuttle, assuming an average occupancy rate of 2.0 passengers per vehicle. The GHG emissions removed by reducing vehicle traffic via the local shuttles are conservatively not included in the estimates.
Emissions are based upon traffic volumes, the distance vehicles travel, and GHG emission rates. The mobile source emissions are conservatively calculated using a GHG estimation tool created by the New York City (NYC) Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination for the CEQR process.395 The tool uses estimates of VMT and CO2e emission factors by borough and road type to evaluate the CO2 emissions for the future conditions within the traffic Study Area. Given the proximity of the project to NYC, and the NY statewide vehicle regulations, this tool was used to calculate direct mobile source GHG emissions associated with the proposed action. Based on annual VMT of 206,590 and a CO2e emission factor of 1,887.4 grams per VMT, it is expected that direct mobile sources would contribute approximately 390 metric tons per year of CO2e, annually. The NYC emissions tool is shown in Appendix 3.14-1. As vehicles become cleaner and more zero-emission vehicles are introduced, these emissions are expected to decrease with time.

‌394 Council on Environmental Quality. Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance, pages E-6 (January 17, 2016). Available at: https://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=30742 .
‌395 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (December 2021).

The proposed action would not exceed the federal GHG mandatory reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year established by the USEPA.396 Total direct GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources are expected to be 22,463 metric tons of CO2e per year in the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) and 20,525 metric tons of CO2e per year for the proposed action after incorporating mitigation measures.
Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)
Indirect or Scope 2 GHG emissions are the emissions released to the atmosphere from the indirect consumption of an energy commodity, and in this case would include emissions related to the operations of the proposed building(s), the patrons and employee vehicle emissions, and the emissions related to the solid waste produced on site.397

Stationary Sources
The indirect stationary assessment estimates GHG emissions associated with the project-related stationary sources, such as off-site combustion for energy generation consumed by the proposed action in the form of electricity consumption, as required by the NYSDEC GHG Policy. Indirect stationary source emissions would result from electricity consumption by HVAC systems, lighting, the electronic casino games, plug loads, and other end uses.
Annual estimates of electricity consumption were provided by the project’s MEP design contractor, JB&B, based on energy simulation modeling conducted in 2024. Electricity consumption was modeled for the different types of facilities and uses associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, such as hotel, retail, food and beverage, parking garages, gaming facilities, convention center, and back of house, etc. Additionally, electricity consumption was estimated by three primary end uses in lighting, plug loads, and mechanical consumption.
An expanded electrical substation/new substation would be required to meet the demand of the proposed Integrated Resort, as discussed in Section 3.14.2, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities. The estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed substation are incorporated into the electrical demand assumptions for the proposed action and the resulting estimate of GHG emissions.
A total of approximately 131,415 MWh per year of electricity is expected to be consumed by the uses associated with the proposed facilities under the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) (see Appendix 3.14-1). In the baseline scenario, the proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to exceed the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent by installing an on-site system of solar PVs (Section 3.14.2.5) and by incorporating energy efficiency measures. As described in Section 3.14.2.5, energy efficiency measures that would be incorporated in the design and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort include passive design strategies, high- efficiency MEP systems and HVAC equipment, Energy Star‐rated appliances and equipment, LED

‌396 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98.2, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, (42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.), established October 30, 2009.
‌397 Council on Environmental Quality. Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance, Section 2.2.2, “Scope 2,” page 17,
(January 17, 2016). Available at: https://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=30742 .

lighting, occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and building automation technology to optimize performance.
The estimated consumption of 131,415 MWh of electricity in the baseline scenario was converted to CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions using standardized conversion factors provided by the USEPA (Appendix 3.14-1).398 Considering the GWP associated with each GHG, a total of 72,644 metric tons per year of CO2e is estimated in the baseline scenario.
Beyond exceeding the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent in the baseline scenario, Sands is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions in the proposed action by entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources. The 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions assumed from the use of renewable electricity sources is a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.399
After incorporating the additional 20 percent reduction in indirect GHG emissions, the total electricity use in the proposed action is estimated to be 105,132 MWh per year. Considering the GWP associated with each GHG, a total of 58,115 metric tons per year of CO2e is estimated. As shown in Appendix 3.14-1, sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources results in approximately 14,529 metric tons per year of CO2e emissions avoided.
Mobile Sources
Indirect mobile source GHG emissions are produced by patrons and employee travel trips to and from the project site. Emissions are based upon traffic volumes, the distance vehicles travel, and GHG emission rates.
It is estimated that there would be roughly 135 million miles of passenger vehicle transit,
6.6 million miles of taxi/rideshare transit, and 1.5 million miles of shuttle bus transit associated with the proposed action annually. Given the traffic estimates, it is estimated that indirect mobile sources would contribute roughly 38,423 metric tons of CO2e annually (as shown in
Appendix 3.14-1). As vehicles become cleaner and more zero-emission vehicles are introduced, these emissions are expected to decrease with time.
Solid Waste
Indirect GHG emissions from solid waste generated at the Integrated Resort would occur from the landfilling of waste. Anaerobic digestion that occurs at the landfills results in the solid waste degrading in GHG emissions. Estimates of solid waste generation were obtained for the proposed action from Sands, based on the estimated size (total area) and functional use of each building associated with the Integrated Resort. The estimated GHG emissions associated with solid waste were calculated using the conversion factor for mixed municipal solid waste as

‌398 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Updated State-Level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation 1998-2000 (April 2002). Available at: http://www.eia.gov/environment/archive/e-supdoc-u.pdf .
‌399 Climate Group. RE100 Reporting Guidance 2023, Version 7.1 (June 2023). Available at: https://www.there100.org/sites/re100/files/2023- 06/RE100%20reporting%20guidance%202023.pdf .

disposed in a landfill from a USEPA study.400 The USEPA study indicates that 0.42 metric tons of CO2e are produced per U.S. short ton of solid waste.
As shown in Appendix 3.14-1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations, the total annual solid waste sent to the landfill is estimated to be 7,480 U.S. short tons per year in the proposed action. Using the USEPA’s conversion factor, the proposed action is estimated to generate 3,142 metric tons of CO2e per year due to solid waste landfilling. If the solid waste goes to a waste to energy facility instead of a landfill, the overall GHG emissions are generally lower than that of a landfill due to the offset of fossil fuel use and lower methane emissions. However, the actual impact can vary based on specific technologies and efficiencies employed in both waste-to-energy and landfill gas capture systems.401 The solid waste GHG emissions estimated herein conservatively assume the solid is disposed in a landfill rather than a waste-to-energy facility.
Operation of the Integrated Resort would incorporate a comprehensive recycling program, as described in Section 3.10.2.4, Solid Waste, to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions associated with landfilling. As presented in Appendix 3.14-1, it is estimated that approximately 1,880 U.S. tons of recyclables would be collected and kept out of landfills, preventing approximately 790 metric tons of CO2e from being emitted to the atmosphere per year in landfills.
Total indirect GHG emissions (including indirect stationary sources, indirect mobile sources, and solid waste) are an estimated 114,998 metric tons of CO2e per year in the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) and 99,680 metric tons of CO2e per year after incorporating mitigation measures. Reduction of indirect GHG emissions over and above the baseline scenario would occur by sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources and by diverting at least 20 percent of solid waste from landfills by recycling.

Total GHG Emissions

Table 124 summarizes the estimated direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions associated with the Integrated Resort, which is estimated to emit 137,461 tons of CO2e per year in the baseline scenario (with no mitigation). Consistent with the requirements of the NYSDEC GHG Policy, Table 124 also includes calculations of the projected reduction in GHG emissions that would result from energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability measures that would be incorporated into the proposed action. These measures, which are consistent with Climate Act and state carbon reduction goals, include, but are not limited to:

› Using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in commercial kitchens, which is anticipated to reduce natural gas consumption compared to the baseline scenario (with no mitigation) by at least 10 percent

› Incorporating passive design strategies that emphasize building form, building envelope performance, material selection, and user control of comfort

‌400 USEPA. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd Edition, September 2006, Exhibit B-1, “Net GHG Emissions from Source Reduction and MSW Management Options - Emissions Counted from a Waste Generation Reference Point (MTCO2E/Ton),” page 127. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/2006470266/.

‌401 Arena, U., Gregorio, F. Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Systems: Landfill and Energy Recovery from a Specific Case Study

(2014), Journal of Waste Management, Volume 34, Issue 12, Pages 2404-2412.

› Installing and integrating high-efficiency MEP systems and HVAC equipment, Energy Star‐

rated appliances and equipment, and smart zoning of climate design conditions

› Using on-site central thermal plants, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or air handling units with direct outside air connections, hydronic heating and cooling systems, heat recovery air source heat pumps, and efficient electric-driven water source heat pumps

› Installing an on-site solar PV system to achieve at least eight percent of electricity needs

› Entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase a portion of energy from off-site renewable sources

› Installing LED lighting, using occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and using smart sensors and plug load management

› Using smart metering and submeter stations to track electricity and chilled and hot water use

› Using building automation technology to optimize systems operation

› Incorporating a comprehensive recycling program to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions associated with landfilling.

As further described in Sections 3.14.2.5, 3.14.2.6, and 3.14.3, these above-listed measures are estimated to result in GHG emissions savings of at least 17,256 metric tons of CO2e per year. As shown in Table 124, the resulting net GHG emissions associated with the proposed action (with mitigation) are an estimated 120,205 metric tons of CO2e per year, which represents a 13 percent GHG emissions reduction from the baseline scenario, which represents the project without mitigation. Calculations are provided in Appendix 3.14-1.

Comparatively, the total annual GHG emissions associated with the Integrated Resort represent less than half a tenth of a percent (approximately 0.04 percent in both the baseline scenario and the proposed action, which incorporates significant mitigation) of the 2021 statewide total net GHG emissions (325 mmt CO2e) and less than half a percent (approximately 0.45 percent in the baseline scenario and 0.39 percent in the proposed action) of the 2020 Long Island targeted GHG emissions (36 mmt CO2e per the CGLI Plan, as described in Section 3.14.1.2, above).

‌Table 124 Proposed Action Estimated 2030 Cumulative GHG Emissions

	Related Emissions		Proposed Emissions
(with No Mitigation)		Mitigation Savings	(Proposed Action)
Direct Sources (Metric Tons CO2e/year)
Stationary	22,073	-1,9381	20,136
Mobile	390	0	390
Total Direct	22,463	-1,938	20,525
Indirect Sources (Metric Tons CO2e/year)
Stationary	72,6442	- 14,5293	58,115
Mobile	38,423	0	38,423
Solid Waste	3,931	- 7904	3,142
Total Indirect	114,998	- 15,318	99,680

Baseline Project-

Related Emissions

(with No Mitigation) Mitigation Savings

Proposed Emissions (Proposed Action)

Total Site (Metric Tons CO2e/year)

Proposed Action 137,461 - 17,256 120,205

1 The mitigation savings for direct stationary sources incorporates a 10 percent reduction in natural gas consumption compared to the baseline scenario by using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in commercial kitchens (e.g., ranges and cooktops, ovens, griddles, fryers, steam cookers, etc.).

2 In the baseline scenario, the Lessee is anticipated to exceed the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent by installing an on-site system of solar PVs and by incorporating energy efficiency measures.

3 In the proposed action, the Lessee is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions beyond the baseline scenario by sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources.

4 Operation of the Integrated Resort would incorporate a comprehensive recycling program to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced, thereby reducing indirect GHG emissions associated with landfilling.

Construction GHG Emissions
Internal combustion engines are the primary source of GHG emissions during construction activities. Direct emissions result from on-site use of diesel-fueled engines powering non-road equipment such as loaders, dozers, cranes, and excavators. The primary GHG emitted is CO2.
Indirect GHG emissions can be attributed to electricity used during construction, as well as secondary emissions generated in the production of the building materials required for the project, such as concrete, masonry, asphalt, steel, glass, and wood. On-road GHG emissions are produced by delivery of these materials to the site and removal of construction and demolition debris from the site, as well as construction worker vehicle round trips.
As described in Section 3.15, Construction, best management practices would be implemented to minimize construction-period air quality emissions. Many of these practices would also help reduce GHG emissions, including:
› Using engines that operate on electric grid power instead of diesel power for hoists and small equipment, such as lifts, compressors, welders, and pumps, to the extent practical
› Implementing restrictions on idling times to three minutes for all applicable construction equipment and vehicles
› Implementing construction worker vehicle trip management techniques and/or encouraging construction workers to carpool and/or use public transportation
› Obtaining materials locally; as described in Section 3.15, Construction, it is anticipated that approximately 71 percent of the materials for the proposed Integrated Resort would be locally sourced within New York State, thus reducing VMT.
Climate Change
To address the measures outlined in Section 3.14.1, above, regarding ways of reducing a project’s impact on climate change, the following sections address energy efficiency and the use of renewables, reduction of the carbon footprint, and promoting increased accessibility.

Energy Efficiency
As stated in the Scoping Plan for the Climate Act, “energy efficiency and managed electrification in buildings would be critical to meet New York State’s GHG emissions limits under the Climate Act.”402 As described in Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, Sands would exceed the minimum energy conservation requirements of the ECCCNYS for the design and construction of the Integrated Resort. The ECCCNYS addresses HVAC, lighting, water heating, and power usage for appliances and building systems. These include minimum requirements for exterior building envelope insultation, window and door insulation factors, and solar heat gain coefficient ratings, duct insulation, lighting and power efficiency, and water distribution insulation.403
The preliminary design for the Integrated Resort features passive design strategies to minimize building energy use intensity and meet high-efficiency project expectations. These passive design strategies emphasize building form, building envelope performance, material selection, and user control of comfort.
To further maximize energy performance and efficiency of the Integrated Resort, Sands would install and integrate high-efficiency MEP systems and HVAC equipment, Energy Star‐rated appliances and equipment, and smart zoning of climate design conditions throughout the building components. Key HVAC, equipment, and operation strategies that would be incorporated to maximize performance and efficient design include use of on-site central thermal plants, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or air handling units with direct outside air connections, hydronic heating and cooling systems that optimize interior comfort and energy efficiency, heat recovery air source heat pumps, and efficient electric-driven water source heat pumps that simultaneously produce domestic hot water and provide chilled water generation.
Additional energy efficiency strategies include maximizing daylight penetration and use, installing LED lighting, using occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and using smart sensors and plug load management. Smart metering and submeter stations would be installed within the Integrated Resort to track electricity and chilled and hot water use. Consistent with Sands’ other resorts, facility engineers would continually monitor energy performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation. Sands is also continuing to explore additional energy efficiency opportunities to reduce peak demand on the grid, such as battery storage, and would work with NYSERDA and PSEG Long Island to determine feasibility as the project design progresses. Refer to Section 3.13.2, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities – Potential Impacts, for more information on strategies that would be incorporated into the proposed action to maximize energy efficiency.

Renewable Energy
As indicated above, the proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the use of renewable energy through the installation of an on-site solar PV system, which is anticipated to achieve at

‌402 New York State Climate Action Council. Scoping Plan, Chapter 12, “Buildings,” page 176 (December 2022). Available at: https://climate.ny.gov/resources/scoping-plan/.
‌403 International Code Council and New York State Department of State. 2020 Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State, (November 2019). Available at: https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/09/2020-ecccnys-november-2019.pdf .

least eight percent of electricity needs. The solar PV array size is estimated to be approximately 8,400 kW.
As described in Section 3.14.2.2, Use and Conservation of Energy, Sands is anticipated to enter into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase a minimum of 20 percent of the Integrated Resort’s electricity needs from off-site renewable sources. The 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions assumed from the use of renewable electricity sources is a conservative estimate since the proposed Integrated Resort, in alignment with Sands’ existing company-wide global carbon emissions reduction goal, aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.404 The 60 percent target would be achieved via the on-site solar PV system in combination with entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources.
To educate the public and promote sustainability, Sands plans to share real-time energy data on displays in the lobbies of the hotels and casino informing the public about the amount of renewable energy produced on-site and off-site.
Reduction in Carbon Footprint
To reduce its carbon footprint, the proposed Integrated Resort emphasizes energy-efficient design and renewable energy use, as described above, as well as sustainable design, as described in Section 3.14.2.6. Also, as noted above, the eco-conscious approach incorporates energy efficient lighting and HVAC systems that minimize energy consumption and focuses on sustainable building materials and waste reduction practices.

Use of Public Transit and Alternate Transportation Modes
There are existing transit and non-motorized services in the vicinity of the subject property. Transit services include commuter rail and public bus. The proposed Integrated Resort also includes a network of pedestrian and shared-use paths that promote non-motorized travel. The existing multi-modal accommodations are detailed in Section 3.5.1, Transportation and Parking, of this DEIS. Section 3.5.2 notes that, given the location and operations of the proposed Integrated Resort and characteristics of the site, patrons and employees would have several mode choices (automobile, ridesharing, bus transit, LIRR, coach buses provided by Sands, and biking/walking) to arrive and depart from the site. Sands is proposing two bus services, including a shuttle bus to the local Hempstead LIRR station, as well as larger, longer-distance coach buses. Additionally, Sands is investigating membership in a local area Transportation Management Association (TMA). A TMA is a non-profit organization that is member-supported to provide and/or promote transportation services. A TMA provides incentives and awareness of alternative mode choices available in the area and works to connect partners to continue to improve those choices.
Based on the measures proposed to be incorporated into the Integrated Resort, it is expected that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact related to climate change.

‌404 Climate Group. RE100 Reporting Guidance 2023, Version 7.1 (June 2023). Available at: https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp- production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/001/322/original/RE100-reporting-guidance.pdf.pdf?1678892689. Accessed September 2024.

Additional discussion is contained in Section 3.14.2.7, Climate, Resiliency and Emergency/Disaster Preparedness, below.
Sustainability
Design, construction, and operation of the proposed Integrated Resort would align with and further advance Sands’ ECO360 Global Sustainability Strategy, which reflects the company’s vision to become a leader in sustainable development and resort operations. Sands ECO360 and its environmental, social, and governance strategy are designed to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation; SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy; SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; and SDG 14: Life Below Water. Sands ECO360 focuses on four environmental topics: low-carbon transition, water stewardship, waste, and material and resources. These topics would be incorporated into the proposed Integrated Resort and targeted through the three foundational pillars of Sands ECO360: building development and design, resort management and operations, and meeting, events, and entertainment.405
Sands would regularly track and report sustainability progress associated with the Integrated Resort in continuation of existing company-wide reporting, including its existing Environmental Social and Governance Report406 and Environmental Social and Governance Material Issue Briefs ,407 in accordance with Global Reporting Initiative Standard 103: Management Approach. Sands would continue to disclose its environmental performance through the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, the CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project) voluntary sustainability reporting framework, and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) sustainability reporting standards.
The proposed Integrated Resort would also be incorporated into the existing environmental management system (EMS) that Sands uses to identify the impact of its operations, establish priorities, set performance goals, initiate projects, and continuously monitor and improve the Sands ECO360 program across its existing integrated resorts and Sands corporate.
Sands also implements an existing Sustainable Procurement Policy that applies across all its businesses, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers worldwide when acting within their scope of employment or contract with Sands.408 Implementation of the Sustainable Procurement Policy would be extended to the proposed Integrated Resort to reduce impacts on human health and the environment and strengthen local communities by ensuring the procurement of products and services that:
› Conserve natural resources, materials, water and energy, and protect biodiversity
› Maximize recyclability and recycled content, and minimize waste
› Reduce toxicity and pollution, including GHG emissions

‌405 Las Vegas Sands Corp. Environmental Responsibility Policy (created in April 2012, updated July 2023). Available at: https://www.sands.com/content/uploads/2023/07/Environmental-Responsibility-Policy_July-2023.pdf .
‌406 Las Vegas Sands Corp. 2022 Environmental Social and Governance Report. Available at: https://www.sands.com/resources/reports/.
‌407 Las Vegas Sands Corp., Environmental Social and Governance Material Issue Briefs (2021). Available at: https://www.sands.com/content/uploads/2022/06/ESG-Material-Issue-Briefs-2021_spreads.pdf .
‌408 Las Vegas Sands Corp. Sustainable Procurement Policy (July 2021). Available at: https://www.sands.com/content/uploads/2022/04/Sustainable-Procurement-Policy_20210707-1.pdf .

› Provide opportunities for small and medium size enterprises and local businesses.
Consistent with other Sands integrated resorts409 and in accordance with the Sands ECO360 commitment to be a leader in sustainable development and resort operations, Sands is committed to achieving U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort. Buildings designed and constructed to achieve LEED certification help reduce energy and water use, improve indoor air quality, support better building material choices, and drive innovation.
Sands would focus on building exterior wall thermal performance and other building performance criteria (e.g., material selection, internal operations, and building form) as part of Sands’ commitment to achieving LEED certification under the Building Design and Construction (BD+C) commercial building rating system; the anticipated level of LEED certification to be achieved would be determined as design advances. Consistent with the NYSDEC GHG Policy, conducting third party building commissioning using LEED would be used to ensure energy performance.410
In addition, Sands intends to continue to work with community leaders in Nassau County to achieve certification of the entire Sands complex under the LEED for Communities: Plan and Design Communities rating system. While the Integrated Resort would strive for certification at the LEED Gold level, the realized level of LEED certification would be determined as design advances. LEED for Communities would help Sands and local leaders plan, develop, and operate the complex in a way that enhances sustainability and quality of life by focusing on natural systems and ecology, transportation and land use, water efficiency, energy and GHG emissions, materials and resources, quality of life, and innovation.
Sands intends to incorporate the following sustainability elements into the proposed Integrated Resort as part of LEED for BD+C, LEED for Communities, the advancement of Sands existing sustainability goals411 and strategies, consistent with the mitigation measures and goals outlined in the NYSDEC GHG Policy,412 and the Climate Act, and in exceedance of the minimum energy conservation requirements of the ECCCNYS:
› Developing the Integrated Resort within a previously disturbed, primarily paved site to reduce the overall land-use footprint.
› Incorporating the existing Coliseum into the Integrated Resort, which is estimated to reduce the material impact of the building by more than 10,000 tons of CO2e, or roughly five to seven percent of the project’s total embodied carbon.

‌409 Singapore Marina Bay Sands achieved LEED Platinum for Building Operations and Maintenance for its Sands Expo and Convention Center (since 2019) and LEED Platinum for Building Operations and Maintenance for its ArtScience Museum (LEED Gold since 2015; LEED Platinum since 2022). Sands China achieved LEED Silver for Building Design and Construction for The Parisian Macao (2019).
‌410 NYSDEC. Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements, Section G., “Mitigation Measures,”
page 12 (July 15, 2009). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf .
‌411 As Sands details in its 2022 Environmental Social and Governance Report, its 2025 goals include an emissions reduction target of 17.5 percent in Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (from a 2018 baseline), a 3 percent reduction in potable water use per square foot (from 2019), a 25 percent reduction in food waste (from 2018), and a 5 percent increase in operational waste diversion (from 2019).
‌412 NYSDEC. Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements, Section G., “Mitigation Measures,”
pages 12-14 (July 15, 2009). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf .

› Targeting an overall 20 percent reduction in total embodied carbon from a business-as-usual baseline by prioritizing low-embodied carbon materials with high recycled content and using low-embodied carbon insulation and roofing materials; in combination with the repurposing of the existing Coliseum described above, these practices are anticipated to result in a total embodied carbon savings of approximately 40,000 tons of CO2e.
› Featuring a layout of interconnected building components that facilitate efficiency in equipment, performance, and space allocation to minimize energy use.
› Targeting a modeled building design energy use reduction of over 60 percent in each building component compared to a base case building design per the Building Performance Database, exceeding the requirements of the ECCCNYS.
› Submetering and monitoring energy consumption to track and report energy use in each building, facilitating continuous improvement throughout the life cycle of the facility; on-site facility engineers would continually monitor performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation.
› Avoiding the use of cooling towers for air conditioning, which typically represents the largest single use of potable water in resorts.
› Installing a solar PV renewable energy system on-site to provide a minimum of eight percent
of the Integrated Resort’s electricity needs.
› Entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase 20 percent of energy from renewable sources, advancing Sands existing company-wide global carbon emissions reduction goals.
› Providing an on-site bus depot within Parking Garage A, connected to the casinos and lifestyle complex by an overhead pedestrian bridge, that enhances safety and provides comfortable and convenient year-round access.
› Installing EV charging infrastructure for a portion of the total parking spaces.
› Incorporating open space design elements and facilitating interaction with outdoor green spaces; a range of spaces are intended to enhance social, recreation, and community activities.
› Improving existing stormwater management by recharging stormwater runoff on-site and in the adjacent Nassau County recharge basin, and by promoting groundwater recharge.
› Using low-impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff, including green roofs.
› Incorporating a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters, and stores rainwater for reuse. The recovery and reuse system would only be for no-contact irrigation use, and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable to Nassau County.
› Reducing the heat island effect by incorporating high albedo roofing and pavement materials.
› Installing drought-tolerant plant species and integrating advanced irrigation technologies to reduce water needs associated with on-site irrigation.
› Installing low-flow fixtures and appliances to reduce indoor water use.
› Maximizing indoor environmental quality through increased ventilation, natural light, and exterior views for occupants.

› Providing thermal comfort controls in a wide range of spaces.
› Implementing construction waste management and recycling strategies.
› Reducing food waste via prevention, donation, and diversion strategies.
› Utilizing low-emitting materials in construction materials and components.
› Using local sources to obtain construction materials such as concrete, glass, masonry, wood, insulation, plastics, gypsum board, metals, and piping.
Climate Resiliency and Emergency/Disaster Preparedness
Sands recognizes the threat posed by natural disasters such as hurricanes, severe storms, and floods, as well as the impact from human-caused or accidental dangers. Sands has implemented a global approach to disaster preparedness, crisis management, and business continuity using a full spectrum model, which it intends to apply at the proposed Integrated Resort. This includes making Sands’ facilities and resources available for community use during times of disaster.
To address the threats, operational complexities, and business challenges associated with a potential crisis situation at the proposed Integrated Resort, planning is required to guide the actions before, during, and after an incident occurs. This planning is achieved through a comprehensive BCM program that provides the necessary preparation, guidance, and framework for identifying threats/risks, responding to emergencies, managing crises, and building resilience to limit the impact of potential business interruptions. Sands’ security team is responsible for managing the BCM program and coordinating with various business units to develop BCM plans. Security also provides direct support for the development, maintenance, and testing of BCM plans and strategies.
A global policy and guidelines have been established to guide Sands’ integrated resorts on the BCM program, and these would be followed at the proposed Integrated Resort. Four main components of BCM have been identified involving response, recovery, restoration of technology functions, and business unit continuity. As part of the BCM program, a lifecycle of activities has been established that provides the overall framework and required document planning to guide the Integrated Resort.
These lifecycle activities and required documents include emergency response plans for how to respond to an incident; protective action plans focusing on evacuation, relocation, shelter-in- place as well as lockdown; crisis management planning; business impact analysis; and business recovery strategies. A critical component of the lifecycle activities includes the training and exercising of the planning documents as well as the annual review and updating of those plans. Large-scale training exercises involving multiple operational departments focusing on emergency response, crisis management, and business continuity functions, are required at least annually.
Additionally, emergency response drills, to include evacuation or shelter-in-place activities, are also required to be conducted at least annually.
Procedures for coordination with local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and other first responders are included in Sands’ BCM planning documents, such as the emergency action plan and protective action plan. Additionally, Sands operational teams maintain response plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to aid in coordination with external agencies during incidents. A component of the pre-incident planning and preparation includes the interaction

and discussion with first responders and their emergency management teams to ensure external agency requirements are fulfilled, internal procedures are shared, and on-site coordination is achieved.
Similar to other Sands integrated resorts, the proposed Integrated Resort would include a team within its security division that coordinates with all departments on the BCM program. The security team would also be responsible for the functionality of the emergency operations center and the emergency response plans. The security members of the existing Sands business continuity teams receive training and certification from several established groups including the Business Continuity Institute413 and the Disaster Recovery Institute.414 For the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands proposes to hire professionals from the first responder and emergency management communities, as available, in Nassau County, and then in Suffolk County and in broader New York State, to be part of the Sands Business Continuity team and help develop specific planning for the proposed Integrated Resort.
Moreover, Sands enjoys relationships with its local partners at existing integrated resorts around the world and would develop similar relationships with local emergency service partners within the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County. Sands periodically conducts ground deployment and tabletop exercises that have involved several hundred of Sands’ team members from various departments and dozens of local external partners including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, emergency management teams and other organizations. Sands operational teams would train with law enforcement and invite agencies to the property to use the facilities to enhance their training exercises and to conduct business continuity exercises.
To stay up to date with industry best practices and to assist the security BCM teams, Sands has a long-term support contract with an external global risk consulting group that specializes in business continuity management. The chief security officer is required to brief the Sands board of directors annually on the status of the BCM program and to brief the enterprise risk management team on a quarterly basis. The audit services group performs reviews and audits of the BCM program and its planning documentation.
Evacuation plans are part of the overall life safety system of the proposed Integrated Resort and provide guidance for sheltering, relocating, or evacuating all or just part of the facility. Evacuation is initiated through multiple communication pathways including audible and visual alarm indicators, voice instructions, digital signage, pictograms, and mass notification system.
Evacuation plans feature dedicated egress pathways, identification of safe refuge and evacuation teams to assist with the movement of people.
In the event of an emergency at the proposed Integrated Resort that limits the ability of employees and patrons to leave the facility, a support plan would be developed to provide shelter, food, water and other essential needs and services for at least three days. These support sites would also provide communication, visitor/family unification services, basic medical

‌413 The Business Continuity Institute (BCI) is a global nonprofit membership association for business continuity and resilience professionals. Encompassing 9,000 members in more than 120 countries, the BCI provides education, training, certification, membership, and thought leadership (https://www.thebci.org/).
‌414 The Disaster Recovery Institute (DRI) International is a nonprofit that helps organizations around the world prepare for and recover from disasters by providing education, accreditation, and thought leadership in business continuity, disaster recovery, cyber resilience, and related fields. The DRI offers 15 individual certifications and certifies organizations as resilient enterprises (https://drii.org/).

treatment, and wellness services. Staging and relocation sites are identified at all Sands’ integrated resorts and are part of the ongoing training and exercise program. These safe sites are identified inside the integrated resort property as well as outside of the buildings, and people would be directed to the most appropriate locations based on the type of emergency (meeting spaces, open areas). The proposed Integrated Resort would have a robust service capability to meet these needs, due to the size of the venue, ability to feed and house people as well as having a large loading dock and warehouse storage capacity.
Physical protection, sustainability, and redundancy of critical operating components are mitigation and preparedness features that would be incorporated into the design of the proposed Integrated Resort. Critical infrastructure would be designed to eliminate single points of failure and adequate backup systems would allow for an adequate level of continued operation.
Sands is committed to working with local authorities to provide community support, as needed, in the event of an emergency/disaster. The Integrated Resort is optimally positioned, from a structural and operational standpoint, to assist in addressing community needs in such situations. The Integrated Resort:
› Can operate off the grid for a significant period after a disaster due to the existence of back- up infrastructure in the event of a power outage.
- Power
- Water
- Life safety
  › Provides temporary housing for community and government functions.
- People can be accommodated in hotel rooms.
- Meeting space could be repurposed for medical triage and support.
- The meeting rooms and ballrooms could accommodate major government functions.
  › Has a robust service backbone to aid in tracking of disaster victims and to meet their daily needs.
- Multiple points of access and service.
- Loading, warehouse, and storage capacity.
- Provision of food using hotel kitchens and catering services.
- Check-in processes can track displaced people seeking refuge.
- Sophisticated and robust communication and data infrastructure.

‌Proposed Mitigation
Sands would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions associated with construction activity, energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainability, climate resiliency, and emergency/disaster preparedness. Specific measures that are proposed to be incorporated in the proposed Integrated Resort to reduce GHG emissions, minimize impacts associated with climate change, and promote sustainability, include the following:

› Sands proposes a high-efficiency, nearly all-electric complex. The only non-electric use proposed on the subject site relates to commercial kitchen natural gas use and emergency generators.
› The HVAC systems would all be electric, use high performance heat pump technology with heat recovery, and would not burn fossil fuels through gas or steam. No combustion equipment is expected to be used on site to produce heat, steam, or hot water. Key HVAC, equipment, and operation strategies that would be incorporated to maximize performance and efficient design include use of on-site central thermal plants, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery or air handling units with direct outside air connections, hydronic heating and cooling systems that optimize interior comfort and energy efficiency, heat recovery air source heat pumps, and efficient electric-driven water source heat pumps that simultaneously produce domestic hot water and provide chilled water generation.
› Energy efficiency strategies include maximizing daylight penetration and use, installing LED lighting, using occupancy or illuminance-controlled lighting, and using smart sensors and plug load management.
› The proposed Integrated Resort would install smart metering and submeter stations to track electricity and chilled and hot water use, and facility engineers would continually monitor energy performance and utilize building automation technology to optimize systems operation.
› The proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to reduce natural gas consumption by a minimum of 10 percent compared to the baseline scenario by using Energy Star‐rated natural gas appliances in the commercial kitchens.
› The Integrated Resort is anticipated to exceed the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent by installing an on-site solar PV system and by incorporating energy efficiency measures.
› The proposed Integrated Resort is being designed to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions beyond the baseline scenario by sourcing at least 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources. The reduction in GHG emissions assumed in the analysis from the use of renewable energy sources represents a conservative estimate since Sands aims to achieve 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy by 2030, 90 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2050 in alignment with the Climate Group’s RE100 international reporting guidelines.
› Operation of the Integrated Resort would incorporate a comprehensive recycling program to divert from landfill a portion of the total solid waste produced and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions associated with solid waste landfilling.
› Sands is proposing two bus services, including a shuttle bus to the Hempstead LIRR station as well as larger, longer-distance coach buses, which would provide direct bus connection from New York City and potential other locations, providing a single-seat trip between the highest population in the capture area and the Integrated Resort. This would promote the use of mass transit and reduce the lower occupancy vehicle count, which would, in turn, reduce VMT.
› Implementation of Sands Sustainable Procurement Policy would be extended to the proposed Integrated Resort to reduce impacts on human health and the environment and strengthen local communities by ensuring the procurement of products and services that;

conserve natural resources, materials, water and energy, and protect biodiversity; maximize recyclability and recycled content, and minimize waste; reduce toxicity and pollution, including GHG emissions; and provide opportunities for small and medium size enterprises and local businesses.
› Sands is committed to achieving USGBC LEED third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort. Buildings designed and constructed to achieve LEED certification help reduce energy and water use, improve indoor air quality, support better building material choices, and drive innovation. While the Integrated Resort would strive for certification at the LEED Gold level, the realized level of LEED certification would be determined as design advances.
› Additional sustainability elements that are incorporated in the proposed action to minimize potential GHG impacts include:
- Developing the Integrated Resort within a previously disturbed, primarily paved site to reduce the overall land-use footprint.
- Featuring a layout of interconnected building components that facilitate efficiency in equipment, performance, and space allocation to minimize energy use.
- Avoiding the use of cooling towers for air conditioning, which typically represents the largest single use of potable water in resorts.
- Providing an on-site bus depot within Parking Garage A, connected to the casinos and hotels/restaurants/retail by an overhead pedestrian bridge, that enhances safety and provides comfortable and convenient year-round access.
- Installing EV charging infrastructure.
- Improving existing stormwater management by recharging stormwater runoff on-site and in the adjacent Nassau County recharge basin, and by promoting groundwater recharge.
- Using low-impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff, including green roofs/landscaped terraces.
- Incorporating a central rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters, and stores rainwater for reuse. The recovery and reuse system would only be for no-contact irrigation use, and possibly for exterior non-contact surface cleaning, if acceptable to Nassau County.
- Reducing the heat island effect by incorporating high albedo roofing and pavement materials.
- Installing drought-tolerant plant species and integrating advanced irrigation technologies to reduce water needs associated with on-site irrigation.
- Installing low-flow fixtures and appliances to reduce indoor water use.
- Reducing food waste via prevention, donation, and diversion strategies.

‌Construction

‌Construction Schedule, Phasing and Logistics

As stated in Section 2, Description of Proposed Action, the Integrated Resort is proposed to be developed in two phases: Phase 1, consisting of the redevelopment of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum with the Coliseum Casino, Parking Garage A, CUP-1, and Parking Lot E, is anticipated to begin in 2026 and be completed in 2027. Phase 2, which consists of the remainder of the Integrated Resort, is expected to begin in mid-2026 with construction being completed by the end of 2030. Details of the proposed phasing follow, and a Phasing Exhibit is included in Appendix 2-1 .415

Phase 1 Demolition and Construction

Phase 1 construction is planned to commence in 2026 (subject to securing a gaming license and required approvals), and is scheduled to be completed in 2027. As shown on the Construction Logistics Plans (Appendix 3.15-1), Phase 1 would begin in Year 1 and continue to the end of Year 2 for a total anticipated duration of 24 months. Phase 1 would commence with work in three major areas concurrently (Coliseum renovation, Parking Garage A and CUP-1). At the end of Year 2, work on these areas would be completed. Construction would also occur in other areas of the site within Phase 1.

Existing Coliseum

Phase 1, Year 1 involves the renovation of the existing Coliseum building, including selective demolition.

Phase 1, Year 2 construction at this building would involve framing and rough-in within and adjacent to the Coliseum, structural upgrades, additions to flooring areas, infrastructure upgrades, and new finishes inside the Coliseum to transform it into the northernmost casino (Coliseum Casino), with food & beverage and supportive retail.

Parking Garage A

Phase 1, Year 1 also includes construction of Parking Garage A at the northern extent of the subject property, which is proposed to contain parking for patron vehicles and initially some employee vehicles, a bus depot, emergency medical vehicles (ambulances), and a connecting tunnel to the proposed Coliseum Casino. Work in Phase 1, Year 1 would start with asphalt removal and then foundation excavation.

Phase 1, Year 2 would conclude with both the interior and exterior finishes of this parking garage.

Central Utilities Plant (CUP) 1

Phase 1, Year 1 would involve excavation for CUP-1 within the footprint of Parking Garage A.

‌415 As with all projects, timing of actual construction is dependent upon various factors, the most significant of which is timing of decisions on substantive approvals (e.g., determinations on gaming license, zoning amendments, site plans and other required permits and approvals).

Phase 1, Year 2 involves the continuing equipment set-up within the CUP and the commencement of energizing the equipment (e.g., putting in on-line and ready for use).

Other Construction Work in Phase 1

Parking upgrades to surface Parking Lot E in the northeast corner of the subject property would be conducted during this phase. Phase 1, Year 1 involves the commencement of upgrades to this parking lot, so that by Phase 1, Year 2 it can be completed for use by contractors, until it is open for guests starting in Year 3.

Phase 1 would also involve the erection of the connecting bridge from Parking Garage A to the renovated Coliseum Casino.

There would be selective topcoat removal during Year 1 and by Year 2 the hardscape slab preparation would be complete. Utility Work would occur throughout the Phase 1 (during Years 1 and 2) in the area that is required to upgrade incoming and outgoing services to the new casino, inclusive of upgraded drainage systems in future surface parking.

Landscaping and hardscaping would occur in the Central Plaza (on the east side of the Coliseum Casino), and additional landscaping would be installed in the northern portion of the site, where the Phase 1 construction activities would be completed.

During Phase 1, Year 2, contractor parking would be available in Lot G (southwest corner of the subject property and Lot F (southeast corner of the subject property). As depicted on the Construction Logistics Plans (Appendix 3.15-1), for both Phases 1 and 2, material staging is situated in various locations surrounding the work areas.

By the end of Phase 1, Year 2, the new east-west road through the site, running from Earle Ovington Boulevard to the new north-south road through the site (Sands Boulevard, which would run from Hempstead Turnpike to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard), would be open and functioning.

At the end of Year 2, Phase 1 of the Integrated Resort would be completed. The Coliseum Casino, Parking Garage A, CUP-1 and surface Parking Lot E would all be operational. Additionally, as indicated above, the Central Plaza, including landscape and hardscape, as well as landscaping in the northern portion of the site (where Phase 1 buildings would be open), would be installed and ready for use by guests and employees.

Phase 2 Construction

As indicated above, Phase 2 construction is projected to begin within six months of the start of Phase 1 (projected at mid-2026 and continuing to the end of 2030), after which the overall Integrated Resort would be open and operational. Whereas Phase 1 activities were generally concentrated at the northern extent of the site, Phase 2 construction would occur to the south of the Phase 1 construction and would include the following, in the general order of construction:

› South Casino with food & beverage and supportive retail

› CUP-2

› Hotel Tower 1

› Entertainment Venue

› Parking Garage C

› Hotel Tower 2

› Meeting and Conference Space

› Parking Garage B

› Landscaping, hardscaping and final site work, including utility connections.

Phase 2, Year 1 would commence with the excavation for the South Casino, located to the south of the Coliseum, along with the podium level of the new hotels, near the end of that year. The excavation work would continue into Phase 2, Year 2. Sands Boulevard would be completed and opened at the end of Year 2, and landscaping around surface Lot F and Lot G, and along Sands Boulevard, would be installed. Utility work would continue to occur across the site.

At Phase 2, Year 3, as noted above, the Coliseum Casino, Parking Garage A and CUP-1 would be operational; therefore, a temporary covered walkway with a decorative hoarding wall would be installed around the construction area to the south, providing safety and security to guests, employees and construction workers. To the west of the Coliseum Casino would be a ride share pick-up and short-term parking area, to the north of the covered walkway/hoarding wall.

In Phase 2, Year 3, pile caps and foundation walls would be placed and cranes erected within the area of excavation, as well as to the west in a portion of the new meeting and conference space area. Staging of equipment and materials would occur in various locations proximate to work areas. Access to the new Sands Boulevard would be maintained at all times beginning in Year 3.

During Phase 2, Year 3 into Year 4, construction would be occurring on the South Casino, Hotel Tower 1, CUP 2, Garage C and would begin on the entertainment venue (including rough-in and some finishes). Excavation and foundation construction would begin for Hotel Tower 2, as well as the meeting and conference space. Clearing and preparation would commence for Parking Garage B.

The hoarding wall would be relocated along the southern portion of the Sands Boulevard access and around the staging area in the northwestern portion of the site.

By the end of Phase 2, Year 4, the South Casino, Hotel Tower 1, CUP 2 and Garage C would all be operational. There would be a drop-off loop available for Hotel Tower 1/South Casino that would be used during Phase 2 construction.

At the end of Phase 2, Year 5, the Integrated Resort would be fully operational. The Hotel 2 Tower, meeting and conference space and Parking Garage B would be operational in the fourth quarter of Year 5. The remaining landscaping, including the creation of the West Plaza and all buffers and berms around the parking lots and perimeter of the site, would be installed before the end of Year 5. At the end of Year 5, the contractor parking shown in Lot F and Lot G would be open for general guest parking for all the resort amenities. At that time, all garages and surface lots would be available for parking.

In compliance with §144-3.G of the Hempstead Town Code, construction would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (weather permitting), Monday through Friday. Construction work would begin at about 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, with most workers arriving between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., with approximately 75 percent leaving by 3:00 p.m. (Appendix 3.15-2).

As shown on the Areas of Work/Traffic Flow plan (the Construction Logistics Plans in Appendix 3.15-1), for safety and security purposes, prior to the start of actual construction activities, the perimeter of the site would be secured with construction fencing. Construction fencing would

also be installed around active work zones and staging areas. The construction work zones would be attended during work hours and gated and locked during non-working hours. In addition to fencing, prior to commencement of demolition and construction of Phase 1, vehicle gates, staging, security booths, material laydown and storage, construction trailers locations, first aid areas, temporary sanitary facilities, and a temporary commissary would be installed, along with wheel/truck washing stations and concrete wash out locations, which would be maintained during excavation and foundation activities, so as to minimize off-site tracking of dirt and debris onto area roadways. Temporary covered walkways and hoarding walls would also provide safety and security for guests and employees (once Phase 1 is operational), as well as construction workers. The hoarding wall would also assist with mitigating potential visual and noise impacts during construction.

Demolition of existing structures (in this case limited to selective interior and exterior portions of the Coliseum, parking fields and associated facilities, such as lighting fixtures in Phase 1) would be performed in compliance with applicable environmental and health and safety laws and regulations, including but not limited to OSHA, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Clean Water Act, and would ensure that necessary measures are taken to prevent hazardous substances, hazardous wastes or pollutants (which can be a product or by- product of its activities) from being discharged into the environment (see Section 3.15.2, below). Moreover, prior to demolition and the commencement of construction, a Rodent Free Certificate would be obtained from the Nassau County Department of Health.

Construction materials are expected to include inert building materials such as concrete, glass, masonry, wood, insulation, plastics, gypsum board, various metals and piping. Construction materials would be stored in on-site storage containers. All storage containers would be located within construction work areas surrounded by construction fencing with locked gates.

Construction would also require the use of chemicals such as paints, solvents, fertilizers, oils, grease, fuel and welding gases. These products would be stored in a protected and secured designated area. Manufacturers’ Safety Data Sheets (SDS) would be held with the construction manager (CM), and recommendations of the manufacturer would be followed for proper use and disposal of materials. See Section 3.15.5 regarding the preliminary SWPPP for further discussion. It is anticipated that approximately 71 percent of the construction materials for the project would be locally sourced within New York State for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Material laydown (staging) areas, as well as construction trailer sites have been established for each part of the construction period and are shown on the Construction Logistics Plans (Appendix 3.15-1).

Sheet piling is anticipated being used as part of a support of excavation (SOE) plan along the north side of Parking Garage A, where ramping in and out of the new loading dock access would be located, as well as along the West Drive during the excavation of the South Casino substructure. Auger Cast, or similar non-vibration style pile driving, is being proposed as part of the construction of the foundations for the hotel structures. See Section 3.15.7, Construction- Related Noise and Vibration, below for a discussion of the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed non-vibration style sheet piling.

With respect not excavation, as discussed in Section 3.1.2, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions, cut and fill estimates were prepared by H2M that show a total of approximately

660,000 cubic yards (CY) of net cut when all the components are considered.416 The breakdown of the cut and fill components is as follows:

‌Table 125 Estimate of Cut and Fill

Area of Development	Cut (CY)	Fill (CY)
Parking Garage A (Phase 1)	153,000
Integrated Resort Building and Other Garages (Phase 2)	508,000
Site Grading (Phases 1 and 2)	54,000	73,000
Subsurface Drainage and Utility Infrastructure (Phases 1 and 2)	18,000
TOTAL	733,000	73,000
NET SURPLUS	660,000

A discussion of the truck trips associated with the material removal is provided below.

‌Construction-Related Traffic and Parking
Construction traffic associated with construction activities would involve the vehicles performing operations on the site, the delivery and removal of construction materials, as well as worker’s vehicles and tradesman vans. The number and types of construction vehicles would vary depending on the stage of construction and the operations underway at any given time. The Construction Logistics Plans (Appendix 3.15-1) have been prepared to minimize potential impacts to the area’s surrounding roadways to the extent feasible. As described in the Traffic Impact Study in Appendix 3.5-1, various types of vehicles would visit and operate on the site, including construction worker private vehicles; tradesman’s vehicles; construction vehicles (e.g., cranes, dump trucks, excavators, lifts, backhoes); vehicles delivering construction materials; and vehicles for removal of demolition and excavation materials.
Sands would require that all contractors/subcontractors provide a Construction Vehicle Access and Control Plan for their personnel, to be approved by the CM prior to the start of work (Appendix 3.15-2). At a minimum, this plan must include the following:
› Requirement that all workers carpool with a minimum of two workers per vehicle during peak calendar quarters of construction
› Shuttle bus service to be provided, as necessary
› Encourage workers to utilize public transportation
› Workers would not be permitted to park on streets in adjacent neighborhoods (these areas would be spot checked to ensure workers are complying with this policy).
No vehicles would be permitted access to the site without prior submission and approval of a Construction Vehicle Access and Control Plan.

‌416 Subject to finalization of site plans and the requirements of ultimate approvals that may be granted.
Some refinement may also occur through the construction process.

The Construction Logistics Plans (Appendix 3.15-1) show the accommodation of on-site parking of worker vehicles, construction vehicles, areas for loading and unloading materials, areas for spoil and staging of material stockpiles, and areas for other support operations. While the locations of these areas would move around the site as it is built out, as shown on the Construction Logistics Plans, there would always be adequate areas designated on the site to fully support all operations, as explained below.
As indicated above, as construction activity at the site would occur weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., it is anticipated that the majority of construction workers would be on-site prior to the 7:00 a.m. start of the construction day. It is also anticipated that, per Sands, at least 75 percent of the construction work force would exit the site by 3:00 p.m. (Appendix 3.15-2). As such, the arrival and departure of the bulk of construction workers would occur prior to the peak period of commuting traffic in the morning (7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.) and prior to the peak period of commuting traffic in the afternoon (5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.), limiting traffic impacts associated with construction workers.
All vehicles entering and exiting the site would do so via existing signalized access points along the surrounding roadways or via a right-turn in or out of the site only. In addition, construction workers and business entities working on the site would abide by specific direction from the construction management team as to the entry and exit points on the site they must use (Appendix 3.15-1, Construction Gate Designation: Early Construction Plan), and in the case of construction trucks, the routes they take to arrive at and depart from the site (the route plan in Appendix 3.15-1). This would ensure that trucking activities remain on the designated major roadways and do not impact other, more minor roads less suited for heavy vehicles. Site access would be controlled using gates and a badging system; access gates would be attended during working hours and locked during non-working hours.
Construction workers would arrive and depart the site in a similar manner and direction as depicted in the directional distribution developed for the employees of the Integrated Resort, presented in Attachment K of Appendix 3.5-1 of this DEIS. Unlike the patrons of the Integrated Resort, many of whom would arrive from a significant distance away, in general, the construction workers would be drawn from more local areas. Thus, the travel patterns for the construction workers would not rely nearly as much on the Meadowbrook State Parkway as compared to the patrons of the Integrated Resort at the time of operation. As described below in Section 3.15.6, Construction-Related Socioeconomics, the number of full-time construction workers on the site would range from approximately a low of 584 in Year 1 to a high of 1,838 in Year 4. Based on the Sands correspondence (Appendix 3.15-2), including the requirement that all workers carpool with a minimum of two workers per vehicle during peak calendar quarters of construction and encouragement of public transit use, the number of construction worker vehicles that would access the site would be significantly lower than the total number of construction workers.
It is expected that most construction vehicles, including, but not limited to excavators, cranes, lifts, trenchers and compactors, would be brought to the site one time and remain on the site for the duration of their use. When not active, they would be stored on-site. When they are moved off-site, they would travel via the prescribed routes. Some construction vehicles, including dump trucks and haulers, would be entering and leaving the site daily. Construction vehicles would arrive and depart via Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24), Earle Ovington Boulevard and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. The construction logistics plan identifies several routes to and from the

site. These routes are depicted on the route map in Appendix 3.15-1. Two routes are identified for vehicles arriving from eastern Long Island:
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) westbound to the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway (NYS Route 135) southbound to Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24) westbound.
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) westbound to Newbridge Road (NYS Route 106) southbound to Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24) westbound.
Three routes were identified for vehicles arriving from western Long Island, two from the Long Island Expressway and one along Sunrise Highway:
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) eastbound to New Hyde Park Road, southbound to Hillside Avenue (NYS route 25B), eastbound to Glen Cove Road, southbound to Old Country Road, eastbound to either Merrick Avenue, southbound to either Charles Lindbergh Boulevard or to Hempstead Turnpike.
› Long Island Expressway (I-495) eastbound to Glen Cove Road to Old Country Road, to Merrick Avenue to either Charles Lindbergh Boulevard or to Hempstead Turnpike.
› Southern East-West Access – Sunrise Highway (NYS Route 27) to NYS Route 106N (Newbridge Road) to Hempstead Turnpike.
The largest number of construction trucks are associated with demolition and excavation. The material to be removed has been preliminarily calculated at 660,000 CY, as indicated above. A breakdown of this material is discussed in Section 3.1.2, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions. This material would be removed from the site over the course of the build-out period, with most of the material being removed earlier in the process, thereby reducing the frequency of truck trips over time. Based upon the estimate of 660,000 CY and assuming the use of trucks with a 30 CY capacity and 200 working days per year over approximately 16 months, the number of daily trips associated with material removal was estimated. Over an eleven-hour day, which falls within the Town of Hempstead time limitations for construction, this equates to an average of just under eight trucks coming to and leaving the site per hour. While these removals would result in trips from the subject property to more than one location, they would be controlled, and would use major roadways and not local secondary streets.
Material deliveries would occur over the course of the construction period. Delivery trucks from further distances would arrive via the truck routes identified above. Local suppliers of construction material may arrive from other roadways to the site based on their origin. It is anticipated that these access routes would be provided to the trade contractors and their suppliers as part of their contract requirements. Deviations/detours would only occur if roadways are closed due to a traffic accident or other emergency situation. The exact entrance each vehicle would utilize would depend on the area in which construction activities are taking place.
While it is difficult to determine the specific traffic levels that would be generated by the construction activities on the site, they would be less than levels of traffic that would occur once the site is fully constructed and occupied (Appendix 3.5-1). The majority of vehicular activity would be associated with construction worker vehicles and, based on the carpool requirement, range from approximately 300 to 900 vehicles arriving in the morning, prior to the morning commuting peak (7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.) and departing prior to the afternoon commuting peak (5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.). Thus, these temporary construction traffic impacts would not occur during peak commuter times. Additionally, material deliveries, removal of debris and other

trucking operations would take place over the course of the day, during the timeframes permitted by Town Code, and are also not anticipated to correspond with peak commuter periods.
Parking and storage of construction worker vehicles and construction equipment would be maintained on site over the entire course of the construction. As noted above, there would be no parking of vehicles or equipment on the surrounding roadways. Laydown areas for materials that would be stockpiled would be provided on site. Staging areas for contractor trailers, dining halls, first aid stations and other supportive operations are noted on the Construction Logistics Plans, which depict conditions at the start of each of the five build years. The number of parking spaces available for construction workers for each yearly condition is noted on the construction logistics plans (Appendix 3.15-1), which indicate the following numbers of spaces:
› Year 1, 2026 - 2,681 spaces
› Year 2, 2027 - 1,870 spaces
› Year 3, 2028 - 1,803 spaces
› Year 4, 2029 - 1,803 spaces
› Year 5, 2030 – 1,803 spaces.
Analysis of the parking necessary to support the operation of the Integrated Resort during operation of Phase 1 and Full Build, contained in Appendix 3.5-1 and summarized in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, indicates that ample parking is available for the patrons and employees of the Resort during the operation of Phase 1 as construction continues to Full Build as well as when the project is fully completed and operating.
As shown above, the peak worker load of 1,838 persons is in Year 4 (2029). The Construction Logistics Plans indicate that at this time 1,803 parking spaces are available to accommodate these workers vehicles. Based on correspondence from Sands (Appendix 3.15-2) and the requirement for carpooling to an occupancy of two persons per vehicle, the actual parking demand for construction workers is estimated at 920 vehicles. Based on the number of spaces available and the expected number of vehicles, there would be ample parking for construction workers on the site even if the vehicle occupancy requirement is not achieved. In fact, a very low level of carpooling would be necessary as vehicle occupancy of just 1.02 persons per vehicle would result in adequate parking. A study published by TRIP417 in 2020 includes data indicating that in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, eight percent of persons carpool to work while 11 percent take some form of transit. If these rates are applied directly to the number of construction workers, even without accounting for the proposed carpooling, more than adequate parking would be available for construction worker vehicles over the course of the construction period.

‌417 TRIP. Keeping Long Island Mobile (September 2020). Available at: https://tripnet.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/TRIP_Keeping_Long_Island_Mobile_Report_September_2020.pdf. Accessed September 2024.
‌Hazardous Regulated Materials
Based upon the Phase I and Phase II ESAs prepared by Langan, as described in Section 3.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions, the following issues of potential concern were identified and may be encountered during construction:
› The most recent publicly available information indicates that the Mitchel Air Force Base site (identified by the NYSDEC as Mitchel Field, Site ID 130112) is classified by the NYSDEC as a “Class P” (potential) Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site (SHWS), but NYSDEC has yet to complete an overall environmental assessment of the former airfield (Appendix 3.2-1).
› Based on proximity, contaminant extents and solubility, migration of contaminants in groundwater, current and historical operations at off-site, upgradient facilities may have adversely affected groundwater on the subject property.
› There is the potential for the presence of ACM and/or lead-based paint in the existing buildings.
Based upon the potential for the presence of ACM, a Limited Asbestos Inspection Report was conducted at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum by New York State Department of Labor- certified ACM Inspectors from Airtek Environmental Corp. in February 2024 (Appendix 3.15-3). An historical ACM documentation review along with a physical/visual inspection of accessible areas for ACM, bulk sampling of suspect ACM materials, and quantification of suspect and confirmed ACM, were conducted.
ACM was identified at the within the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Appendix A within Appendix 3.15-3 provides a chart showing the results of the ACM inventory. The Report indicates that if ACM would be disturbed by construction, asbestos abatement is required prior to demolition or renovation. Furthermore, if any suspect ACM that was not previously tested is encountered during the renovation/demolition, and if the material is subject to disturbance by the renovation/demolition work, the suspect material should be assumed to be ACM until confirmed by laboratory analysis to be non-ACM. Sands would conduct ACM abatement in accordance with applicable regulations. Section 3.2.1, Water Resources, of this DEIS, indicates that Phase II investigations were conducted to evaluate the concerns identified in the Phase Is. Groundwater sampling was performed on the subject property, and analytical results did not report VOCs, pesticides or PCBs at concentrations above NYSDEC TOGS AWQSGVs. SVOCs and total metals were reported above TOGS AWQSGVs. Langan’s Phase II ESIs attributed the exceedances to sediment within the groundwater samples and naturally-occurring metals and indicated that the results are not considered indicative of a groundwater condition at the subject property. While the Phase II ESI reports did not identify contamination concerns on the subject property, as with any site redevelopment, the potential to encounter unanticipated/undocumented contamination exists. As described in Section 3.1.2.3, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions, in order to address this potential:
› Excess soil generated during redevelopment would be handled, transported and disposed of or recycled in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations and the requirements of recycling and disposal facilities to which the soils are being transported. Soil and/or non- native material would be characterized in accordance with the testing requirements of the proposed permitted disposal or recycling facility prior to removal from the site.

› Uncontaminated soil and non-native material that is derived from the subject property that is not observed to be petroleum-impacted and exhibits no signs of staining or odor, would be reused as part of the construction process. Reuse of on-site soil or non-native material would be conducted in accordance with applicable agency requirements.
› If any underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or associated appurtenances (e.g., fill lines, vent line, and electrical conduit) are encountered during redevelopment of the subject property, decommissioning, removal and off-site disposal would occur in accordance with NYSDEC and Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH) UST closure requirements. Previously unidentified USTs, if encountered, would be registered with the NYSDEC and NCDH, as necessary, prior to decommissioning or removal.
› A CHASP would be prepared that would identify the known (such as ACM and lead-based paint) and potential on-site contaminants and outline procedures and guidelines to be followed to mitigate exposure risks and protect the health of on-site workers during construction activities.
Although not anticipated based upon on-site investigations, should contaminated soil be encountered, all on-site contractor and sub-contractor personnel and any other persons visiting or working at the project site who may have the potential for contacting contaminated soil would be required to read, review, and comply with the CHASP. Furthermore, excess soils that may require off-site disposal may require waste characterization sampling by a disposal or recycling facility prior to or in conjunction with redevelopment activities. In addition, any impacted soils, if encountered, would require additional sampling and proper handling, transport and disposal in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.1.1, Soils, Topography, and Subsurface Conditions, the proposed lease noted that the Coliseum building contains ACM (which was confirmed by the Limited Asbestos Inspection Report (Appendix 3.15-3) and has the potential for the presence of lead-based paint. According to the proposed lease with Nassau County, the Lessee is required to remediate any asbestos (as well as lead-based paint and other hazardous substances) encountered during demolition. Prior to renovation activities, as described above and in Appendix 3.15-3, ACM abatement plans would be developed to ensure the proper handling, removal, and disposal of ACM in accordance with applicable regulations. Appropriate engineering controls and best management practices to minimize asbestos exposure would be implemented during any activities that could result in the disturbance of ACM. Asbestos air monitoring would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.
Based on the findings of the Phase I and Phase II investigations (Section 3.1.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions and Appendices 3.1-4 and 3.1-5, with the exception of ACM and lead-based paint, it is not expected that contamination would be encountered during the construction process. Sands would address/abate/remediate issues that may be encountered, including ACM, lead-based paint and/or potential contaminated soil, in accordance with the proposed lease and applicable regulatory requirements.
‌Construction Worker Safety
Construction worker safety is a primary focus for Sands. Accordingly, each trade contractor would be required to prepare a CHASP designed to prevent occupational injuries and/or worker

exposure to hazards. The CHASP would include measures for worker and community/area protection, including the use of personal protective equipment, dust control and emergency response procedures. The procedures would be designed to ensure compliance with applicable requirements of government agencies and regulations, including those established by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the NYSDEC. In addition, each CHASP would include a truck route access plan, emergency room location map, gate designation map, on-site parking area designation map, and a mass transit access map. The proposed truck route map, emergency room route map and the construction gate designation plan for the Integrated Resort construction are included in Appendix 3-15.1. Bulletins would be issued monthly identifying which parking lots would be utilized and which gates would be primary and secondary for deliveries and primary and secondary for parking.
Several first aid stations would be set up throughout the subject property during the early stages of construction. These stations would be relocated to different areas of the subject property as the construction progresses.
The above measures would help ensure a safe environment for construction workers that complies with applicable government agency requirements and regulations.
‌Dewatering
Although it is not possible to determine the precise details of the dewatering system until the design and extent of the specific excavations are determined (which cannot occur until construction plans are completed), based on information available to date, construction dewatering and associated permitting may be required for excavations over portions of the site.
Based on available geotechnical information (i.e., the Geotechnical Engineering Reports prepared by Langan, and included in Appendix 3.1-2), the groundwater table ranges between elevation
+46 and elevation +51. Borings were drilled at the below grade levels of the existing Coliseum building at locations where the floor surface is approximately Elevation +54 to Elevation +58, translating to a groundwater depth of four to nine feet below the Coliseum’s lower level. Borings were also drilled in areas where the ground surface is approximately Elevation +80, translating to groundwater at 29 feet to 34 feet below grade.
According to H2M, excavations occurring at a depth of greater than three feet below the groundwater table are likely to require a pre-construction dewatering system. Assuming the required drawdown depth is within 25 feet of the elevation at which disposal would occur, it is anticipated wellpoints would be used as the primary dewatering device. If it is determined the required drawdown depth is greater than 25 feet below discharge, deep wells may be required.
Again, based on available geotechnical information that is included in Section 3.1.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions and contained in Appendix 3.1-2, the borings indicate granular materials (clean sand with trace fines). Coarser-grained soils are dewatered more effectively than more finely grained soils, yielding drier and more manageable excavations.
However, more permeable formations, like the sandy soils present at this site, can produce greater volumes of water during construction dewatering. Until the construction plans are finalized, it is not possible to determine the extent of dewatering that must be conducted or the

required design capacity of the dewatering systems that would be required. A Long Island Well Permit from the NYSDEC would be required for dewatering systems with a total design capacity of greater than 45 gallons per minute (gpm). If the dewatering system has the capacity to withdraw 100,000 gallons or more of water per day, a Water Withdrawal Permit from the NYSDEC would also be required. An exemption exists for temporary water withdrawals where the volume withdrawn is less than an average of 100,000 gallons per day in any consecutive 30-day period (or three million gallons during a 30-day period). Once the design capacity is determined, Sands or its contractor would secure the required permit(s) prior to conducting dewatering activities.
The amount of groundwater to be discharged can also not be determined at this time.
Based on comments raised during the scoping process, On October 22, 2024, H2M conducted groundwater sampling of four on-site monitoring wells for PFAS analysis. The wells were previously installed at the Coliseum by others as part of subsurface investigations documented in the Geotechnical Engineering Reports prepared by Langan, and included in Appendix 3.1-2. In compliance with the USEPA Low Stress (Low-Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells (September 2017) and NYSDEC Sampling, Analysis, and Assessment of PFAS Under NYSDEC’s Part 375 Remedial Programs (April 2023), the wells were purged and sampled using low-flow sampling methodologies with acceptable sampling equipment. The groundwater samples, along with QA/QC samples, were collected and submitted to a NYSDOH ELAP-certified laboratory for PFAS analysis using USEPA Method 1633. Sampling results (Appendix 3.15-3) were compared to the NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1 Class GA Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values (AWQS), which provides guidance values specifically for two PFAS compounds: perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). All four groundwater well samples had detections of PFOS, ranging from 10.3 to 60.6 nanograms per liter (ng/L), above the guidance value of 2.7
ng/L. Three out of the four samples had detections of PFOA, ranging from 11.8 to 15.6 ng/L, above the guidance value of 6.7 ng/L. Based on these results, groundwater treatment would be employed during construction phase dewatering activities, and the disposition of dewatered groundwater would be managed in accordance with applicable local and regional regulations.
Once the plans are completed, Sands or its contractor would coordinate with NCDPW to secure permission to discharge to either a Nassau County recharge basin or the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. With respect to contamination detected in the dewatered groundwater, as indicated above, appropriate groundwater treatment would be identified, and a SPDES permit would be secured from NYSDEC. Sands and its contractor would comply with all requirements of the issued permits to minimize potential impacts from dewatering activities that may be required during construction.
‌Erosion Control and Stormwater Pollution Prevention
The USEPA Phase I Rule regulates stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) to include construction activities (e.g., clearing, grading, excavation activities) that result in the disturbance of five acres or more of land area. Under the Phase I Rule, such activities are required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage for stormwater discharges (or coverage under an NPDES- approved State permit [SPDES]). NYSDEC administers New York’s NPDES-approved SPDES program, which requires a General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity

(GP- 0-20-001 [latest version]) for construction projects that would involve soil disturbance of one or more acres.
In addition, the USEPA Phase II rule requires permits be obtained for stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in New York State-designated urbanized areas. The Town of Hempstead is a designated urbanized area with a regulated MS4.418 The SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from MS4s requires that permittees meet a variety of requirements that are generally designed to encourage municipalities and/or public agencies to actively seek to reduce contaminants that reach waters of the State through stormwater runoff, including:
› To inventory and analyze stormwater runoff generated within the MS4 jurisdiction
› To engage in public education and outreach efforts that disseminate information on the sources of stormwater runoff, potential causes of contamination of stormwater runoff, and the impacts of same on surface water quality
› To implement and enforce stormwater management regulations for land development activities within the MS4 jurisdiction that are at least as stringent as SPDES General Permit requirements.419
In accordance with the above-referenced requirements for MS4s, the Town of Hempstead adopted Article XXXVIII, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control of the Building Zone Ordinance (BZO). Section 387 of this Article sets forth the overall purpose of the chapter, which is to “establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public residing within this jurisdiction and to address the findings of fact in § 386 hereof.” Accordingly, Article XXXVIII of the BZO sets forth objectives designed to enforce the requirements of NYSDEC’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity.
As the proposed action involves soil disturbance of one or more acres, coverage under the current SPDES general permit would be sought. In accordance with the requirements of the GP- 0-20-001, and of Article XXXVIII of the Town BZO, a preliminary SWPPP has been developed, as discussed in Section 3.2, Water Resources and included in Appendix 3.2-6, and would be finalized prior to the issuance of building permits. The preliminary SWPPP details the measures and best management practices to be undertaken to ensure there would be no off-site adverse impacts from construction-related erosion and sediment transport, as well as post-construction stormwater management. The preliminary SWPPP identifies erosion and sediment control practices designed in conformance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and post-construction stormwater management practices designed in conformance with applicable sizing criteria of the NYSDEC SPDES GP-0-20-001 and the performance criteria of the technical standards of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual.

‌418 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Designation Criteria for Identifying Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) (Revised May 2010). Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ms4gpdescrit.pdf. Accessed July 2024.
‌419 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Sewer Systems (MS4s). Effective May 1, 2015. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ms4permit.pdf. Accessed July 2024.

As part of the preliminary SWPPP, temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures would be installed and maintained by the general contractor (or subcontractor) in accordance with the engineering plans and details, and the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, as noted above. The erosion and sediment control measures, as shown on the Overall Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in Appendix 2-2, would be installed and implemented prior to ground disturbance on the subject property. The Overall Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shows the locations of the proposed silt fencing (around the entire perimeter of the Coliseum property), the new inlet sediment protection bags, the new curb inlet sediment bags, the concrete washout areas and the temporary soil stockpile areas, along with the temporary stabilized construction entrances.
The preliminary SWPPP also discusses solid waste and hazardous waste management practices during the construction period. Work areas would be maintained in an orderly and clean manner to prevent windblown litter from exiting the site. As noted in Section 3.15.1, potentially hazardous chemicals and materials that may be used on site include solvents, adhesives, lubricants, gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt and concrete compounds. All chemicals would be stored in their original containers, and according to manufacturer’s specifications. Materials would be stored in covered storage with an impervious lined bottom to prevent leaching of chemicals into the ground. The storage areas would be secured to prevent unauthorized entry. In the event of a chemical spill, the contractor would contain the spill in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended methods and must report the spill to the NYS Spill Hotline within two hours of discovery.
The preliminary SWPPP also discusses the existing stormwater runoff conditions associated with the subject property. As indicated in Section 3.2, Water Resources, there is an extensive stormwater runoff collection system that traverses the subject property, which ultimately results in stormwater conveyance to Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537 on the south side of Hempstead Turnpike, adjacent to Glenn Curtiss Boulevard. While there are no direct discharges from the subject property to local waters and/or wetlands via overland flow, the County basin is equipped with an emergency overflow to East Meadow Brook. With respect to stormwater runoff subsequent to the implementation of the proposed action, the preliminary SWPPP notes that there would be a decrease in impervious surface, an increase in on-site recharge, and there would be continued connection to and use of recharge basin No. 537, resulting in a reduction in stormwater load on the basin; there would be no stormwater runoff traveling overland and potentially impacting adjacent properties or nearby surface waters; and there would be an increase in the amount of landscaped area at the site, which would promote local infiltration. In addition, new catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys are proposed for installation, which would also increase the amount of local infiltration. The project also incorporates green roofs.
Therefore, as noted in the preliminary SWPPP, there would be no increase in either discharge volume or peak discharge rates from the proposed project from the 1-, 10- or 100-year storm events.
Prior to submitting to NYSDEC for permit coverage, the SWPPP must be reviewed and accepted by the Town for conformance with the GP-0-20-001 and Article XXXVIII of the BZO. Stormwater management practices associated with the project are also subject to review and approval by NCDPW under New York State General Municipal Law § 239-f.

Coverage under the latest NYS General Permit must be obtained prior to the start of construction activities on the property. Once coverage under the NYS General Permit is obtained and construction begins, the site operator is responsible for compliance with the SWPPP, ensuring that all erosion and sediment control practices and all post-construction stormwater management practices identified in the SWPPP are maintained in effective operating condition at all times. Pursuant to Article XXXVIII requirements, and as explained in the preliminary SWPPP, inspections of construction activity and erosion control/stormwater management practices are required to be conducted by a qualified inspector at specific points of the construction process, including, among others, start of construction; installation of sediment and erosion control measures; completion of grading; and completion of landscaping.
Implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures, as described in the two manuals noted above, as well as the use of BMPs, as also discussed in these publications, would assist in ensuring that implementation of the proposed action would minimize impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation during the construction phase, through implementation of the following measures, as described in Section 3.1, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions:
› Installation of perimeter silt fencing to minimize/prevent sediment from washing into adjacent streets and properties.
› Installation of stabilized construction entrances consisting of stone and filter fabric to prevent tracking of debris and sediment onto public rights-of-way.
› Incorporation of truck washdown and tire wash facilities at construction access points.
› Clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the size of exposed areas and the length of time areas are exposed.
› Use of inlet protection on drainage inlets to prevent sedimentation in the structures.
› Implementation of a dust control and watering plan during construction to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas.
› Daily inspection and maintenance of erosion control measures by the contractor prior to the start of construction for the day and after heavy or prolonged storms to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the measures in place.
› Cleaning of sediment from basins or traps.
› Cleaning and repair of sediment barriers, berms and diversions and inlet protection, as necessary.
› Erosion and sediment control measures would be maintained until the site is permanently stabilized.
› After permanent stabilization, all paved areas would be swept and the drainage system flushed, as necessary.
Pursuant to the requirements of the current New York State General Permit and Article XXXVIII of the Town BZO, routine maintenance of post-construction stormwater management practices is required to ensure continuous and effective operation of each practice. The final SWPPP must include a maintenance schedule for the various stormwater management practices. Additionally, prior to final plan approval, pursuant to Article XXXVIII of the BZO, and prior to filing for termination of coverage under the GP-0-20-001, an Operation and Maintenance Plan outlining the long-term maintenance requirements for on-site stormwater management practices must be

prepared, and the owner or operator must modify their deed of record to include a deed covenant that requires operation and maintenance of the practices in agreement with the Operation and Maintenance Plan, in accordance with Part V.A.5 of the latest NYS General Permit.
Overall, the proposed action’s stormwater management system would be designed to comply
with the legislative intent and objectives of Article XXXVIII of the BZO, as defined in § 387:
› Development of the proposed improvements would conform to the requirements of GP-0- 20-001. As discussed in more detail above, a SWPPP would be prepared, to include a detailed phasing plan, erosion and sedimentation control measures, post-construction control measures, and provisions for inspections and long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. The SWPPP would be submitted to the Town of Hempstead for its review and acceptance, and a Notice of Intent would be filed with the NYSDEC.
› Implementation of the previously discussed erosion and sediment control measures during construction, and installation of a comprehensive stormwater management system that would capture and recharge stormwater on site and discharge stormwater not recharged on site to a nearby recharge basin. This would ensure that stormwater would continue to be recharged appropriately and would not be permitted to run overland or contribute to flooding, siltation or impacts to streams.
› Stormwater would continue to be accommodated by the existing positive drainage network on the subject property. Additional on-site drainage pipe and structures (e.g., catch basins, drywells and leaching galleys) would be installed through the development within the proposed roadways in order to make room for the proposed buildings and parking structures. Roof drains would be installed throughout the subject property, as necessary, to direct stormwater to the updated positive drainage system. Such stormwater management system would include modifications to the existing positive drainage system to mitigate impacts relating to the location of the proposed buildings.
› In accordance with the final SWPPP, and pursuant to the requirements of GP-0-20- 001, provisions to ensure the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system would be identified.
As indicated above, the proposed action would comply with Article XXXVIII of the BZO for stormwater management and erosion control. As also indicated above, the proposed action would, in the construction phase, provide stormwater runoff controls, and in the operational phase, continue to employ an integrated stormwater management system that would collect stormwater generated on-site, recharge a portion and convey the remainder to an off-site recharge basin. This stormwater management system would minimize the amount of pollutants entering the soil and groundwater from runoff generated on the site. Stormwater facilities would be routinely cleaned and maintained. Therefore, with implementation of the aforementioned erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with an approved SWPPP, no significant adverse soil erosion or sedimentation related impacts from construction are expected as a result of the proposed action.
‌Construction-Related Socioeconomics
Significant beneficial socioeconomic impacts are expected from the proposed $5 billion420 Sands investment for construction of the Integrated Resort. Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics, of this DEIS provides a detailed analysis of the construction-related socioeconomic impacts. A summary of the direct, indirect and induced impacts is provided below.
› Implementation would result in the creation of over 7,000 construction jobs at the site of the proposed Integrated Resort.
› For Phase 1, the total amount of direct labor income in the construction period is expected to be $232± million, with a total direct output of $830± million. Cumulatively, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to generate $882± million in labor income, with a total direct output of $3.03± billion for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› In addition to the direct impacts, during the five-year construction period, there would be total indirect and induced labor income, as well. Together, the total labor income would be
$438± million at Phase 1, increasing to $1.68± billion by the end of construction, with a total output of $1.42± billion, rising to $5.30± billion by the end of construction for all of New York State, including the County and the Town.
› During the construction period, Nassau County is expected to receive approximately $5.0± million in sales and use tax.
As indicated above, it is projected that over the construction period (Phase 1 and Phase 2), the project would generate over 7,000 construction jobs. A breakdown of construction jobs prepared by Gardiner & Theobold (G&T), Sand’s construction consultant, has been estimated as follows on an annual basis:
› Year 1, 2026 - 584± persons
› Year 2, 2027 - 1,481± persons
› Year 3, 2028 - 1,775± persons
› Year 4, 2029 - 1,838± persons
› Year 5, 2030 – 1,341± persons.
Construction job categories and ranges of annual wages provided by G&T, are presented in
Table 126 below:
‌Table 126 Construction Worker Job Category and Compensation Range (in $)
Job Category Compensation Range

Operating Engineers $74,880 – $87,360

Formwork Carpenters (Timberman) 101,192 – 118,0450

Laborers / Cement Masons 81,058 – 94,578

Iron Workers 107,078 – 124,925

Surveyor 88,275 – 102,981

‌420 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the license is awarded, the design is finalized, and bids are received. Thus, the projected socioeconomic impacts presented in this DEIS are conservative.

Job Category Compensation Range

Lathers 106,621 – 124,384

Masons 122,408 – 142,813

Glaziers 122,886 – 143,354

Heat & Frost Insulation 131,997 – 154,003

Roofers 104,374 – 121,763

Plasterer 86,112 - 100,464

Painters 96,782 – 112,923

Millworkers 104,374 – 121,763

Tile Setters 117,894 – 137,550

Drywall Carpenters 104,374 – 121,763

Floor Coverers 103,064 – 120,224

Ornamental Ironworkers 87,797 – 102,440

Stone setters 117,603 – 137,197

Spray Fire-proofers 95,472 – 111,384

Elevator Constructors 145,059 – 169,229

Plumbers 107,141 – 124,987

Pipe Fitters 87,963 – 102,627

Boiler Makers 126,131 – 147,160

Sprinkler Fitters 129,376 – 150,946

Sheetmetal Workers 112,216 – 130,915

Steam fitters 129,376 – 150,946

Electricians 111,384 – 129,958

Teamster 66,955 – 78,125

Furthermore, as described in Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics, Sands has committed to a number of programs with local organizations, including Minority Millennials and the EAC, regarding the development of the local employment base for construction, including a pre-apprenticeship fair, as well as a number of employment recruitment efforts.
In addition, a project labor agreement (PLA) would be executed and implemented, and negotiations are underway with the building trades with regard to the details. Sands has been in conversations with Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties and local trades and is in the process of finalizing a PLA.
Based on the above, the anticipated construction is expected to have a substantial positive economic impact through the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs, and their associated labor income and economic output.
‌Construction-Related Noise and Vibration
As described in detail in Section 3.7.2.3, Construction-Related Noise Impacts, construction activities would result in temporary increases in sound levels to nearby receptors due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction of the proposed project. The 2018

FTA Manual, which includes recommended noise and vibration criteria relating specifically to construction activities, was used in the evaluation of the potential construction impacts associated with the proposed project. The FTA Manual also outlines best practices and procedures as related to noise and vibration from construction.
The construction noise analysis has been performed in conformance with and review of the FTA Manual, the requirements of Town of Hempstead’s noise ordinance (which does not specify noise impact criteria for construction, but specifies hours when excavation, demolition, alteration and repair of buildings can occur), NYSDEC’s program policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, the NYSDOT TEM and FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. More specifically, noise propagation attenuation per distance utilizing industry standard calculations, as noted in texts such as the Handbook of Noise Control by Cyril Harris, Cyril (1979) and Environmental and Architectural Acoustics by Jens Holger Rindel, et al. (2010), have been used for analysis of construction noise in lieu of FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model. This methodology is equivalent to and an acceptable industry standard alternative to the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Equipment to be used during the construction include non-vibratory impact pile drivers, front end loaders, grader, bull dozers, backhoes, dump trucks, concrete mixer trucks, concrete pump trucks, cranes, flatbed trucks, pavement scarifier, pavers, hoist, excavators and pick-up trucks. Construction period activities may temporarily increase nearby sound levels due to the intermittent use of machinery during the construction of the project.
Given the noise levels for typical construction equipment per the FTA typical construction equipment noise emission levels and the nearest potential residential/residential-type receiving properties, which are the existing on-site Marriott Hotel (proposed to remain) and the closest off-site residence on Cunningham Avenue, both approximately 300 feet south (worst-case scenario) of the construction activity associated with the new building components of the proposed Integrated Resort, it has been calculated that the most intensive construction noise
would not exceed the most stringent FTA-recommended construction noise criteria, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.7.2, Noise and Vibration.
Any receptors situated at greater distances from the construction activity would be less impacted by the construction. For example, both Hofstra University and NCC were considered as part of the analysis, and were found to be approximately 650 feet and 800 feet away from the construction activity, respectively. These receptors would be less impacted by the construction as compared to the receptors included in the construction noise analysis (e.g., Marriott Hotel and closest off-site residence on Cunningham Avenue), and noise levels would not exceed the most stringent construction noise criteria (80 dBA). These noise levels range from about 54 dBA for saws and concrete vibrators to 79 dBA for pile drivers at 300 feet.
As noted in Section 3.7.2, Noise and Vibration, based on the construction logistics, it is possible that the cumulative noise from concurrent construction activities would be somewhat higher than the projected levels, depending on the specific equipment and location of each piece of equipment, operating at any given point in time, relative to any given receptor location. The analysis provided is intended to reflect a worst-case noise level scenario from typical construction activities and equipment.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2, Noise and Vibration, construction would take place in accordance with Chapter 144 of the Town BZO. In addition, to further minimize potential construction noise impacts, Sands has incorporated measures, including the requirement for equipment to be kept in good repair and be equipped with mufflers. Additionally, idling of equipment not in use would not be permitted. Also, quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) back-up alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet applicable regulations. Perimeter construction fencing would be installed to provide site security and a visual screen. Internally, a hoarding wall would be installed, which would be occasionally relocated during the construction period as the location of the construction activities moves around within the subject property.
Fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area. Furthermore, to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise impacts), during the construction period, construction vehicles would be routed along primary streets and highways, and would not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets.
Based on the distance between the construction activities and the nearest receptors, and with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant adverse noise impacts are expected during the construction period.
With respect to construction-related vibration impacts, as described in detail in Section 3.7.2.4, the primary source of vibration from the proposed project is expected to be short-term construction operations that include large construction vehicles and non-vibratory pile driving. The FTA Manual guidelines, which were used in the analysis, provide thresholds for identifying the vibration sensitivity of buildings.
It is noted that MSKCC may contain vibration-sensitive equipment in its facility. Therefore, to minimize vibration impacts across the site, including areas near MSKCC, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed on the site. However, it is noted that other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the CM would coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction.
The FTA Manual criteria were used to calculate the expected vibration levels at the nearest residential-type and residential properties, which are the existing Marriott Hotel (to remain) and closest residence on Cunningham Avenue, both located approximately 300 feet away from construction activities. The vibration level analysis in Section 3.7.2.4 shows that the most vibration-intensive construction activities would be below the most stringent vibration criteria at the 300-foot distance for both damage to structure and annoyance per the FTA Manual guidelines. Based on the foregoing, the off-site impacts of vibration from construction are expected to be minimal.
‌Construction-Related Air Quality
Construction activity generally affects air quality as a result of particulate matter (fugitive dust) created by excavation, demolition, transfer of debris into trucks, emissions from on-site diesel equipment, and emissions from increased truck traffic to and from the construction site.
The most intense construction activities in terms of emissions are typically from demolition, excavation, and foundation stages, since it is during these stages that the largest number of

large, non-road diesel engines are employed, which combined with the fugitive dust from debris moving operations, result in the highest levels of air emissions. The other stages of construction, including superstructure, exterior façades, interior finishes and site work, typically result in lower air emissions since they require fewer pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment. Equipment used in the latter stages of construction generally has small engines, resulting in lower emissions.
Additionally, the latter stages of construction do not involve soil disturbance activities and therefore result in significantly lower fugitive dust emissions.
The construction-related air quality assessment is based on the construction phasing sequence and the logistics plans, discussed above. The phased construction period is expected to occur over a total five-year period. This includes demolition of portions of existing parking areas to facilitate the construction activities. Three sources of air pollutant emissions during construction were considered – construction-related traffic, on-site construction equipment, and fugitive dust from storage and transfer of construction materials.
During the construction period, construction vehicles would arrive and depart via Hempstead Turnpike, using the Long Island Expressway, Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway and Newbridge Road for vehicles traveling from the east. Vehicles traveling to the site from the west would use the Long Island Expressway or Sunrise Highway and New Hyde Park Road, Hillside Avenue, Glen Cove Road, Old Country Road, Merrick Avenue and Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. There would be no construction-related vehicles using local roadways, including those within the adjacent NYSDEC-identified Disadvantaged Community. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that off-site roadway detours or diversions would be required for traffic around nearby communities, including those disadvantaged communities. Therefore, a detailed quantitative analysis of construction air quality impacts was not warranted based on guidance from the NYSDOT TEM.421
The amount of material that would be removed from the site is estimated at 660,000 CY, as discussed above. Material removal and delivery can result in fugitive dust emissions as well as impacts from transport from diesel trucks. The main component of diesel exhaust that has been identified as having an effect on human health is fine particulates. To ensure that the construction of the proposed project results in the lowest feasible diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions and fugitive dust emissions, the following BMPs would be implemented:
› Fugitive Dust Control Plans. Contractors would be required to ensure that all trucks carrying loose material use water as a dust suppression measure, that trucks hauling loose material be equipped with tight-fitting tailgates and their loads securely covered prior to leaving the site, that streets adjacent to the site be cleaned as frequently as needed by the construction contractor, and that water sprays be used for transfer to ensure that materials are dampened as necessary to avoid the suspension of dust into the air. These measures would be expected to reduce dust generation by more than 50 percent.
› Clean Fuel. Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) would be used exclusively for diesel engines related to construction activities for the proposed project.

‌421 New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Environmental Procedures Manual: Air Resources (Page 1.1-107). Available
at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and-guidance/epm/repository/epmair01.pdf (PDF page 113). Accessed September 2024.

› Diesel Equipment Reduction. Hoists and small equipment, such as lifts, compressors, welders, and pumps would use electric engines that operate on grid power instead of diesel power engines, to the extent available and practicable.
› Restrictions on Vehicle Idling. On-site vehicle idle time would be restricted to three minutes for all equipment and vehicles that are not using their engines to operate a loading, unloading, or processing device (e.g., concrete mixing trucks) or otherwise required for the proper operation of the engine.
› Given the construction timeframe for the proposed project, equipment meeting Tier 4 standards for diesel engines would be expected to be in wide use and comprise the majority of contractors’ fleets. If contractors choose to use older diesel equipment, the use of diesel particulate filters (DPF) in Tier 3 emission standard for diesel engines would be required. The combination of Tier 4 and Tier 3 engines with DPF would achieve DPM reductions of approximately 90 percent when compared to older uncontrolled engines.
› Source Location and Shielding. To reduce concentration increments at sensitive receptors, large emissions sources and activities such as concrete trucks, generators, and large compressors would be located away from the sensitive receptors to the extent practicable.
Overall, these emission control measures would be expected to significantly reduce potential DPM emissions.
With these measures in place, and given the temporary nature of the construction activities, construction of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts during the construction period.

‌Sustainability During Construction

Consistent with other Sands integrated resorts and in accordance with the Sands ECO360 commitment to be a leader in sustainable development and resort operations (as described in Section 3.14, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability), Sands is committed to achieving U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design™ (LEED) third-party certification for the proposed Integrated Resort through both the operation and construction of the development.422

Specific project features to be incorporated in the design to contribute to the LEED rating for construction include, but are not limited to, locally manufactured materials, low-emitting materials, construction waste recycling, and the implementation of a construction indoor air quality management plan. The CM would develop a comprehensive Construction Pollution Management plan to reduce the potential for impacts due to construction activities.

Waste management directives would be in place at the construction site. The waste management landfill diversion objectives align with LEED requirements. The minimum target for waste diversion during construction is 50 percent, with an aspiration to achieve 75 percent diversion,

‌422 Sands is committed to achieving LEED certification. Its target is LEED Gold Certification; however, the ultimate determination of the level of LEED certification cannot be confirmed until design specifications are finalized. Sands is also planning to pursue LEED for Communities.

depending on local waste management availability and infrastructure. To monitor this, the CM would be required to provide monthly reports on the quantities of material recycled for that month, as well as the overall percentage of material recycled in the project to date.

Sands would require the following materials be recycled, and labeled waste containers/staging areas would be provided for these waste streams at designated locations: paper; cardboard; wood crates; plastic containers; and metals and lumber. Furthermore, non-construction and demolition waste streams (e.g., food scraps, cups, bottles and cans) would be recycled. Labeled waste containers would be provided in appropriate locations such as break and lunchroom areas. The recyclable construction waste and non-construction waste would not be intermingled. If the mixed-waste construction and demolition waste recycling center is not able to meet the established goals, the CM would make arrangements with another vendor and would require certain construction waste streams to be segregated. The expected wastes, disposal methods and handling procedures are outlined in Table 127 .

‌Table 127 Disposal and Handling Procedures for Construction Waste

Source	Disposal Method	Handling Procedure
Demolition and Site Preparation
Topsoil	Reclaim on site for reuse	Reclaim in accordance with the construction
	on this project	management plan
Other Soils	Reclaim on site for reuse	Reclaim in accordance with the construction
	on this project	management plan
Site clearing waste (e.g. trees,	Recycle/process and	All brush, branches and trees would be
branches bushes, etc.)	divert from landfill	chipped on site for use as an organic mulch
Construction Activities
Concrete, Masonry and Grout, including concrete wash-out debris	Recycle	Break-Up and put in concrete Dumpster
Metals	Recycle	Deposit in scrap metal dumpster
Wood, including crates and pallets	Recycle	Neatly stack reusable pieces in scrap area for
if not able to		reuse by any who need it. Place unusable
be taken back by the applicable		wood in the mixed waste recycling dumpster
trade contractor
Cardboard	Recycle	Deposit in cardboard dumpster
Carpet	Recycle	Protect from weather and set
		aside for vendor reclamation.
Office & News Paper	Recycle	Separate and deposit in bin to be stored
		adjacent CM’s construction office
Bottles & Cans	Recycle	Separate and deposit in bin adjacent CM’s
		construction office
Drywall	Recycle	All drywall would be placed within the mixed
		waste recycling container. However, if a local
		drywall facility
		begins operation; efforts would
		be made to segregate and
		recycling this waste stream
All other wastes	Landfill	Deposit in rubbish dumpsters

The CM would be required to establish a goal prior to construction for recycled content materials and identify material suppliers that can achieve this goal. Materials, among others, that could assist in reaching this goal include steel, rebar, metal studs, concrete, glass, gypsum wall board and ceiling tiles.

The CM also would adopt an Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) management plan to protect the HVAC system during construction, control potential pollutant sources and interrupt potential contamination pathways. The installation of materials would be sequenced to avoid contamination of absorptive materials such as insulation, ceiling tile and gypsum wallboard. Among other measures, the IAQ Plan would include the following:

› Filtration media shall be installed to protect ductwork and/or equipment used during the construction process (MERV 8423 minimum).

› Absorptive materials shall be protected from moisture damage when stored on‐site and after

installation.

› Smoking shall be prohibited in all areas throughout all phases of the Project.

› Filters at air handlers shall be replaced at the end of construction.

Many common building materials emit chemicals during and after installation, which can compromise indoor air. LEED lists seven different categories for interior and exterior features to achieve compliance for certification pertaining to Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). These categories include:

› Interior Paints

› Interior adhesives and sealants

› Flooring

› Composite wood

› Ceilings, walls, thermal and acoustic insulation

› Furniture.

To achieve LEED credits, products such as adhesives, sealants, interior paints, and furniture must reach a threshold of 90 percent low-VOC. Other items, such as flooring, walls and acoustic insulation has a threshold of 100 percent. To limit chemical exposure and reduce indoor air pollution, low emitting products meeting LEED requirements would be specified. A low-emitting material calculator prescribed by LEED would be used to track and report low emitting materials.

With respect to erosion and sedimentation control, the following activities would be required, they would be shown on a logistics plan and their use would be documented:

› Truck tire wash‐off

› Trucks properly covered when leaving the site with debris

› Municipal stormwater inlets protected by filter fabric and/or straw bales

› Removal of properly treated storm water from the excavation

› Routine cleaning of sidewalks and paved areas

› Disposal of concrete waste in containers for removal from site.

The following are several strategies that Sands would implement to reduce embodied carbon:

› Procure local materials and products

‌423 According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MERV is the Minimum Efficiency Reporting Values of a filter’s ability to capture large particles between 0.3 and 10 microns. The higher the MERV rating, the better the filter is at trapping specific types of particles. The rating is derived from a test method developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating. Accessed August 2024

› Request embodied carbon data during contracting and procurement, so that lower carbon building material options can be secured

› Reduce construction waste, such that materials would be procured at appropriate quantities to eliminate extras and reduce packaging.

› Recycle construction waste to minimize quantities of construction waste to be landfilled.

Overall, Sands would employ sustainability measures that would help support better building and material choices, and help to drive innovation in support of reducing the overall environmental impact related to construction of the Integrated Resort.

‌Proposed Off-Site Mitigation Locations
1. Roadway Improvements
  The off-site traffic mitigation measures that are proposed to be implemented at specific portions of the surrounding roadway network would result in construction impacts. Many of the proposed off-site improvements would occur immediately adjacent to the subject property and would be managed and addressed as part of the overall proposed development. Others, such as signal timing changes, lane reconfigurations and restriping, pedestrian-related improvements (sidewalk/crosswalk installation or modifications), are relatively minor and of short duration. Off- site highway widenings and lane extensions that are proposed to mitigate potential traffic impacts have the potential to result in temporary construction-related impacts, as further discussed below.
  As described in Section 3.5.4, Transportation and Parking, and Section 10 of the TIS in Appendix 3.5-1, the following capacity improvements on the Northern State Parkway and the Meadowbrook State Parkway are proposed:
  › Removal of the existing lane drop (from two lanes to one lane) to widen to two full lanes the ramp from westbound Northern State Parkway onto southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway
  › Widening to a fourth lane southbound on Meadowbrook State Parkway from Northern State Parkway to Zeckendorf Boulevard
  › Widening of northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway to four lanes from Old Country Road to the Northern State Parkway ramps
  › Bridge widenings and replacements to accommodate the widenings noted above including; widening of the Meadowbrook State Parkway bridge over Westbury Avenue, replacement of the MTA Long Island Railroad bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span, and replacement of the Old Country Road bridge over the Meadowbrook State Parkway to include a longer span
  › Widening of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway ramp to eastbound Northern State Parkway to a two-lane ramp onto Northern State Parkway
  › Widening of the north end of the northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway C-D Road, which currently transitions to a single lane, to two lanes and merging both lanes onto Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline prior to the Stewart Avenue overpass. The existing
  
  third northbound Meadowbrook State Parkway Mainline travel lane would be dropped prior to the C-D road merge
  › Along eastbound Hempstead Turnpike the extension of the deceleration lane onto the ramp to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 500 feet)
  › Along southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway the Extension of the acceleration lane from the ramp from eastbound Hempstead Turnpike (approximately 400 feet).
  › An extension of the two-lane section of the ramp from eastbound Charles Lindbergh Boulevard to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 350 feet in length) and an extension of the acceleration lane from the same ramp onto the southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway (approximately 450 feet in length).
  Each of the above improvements would have beneficial effects on traffic conditions once completed, but may result in temporary construction-related impacts including potential impacts to traffic conditions on the roadways noted above, as well as to localized soils, ecological resources and sound levels in the areas of the proposed improvements.
  With regard to soils, the approximate limits of disturbance associated with the proposed widenings and lane extensions were evaluated based on available aerial imagery and topographic data for the existing roadways and widening/extension areas and typical lane and shoulder sections. Specifically, the following assumptions were considered:
  › A 12-foot pavement widening from the edge of the existing shoulder at a two percent cross slope
  › No edge treatment is assumed at the edge of the proposed pavement widening
  › A 10-foot level area to accommodate new highway guard, potential noise barrier and a two- foot level bench is assumed in areas where the parkway abuts residential uses; or a five-foot level area to accommodate a highway guard is assumed elsewhere
  › Two units of horizontal rise: one unit of vertical run side slope was used to meet the existing ground.
  Figures depicting the anticipated limits of disturbance are presented in Appendix 3.1-7. These limits are approximate and based on available information, and they are provided to allow for a reasonable assessment of the potential impacts of the roadway widening. The actual limits of disturbance would be dependent upon accurate field survey, approved designs by the NYSDOT, and other factors.
  The results of the limit of disturbance analysis indicate that approximately 6.1 acres of disturbance would result from the proposed widenings and lane extensions. These areas occur within the established highway and roadway rights-of-way, and currently contain paved and grassed shoulders and limited vegetated areas along the existing roadside. All construction would be performed in accordance with a permit(s) to be issued by the NYSDOT and applicable construction and maintenance policies (e.g., the NYSDOT TEM). Erosion control measures (e.g., stockpile stabilization, drainage inlet protection, dust suppression) would be implemented during construction in accordance with any required SWPPP and associated erosion and sediment control plan.
  
  Construction of the proposed widenings and lane extensions also has the potential to affect ecological resources. Section 3.3.2, Ecological Resources, provides a detailed analysis of these potential impacts, confirming that the affected areas would generally be limited to the ECNYS Mowed Lawn (unranked cultural community) and Successional Southern Hardwoods (demonstrably secure globally) communities. These areas exhibit the presence of non-native invasive species, low overall plant species diversity, and disturbed conditions along the busy parkway corridors, such that there would be no significant adverse impacts upon sensitive ecological resources. In the area of the East Meadow Brook crossing beneath the Parkway, at the location of the acceleration lane extension from Hempstead Turnpike (SR 24) to southbound Meadowbrook State Parkway, it is assumed that the existing culvert would remain, and that impacts would be limited to those that may result from regrading at and surrounding either side of the culvert. Any such activities in the adjacent area surrounding the wetland would be conducted in accordance with a permit to be obtained from the NYSDEC. As such, and as concluded by the analysis in Section 3.3.2, Ecological Resources, of this DEIS, no significant adverse ecological impacts are anticipated due to construction of the off-site traffic mitigation improvements.
  As discussed in Section 3.7.2, Noise and Vibration and noted in Section 3.15.7, with regard to noise impacts from construction of the off-site traffic mitigation measures, it should be noted that any such work would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of a permit issued by the NYSDOT, under that agency’s oversight, subject to its construction policies and required practices. Common practices to minimize potential noise impacts, such as temporary noise barriers along the roadway (plywood, acoustical curtains), mufflers on all construction equipment, enclosures for noisy equipment such as air compressors, etc., are expected to be implemented to minimize adverse construction noise impacts. Such impacts would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of the proposed improvements.
2. Mitigation Measures

In order to minimize potential impacts associated with construction activities to the extent practicable, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated:

› Perimeter construction fencing would be installed around the construction site to provide site security and a visual screen. Internally, temporary covered walkways and a hoarding wall, which would provide for both safety and security for the general public, employees and construction workers, would be installed. The hoarding wall would be occasionally relocated during the construction period as the location of the construction activities moves around within the subject property. These fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area.

› Site access would be controlled using gates and a badging system, and access gates would be attended during working hours and locked during non-work hours.

› Construction materials and products would be stored in a protected and secured designated area.

› All vehicles associated with the proposed construction would be contained on site, no vehicles would park or stage on adjacent streets.

› All workers must carpool with a minimum of two workers per vehicle during peak calendar quarters of construction.

› Construction vehicles would arrive and depart via Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24) by several prescribed routes via either the Long Island Expressway or Sunrise Highway to ensure that construction vehicles do not traverse local, secondary roadways.

› Excavated materials (e.g., soils) to be disposed of off-site would be sampled and characterized, based upon the acceptance criteria and permitting requirements of the proposed recycling and/or disposal facilities. Transportation and disposal would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360.

› Reuse of on-site soil or non-native material would be conducted in accordance with the proposed site use and with NYSDEC regulations, including NYSDEC Part 360.13 for soil reuse, NYSDEC Part 375 and NYSDEC DER-10.

› Imported topsoil used for landscaping would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers.

› If any USTs and/or associated appurtenances (e.g., fill lines, vent line, and electrical conduit) are encountered during redevelopment of the subject property, decommissioning, removal and off-site disposal would be done in accordance with NYSDEC and NCDH UST closure requirements. Previously unidentified USTs would be registered with the NYSDEC and NCDH, as necessary, prior to decommissioning or removal.

› Prior to renovation activities, ACM abatement plans would be developed to ensure the proper handling, removal, and disposal of ACM in accordance with applicable regulations. Appropriate engineering controls and best management practices to minimize asbestos exposure would be implemented during any activities that could result in the disturbance of ACM. Asbestos air monitoring would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.

› Lead-based paint and other hazardous substances, if encountered, would be remediated in accordance with prevailing regulations.

› A CHASP would be prepared that would incorporate measures for worker and community protection, including personal protective equipment, dust control and emergency response procedures. The CHASP would be prepared prior to construction, and implemented during each phase of construction.

› A preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, which would be finalized for review and approval prior to construction. As part of the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control measures to minimize construction-related impacts to soils and groundwater would be installed prior to construction and monitored through the construction period. These measures would be maintained until the site is permanently developed.

› Measures to minimize impacts to air quality, including fugitive dust and GHG emissions control measures, would be implemented throughout the construction period.

› Quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) backup alarms on construction vehicles would be required and would meet all applicable regulations.

› Construction would occur in accordance with the hours and days permitted by the Town of Hempstead Town Code.

› Construction equipment would be required to have properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems.

› Proper operation and maintenance, and prohibition of excessive idling of construction equipment engines, would be required.

› Where possible, construction equipment would be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible.

› In order to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods (including noise), during the construction period, construction vehicles would be routed through primary streets and highways, and would not traverse secondary, local neighborhood streets

› MSKCC may contain vibration-sensitive equipment in its facility. To minimize vibration impacts, non-vibratory pile driving is proposed to be used on the site. However, other common construction equipment has the potential to result in some vibration impacts. Therefore, the CM would coordinate with MSKCC regarding the construction methods and vibration attenuation, as necessary, to ensure the facility is not disrupted during construction

› To help achieve the LEED rating for construction, various measures would be incorporated into the project, including, but not limited to, use of locally manufactured materials, use of low-emitting materials, construction waste recycling, and the implementation of a construction indoor air quality management plan.

› Waste management directives would be put in place at the construction site to achieve a minimum waste diversion during construction of 50 percent, with an aspiration to achieve 75 percent diversion.

› In order to avoid the inadvertent removal of dirt and similar materials from the site during construction, various measures would be implemented including provision of a truck tire wash‐off; proper covering of trucks leaving the site with debris; routine cleaning of sidewalks and paved areas; and disposal of concrete waste in containers for removal from site.

› To reduce embodied carbon, Sands would procure local materials and products; request embodied carbon data during contracting and procurement, so that lower carbon building material options can be secured; and reduce construction waste, such that materials would be procured at appropriate quantities to eliminate extras and reduce packaging. Sands would also recycle construction waste to minimize quantities of construction waste to be landfilled.

‌Cumulative Impacts

‌Introduction
The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, Fourth Edition, 2020, pages 80 and 82) explains, in pertinent part, that:
Cumulative impacts occur when multiple actions affect the same resource(s). . .
Cumulative impacts must be assessed when actions are proposed, or can be foreseen as likely, to take place simultaneously or sequentially in a way that the combined impacts may be significant. As with direct impacts, assessment of cumulative impacts should be limited to consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts, not speculative ones. . .
. . .If two or more actions affecting the same resource(s) are proposed at about the same time, or one after the other, their cumulative impact may be significant. If a third action is subsequently proposed, the need to examine cumulative impact may be even more important. For example, multiple developments using the same road segment, sewage treatment plant, or water supply may incrementally increase existing impacts to a significant level.
Courts, however, have set some limits and standards for when a lead agency may consider cumulative impacts. The lead agency must clearly articulate at least one basis for requiring cumulative impact assessment:
› The actions themselves can be demonstrated to be clearly related;
› Two or more separate actions can be demonstrated to be likely to cause specific impacts on a specific, single resource; or
› Two or more actions are proposed within a designated protected resource area for which an adopted management plan exists.
Note that in all such cases, the lead agency must clearly articulate the functional connections of potential impacts to resources, as courts have generally not accepted proximity alone as a basis for requiring cumulative impact analysis.

In accordance with the foregoing, Sands contacted the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead, as well as proximate incorporated villages (e.g., Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Westbury, Freeport) to identify those recently-approved or planned developments [that have current pending applications]) for which a cumulative impact assessment may be necessary. As required by the Final Scope and as further described below, these recently approved or planned developments have been analyzed for cumulative impacts affecting the same environmental factors as the proposed action, including water supply, sewage generation, electrical supply, traffic and air quality. Additionally, for traffic analysis purposes, the NYSDOT and NCDPW have been contacted regarding recently approved and/or planned roadway and/or infrastructure projects that may affect the roadways considered within the TIS for this application.
Correspondence with these municipalities and agencies are included in Attachment I of
Appendix 3.5-1.
The following section provides a description of the projects included in the cumulative impact analysis.

‌Proposed and Pending Projects

Freedom of Information Requests regarding other planned developments (OPDs) were sent to the Town of Hempstead, Town of North Hempstead, Village of Hempstead, Village of Garden City, Village of Mineola, Village of Westbury and Village of Freeport. Additionally, a Freedom of Information Request was submitted to the NCDPW and the NYSDOT regarding major infrastructure/roadway projects proposed/planned within the project Study Area.

Responses were received from all the communities contacted. VHB reviewed the responses and incorporated identified projects that had the potential to cumulatively (i.e., along with the proposed Integrated Resort) impact the environmental topics identified in the Final Scope (Attachment I of Appendix 3.5-1 424). From a SEQR perspective, cumulative impact analyses are typically done only for projects that would be completed by the proposed project’s build year of 2030. In this case, however, based upon comments raised during the scoping process, this cumulative impact analysis also includes discussion of the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility, which is not expected to be completed by 2030. Information regarding relevant projects provided by the surrounding communities is documented below. A total of 15 OPDs were evaluated as part of this cumulative impact analysis. These are shown in Figure 58 and described below.

As indicated in Attachment I of Appendix 3.5-1, of this DEIS, both NYSDOT and NCDPW indicated that there are no major construction or reconstruction projects planned within the Study Area that should be accounted for.

‌424 As explained in the TIS, provided in Appendix 3.5-1, VHB also included information on OPDs that it was aware of that were not identified through the freedom of information request process.

Figure 58: Other Planned Developments

Sands New York Integrated Resort

‌1255 Hempstead Turnpike and 101 James Doolittle Boulevard, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County

nhasset Hills

Williston Park

Westbury

ost Ave

Path: \\vhb.com\gis\proj\Hauppauge\26841.01 CONF-Sands Hotel Nassau\Project\SiteLocationMap_CONFsands_20230214\SiteLocationMap_CONFsands_20230214.aprx

n Ave

nio

Proposed Shopping

Herricks

85 Willis/111 Second Street, Village of Mineola

ity

Garden C

The Bridge, Village of

The Royal Blue, Village of Mineola

Mineola

Center, Town of Hempstead

d Coun

try

Carle Place

The Cornerstone

at Westbury (Phase I and II), Village of Westbury

Park

Mineola

ssau B

lvd

Garden City Golf Club

Stew

120 & 125 Third Street, Village of Mineola

Roosevelt Field Pad Site - Medical Office Building and Hotel, Town of Hempstead

art Ave

Nassau Community

Salisbury

ntagh P

wy N

NYU Langone Hospital at NCC Campus,

Town of Hempstead

Eisenhower

Stewart Ave

en City

Gard Carman Place,

Garden City

Grubb Site Plan, Village of Hempstead

College

Oak S

Hempste

Hofstra University

Park Playground

Wanta

Tpk

Pkwy S

MSKCC Expansion, Town of Hempstead

Village of Hempstead

South

West

Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead,

ront S

Gre

Hempstead

Merri

226 Clinton Street, Village of Hempstead

East Meadow

Jacobs- Elem

ewbridge R

Sch

d Rd

nklin uare

Village of Hempstead

lvd

Hempstead

ck Ave

Franklin Elementary School

Estella Housing, Village of Hempstead

ch St

Nas

dfiel

Uniondale

North Bellmore

Lakeview

South t

outh

wbr

Woo

e P

Hempstead

ylo

err

ick Ave

idge

alverne Roosevelt

rth Lynbrook

t End

entary hool

Lynbrook

Rockville Centre

Elementary chool Number

n T

Baldwin

N Main S

Freeport

Merrick

err

k Rd

The Gardens at Buffalo, Village of Freeport

0 5,000 Feet

Five

Subject Property

Other Planned Developments

* Boundaries are approximate

Source: Nassau County GIS, ESRI, NYSDEC, Nearmap

Village of Freeport

› The Gardens at Buffalo is located at 17-33 Buffalo Avenue, in the Village of Freeport and involves the redevelopment of the deteriorating Moxey Rigby public housing complex with a new five-story, 200-unit apartment building (40 senior units and 160 non-age-restricted units) on a 2.5-acre site. The 165,936-square-foot apartment complex includes ten studios, 100 one- bedroom units, 70 two-bedroom units, and 20 three-bedroom units. A separate parking structure/parking lot is also planned. The Gardens at Buffalo is situated approximately 4.6 miles south of the subject property. The project was approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

Village of Mineola

› The Bridge is located 212 Third Street (South Station Plaza) in the Village of Mineola, adjacent to eastbound tracks of LIRR. It includes the removal of a taxi stand and office building and redevelopment of a 0.64-acre site with 121 multifamily units (including 89 one-bedroom units and 32 two-bedroom units), as well as a 10,000-sf event space within an eight-story building. The Bridge is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the subject property. The project was approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› The Royal Blue is located at 101 & 105 Searing Avenue in the Village of Mineola and involves the redevelopment of a 0.59-acre vacant lot with 54 multifamily units within a six-story, 101,600±-square-foot (sf) multi-family residential building. The building is proposed to contain 46 one-bedroom units and eight two-bedroom units. The project also includes the redevelopment of 0.21-acre parcel with off-site parking spaces. The Royal Blue is located approximately 2.7 miles northwest of the subject property. The development is currently under construction and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› 120 & 125 Third Street is located at Old Country Road and Third Street in the Village of Mineola and includes the removal of an office building and above-ground parking garage and the development of 440 multifamily units425 in two nine-story buildings with 181 one- bedroom units and 259 two-bedroom units. Additionally, the development would include 9,840 sf of retail uses. The south parcel along Old Country Road is 1.27 acres, and the north parcel along Third Street is 1.08 acres. This project site is located approximately 2.5 northwest of the subject property. This project was approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› 85 Willis/111 Second Street is located in the Village of Mineola and includes the removal of a vacant office building and municipal parking lot, as well as a land swap with MTA/LIRR. The proposed project involves the construction of 92 multifamily units (85 one-bedroom units and seven two-bedroom units) in a new four-story building. This project site is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the subject property. This project was approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

Village of Hempstead

› Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead is a proposed mixed-use development located at 145 North Franklin Street in the Village of Hempstead. This project involves the construction of

‌425 The proposal to the Village of Mineola was for 490 units, but the development was approved at 440 units. The TIS analysis was prepared based on the original number as approval occurred subsequent to the analysis, and is, therefore, conservative.

244 senior apartment units and 8,667 sf of retail space. The site is located approximately 1.9 miles west of the subject property. It is approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› Carman Place is a proposed mixed-use development located at 126 Bedell Street (near Main Street) in the Village of Hempstead. This project involves the construction of 228 apartment units and 22,290 sf of retail space. This development is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the subject property. This project is approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› Estella Housing is a proposed mixed-use development located at 176 Main Street (near Bedell Street) in the Village of Hempstead. This project involves 96 apartment units, and 5,540 sf of retail space. This project site, which is located approximately 1¾ miles west of the subject property, is approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› Grubb Site Plan is a proposed mixed-use development located at 257 Main Street in the Village of Hempstead. This project involves the construction of 173 apartments and 2,069 sf of retail space. The site is located approximately 1.9 miles west of the subject property. This project is approved and is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› Clinton Manor LLC is a proposed residential development located at 226 Clinton Street in the Village of Hempstead. This project involved the construction of 120 units – 60 senior housing and 60 multifamily housing units. This project, which is located approximately 1.4 miles west of the subject property, was subsequently approved for the same total of 120 units, but the approved breakdown was modified to 70 senior housing and 50 multifamily units. It is expected to be fully built and occupied by 2030.

› Clinton Market Place, located at 281 Clinton Street in the Village of Hempstead, is the conversion of a day school into retail space with five separate retail units on a 0.14-acre parcel.

› 600 Front St. LLC, located at 584 and 600 Front Street, in the Village of Hempstead, involves the demolition of two single-family homes/professional offices and the construction of 30 multifamily units on a 0.85-acre parcel.

Village of Westbury

› Cornerstone at Westbury is a two-phased project located at 461 Railroad Avenue and 425 Railroad Avenue, in the Village of Westbury, involving the redevelopment of industrial spaces. The project consists of 131 multifamily units – 40 studios, 78 one-bedroom units and 13 two- bedroom units. The project site is located approximately two miles north-northeast of the subject property, construction has been completed, and the development has recently opened.

› 249 Drexel Avenue involves the demolition of an existing business and construction of 18 apartments and 1,750 sf of retail space on a 15,098-sf parcel. No other information was provided by the Village.

› Alpine Residential Multifamily, located at 353 Union Avenue in the Village of Westbury, involves demolition of existing businesses and the construction 187 multifamily units on a 1.91-acre parcel. The project is currently undergoing review by the Village.

Town of North Hempstead

› Proposed Shopping Center, located at 357 Old Country Road in the hamlet of Carle Place, Town of North Hempstead, situated on a 5.55-acre site involves the removal of the Chateau Briand catering facility and its redevelopment with 35,558 sf of retail space, a 3,015-sf drive- thru bank and a 2,818 sf restaurant with a drive-thru. The project site is located approximately

1.5 miles north-northwest of the subject property. The project is presently under municipal review but is expected to be constructed prior to 2030.

› Medical Office Building, located at 393-401 Old Country Road in the hamlet of Carle Place.

This project involved partial demolition and conversion of restaurant and general office space to medical office space on a 1.10-acre parcel. The project has been constructed and is operational.

Town of Hempstead

› Roosevelt Field Mall Hotel (Pad Site) and Roosevelt Field Mall – Medical Office Building (Pad Site), is located at 630 Old Country Road is situated on 20.3 acres of the 118.5-acre Roosevelt Field Mall site, within the Town of Hempstead. The proposed four-story hotel would contain 170 keys and an 85-seat restaurant. The proposed medical office building would be three stories and contain 90,000 sf. The development of these two pad sites would remove parking spaces from the overall mall site. The project site is located approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the subject property. The project is presently under municipal review but is expected to be constructed prior to 2030.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Expansion – MSKCC, located at 1101 Hempstead Turnpike in the hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, is proposing an expansion to the existing 144,000-sf facility on Hempstead Turnpike, near the corner of Earle Ovington Boulevard (essentially an out-parcel to the subject property). The original approvals reflected the ultimate construction of 170,000 sf of space, and the expansion would result in the facility reaching that square footage. The expansion project includes 26,000± sf of the additional floor area that is now proposed to be built out. The 26,000-sf expansion is expected to be constructed prior to the 2030, and is, therefore, included in this cumulative impact assessment, although the full project previously underwent environmental review. As indicated in Section 2.3, Site Development and Application History, there is an easement agreement between the Lessee for proposed action and MSKCC (Appendix 4-1). The easement agreement, dated June 2, 2023, provides for, among other things, mutually- beneficial vehicular and pedestrian access, utility access, facilitation of drainage and confirmation of parking for MSKCC. In addition, the agreement provides a construction easement to MSKCC (a 50-foot temporary surface easement on a portion of the Coliseum parcel).

› NYU Langone Hospital at NCC Campus – As requested by the Town of Hempstead, the cumulative impact analysis has included the contemplated development of an NYU Langone Hospital facility, even though a formal application has not been submitted for this facility as of the time of preparation of this cumulative impact analysis. Based on information provided by NYU Langone on October 23, 2023 (Appendix 4-2), the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility is proposed to consist of an 800-bed full-service hospital, 350,000 sf of academic/research and administration offices, 200,000 sf of student/staff housing and 250,000 sf of ambulatory medical use. The development would remove parking spaces from

the campus and involve relocation of the public safety building. The project site is located just north of the subject property beyond Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. The build year for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility is at least two years after the 2030 Full Build year for Sands. No other information (e.g., concept plan, access locations) was provided by NYU Langone or publicly available at the time of preparation of this DEIS.

As required by the Final Scope, these recently approved or planned developments have been analyzed for cumulative impacts affecting the same environmental factors as the proposed action. This includes examining the cumulative impacts on water supply (for projects that are proposed within the service area of the Town of Hempstead Water Department or the Mitchel Field Water Supply Area), sewage generation (for projects that would discharge sanitary waste to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant), electrical supply (for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, if NYU is able to provide calculated electric loads) and air quality (for projects that are situated within the NYSDEC-designated Hempstead/New Cassell/Roosevelt/Uniondale/Westbury disadvantaged community). Additionally, cumulative traffic impacts from identified recently approved or planned developments impacting the same locations as the proposed action are discussed in this section, with detailed analysis included in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking, and in Appendix 3.5-1. The table below identifies those recently-approved or planned developments and assesses whether they would have common impacts on the environmental factors identified in the Final Scope.

‌Table 128 Other Planned Developments and Cumulative Impact Issues

Project and Description

Within Hempstead Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction

Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP

Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis

Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Initiative

33 Buffalo Ave. Village of Freeport (200 multifamily units, inc. 40 senior units)
The Bridge, South Station Plaza, Village of Mineola (121 multifamily units, 10,000 sf event space)	No	No	Yes*	No
The Royal Blue, 101 & 105 Searing Ave., Village of Mineola –	No	No	Yes*	No
(54 multifamily units)
120 & 125 Third Street, between Old Country Road and Third Street,	No	No	Yes*	No

Gardens at Buffalo, 17- No Yes Yes* No

Within Hempstead

Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air

Project and Description	Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction	Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP	Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis	Quality Monitoring Initiative
Village of Mineola (440 multifamily units and 9,840 sf of retail)
85 Willis Ave/111 Second St., Village of Mineola (92 multifamily units)	No	No	Yes*	No
The Cornerstone at Westbury (Phase 1 and Phase 2), 461 and 425 Railroad Ave., Village of Westbury (131 multifamily units)	No	Yes	Yes**	Yes
249 Drexel Ave, Village of Westbury (18 multifamily units, 1,750 sf retail)	No	Yes	No	No
353 Union Ave., Village of Westbury (187 multifamily units)	No	Yes	No	Yes
Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead	No	No	Yes**	No
145 North Franklin Street, Village of Hempstead (244 units, 8,667 sf retail)
Carman Place	No	No	Yes*	Yes
126 Bedell Street, Village of Hempstead (228 units, 22,290 sf retail)
Estella Housing	No	No	Yes**	Yes
Bedell Street, Village of Hempstead (66 Apts., 30 dwelling units, 5,540 sf retail)
Grubb Site Plan	No	No	Yes*	Yes
257 Main Street, Village of Hempstead (173 units, 2,069 sf retail)
Clinton Manor LLC	No	No	Yes**	No

Within Hempstead

Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air

Project and Description	Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction	Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP	Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis	Quality Monitoring Initiative
226 Clinton Street,
Hempstead NY (60
senior units, 60 apt.
units)
281 Clinton Street,	No	No	No	No
Village of Hempstead
(conversion of day
school to retail)
600 Front Street, Village	No	No	No	No
of Hempstead (54
multifamily units)
Proposed Shopping	No	Yes	Yes*	No
Center, 357 and 440 Old
Country Road, Carle
Place, Town of
Hempstead (35,558 sf of
retail space, 3,015 sf
bank with drive-thru and
2,818 sf restaurant with
drive-thru)
Roosevelt Field Pad	Yes (Roosevelt	Yes	Yes*	No
Sites, 630 Old Country	Field Water
road, Town of	District)
Hempstead (Hotel with
170 keys and 85 seat
restaurant and 90,000 sf
medical office building)
393-401 Old Country	No	Yes	No	No
Road, Carle Place, Town
of North Hempstead –
conversion of
retail/restaurant to
medical office space
MSKCC, 1101	Yes (Uniondale	Yes	Yes*	No
Hempstead Turnpike,	Water District)
Town of Hempstead
(26,000 sf expansion)

Project and Description

Within Hempstead Water Dept./MFWSA Jurisdiction

Sewage Discharge to Cedar Creek WPCP

Incorporated Into No-Build Traffic Analysis

Within Hempstead/ New Cassel/ Roosevelt/ Uniondale/ Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Initiative

Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital at Nassau Community College, Town of Hempstead (800 beds, 350,000 sf of academic/ research and administration offices, 200,000 sf of student/ staff housing and 250,000 sf of ambulatory medical use)

Yes (Mitchel Field Water Supply Area)

Yes See details No regarding traffic,

below*

*Trip generation prepared by VHB for OPD original application or calculated by VHB based on ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

**Trip generation received from municipality.

‌Water Supply
The following are the proposed OPDs that are located within either the Town of Hempstead Water Department or the MFWSA. The figures below represent the estimated potable water demand, based on Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates published by the NCDPW, based on the assumption that the domestic water demands would be equal to the sewage flow rates.426 See Appendix 4-3 for the water/sewer flow calculations.
Of the OPDs identified, only one is also located within the area of the Uniondale Water District, namely the proposed expansion of the MSKCC Uniondale facility. The contemplated NYU Langone Hospital project is located within the boundary of the MFWSA. Three UWD interconnections with the MFWSA are being used as the daily source of water to the MFWSA and are integral to the water supply to the MFWSA. The Hotel (Pad Site) and Medical Office Building located on the Roosevelt Field Mall property are proposed within the boundary of the Roosevelt Field Water District, which is also operated by the Town of Hempstead Water Department. The calculations below are based on NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates:427
› MSKCC Expansion – Town of Hempstead Water Department, Uniondale Water District
- 26,000 sf medical office x 0.1 gpd/sf = 2,600± gpd
  
  ‌426 Fixture unit counts, water saving devices and other potential measures to reduce water demand are unknown and have not been considered as part of these estimates.
  ‌427 Water demands from fire water services are not included as part of these domestic water use estimates.
  
  › Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility – Town of Hempstead Water Department, MFWSA
- 800 hospital beds x300 gpd/bed = 240,000 gpd
- 350,000 sf academic/research offices x 0.06 gpd/sf = 21,000 gpd
- 200,000 sf staff/student housing @ 750 sf/unit =
  267 units x 200 gpd/unit = 53,400 gpd
- 250,000 sf ambulatory medical use x 0.10 gpd/sf = 25,000 gpd TOTAL 339,400± gpd
  › Roosevelt Field Pad Sites (Hotel and Medical Office) – Town of Hempstead Water Department, Roosevelt Field Water District
- 170 hotel rooms x 150 gpd/room = 25,500 gpd
- 85 restaurant seats x 30 gpd/seat = 2,550 gpd
- 90,000 sf medical office x 0.10 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd TOTAL 37,050± gpd
- As shown above, these projects range in scale and potential water demands on the Town of Hempstead Water Department’s Districts, totaling approximately 379,050 gpd or 0.38± mgd. For conservative analysis purposes and because specific calculations for irrigation for each OPD were not available, 10 percent of the potable water demand was added for irrigation, bringing the total potential projected water demand to 416,955± gpd or (0.42± mgd).
  The Town of Hempstead Water Department, upon review of a request for water availability from Sands, has identified the need for a new water supply well. Sands is in the process of designing the new well and conducting test wells. The well would ultimately be constructed in accordance with the standards of and with approval by the Town of Hempstead, to be operated by the UWD. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources, of this DEIS, it is expected that the new well would be designed with a capacity of 1.98 mgd. At Full Build, Sands would generate a new water demand of 0.763± mgd. Therefore, excess capacity would be available from this new well (1.22± mgd),428 which could address the projected demand from OPDs (including the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility) and could also cover the Uniondale Water District’s theoretical deficit of 760,000 gpd (maximum day plus fire flow, Section 3.2.1.2). Notwithstanding this, each of these projects would be required to coordinate and secure confirmation of water availability from the Town of Hempstead Water Department, and at that time, the Water Department would confirm whether water would be available and if the projects would be required to provide mitigation for their projected water demand.
‌Sewage Disposal
Sewage effluent from the majority of the OPDs is transported to and treated at the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). As shown in Table 128, effluent from the other OPDs (i.e., those in the Village of Mineola and those in the Village of Hempstead) is directed to and treated

‌428 Sands has committed to funding this new well. However, if significant additional users are identified, cost-sharing may be employed.

at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility, previously known as the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant.429 The following are the estimated sewage flows that would be transported to the Cedar Creek WPCP for treatment from the OPDs, based on the NCDPW’s Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates.430 Where bedroom mix was unknown, one-bedroom units were assumed for all senior apartments and independent living units. Furthermore, since the new medical office building at 393-401 Old Country Road is a conversion of an existing office and restaurant, and since the medical office is already in operation, the sewage effluent was not included in this analysis. See Appendix 4-3 for water/sewer flow calculations.431
› The Gardens at Buffalo, Village of Freeport
- 110 studio/one-bedroom units x 200 gpd/unit = 22,000 gpd
- 70 two-bedroom units x 300 gpd/unit = 21,000 gpd
- 20 three-bedroom units x 400 gpd/unit = 8,000 gpd TOTAL 51,000± gpd
  › The Cornerstone at Westbury, Village of Westbury
- 118 studio/one-bedroom units x 200 gpd/unit = 23,600 gpd
- 13 two-bedroom units x 300 gpd/unit = 3,900 gpd TOTAL 27,500± gpd
  › 249 Drexel Avenue
- 18 two-bedroom units (assumed) x 300 gpd/unit = 5,400 gpd
- 1,750 sf retail x 0.1gpf/sf (assume wet retail, no food) = 175 gpd TOTAL 5,575 gpd
  › Alpine Multifamily Residential
- 170 micro/studio/one-bedroom units x 200 gpd/unit = 34,000 gpd
- 17 two-bedroom units x 300 gpd/unit = 5,100 gpd
  TOTAL 39,100 gpd
  › Proposed Shopping Center, Carle Place, Town of North Hempstead
- 35,558 sf retail x 0.03 gpd/sf = 1,067 gpd
- 3,015 sf Drive-thru Bank x 0.03 gpd/sf = 90 gpd
- Restaurant with drive-thru (assume 1 seat per 37 sf or Restaurant use) 2,818 sf @ 37 sf/seat =
  77 seats x 30 gpd/seat = 2,310 gpd
  TOTAL 3,467± gpd
  
  ‌429 The Bay Park Conveyance Project will eventually convey treated water from the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility, which currently discharges an average of 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated water into Reynolds Channel, to the Cedar Creek WPCP ocean outfall pipe. (https://www.bayparkconveyance.org/about, accessed February 2024)
  ‌430 Where the bedroom mix was unknown, all units were assumed to contain one bedroom. Also, it was assumed that “senior apartment units” and “independent living dwelling units: would be equal to the flow of “one bedroom “apartment/condo,” which is 200 gpd/unit.
  ‌431 Additional OPDs were added to the analysis subsequent to the preparation of this Appendix. As with the original OPDs, NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates were used to calculate water/sewer figures.
  
  › Roosevelt Field Pad Sites (Hotel and Medical Office) (37,050± gpd for both buildings), hamlet of Garden City, Town of Hempstead
- 170 hotel rooms x 150 gpd/room = 25,500 gpd
- 85 restaurant seats x 30 gpd/seat = 2,550 gpd
- 90,000 sf medical office x 0.10 gpd/sf = 9,000 gpd
  TOTAL 37,050± gpd
  › MSKCC Expansion, hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead
- 26,000 sf medical office x 0.1 gpd/sf = 2,600± gpd:
  › Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, hamlet of Garden City, Town of Hempstead
- 800 hospital beds x 300 gpd/bed = 240,000 gpd
- 350,000 sf academic/research offices x 0.06 gpd/sf = 21,000 gpd 200,000 sf staff/student housing @ 750 sf/unit =
  267 units x 200 gpd/unit = 53,400 gpd
- 250,000 sf ambulatory medical use x 0.10 gpd/sf = 25,000 gpd TOTAL 339,400± gpd
  The Cedar Creek WPCP currently treats approximately 63.8 mgd, operating at approximately 88.6 percent of its permitted capacity of 72 mgd, according to H2M. The total estimated sewage flow for the OPDs is 505,692± gpd (0.506± mgd).432 Adding that to the expected new sewage flow from the Integrated Resort of 701,400 gpd (0.70± mgd), the cumulative sewage discharge of the OPDs combined with the proposed Integrated Resort would be 1,207,092 (1.21± mgd), which is within the available capacity of the Cedar Creek WPCP of 72 mgd, (63.8 mgd + 1.21 mgd = 65.01± mgd). However, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, each proposed project, if it has not already done so, would be required to submit a request for sewer availability to the NCDPW, which would evaluate the impact of each project on the County’s sanitary sewer collection and treatment system and identify required mitigation, if any, to be provided by each proposed project.
‌Electricity
With respect to cumulative impacts on electricity, no electrical demand information was publicly available for the OPDs or the contemplated NYU Langone project as of the time of preparation of this section of the DEIS. As explained in Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, and documented in Appendix 3.13-1 of this DEIS, Sands and its consultants have met with PSEG Long Island to discuss the energy needs of the Integrated Resort, and Sands submitted a service request to PSEG Long Island, which contained a projection of its electricity needs. PSEG Long Island has confirmed that it would provide service to Sands. However, it has further indicated that a new or expanded substation would be required, as explained in Section 3.13, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities. Locations for the new/expanded substation are currently being identified and assessed. Sands has committed to continuing to work with

‌432 The new medical office building is a conversion, which is currently operational and, therefore, is not included as a new sanitary flow in this analysis.

PSEG Long Island and to participating in funding of the new or expanded substation needed to meet the energy demand of the Integrated Resort.
Similar to the Integrated Resort, any other of the OPDs, including the contemplated NYU Langone project, would, at the appropriate point in their individual application process, have to submit a service request to PSEG Long Island that would document its projected energy needs and would have to work with PSEG Long Island to determine improvements that may be required to satisfy the projected demand. Through this interaction, it is anticipated that PSEG Long Island would identify improvements required, if any, to ensure that the cumulative impacts of the proposed Integrated Resort, the OPDs and the contemplated NYU Langone project would not adversely impact the electrical system.

‌Traffic

As explained in the TIS (Appendix 3.5-1), traffic associated with the identified OPDs (Table 128) is included in the No-Build analysis that was conducted. The traffic impacts of the Build condition (i.e., background growth, plus OPDs, plus Integrated Resort) include the cumulative impacts of the identified OPDs. Table 129 provides the trip generation from the Identified OPDs.

‌Table 129 Total Trip Generation from Other Planned Developments, by Peak Hour

AM		PM Saturday
Other Planned Development	Weekday	Weekday	Friday	Midday (Peak	Saturday
(Location)	Peak	Peak	Evening	Generator)	Evening
The Gardens at Buffalo (Freeport Village)	68	73	73	78	49
The Bridge (Mineola Village)	39	35	39	54	33
The Royal Blue (Mineola Village)	19	24	19	24	15
120 & 125 Third Street (Mineola Village)*	125	81	116	134	81
85 Willis/111 Second Street (Mineola Village)	29	27	19	27	18
Faith Baptist Church of Hempstead (Hempstead Village)	68	86	79	125	65
Carman Place (Hempstead Village)	142	236	163	238	104
Estella Housing (Hempstead Village)	43	70	62	74	43
Grubb Street (Hempstead Village)	76	95	78	85	53
Clinton Manor LLC, 226 Clinton Street (Hempstead Village)	32	44	49	45	25
Cornerstone at Westbury (Westbury Village)**	45	49	46	55	33
Proposed Shopping Center-Old Country Road (North Hempstead Town)	74	213	290	276	251

Roosevelt Field Mall Pad Sites - Hotel and Medical Office (Hempstead Town)***	275	429	164	363	88
MSKCC Expansion (Hempstead Town)	27	26	N/A	N/A	N/A

*Trip generation is based on 490 units. It is noted that this project was ultimately approved at 450 units.

**The Cornerstone at Westbury is a two-phased project that was analyzed in the TIS as two separate projects.

*** Each pad site was analyzed separately in the TIS.

The results of the cumulative trip generation analysis, along with the general background traffic growth that is estimated for the area, are incorporated into the 2030 No-Build traffic volumes of the proposed Integrated Resort for the Weekday AM, Weekday PM, Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak hours, and are shown in Figures C1 through C5 in Attachment E of Appendix 3.5-1. The No-Build analysis forms the basis for the 2030 Build analysis, which is discussed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, as well as Appendix 3.5-

1. The TIS for the proposed Integrated Resort incorporates all of the identified OPDs in its analysis of potential impacts, therefore, the analysis and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed Integrated Resort incorporate the impacts from the OPDs. Thus, the traffic analysis and proposed mitigation for the Integrated Resort inherently address the cumulative impacts of the OPDs.

With respect to NYU Langone (which is not included in Table 130, the build year for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility is at least two years after the 2030 Full Build year for Sands. Thus, the proposed Integrated Resort would be operational before the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital. Accordingly, a separate traffic sensitivity analysis has been conducted to determine the additive impact of the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital facility to the Full Build condition of the Integrated Resort (which includes the traffic from the identified OPDs). This analysis is included in Section 8 of the TIS (Appendix 3.5-1).

Due to the nature of the contemplated Hospital Facility, it is expected that some vehicle trips at the site would be multi-use or “internal,” meaning that trips to more than one land use on the site are generated internally and do not add an additional trip to the adjacent roadway network. The internal trip credit was estimated using the procedures outlined in the ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition433 and is also included in Table 130 .

‌433 Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.

		AM Peak Hour			PM Peak Hour
Land Use	Enter	Exit	Total	Enter	Exit	Total

‌Table 130 Net Trip Generation – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility

Student/Staff Housinga	22	72	94	57	37	94
Hospitalb	1,031	401	1,432	446	906	1,352
R&D Centerc	276	60	336	51	268	319
Medical-Dental Officed	550	128	678	189	566	755
Internal Capturee	-60	-32	-92	-32	-59	-91
Total	1,819	629	2,448	711	1,718	2,429

Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 221 – Multifamily Residential Mid-Rise 3-10 Levels for 240 Units
Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 610 – Hospital for 800 beds
Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 760 – Research and Development Center for 350,000 sf
Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 720 – Medical-Dental Office Building for 250,000 sf
Internal Capture based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program [NCHRP] 684 Guidelines

Based on these trip generation data, the traffic operations analysis evaluated the weekday AM and PM time periods, coinciding with the highest levels of traffic anticipated to be associated with the contemplated Hospital Facility at the following intersections:

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Merrick Avenue

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound at NCC Perimeter Road

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound at James Doolittle Boulevard

› Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Westbound at Earle Ovington Boulevard/NCC Access

› Earle Ovington Boulevard at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard Eastbound/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access

› Earle Ovington Boulevard at East Gate Road/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access

› Hempstead Turnpike at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Uniondale Avenue

› Hempstead Turnpike at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access

› Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue

› Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard at Commercial Avenue

› Stewart Avenue at Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard/South Street

› Stewart Avenue at Endo Boulevard/Merchants Concourse.

‌434 As NYU Langone did not provide a concept plan for evaluation and no plans were publicly available at the time the DEIS was prepared, for the purposes of the traffic evaluation performed in the TIS (Appendix 3.5-1), it was assumed that the main access to the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility would be located opposite the signalized intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard, in the location of the current main NCC access.

The LOS analyses were conducted using Synchro/SimTraffic software for the 2032 Build conditions for the Study Area intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The results were compared to the 2030 Full Build Condition and the 2030 Full Build Condition with Mitigation. The 2032 Condition with Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility incorporated the mitigation associated with the Sands Full Build Condition. The following tables summarize the capacity analysis results.

‌Table 131 Weekday AM Peak Hour – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility

Intersection	2030 Build Condition Delay (sec) LOS	2030 Build with Mitigation Condition Delay (sec) LOS	2032 Condition with Contemplated NYU Hospital Facility Delay (sec) LOS
Hempstead Tpke at Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access	49.6 D	34.7 C	37.8 D
Hempstead Tpke at Earle Ovington Blvd/Uniondale Ave	77.4 E	54.5 D	66.6 E
Earle Ovington Blvd at East Gate Rd/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access	17.7 B	NA	20.7 C
Earle Ovington Blvd at Charles Lindbergh Blvd EB/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access	15.1 B	16.2 B	18.7 B
Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Earle Ovington Blvd/NCC Access	52.2 D	34.9 C	566.6 F
Charles Lindbergh Blvd EB at James Doolittle Blvd	0.2 A	NA	0.1 A
Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Perimeter Rd	0.8 A	NA	2.4 A
Charles Lindbergh Blvd at Merrick Ave	12.0 B	NA	12.3 B
Hempstead Tpke at Merrick Ave	60.4 E	NA	69.2 E
Stewart Ave at Endo Blvd/Merchants Concourse	33.6 C	NA	34.2 C
Stewart Ave at Quentin Roosevelt Blvd/South St	37.6 D	NA	38.0 D
Quentin Roosevelt Blvd at Commercial Ave	14.8 B	NA	15.1 B

Notes

LOS = Level of Service

NA = Not Applicable for this condition

‌Table 132 Weekday PM Peak Hour – Contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility

2032

2030 Build Condition

2030 Build with Mitigation Condition

Condition with Contemplated NYU Hospital Facility

Intersection Delay	LOS	Delay (sec)	LOS	Delay (sec)	LOS
Hempstead Tpke at Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Nassau Veterans Memorial 74.1 Coliseum Access	E	55.7	E	69.4	E
Hempstead Tpke at Earle Ovington 93.3	F	59.1	E	71.3	E
Earle Ovington Blvd at East Gate Rd/Nassau Veterans Memorial 25.2 Coliseum Access	C	NA		28.5	C
Earle Ovington Blvd at Charles Lindbergh Blvd EB/Nassau Veterans 32.7 Memorial Coliseum Access	C	26.2	C	29.3	C
Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Earle 28.8	C	13.8	B	836.3	F
Charles Lindbergh Blvd EB at James 0.4	A	NA		0.2	A
Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at 1.1	A	NA		1.3	A
Charles Lindbergh Blvd at Merrick 15.9	B	NA		17.2	B
Hempstead Tpke at Merrick Ave 64.1	E	NA		62.2	E
Stewart Ave at Endo 62.7	E	NA		65.8	E
Stewart Ave at Quentin Roosevelt 48.6	D	NA		50.8	D
Quentin Roosevelt Blvd at 17.7	B	NA		18.1	B

(sec)

Blvd/Uniondale Ave

Ovington Blvd/NCC Access Doolittle Blvd

Perimeter Rd Ave

Blvd/Merchants Concourse Blvd/South St

Commercial Ave

Notes

LOS = Level of Service

NA = Not Applicable for this condition

Based on a review of the analysis results shown above and discussed in Section 8 of the TIS in Appendix 3.5-1, the capacity analyses for the weekday AM and PM peak hours shows that all the intersections would operate with the same overall intersection LOS with the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility as the Integrated Sands Resort Build with the exception of the following (periods affected provided in parentheses):

› Hempstead Tpke at Glenn Curtiss Blvd/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access – AM

› Earle Ovington Blvd at East Gate Rd/Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Access - AM

› Hempstead Tpke at Earle Ovington Blvd/Uniondale Ave – AM

› Charles Lindbergh Blvd WB at Earle Ovington Blvd/NCC Access – AM and PM.

The difference in the overall intersection delay for the above intersections is 14 seconds or fewer for most of the intersections, and based on the magnitude of the increase in time delay, additional mitigation would not be warranted for these locations. However, the increase in delay for the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard WB at Earle Ovington Blvd/NCC Access intersection shows that the addition of traffic associated with the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility would result in this intersection operating at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours, which is a decrease from LOS C and LOS B, respectively (when compared to the operation of the intersection without the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility). This location presently serves as a point of access for NCC, and based on available information,435 the cumulative impact assessment assumed that this location would serve as an access point for the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, receiving significant portions of the traffic from the Hospital Facility in the future condition (2,448 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,429 trips in the PM peak hour). Based on these factors, and assuming that NYU Langone selects this location for access, improvements to this intersection would be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic from the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility at the westbound right turn and the southbound left turn movements. The improvements necessary to accommodate the operations of the Hospital Facility at this intersection are not associated with the proposed Integrated Resort and the impact to that intersection would not occur until the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility is operational, assuming NYU selects this location for access. This intersection is located in an area where the intersecting roadways have significant right-of-way widths, such that roadway mitigation could be implemented in the future to accommodate potential impacts from the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility, if and when it is approved and developed.

‌Air Quality

As explained in Section 3.6, Air Quality, the proposed Integrated Resort project would not exceed the NAAQS for CO and for PM2.5. As traffic from the identified OPDs are included in the No-Build background traffic analysis, their impacts are accounted for in the impact analysis for the Integrated Resort. Accordingly, the cumulative traffic emissions from the proposed Integrated Resort together with the OPDs that are situated within the Hempstead/New Cassel/Roosevelt/ Uniondale/Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Program, as shown in Table 128, would not result in a significant adverse cumulative impact on air quality.

Additionally, based on the results of the stationary source analysis for the proposed project and the distance of the Integrated Resort to the OPDs that are within the Hempstead/New Cassel/Roosevelt/Uniondale/Westbury Disadvantaged Community Air Quality Monitoring Program, as shown in Table 128 above, there would be no cumulative adverse impact on air quality from the OPD stationary sources and the proposed Integrated Resort’s kitchen exhaust emissions.

‌435As NYU Langone did not provide a concept plan for evaluation and no plans were publicly available at the time the DEIS was prepared, for the purposes of the traffic evaluation performed in the TIS (Appendix 3.5-1), it was assumed that the main access to the contemplated NYU Langone Hospital Facility would be located opposite the signalized intersection of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard, in the location of the current main NCC access.

‌Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(b) require that a DEIS include an analysis of “those adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated if the proposed action is implemented.” Consistent with the requirements of SEQRA, potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable as discussed in Chapter 3 of this DEIS. Those short-term (construction-related) and long-term (operational) impacts that cannot be either entirely avoided or fully mitigated are described below.

‌Short-Term Impacts
There would be temporary construction-related impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed action that cannot be completely mitigated or avoided. These impacts include those associated with typical site preparation and development, including staging, grading, excavation for foundations, installation of utilities, and construction of buildings. It is anticipated that these impacts would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project. These impacts are discussed throughout this DEIS, particularly in Section 3.16, Construction, and are summarized herein:
› Existing asphalt-paved areas and soil, as well as some vegetation would be disturbed during demolition, excavation, grading and construction activities, including those areas associated with the off-site traffic mitigation, which cannot be avoided. Measures, including implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan; installation of construction fencing around all work areas; use of construction vehicle tire washes at each exit to avoid tracking of soil onto surrounding roadways; and use of dust control, among other measures, have been incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts associated with this site disturbance. Despite the use of extensive and strategically-placed erosion and sediment control measures, installed in accordance with an approved SWPPP, minor occurrences of erosion may occur.
› As groundwater is expected to be encountered during some excavation activities, dewatering would be performed to enable construction. This would result in excess water requiring disposal, which would be done in accordance with applicable requirements, including those of the NCDPW.

› Although dust would be controlled by covering soil piles and watering down of the site, there is the potential for minor releases that could occur from construction equipment and emissions of fugitive dust during dry periods.
› While the subject property is of sufficient size to accommodate construction and worker vehicles and materials storage and staging, movement of delivery vehicles, construction trucks and construction worker vehicles may temporarily impact traffic in the area of the project site.
› Major construction equipment used for construction activities would be brought to the site one time for each phase of construction and would remain for the duration of their use on that phase.
› The largest number of construction trucks, associated with demolition and excavation, would move material over the duration of the build-out. These trips would be controlled and use major roadways (not local secondary streets) as explained in Section 3.15, Construction.
› Construction vehicles would operate in compliance with local regulations. Noise created during construction would be minimized by adhering to applicable regulations set forth in the Town of Hempstead Code and by keeping all construction equipment outfitted with mufflers and in good repair. However, there would be temporary increases in noise levels at the site boundaries that may result from construction activities.
› There may be potential construction noise related impacts associated with the off-site traffic mitigation, which would be reviewed by NYSDOT. Although it is not expected that the proposed action would result in a substantial increase in noise levels, there are various forms of abatement that could be considered by the NYSDOT, including traffic management, earthen berms, noise barriers, or noise insulation, among others.
› Some of the proposed operational traffic improvements (discussed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking), would, during their implementation, create some delays on area roadways in the short term; however, they would result in long term benefits.
› Waste generated during the construction period would be reduced by recycling and re-using materials on-site, as well as transporting waste off-site for recycling. However, there would still be an increase in on-site waste generated during demolition and construction activities.
› Construction fencing would be placed around the property, which would screen much of the activity, materials stored on site and vehicles/equipment, but certain construction equipment would be visible above the fencing (e.g., tower cranes). As construction progresses, buildings would become visible above the construction fencing. Therefore, there would be some views of construction activities at the site.
As the above impacts are construction-related, they would cease upon completion of construction.
‌Long-Term Impacts

Several long-term environmental impacts associated with project implementation have been identified, and mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate these impacts to the maximum extent practicable, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this DEIS. Those adverse long-term impacts that cannot be eliminated or fully mitigated are set forth below.

› The proposed development would increase water usage, including water for domestic use, fire protection, and irrigation. As described in detail in Section 3.2, Water Resources, Sands would work with the Town of Hempstead Water Department on the design, development and funding of a new water supply well. The proposed project would incorporate multiple water conservation methods to reduce water use, including a central rainwater capture and reuse system for irrigation use. Additionally, all plumbing fixtures would be high-efficiency, water-conserving fixtures meeting all water-conserving requirements in accordance with the New York State Plumbing Code.

› There would be an increase in sewage generation associated with the proposed development. However, the proposed Integrated Resort would be connected to the municipal sewer system, and NCDPW has determined that there is existing capacity in both the sewer infrastructure and sewage treatment plant to accommodate the proposed sewage flow.

› Solid waste generation during operations would increase due to implementation of the proposed project. However, the proposed development would incorporate waste management reduction methods, as well as implement a robust recycling program. Specific waste reduction measures include the elimination of single-use plastics and packaging, employing reusable and recycled products, and conducting performance reviews and waste audits to minimize solid waste impacts. While the amount of solid waste would increase, the Lessee is working to manage and minimize the generation of solid waste.

› The minimal amount of existing vegetation would be disturbed and eliminated on the Coliseum property. However, additional vegetation is proposed to be planted on site, such that the amount, quality and diversity of landscaped vegetation on the overall property under the post-development condition would exceed that of the existing condition.

The proposed increase in vegetation would increase the amount of water use and fertilizer application. However, native and native-adaptive landscape species (requiring less water and fertilizer) are proposed to be installed and water-saving irrigation methods (including rainwater capture and reuse for irrigation) would be employed in order to minimize this impact.

› Approximately 6.1 acres of existing vegetated and unvegetated habitat located beyond the current roadway edges of the Meadowbrook State Parkway and Northern State Parkway would be cleared to accommodate traffic mitigation improvements along those roadways. This clearing would be limited to mowed/maintained turf grasses within the roadway shoulders and common trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants within limited portions of the wooded parkway borders, including many non-native/invasive trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants.

› Some proposed roadway improvements would include widenings and lane additions, which would primarily disturb unvegetated, impervious surfaces, with clearing limited to mowed/maintained turf grasses within the roadway shoulders and minimal portions of the adjoining Successional Southern Hardwoods, dominated by a number of non-native/invasive tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant species.

› The proposed action would result in an increase in overall energy use, particularly electricity. Sands would implement various energy efficiency measures, such as the use of EnergyStar appliances, high-efficiency HVAC systems, LED lighting, and plug-load management. The proposed project would include substantial use of renewable energy, specifically solar from the placement of PV panels on various proposed buildings.

› The proposed project would increase demand for emergency services. To address this, the proposed development would provide an on-site Nassau County Police substation and a substantial private security force. Construction materials and building features would be incorporated that would minimize the impact on fire protection services. Sands would provide significant monetary contributions to Nassau County, including a PILOT, as well as to local emergency service providers to assist in enhancing services. Such contributions include the following:

Payment of $900,000.00 per year to Nassau County, with a 2 percent annual escalation, for police services prior to casino opening. If the gaming license is awarded, upon opening of the casino, this payment would increase to $1.8 million annually, with a 2 percent annual escalation.
Construction of a new 1,500-square-foot police substation with parking, and provision of up to $500,000 for interior fit-out.
Community Benefits Program payments of $4 million per year, if a gaming license is granted, or $2 million per year upon substantial completion of development of an alternative plan (with no casino), if a gaming license is not granted. Among other facilities/service providers, the CBP would support and enhance fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers. Forty percent of the CBP would be designated for community facilities in Uniondale.
$25 million divided amongst various communities ($10 million to Uniondale, $10 million to East Meadow, and $5 million to Hempstead) for community benefits.
Projected annual gaming tax revenues of $563 million generated by the operation of the Integrated Resort to be distributed as follows (Full Build totals): $217 million to local schools; $54 million to the Town of Hempstead; $52 million to Nassau County; $27 million to Suffolk County; and $213 million to the MTA, respectively. Sands has committed to providing guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County in the amount of $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation; and to the Town of Hempstead in the amount of $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with 2 percent annual escalation

› There would be an increase in vehicular traffic due to the proposed development and use. Sands is proposing improvements on area roadways to not only address impacts associated with the proposed action, but to address various deficiencies that currently exist. Numerous off-site traffic improvements are planned, as detailed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking. While these traffic improvements would, in the short term, likely create some delays, they would result in long term benefits.

‌Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources

SEQRA requires that a DEIS analyze the extent to which a proposed action may result in the permanent loss of one or more environmental resources. According to The SEQR Handbook, consideration should be given to:

…natural and manmade resources that would be consumed, converted or made unavailable for further uses due to construction, operation, or use of the proposed project, whether those losses would occur in the immediate future, or over the long term…436

Implementation of the proposed action would commit the use of the Coliseum parcel for the proposed Integrated Resort (including buildings, parking structures, surface parking lots, plazas, etc.). Except for the reconfiguration of surface parking areas, the Marriott property would remain committed to that existing use. As the entire subject property is already developed, the proposed development would not permanently remove any existing natural resources from the subject property, and the proposed development would reduce the amount of impervious area on the site.

Certain resources related to the construction of the proposed development would be committed. These resources include, but are not limited to, concrete, asphalt, lumber, steel, glass, masonry, paint, insulation, plastics, gypsum board, various metals, piping, water and topsoil.

Mechanical/construction equipment would be committed to assist personnel in the construction at the subject property. The operation of construction equipment would require the commitment of electricity, water resources and fossil fuels. Furthermore, the construction phase of the proposed project would require the commitment of human resources/labor (estimated at approximately 7,000 jobs) and fiscal resources (development costs estimated at over $5 billion for the Full Build) that would not be available for other projects.

During the operational phase of the proposed Integrated Resort, electricity and water resources would be used for heating, cooling and other purposes. A small amount of fossil fuels would be committed for restaurant cooking purposes and back-up generators. There would be a

‌436 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, The SEQR Handbook Fourth Edition, 2020, Page 20 (March, 2020) Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

commitment of human resources (over 7,800 jobs [5,000 FTE]) during the operational phase of the project.

The commitment of land and other natural and human resources would be balanced by the substantial local and regional economic benefits, including substantial net positive annual fiscal revenues and permanent jobs, tourism benefits, and achievement of stated goals of various land use plans.

‌Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action

Growth-inducing aspects are generally described as the long-term, secondary effects of the proposed action. As explained in The SEQR Handbook 437 :

The growth inducement section of an EIS should . . . describe any further development which the proposed action may support or encourage, such as:

› Attracting significant increases in local population by creating or relocating employment, or by providing support facilities or services (stores, public services, etc.); or

› Increasing the development potential of a local area, for example, by the extension of roads, sewers, water mains, or other utilities. . . (Page 122)

The SEQR Handbook438 further indicates:

Some activities will encourage or lead to further increases in population or business activity. This type of secondary impact is called growth inducement (page 84).

With respect to increasing the development potential of a local area, as explained in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, even though the proposed action includes improvements to utilities and roadways, the community in which the Integrated Resort is proposed is a well-developed suburban area with zoning and other regulations that control development potential.

The most significant utility improvement that is being proposed is the development of a public supply well. As explained in Section 3.2, Water Resources, this supply well has been needed in the area for a long time, since the time The Lighthouse at Long Island project was proposed in 2009. Since no new development has occurred on the Coliseum site since that time, the well was never constructed. The proposed well is proposed to have a capacity of 1.98 million gallons, and the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to use 0.763± mgd (including domestic use and

‌437 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The SEQRA Handbook 4th Edition. 2020. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.

‌438 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The SEQRA Handbook 4th Edition. 2020. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.

irrigation), which is a projected maximum. The new well would increase the UWD available capacity to provide the Full Build condition of the proposed Integrated Resort with potable water and would provide a benefit to the greater community by increasing the capacity and resiliency of the public water supply system within the UWD.

In addition, as described in Sections 3.13.2 and 3.13.3, Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities, based on consultations with PSEG Long Island, a new or expanded substation would be required to serve the proposed Integrated Resort. PSEG Long Island is currently assessing potential locations and design configurations. Sands would continue working with PSEG Long Island and has committed to contributing to the expansion of the substation to address the electrical demands of the proposed Integrated Resort. However, the new or expanded substation would be designed to accommodate potential additional identified demand (as discussed in Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts).

As explained in Section 3.5, Transportation and Parking, the proposed transportation improvements are designed to mitigate impacts associated with the proposed action and would, in various circumstances, help to improve existing roadway conditions that contribute to current delays and congestion. These roadway improvements would not provide significant excess capacity or new access beyond what is required to address various existing conditions and the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action thereby not creating a condition that would induce growth potential.

As explained above, growth inducement can also result from attracting significant increases in local population. The proposed action does not include any residential development; however, as explained in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics of this DEIS, the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to generate over 7,800 operational jobs (5,000 FTE) (including both Sands’ employees and third-party businesses within the Integrated Resort [e.g., spa, restaurants]) to support its operations. These operational jobs are expected to be filled primarily by currently unemployed workers and recent high school or college graduates, as explained in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, and Sands has committed to workforce development programs to facilitate this employment. These programs include, but are not limited to:

› Developing a training hub at NCC

› Collaborating with NCC and Long Island University to develop hospitality degree programs

› Partnering with Minority Millennials to build a diverse local talent pipeline

› Partnering with Empower, Assist, Care (EAC) Network to support local community recruitment plans

› Identifying key stakeholders to provide awareness of job opportunities at the proposed Integrated Resort

› Providing mentoring and leadership development for best-in-class team member advancement and retention strategies.

Additionally, Sands is committed to executing a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with respect to construction of the Integrated Resort.

The socioeconomics analysis in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, projected that approximately 246 workers may migrate to Nassau County to fill operational jobs, which would minimally impact housing demand in Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead. The data in Section 3.9,

Socioeconomics, also demonstrates that there is sufficient available housing stock that is either vacant, for sale or in the pipeline to accommodate this potential increase in population.

Accordingly, the proposed Integrated Resort would not attract significant increases in population that would induce residential growth.

Additionally, according to The SEQR Handbook:

. . .growth in and of itself is not always negative…If the growth induced by a project is consistent with the applicable zoning laws and the community's comprehensive plan, it may be viewed as a positive impact that has been planned for and is beneficial to the community (page 85).

As explained in detail in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the legislative intent and purpose set forth in the PDD at Mitchel Field, the MFM Zoning District and the proposed MF-IRD, is to facilitate development/redevelopment of the land around the Coliseum in adherence to strategic planning principles. The underlying aim is to foster the redevelopment of the Mitchel Field area, which would serve as a stimulus for economic investment on the site and would also result in the economic growth and enhancement of the surrounding communities. The proposed Integrated Resort would result in the transformative redevelopment of the Nassau County-owned property to encourage and support sustainable economic growth and vitality within Mitchel Field and beyond. After several failed attempts at redeveloping the subject property and surrounding area, the proposed Integrated Resort would finally achieve the legislative intent of the MFM Zoning District and the proposed MF-IRD through Sands’ significant investment in the proposed Integrated Resort, including in excess of $5.0 billion in development costs (which would result in not only direct, but also indirect and induced economic impacts as explained in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics), hundreds of millions of dollars in annual gaming tax revenue (with guaranteed minimums to Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead), and substantial monetary investments in the surrounding community, through community benefits and various other commitments to other governmental and community organizations as documented in Section 2.4, Description of the Proposed Action.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the development of the subject property has been cited in various studies as a regional hub and a catalyst for growth within the Town, County and region by a number of comprehensive plans and similar documents.439 As described above, and throughout this DEIS, the purpose of the proposed Integrated Resort is to redevelop and reinvigorate the subject property with a world- class destination that would provide significant economic and community benefits for Nassau County, the Town of Hempstead, and the entire region, as envisioned in these local and regional plans.

Overall, the growth inducement and beneficial secondary economic impacts that are expected to result from the proposed Integrated Resort are consistent with the legislative intent of the PDDs at Mitchel Field, the MFM Zoning District, the contemplated MF-IRD, as well as various land use and planning studies.

‌439 Nassau County Comprehensive Plan (1998); Nassau County Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008); Hub Major Investment Study (2006); Long Island Regional Economic Development Council: A Strategic Economic Development Plan For The Long Island Region (2011); and Long Island on the Rise: A Region Reaching for New Heights of Innovation and Inclusion: The Strategic Economic Development Plan for Long Island (2016).

In addition to the direct economic and fiscal benefits of the proposed Integrated Resort discussed in Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, a significant number of not only direct, but also indirect and induced jobs and substantial tax revenue would be generated, serving as an economic stimulus for Uniondale and surrounding communities, the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County. Additional regional benefits are expected as Sands plans to source many of its materials, employees, and food supplies from Long Island and the greater metropolitan area.

The proposed Integrated Resort is expected to have positive secondary or growth-inducing impacts as small businesses in and around Nassau County are expected to benefit from the presence of the Integrated Resort. Sands proposes to support small businesses directly through vendor purchase and serving as a driver of substantial leisure and business tourism. In addition to drawing an anticipated 10 million annual domestic and global visitors, the proposed Integrated Resort is likely to recapture spending from New Yorkers that would have otherwise visited casino properties outside of New York State.

Sands would also work in partnership with local restaurants to develop the food and beverage program elements for the Integrated Resort. As an example, Sands has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Poll Restaurants, an operator of Long Island restaurants for over thirty years. Poll owns several high-end establishments in the area such as Bryant & Cooper Steakhouse. Sands has also entered into an MOU would Anthony Scotto Restaurants, who operate 6 full-service restaurants on Long Island: Blackstone Steakhouse, Rare650 Prime Steak & Sushi, Insignia Prime Steak and Sushi, Opus Mediterranean Steakhouse, One10 Modern Italian Steakhouse, Bijou Modern American Asian.

In addition to the secondary benefits described above, Sands has committed to promoting existing businesses and drawing tourists to the area that could greatly benefit existing venues and attractions. Sands proposes to market day-trip destinations to wineries, golf courses, beaches, ocean activities; to introduce room booking packages (e.g., a room paired with Islanders tickets and a winery tour); and to feature Long Island wines in their restaurants and hotel rooms. Therefore, the proposed Integrated Resort is anticipated to advance the tourist industry on Long Island, not just due to the Resort itself, but in coordination and cooperation with other tourist attractions.

The proposed Integrated Resort, attracting tourists to the area, is also expected to benefit the existing cultural resources and park facilities located in the adjacent area, such as Museum Row and the 913-acre Eisenhower Park, as detailed in Section 3.12, Cultural Resources. The Cradle of Aviation Museum, which is part of Museum Row, has endorsed the proposed Integrated Resort saying that it “aligns with our mission of promoting education, culture and the overall well-being of Long Island.” The proposed action would “be a catalyst for economic growth in the region” and has the “potential for collaborative events and partnerships between the resort and cultural institutions like the Cradle of Aviation” fostering a “vibrant cultural scene, enriching the lives of residents and visitors alike” (Appendix 7-1).

As a new entertainment destination, the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to attract more tourists to the area, thereby increasing hotel bookings and revenue. The anticipated increase in visitors to the Integrated Resort is expected to increase business activity for nearby hotels. The volume of visitors to the area due to the proposed Integrated Resort is expected to significantly increase the nearby hotels’ tourism footprint.

Beneficial secondary effects, similar to those projected as a result of the proposed Integrated Resort, have been realized as a result of other Sands developments. For example, Sands Bethlehem was built on a 124-acre site that was part of the former Bethlehem Steel plant. When Sands Bethlehem acquired the property in 2007, it was the largest privately owned brownfield site in the country. The facility grew from just a casino to a facility with a hotel, events center, retail use and restaurants/bars. As of 2017, Sands had invested approximately $1 billion in the project. In addition to the direct employment and positive tax impacts that the resort had on the Bethlehem area, including Northampton County, the facility also became the catalyst for additional development across the local economy, which resulted in revitalization and other benefits in the surrounding community. The Mayor at the time of the opening, John Callahan, had been waiting for preservation plans for the steel mill to materialize, but after they didn’t, he noted that “the casino emerged, and gaming as a vehicle helped this community realize a vision we had for the site. It became the economic driver, the new focal point for us to see the redevelopment of the site.”440

As a further example, the Sands Expo, which opened in 1990 (now known as the Venetian Expo, which is part of the Venetian Resort Las Vegas) served as a catalyst to transition Las Vegas from primarily a tourism destination for weekend leisure travelers to a meetings/conferences and business destination. By introducing meeting rooms, exhibition halls and ballrooms, the resort incorporated the new concept of focusing on serving the meeting needs of business travelers who typically exhibit complementary visitation patterns to leisure tourists (weekday versus weekend visitation). As a result, Las Vegas was able to attract a consistent flow of visitors into the city, which led to a surge in demand for all tourism amenities and a record-high hotel occupancy. This transformation led to a multi-decade growth of gaming and non-gaming revenue for the city, sparking continuous capital investment from other operators and developers to further cement the city’s status as one of the most sought-after tourism destinations in the United States.

Another example of positive growth inducement from Sands’ investments, Marina Bay Sands was originally envisioned to be a catalyst to spur the development of the Marina Bay business hub in Singapore. The success of Marina Bay Sands has catalyzed the construction of multiple Grade-A office and commercial developments in the area surrounding the resort, including the Marina Bay Financial Centre, Marina One Offices and Residences, Marina Bay Link Mall and Asia Square. These developments established the Marina Bay area as a preferred choice for many leading commercial institutions, reinforcing Singapore as a major international business hub.

The positive growth inducement from other Sands’ resorts is not unique, as studies have documented the benefits of casinos and resort casinos. An October 2023 article by the Associated Press (AP News) reported that the economic activity generated by casinos in the United States is approximately $329 billion per year. Approximately 1.8 million jobs were supported by commercial and tribal casinos in the United States, and these jobs generated approximately $104 billion in wages, representing an increase of 40 percent from 2017. In addition, approximately $52.7 billion in taxes was paid to federal, state and local governments in

‌440 Cape Cod Times. Casino Rebirth: Bethlehem Sands revitalizes fading city (November 10, 2013). Available at https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2013/11/10/casino-rebirth-bethlehem-sands-revitalizes/41932668007/. Accessed February 2024.

2022, representing an increase of 29 percent since 2017. The AP News article included quotes from Jane Bokunewicz, Director of the Lloyd Levenson Institute at New Jersey’s Stockton University, indicating that, among other things, “[c]asinos are often the largest employers in a region, with major commitments in terms of wages and benefits.” Bokunewicz also state that “people employed by casinos use those wages and benefits to purchase additional goods and services, generating secondary economic impact.” This article also reported Bokunewicz’ commentary that casinos spend significant sums on operating costs, including purchases of goods and services like food, linen, hotel room amenities, laundry services, and building maintenance. The casinos hire local builders and vendors for construction and ongoing capital improvements. All of this contributes to positive growth in areas where casinos are situated, and it is expected that the proposed Integrated Resort would serve to induce similar economic growth.

The UMass Donahue Institute’s Economic & Public Policy Research Group prepared an economic impact analysis of Encore Boston Harbor, a casino and resort in Everett, Massachusetts (bordering Boston), which opened in 2019. This analysis, published in November 2023, evaluated economic impacts from the first 3.5 years of operations.441 Among other things, this analysis documented the economic growth generated by Encore Boston Harbor:

Although Encore Boston Harbor has been open since the summer of 2019, 2022 was its first full year of operation without any shutdowns or restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. . . In 2022, the $1.1 billion dollars spent in and around Encore Boston Harbor by casino patrons supported an average of 3,282 positions at the casino, paying $206 million in compensation, and created demand for $85.4 million of intermediate goods and services purchased from vendors by Encore Boston Harbor. . . In addition to the 3,282 jobs directly supported by the casino, new spending from vendors, government entities, and new employees, along with shifts in spending from casino patrons led to another 6,635 jobs on net, for a total of 9,917 jobs supported by the casino. The majority of those jobs are located in the Metro Boston region.

Encore Boston Harbor also supported $1.1 billion in new personal income and $1.7 billion in new output (sales) within the Massachusetts economy, of which $1.3 billion was value added (i.e., net new economic activity or gross state product).

This study also demonstrates the positive growth generated by resort casinos. The proposed Integrated Resort is expected to generate the same type of positive growth impacts.

As demonstrated above, while implementation of the proposed action would not induce growth as a result of infrastructure improvements, the over $5 billion investment by Sands would generate myriad secondary benefits. In addition, there would be positive growth inducement for existing businesses and cultural facilities that would benefit from the increased activity and tourism associated with the proposed Integrated Resort.

‌441Encore Boston Harbor, First Three and a Half Years of Operation: Economic Impacts Report, UMass Donahue Institute’s Economic & Public Policy Research Group, November 2023, accessed at Encore Boston Harbor, First Three and a Half Years of Operation: (umass.edu), July 26, 2024

‌Alternatives and Their Impacts

The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR §617.9(b)(5)(v), require that an environmental impact statement include, in pertinent part:

› No Action, no additional development occurs on the subject property

› Redevelopment of the subject property,442 assuming a gaming license is not awarded (see

Appendix 8-1 for the Alternative CMP)

› MFM-Compliant Plan (see Figure 20 ).443

Table 133 provides a comparison of the quantitative impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives.

‌442 This alternative includes the rezoning of the Marriott to the proposed MF-IRD. However, no changes in the use or expansions of the Marriott Hotel are proposed under this alternative. Unlike the proposed action, there would not be any physical alterations to the Marriott Hotel property under this alternative (the proposed action includes reconfiguration of parking at the Marriott Hotel property, while this alternative does not).

‌443 As explained in Section 8.3, below, as the MFM-Compliant Plan is not feasible for Sands to pursue, no quantitative environmental analysis has been performed.

‌Table 133 Comparison of Alternatives

Parameter	Proposed Action (Integrated Resort)	Alternative CMP (No Gaming License Awarded)	No Action
Size of subject property	86.3± acres	86.3± acres 444	86.3± acres
Type of Development	Entertainment/Hospitality	Mixed-Use, including Residential	Entertainment/Hospitality
	Casino Hotels Meeting and conference space	Residential Hotel Food and Beverage

Proposed Uses

Food and Beverage Retail

Performance Venue Public Attraction Space Veterans Memorial Spa

Retail

Entertainment Retail Multipurpose Recreational Facility Performance Venue

Medical Office

Research & Development Office Veterans Memorial

Coliseum Hotel

Veterans Memorial

Gross Floor Area, excluding basements and structured parking 3,751,672 square feet 2,365,913 square feet 643,923 square feet

Floor Area Ratio, excluding basements and structured parking	1.0 445	0.76444	0.17 446
Zoning District	Proposed MF-IRD	Proposed MF-IRD	MFM
Public Open Space	3.4± acres	3.16± acres	0 acres
Pervious Surface	15.7± acres	29.4± acres	8.3± acres
Impervious Surface	70.6± acres	42.2± acres	78.0± acres
Material Displacement/Earthwork/Demolition Debris	660,000± CY	97,000± CY	N/A
Population (direct)	0 447	949	0
Public School-Aged Children (direct)	04	41 (direct, on-site)	0
Solid Waste	623± tons per month	395± tons per month	157± tons per month
Stormwater Runoff	1,344,267± cubic feet	925,379±cubic feet	1,459,516± cubic feet
Domestic Water Demand/Sewage Generation 448	701,400± gpd	378,300± gpd	230,000± gpd
Permanent (Operational) Annual Jobs (Direct)449	7,800±	2,790±	478±
Total Annual Permanent Jobs (Direct, Indirect, Induced)6	12,365±	4,096±	543±

‌444 Under this alternative, while the Marriott Hotel property would be rezoned to MF-IRD, there would be no physical alterations to the Marriott Hotel property (i.e., no reconfiguration of parking, as is proposed under the Proposed Action – Integrated Resort). Accordingly, with the exception of site acreage (i.e., acreage to be rezoned), the quantitative impacts in this table do not include the Marriott Hotel property, as the physical site and all operations at the Marriott Hotel would remain the same under this alternative.

‌445 The calculation of Floor Area Ratio for the proposed MF-IRD excludes the following portions of a building or structure: (1) a basement or cellar located entirely below grade. Such basement or cellar may be used all or in part for required parking spaces; (2) parking structures; (3) an arcade, covered plaza, porte cochere, or atrium; (4) a pedestrian mall or plaza; and (5) an open-air park, recreational area or outdoor entertainment area.

‌446 The calculation of Floor Area Ratio for the MFM Zoning District indicates that the area of the public rights-of-way specified in § 146.1.O(3) shall be deducted from the lot area whether said rights-of-way are actually established or not. Furthermore, the following portions of a building or structure shall be the only exemptions from the calculation of floor area: (1) a basement or cellar located entirely below grade. Such basement or cellar may be used all or in part for required parking spaces; (2) the portion of a building or freestanding parking structure used for required parking spaces that is located on the grade level of the building or parking structure; (3) an arcade, covered plaza or atrium that is not used for any purpose other than pedestrian traffic; (4) a pedestrian mall or plaza; and (5) all freestanding or attached parking structures providing the required parking spaces for the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

‌447 The Integrated Resort would not result in direct population or school-aged children impacts, as there would be no residences on the site. Potential indirect population/school aged children are presented in Section 3.10.2, Community Facilities and Services.

‌448 Does not include irrigation.

‌449 The permanent jobs, including direct, indirect and induced, are new jobs associated with the Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP. The number of permanent jobs for the no action alternative reflect the current existing condition for the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

Parameter	Proposed Action (Integrated Resort)	Alternative CMP (No Gaming License Awarded)	No Action
Total Annual Operational Labor Income (NYS)450	$1.26± billion	$306.6± million	$14± million
Total Annual Operational Output (NYS)6	$4.06± billion	$826.2± million	$29± million
Total Annual Operational State Tax (NYS)6	$154.2± million	$33.4± million	N/A
Total Annual Operational Local Tax (including County and Town)	$632.2.6± million 451	$40.7± million	N/A
Construction Jobs (Direct)	7,000±	3,970±	0
Total Construction Labor Income (NYS)6	$1.68± billion	$1.06± billion	0
Total Construction Output (NYS)6	$5.3± billion	$3.35± billion	0
Total Construction State Tax (NYS)6	$147.4± million	$94.2± million	0
Total Construction Local Tax (including County and Town)	$9.8± million	$7.2± million	0
Parking Spaces	12,450 (2,487 surface parking spaces)	6,380 (1,281 surface parking spaces)	7,400± surface parking spaces
Traffic Generation AM Weekday Peak Hour	1,455 vehicle trips 452	995 vehicle trips	185 vehicle trips 454
PM Weekday Peak Hour	2,304	2,404	99
Friday Evening Peak	3,107	--453	23
Saturday Midday Peak	3,011	3,082	73
Saturday Evening Peak	4,186	--10	229
Note: N/A = Not Available/Not Applicable

‌450 The totals for labor income, output, state tax and local tax for both the operational and construction periods consider direct, indirect and induced contributions at Full Build.

‌451 For the proposed Integrated Resort, guaranteed host community gaming revenue to Nassau County is $25 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $50 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation. Guaranteed host community gaming revenue to the Town of Hempstead is $10 million for the first three years of casino operation, rising to a guarantee of $20 million per year after the first three years of casino operation, with two percent annual escalation.

‌452 The trip generation associated with the Marriott Hotel is not new trip generation, as the trips already exist on the roadway network and there would be no change to hotel operations.

‌453 As the Alternative Plan (No Casino License Awarded) does not include a traffic generator with a use that would generate significant traffic during the Friday or Saturday Evening Peaks, these time periods did not require analysis. The PM Peak hour is the peak traffic period for the Alternative Plan.

‌454 The trip generation figures reflect existing conditions for the Coliseum property.

‌No Action
According to The SEQR Handbook ,455 the “no action” alternative is required to be discussed to
provide a baseline for evaluation of impacts and comparisons of other impacts. The substance of the no action discussion should be a description of the likely circumstances at the project site if the project does not proceed (page 120).
The no action alternative assumes that the Coliseum property and Marriott Hotel would either continue to function as they currently do, with minimal activity at the Coliseum (which is substantially underutilized). The no action alternative would not meet the objectives of Nassau County or Sands, as set forth in the proposed lease. The properties would remain in the MFM Zoning District, and they could be subject to future development proposals pursuant to such zoning. However, it is not possible to predict a future development scenario nor is it reasonable to speculate what development could occur, particularly on the Coliseum property. Nassau County would continue to own the property on which the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and Marriott Hotel sit, and it is assumed for this analysis that the Marriott Hotel would remain at its current operating level, and that activity at the Coliseum property would continue to decline.
Since the MFM Zoning District was created by the Town in 2011 after the proposed Lighthouse at Long Island redevelopment application was abandoned, there have been two unsuccessful attempts at redevelopment of the subject property pursuant to the MFM Zoning District (not including the MSKCC facility, which is discussed below and is not part of the subject property), as described in Section 2.3.2, Prior Applications, and Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character. The NEC CMP application was approved but the overall Coliseum property was never redeveloped in accordance with the approved CMP (with the exception of the Coliseum renovation), and the subsequent application for the Nassau Hub Innovation District did not proceed. Therefore, as discussed in Section 3.4, the creation of the MFM Zoning District has not resulted in substantive new development at the Coliseum property, and thus, has not advanced the legislative intent of the MFM Zoning District, the PDDs at Mitchel Field, or the goals of various relevant land use plans. The only changes that have occurred at the subject site are the renovation of the Coliseum building, some renovations at the Marriott (but no changes in operations), and sale of a five-acre portion of the site and development of the MSKCC facility in 2019 (about to undergo a previously-approved expansion - see discussion in Section 4.2 of this DEIS).
The impacts that are described below generally coincide with those of the existing condition or the 2030 No Build condition. A comparison of the quantifiable impacts under this no action alternative to those of the proposed action and the Alternative CMP (should a gaming license not be granted), is presented in Table 133 .

‌455 NYSDEC. The SEQR Handbook Fourth Edition, 2020 (2020). Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf, Accessed July, 2023.
1. ‌Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions
  As this alternative does not involve demolition, excavation, construction or any disturbance to the land, there would be no changes to soils and topography, whereas the proposed action and Alternative CMP would result in demolition, excavation and construction, as described in Section 3.1.2, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions. With respect to subsurface and environmental conditions at the subject property, the Phase II Environmental Site Investigations for both the Coliseum and the Marriott Hotel did not identify any issues of significant concern with respect to subsurface conditions, although some environmental issues were disclosed (e.g., presence of ACM and lead-based paint) that would be required to be addressed or remediated should redevelopment occur. Since no redevelopment would occur under this alternative, the remediation of such environmental issues would not be expected to occur. Based on the foregoing, the no action alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to soils, topography or subsurface conditions nor would it result in the remediation of identified environmental issues.
2. ‌Water Resources
  There would be no impact to groundwater resources under the No-Action alternative as there would be no demolition, construction or new development on the subject property. Additionally, with the anticipated continued decline in the use of the Coliseum, the amount of water demand and sewage generation associated with that facility would be expected to continue to decrease. Further, there would also be no change in stormwater runoff as there would be no site alterations, and the existing drainage system would remain. As the operations of the Marriott Hotel are not expected to change, no substantial changes to water use or sewage generation are expected (Table 133) at that property. The Town of Hempstead Water Department and MFWSA would continue to supply water to the subject property and no changes to water infrastructure are anticipated under this alternative (no new public supply well would be constructed).
  Furthermore, the Nassau County sewer system would continue to handle sewage flow and the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant would continue to treat sewage effluent from both facilities, with no changes in infrastructure anticipated. Additionally, there would be no changes to the amount of impervious surface or associated stormwater runoff, under the no action alternative. As there are no surface waters or wetlands located on or directly adjacent to the subject property, there would be no impact to such resources.
3. ‌Ecological Resources
  The nominal ecological resources found on the subject property provide a minimum degree of vegetated habitat functional benefits. Due to low species diversity and overall scarcity of vegetation, as well as the absence of naturally vegetated communities and native plant associations, the subject property is not a locally or regionally significant source of vegetated habitats. The no action alternative would not alter this condition.
4. ‌Zoning, Land Use and Community Character
  Zoning of the subject property would remain MFM Zoning District and would continue to permit a variety of uses on the site. However, as described in detail in Section 3.4, Land Use Zoning and
  Community Character, the lack of redevelopment of this important property continues not to fulfill the stated legislative intent of the MFM Zoning District, the PDDs at Mitchel Field, or the region’s concepts for revitalizing this site with a transformative development that serves as an economic engine, as documented in various land use plans.
  Under the no action alternative, the use of the property would remain as entertainment/hospitality. However, under the no action condition, it is expected that the intensity of Coliseum use would further decline, and the operation may eventually close. The Marriott Hotel, though physically updated over the years, has not substantially altered its operations. Under this alternative, the Marriott would remain as a use on the subject property.
  The character of the subject property, which has remained underutilized for over a decade, and which is a prominent parcel within the Town and the County, would essentially remain as it is under the no action alternative. While the Coliseum building was renovated within the last ten years, the overall property has not been positively contributing to the image or character of the community, and it has continued to deteriorate with declining use. Under the no action alternative, the property would not be transformed into the next-generation, mixed-use entertainment destination envisioned in the proposed lease.
  Leaving the Coliseum property as is would increasingly have a negative impact on the character of the community, as the level of activity would continue to decline and regional objectives would not be realized. Furthermore, the no action alternative would not fulfill the legislative intent of the MFM Zoning District, as well as county and regional plans for the transformative development of the subject property.
5. ‌Transportation and Parking
  As shown on Table 133, above, the traffic associated with the no action condition would be significantly lower than that associated with the proposed action and the Alternative CMP (no gaming license awarded). However, the no action alternative would not include any improvements that would address some of the existing deficiencies in the existing transportation network nor other bicycle and pedestrian connections included in the proposed action.
  Traffic volumes for the subject property under the no action alternative would remain as they currently exist, and potentially decline with the continuing reduction in activity at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. There would, however, be general traffic background growth and increased traffic from OPDs (No Build condition).456 The LOS tables in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking, illustrate the differences between the No Build (i.e., reflecting no change at the subject property) condition and the build condition (with the proposed Integrated Resort). The TIS (Appendix 3.5-1) and Section 8.2.5, below, describe the differences in LOS among the No Build condition, the proposed Integrated Resort, and the Alternative CMP (with No Gaming License Awarded) and Table 133 provides a comparison of peak hour generated traffic among these development scenarios. The analysis shows generally minor increases in delays between the existing and No Build conditions with few changes to LOS, due to background growth and OPDs, with no changes on the subject property.
  
  ‌456 Reflected in the 2030 No Build condition discussed in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking and the TIS in Appendix 3.5-1.
  There would be no changes to parking under the no action alternative. The vast areas of surface parking on both the Coliseum and Marriott parcels would remain, with the majority of parking spaces being unoccupied most of the time.
6. ‌Air Quality
  Under the no action alternative, as operations on the subject property would not change, there would no change in stationary source impacts to air quality from the no action alternative. There would also be no additional traffic generated at the subject property, thus, the no action alternative would not increase mobile emissions. As indicated in the Traffic and Parking discussion immediately above, over time, there would be general background traffic growth and traffic generation associated with OPDs, however, this traffic growth is not directly related to activity on the subject property (Coliseum activity is expected to continue to decline, which would result in less traffic associated with that operation). Thus, under the no action condition, the subject property would not generate additional mobile emissions.
7. ‌Noise and Vibration
  The noise levels (both stationary and mobile) at and around the subject property would not change under the no action alternative, and would likely decline in relation to the anticipated decrease in intensity of the use of the Coliseum. No change in noise levels at the Marriott property are anticipated under this alternative. No vibrations are associated with existing operations on the subject property. Therefore, there would be no change in noise or vibration impacts associated with the no action alterative.
8. ‌Socioeconomics
  The current economic benefits (including permanent jobs, entertainment and sales taxes, and rent) associated with the operation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum are expected to further decline under the no action alternative as less activity occurs and ticket sales shrink. There would be no additional secondary economic activity under the no action alternative. Economic activity associated with the Marriott Hotel is not expected to substantially change. The no action alternative would realize none of the substantial economic/fiscal benefits or employment opportunities for the State, County, Town and region associated with the proposed action.
9. ‌Community Facilities and Services
  As there is and would continue to be no permanent population associated with the subject property, there would be no impact on educational facilities under the no action alternative. Police and fire protection/ambulance services would still be required, even though less overall activity is expected to occur, particularly on the Coliseum property. Solid waste would continue to be generated, but would continue to be handled by a private carter and may decrease with declining Coliseum operations. As no changes to the Marriott are anticipated under the no action alternative, no changes in community services would be expected.
10. ‌Aesthetic Resources
  Initially the aesthetic resources of the subject property would remain as in the current condition. However, over time, with the expected decline in the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, the Coliseum building and property may further degrade, diminishing the site’s visual characteristics, and negatively impacting the aesthetics of the area. The existing views into the subject property from surrounding roadways and from adjacent private properties would remain, as detailed in Section 3.11, Aesthetics. The majority of the site, aside from the Coliseum and Marriott buildings, would continue to remain as asphalt parking with minimal landscaping and visual interest. Therefore, the aesthetics of the no action alternative would generally remain unchanged with a potential for additional degradation of the Coliseum property.
11. ‌Cultural Resources
  Section 3.12, Cultural Resources documents that the subject property is not located within an archaeologically-sensitive area. Moreover, there are no State or National-Register-Eligible or Listed buildings situated on or substantially contiguous to the subject property. Furthermore, there are no Town landmarks identified either on or adjacent to the subject property. Thus, no such resources would be affected by this alternative.
12. ‌Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities
  The no action alternative would result in the same or less energy use over time, as the level of activity at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum is expected to continue to decrease. As no changes in the Marriott are expected, there would be no change in energy use associated with that facility. As there would be no changes to the use of the property, no changes to utility infrastructure would be required.
13. ‌Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability
  As there would be no new construction or redevelopment on the subject property in the no action alternative, no GHG emissions associated with construction activities would occur. Under the no action alternative, it is assumed that the Coliseum property and the Marriott Hotel would continue to operate as they currently do. As activity at the Coliseum is anticipated to continue to decline, the potential exists that associated operational GHG emissions may also decrease over time (including direct emissions from stationary sources [e.g., use of natural gas and fossil fuel- powered emergency generators for building operations] and mobile sources [e.g., fleet vehicles], as well as indirect GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption, patron and employee travel trips, and solid waste and landfilling). Existing GHG emissions associated with normal day- to-day operations at the Marriott Hotel are anticipated to remain consistent with existing conditions.
14. ‌Construction
  Pursuant to the no action alternative, there would be no demolition or construction occurring on the subject property. Therefore, there would no impacts associated with same.

‌Redevelopment of the Coliseum Property, Assuming a Gaming License is Not Awarded (Alternative CMP)

According to the proposed lease with Nassau County, should New York State not grant a gaming license to Sands for redevelopment of the subject property, the Lessee is required to develop a mixed-use complex, including a “Ritz-Carlton,” “St. Regis” or equivalently-branded hotel containing at least 200 rooms and amenities, including 24-hour reception, a concierge, dining, valet parking, a pool, a fitness center and suites; up to 500 residences, which may include workforce housing, condominium units or cooperative units; an entertainment venue containing a minimum of 3,600 seats; and any other lawful use subject to the County’s prior written consent. Sands is also required to make specific payments and provide certain community benefits, even if the gaming license is not awarded, as described in the sections below.

Based on the non-gaming scenario, the Alternative CMP, featuring a mixed-use, live-work-play development, has been depicted on an alternative Conceptual Master Plan (Alternative CMP) prepared by H2M (Figure 59 and Appendix 8-1), in accordance with the proposed MF-IRD zoning district. Both the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property and the Marriott Hotel property would be rezoned to MF-IRD under this Alternative CMP – the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum would be demolished and removed under this alternative, but the Marriott Hotel would remain as is (no reconfiguration of parking is proposed, as it is with the proposed action). In addition, no changes in use or expansion of the Marriott Hotel are proposed under this alternative, thus, the Marriott Hotel is not depicted on the Alternative CMP included in Appendix 8-1.

As no physical changes are proposed to the Marriott Hotel property under this alternative, Table 134 presents a summary of the Alternative CMP development program that would occur on the Coliseum property.

‌Table 134 Alternative CMP Development Program

Proposed Use	Size (Square Feet)	Size (Other Units)
Residential	992,781	500 units
Retail	40,000	--
Restaurants	50,000	1,352± seats (estimated)
Hotel	631,794	500 keys
Performing Arts Center	147,865	3,600 seats
Multipurpose Recreational Facility	200,000	--
R&D Office Space	100,384	--
Medical Office Space	180,058	--
Veterans Memorial	23,031	--
TOTAL FLOOR AREA	2,365,913	--
Parking Structures*	1,938,221	5,099 spaces (in structures)* with 1,281 additional surface parking spaces, totaling 6,380

*Includes basement, ground level parking areas, and above grade parking structures.

SITE DATA

NCTM: SEC. 44, BLK. F, LOT 351, 411, 412, & 415

ZONING: MF-IRD: MITCHEL FIELD INTEGRATED RESORT DISTRICT

LOT AREA: 3,118,981 SF (71.60 AC)

EXISTING BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA: 104,993 SF (COLISEUM)

PROPOSED BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA: 2,365,913 SF (EXCLUDING BASEMENTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES) FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.76

BUILDING AREAS:

LEGEND

DESCRIPTION SYMBOL

PARKING GARAGE

MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING

USE (EXCLUDING STRUCTURED PARKING) BASEMENT AREA ABOVE GRADE AREA UNITS

RESIDENTIAL RETAIL	0 SF 0 SF	992,781 SF 40,000 SF	500 UNITS	RESIDENTIAL
RESTAURANTS	0 SF	50,000 SF	1,352 SEATS
HOTEL PERFORMING ARTS CENTER	0 SF 0 SF	631,794 SF 147,865 SF	500 KEYS 3,600 SEATS	PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
MULTIPURPOSE RECREATIONAL FACILITY	0 SF	200,000 SF
R&D OFFICE BUILDINGS VETERANS MEMORIAL	0 SF 0 SF	100,384 SF 23,031 SF		HOTEL TOWER

‌538 Broad Hollow Road, 4th Floor East Melville, NY 11747

631.756.8000 ƒ www.h2m.com

R=741.00'

A=26.70'

D=2°03'53"

CB=S 72°27'28" W

R=741.00'

A=720.52'

MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS 0 SF 180,058 SF

TOTAL FLOOR AREA 0 SF 2,365,913 SF

PARKING STRUCTURES 1,938,221 SF*

* INCLUDES BASEMENT, GROUND LEVEL PARKING AREAS, AND ABOVE GRADE PARKING STRUCTURES

PARKING REQUIREMENTS:

CL=26.70'

D=55°42'43"

CB=S 43°34'10" W

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

R&D OFFICE BUILDING

CONSULTANTS:

CL=692.47'

N 73°29'27" E 822.59'

VETERANS MEMORIAL

USE (CODE SECTION) AREA / UNITS PARKING RATE PARKING REQUIREMENT

RESIDENTIAL(§319.A(1)) 500 UNITS 8 SPACES PER 3 UNITS 1,334 SPACES

RETAIL (§319.A(8)) 40,000 SF 1 SPACE PER 200 SF 200 SPACES

RESTAURANTS (§319.A(16)) 50,000 SF 1 SPACE PER 100 SF 500 SPACES

435 EMPLOYEES 1 SPACE PER 4 EMPLOYEES 109 SPACES

HOTEL (§319.A(2)) 500 KEYS 1 SPACE PER KEY 500 SPACES PERFORMANCE ARTS VENUE (§319.A(4)) 3,600 SEATS 1 SPACE PER 3 SEATS 1,200 SPACES

MULTIPURPOSE RECREATIONAL FACILITY (§MF-IRD) 200,000 SF 1 SPACE PER 200 SF 1,000 SPACES

R&D OFFICE BUILDINGS (§MF-IRD) 100,384 SF 1 SPACE PER 200 SF 502 SPACES

VETERANS MEMORIAL (§MF-IRD) 23,031 SF 1 SPACE PER 200 SF 116 SPACES

MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS (§MF-IRD) 180,058 SF 1 SPACE PER 200 SF 901 SPACES TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 6,362 SPACES

PROVIDED PARKING:

ON-GRADE OPEN AIR PARKING 1,281 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE "A" 2,423 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE "B" 600 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE "C" 1,126 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE "D" 844 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE "E" 106 SPACES

TOTAL ON-SITE PARKING PROVIDED: 6,380 SPACES

LOADING REQUIREMENTS:

TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL USE 1,373,132 SF (PARKING STRUCTURES EXCLUDED)

FIRST 40,000 SF 1 LOADING SPACES

NEXT 80,000 SF 1 LOADING SPACES

1 SPACE PER EACH ADDITIONAL 200,000 SF 7 LOADING SPACES

TOTAL LOADING REQUIREMENT 9 LOADING SPACES (12' X 30')

ENTERTAINMENT RETAIL

MIXED-USE

S 08°17'20" E

88.78'

PODIUM

(59,697 SF GFA)

(2 STORIES)

HOTEL

N 73°29'27" E 303.66'

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER

(147,865 SF GFA)

(3 STORIES)

(100.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (103.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

(2 STORIES)

(Nassau County

Roadway)

(45.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF)

PARKING GARAGE 'A'

(920,924 SF ALL LEVELS) (6 STORIES)

(1 LEVEL BG)

(77.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF)

(90.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

ENTERTAINMENT RETAIL

(241,956 SF GFA) (MULTIPURPOSE RECREATIONAL FACILITY

200,000 SF GFA) (RETAIL/ F&B 41,956 SF GFA)

(3 STORIES)

R=1720.00'

(90.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (93.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDILNG

(120,016 SF GFA)

(3 STORIES)

(45.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF)

(55.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

Charles Lindbergh

Boulevard

PARKING GARAGE 'B'

S 17°30'22" E 316.84'

MARK	DATE	DESCRIPTION

(228,059 SF ALL LEVELS) (3 STORIES)

(1 LEVEL BG)

A=600.99'

D=20°01'12"

CB=S 05°42'12" W

CL=597.94'

(40.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (50.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

S 08°17'20" E 438.22'

Earle Ovington Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

12/31/2023

R. JOEL RICHARDSON, P.E. EXP. DATE

NY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Lic. No. 099970

JEMKLT

DRAWN BY:

JMTE/KMLRO

CHECKED BY:

BJM

REVIEWED BY:

RJR

PROJECT No.:

LVSC 2301

DATE:

12/6/2023

SCALE:

AS SHOWN

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (524,800 SF GFA)

ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE:

MF-IRD: MITCHEL FIELD INTEGRATED RESORT DISTRCIT CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROVIDED FLOOR AREA RATIO §MF-IRD 1.60 MAX. 0.76

BUILDING HEIGHT (NON-HOTEL) §MF-IRD 250' MAX. 222' MAX.

HOTEL BUILDING HEIGHT §MF-IRD 280' MAX. 248' MAX.

PARKING STRUCTURE HEIGHT §MF-IRD 95' MAX. 90' MAX.

FRONT YARD §MF-IRD 10' MIN. 32.22'

REAR YARD §MF-IRD 10' MIN. 15'

LOADING ZONES §MF-IRD 9 SPACES 9 SPACES

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE §MF-IRD 3.0% (93,569.4 SF) MIN. 4.4% (137,618 SF)

LOT COVERAGE TABLE:

LAND USE AREA (SF / AC) PERCENTAGE

BUILDING COVERAGE 562,917 SF / 12.92 AC 18.01%

PARKING STRUCTURE COVERAGE 388,523 SF / 8.93 AC 12.50% IMPERVIOUS AREAS - ROADWAYS, PARKING & WALKWAYS* 884,805 SF / 20.31 AC 28.37%

LANDSCAPE AREA - EXCLUDING ROOFTOP OPEN SPACE 1,282,736 SF / 29.44 AC 41.12% TOTAL 3,118,981 SF / 71.60 AC 100%

(40.0' HT - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

HOTEL/ CONDO PODIUM

(94,594 SF GFA)

(3 STORIES)

(28.5' HT.)

CONDO

(20 STORIES) (230.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (248.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

OPEN SPACE

MIXED-USE

(300 RESIDENTIAL UNITS / 4 STORIES) (OVER 1 STORY RETAIL/ F&B 48,044 SF GFA)

(75.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF)

(85.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

PARKING GARAGE 'D'

(320,915 SF ALL LEVELS) (3 STORIES)

N 04°18'23.2" W 262.79'

EXISTING MARRIOTT HOTEL

R=1105.00'

A=427.65'

*AREA OF ROADWAY AND SURFACE PARKING AS INDICATED ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF 25% TO ACCOUNT FOR SIDEWALK AND OTHER WALKWAYS NOT DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN.

PARKING GARAGE 'C'

(427,912 SF ALL LEVELS) (3 STORIES)

(1 LEVEL BG)

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF)

CL=424.99'

East Gate Road

(Private Roadway)

(35.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

(472,320 SF GFA)

(18 STORIES)

D=22°10'27"

CB=N 06°46'50" E

(200 UNITS) (208.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (222.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

(1 LEVEL BG)

CLIENT

Sands New York

1255 Hempstead Turnpike,

Uniondale, NY 11553

NCTM: Sec. 44, Block F, Lots 351, 401, 402, 411, 412, & 415

S 17°04'37" E 361.93'

(45.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF)

(55.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET / MECH.)

R=30.00'

A=47.12'

D=89°59'33"

CB=N 62°04'24" W

CL=42.42'

S 72°55'23" W 194.98'

S 17°04'37" E

75.50'

S 72°55'23" W 131.56'

N 17°52'04.5" E 291.66'

R&D OFFICE BUILDING

R=895.00'

(40,320 SF GFA)

A=57.64'

N 17°04'37" W 586.14'

(1 STORY)

D=3°41'24"

CB=S 16°01'23" W

CL=57.63'

R=895.00'

A=374.97'

D=24°00'17"

CB=N 02°10'32" E

S 17°04'37" E 592.11'

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (33.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

S 17°04'37" E 301.41'

James Doolittle Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

PARKING GARAGE 'E'

(40,411 SF ALL LEVELS) (1 STORY)

(1 LEVEL BG)

CL=372.23'

C:\Users\elaskowski\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_25592\Conceptual Master Plan - Alternate.dwg Last Modified: Oct 22, 2024 - 10:57am Plotted on: Oct 22, 2024 - 12:24pm By ELaskowski

(10.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (13.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING

(60,042 SF GFA)

(2 STORIES)

N 64°52'15.5" W

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (33.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER (OUT PARCEL)

R&D OFFICE BUILDING

(30,032 SF GFA)

(1 STORY)

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (33.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

R&D OFFICE BUILDING

(30,032 SF GFA)

(1 STORY)

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (33.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

VETERANS MEMORIAL

N 17°04'37" W 342.04'

(23,031 SF GFA)

(1 STORY)

(30.0' HT. - TOP OF ROOF) (33.0' HT. - TOP OF PARAPET)

44.67'

937.81' TO MEADOWBROOK STATE PARKWAY

S 64°42'29.5" W 375.00'

S 64°42'29.5" W 170.89'

N 64°42'29.5" E 429.59'

CONTRACT

S 64°42'29.5" W 1117.46'

Hempstead Turnpike

(NYS Route 24)

GRAPHIC SCALE

STATUS

Glenn Curtiss

Boulevard

(Nassau County Roadway)

SHEET TITLE

100

( IN FEET )

50 100

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN

MF-IRD ZONE

Figure 59: Alternative Conceptual Master Plan

1 inch = 100 ft.

DRAWING No.

CMPA 1.0

As shown in Table 134, above, the overall size of the Alternative CMP is approximately 4.3 million sf, including the 1.9± million sf comprising the parking garages. Based on the proposed MF-IRD, the floor area ratio of the Coliseum property under the Alternative CMP is 0.76.

Proposed land coverages as compared to the existing coverages for the subject property (Coliseum only, as no physical changes are proposed to the Marriott Hotel property) are detailed in Table 135, below.

‌Table 135 Existing and Proposed Land Coverages

Type of Coverage	Existing Coverage in Acres (Percent) for Coliseum Parcel Only	Proposed Coverage (Alternative CMP) In Acres (Percent)
Buildings	3.2± acres (4.4±%)	12.9± acres (18.0±%)*
Parking Structures	0.0 (0.0)	8.9± (12.5±%)**
Surface Parking Areas	44.7± (62.5±%)	9.3± (12.9±%)
Roadways	7.6± (10.6±%)	8.8± (12.4±%)
Walkways/Plazas/Other Hardscape	9.2± (12.8±%)	2.2± (3.1±%)
Landscaping, Lawn and Pervious Surfaces	6.9± (9.7±%)	29.4± (41.1±%)
Total:	71.6± acres (100±%)	71.6± acres (100±% )
*Excludes attached parking structures.

**Includes both attached and detached parking structures.

The Alternative CMP shown in Figure 59 and Appendix 8-1, consists of various integrated uses to be developed on the Coliseum property, as described in more detail below. Construction of the Alternative CMP is expected to occur in two major phases that would overlap between Phase 1 and Phase 2. For comparative impact analysis purposes, Phase 1 is projected to commence in early 2026 and be completed at the end of 2027. Phase 2 is projected to begin sometime in 2026 and be completed at the end of 2030.

Residential

The Alternative CMP contains two areas of residential development – a 200-unit, 18-story, 222- foot-tall residential condominium located along Earle Ovington Boulevard and connected to the proposed hotel to the north through a three-story podium. This residential development is connected to and would be served by Parking Garage C, as described below.

The second residential area is proposed to be located in the center of the subject property, wrapping Parking Garage D and extending to the northeast and southwest. This residential area would contain 300 apartments located over one story of retail and food and beverage space, forming a mixed-use building.

Both residential areas are situated adjacent to the proposed open space, as described below.

Hotel

A 20-story, 248-foot-tall, 500-key luxury-branded hotel would be connected to a two-story podium on the west and linked to the proposed residential condominium building situated along Earle Ovington Boulevard, southwest of the Performing Arts Center (PAC) under the Alternative CMP. As indicated below, the hotel would be served by Parking Garage C. Pursuant to

the proposed lease, hotel amenities would include twenty-four hour reception, a concierge, dining, valet parking, a pool, a fitness center and suites.

Retail/Restaurants

The Alternative CMP contains a number of retail and entertainment retail components. A 50,000- sf retail and food and beverage component would comprise the ground floor level of the five- story, 75-foot-tall mixed-use building, with residential apartments above. This component wraps around Parking Garage D, noted above, and is located at the center of the subject property.

Entertainment Retail/Multipurpose Recreational Facility

Another component of the Alternative CMP is Entertainment Retail, which would be located in the northern portion of the subject property, south of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, to the rear of proposed Parking Garage A, and adjacent to the PAC. The three-story, 93-foot-tall Entertainment Retail complex would contain approximately 42,000 sf of retail/food and beverage space, as well as 200,000 sf of multipurpose recreation.

Performing Arts Center

The PAC is proposed to be three stories, 103 feet in height and linked to the entertainment retail/multipurpose recreational facility, forming an entertainment complex at the northern extent of the site (between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and Earle Ovington Boulevard). Parking Garage A would serve the 3,600-seat PAC, as described below.

Research & Development (R&D) Office Space

The Alternative CMP contains an R&D office complex at the southern portion of the subject property, set back from Hempstead Turnpike, surrounded by new internal roadways. The buildings would be situated adjacent to MSKCC, located to the west. As depicted on the Alternative CMP, the R&D complex would contain three, one-story, 33-foot-tall buildings arranged in a campus-like setting, ranging from approximately 30,000 sf to 40,000 sf for a total of 100,384 sf. The R&D buildings would be served by surface parking.

Medical Office Space

The Alternative CMP depicts two areas of medical office space – one in the southwest corner and one in the northeast corner of the subject property. The building at the southwest corner, between Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike, is proposed to be two stories, 33 feet in height and contain approximately 60,000 sf. This building would be situated adjacent to MSKCC, which is located to the east.

The other medical office building is proposed to be situated in the northeast corner of the subject property, between the new north-south roadway and James Doolittle Boulevard, south of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. This building is proposed to be three stories, 55 feet in height and approximately 120,000 sf. This medical office building would be served by Parking Garage B, as described below. Overall, the total medical office space on the subject site would be approximately 180,000 sf.

Veterans Memorial

The proposed one-story veterans memorial comprising just over 23,000 square feet, would be located east of the easternmost access to the development along Hempstead Turnpike. As with the proposed action, the design would be informed by input from local area veterans.

Parking Garages and Surface Parking

The Alternative CMP contains five separate parking garages with a total of 5,099 spaces, as summarized in Table 136. The parking garages range in height from 13 feet (Parking Garage E) to 90 feet (Parking Garage A).

‌Table 136 Proposed Parking Garages

Parking Garage	Number of Parking Spaces	Number of Levels of Structure	Location/Building(s) Served
A	2,423	7 (1 below	Between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and the
		grade)	new easternmost north-south roadway, generally
			serving the PAC and Entertainment Retail
B	600	4 (1 below	Adjacent James Doolittle Boulevard, south of
		grade)	Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, generally serving
			the northern medical office building
C	1,126	4 (1 below	Between Earle Ovington Boulevard and the
		grade	westernmost north-south roadway, generally
			serving the 200-unit condominium building and
			attached hotel
D	844	5	At the center of the subject site surrounded by the
			new internal roadways, wrapping the mixed-use
			building containing 300 residential units with
			retail/food and beverage at ground level
E	106	1 (1 below	North of the Veterans Memorial, located at the
		grade and	eastern border of the property, mainly serving the
		one at the	veterans memorial
		surface)

The five parking garages would have a total floor area (including the basement, ground level and above-ground levels) of1,938,221 sf. Access to all garages would be internal to the subject site (there would be no direct garage access from the existing roadways surrounding the subject property). Aside from the parking garages, 1,281 surface parking spaces are proposed across the development. Surface parking is located surrounding the mixed-use building at the center of the subject property, at the medical office building located at the southwest corner of the site and at the R&D office buildings, situated north of Hempstead Turnpike. In total, the Alternative CMP provides 6,380 parking spaces, about half of the number included for the Proposed Integrated Resort.

Open Space

The Alternative CMP incorporates 3.16± acres of public open space (designated as open space on the Alternative CMP), exceeding the 2.15± acres required by the proposed MF-IRD zoning code.

Access and Infrastructure

Access to the site would be provided by new roadways, similar to those of the proposed Integrated Resort. There would be one north-south access roadway traversing the site from Hempstead Turnpike at the south (aligning with Glenn Curtiss Boulevard) to Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at the north. A second north-south access road, to the west (adjacent to MSKCC) would run from Hempstead Turnpike at the south to a new east-west road at the north, aligning with Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard. This new east-west road near the northern extent of the subject property would traverse the property from Earle Ovington Boulevard at the west to the new easternmost north-south road. This wider roadway would jog slightly to the north and intersect with James Doolittle Boulevard. A second east-west road would traverse the central portion of the site, aligning with East Gate Boulevard (at Earle Ovington Boulevard) to the west and meeting the easternmost north-south road to the east.

As with the proposed Integrated Resort, water supply for the Alternative CMP would be from the Town of Hempstead Water Department (UWD) and the MFWSA for potable water, requiring the construction of a new water supply well within the UWD. Sewage would be disposed of via connection to the Nassau County municipal sewer system, which discharges to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. The stormwater management system would be similar to what is provided in the proposed Integrated Resort.

While the uses within the Alternative CMP would be served by PSEG Long Island for electricity and National Grid for natural gas, unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP would not include any CUPs. Each of the proposed uses would be provided with its own building mechanical equipment.

A discussion of the impacts and mitigation measures associated with each resource area is provided below.457 A comparison of the quantifiable impacts under the no action alternative to those of the proposed Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP (should a gaming license not be granted) is presented in Table 133, above.

‌Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions
1. Soils
  Site-specific geotechnical investigations indicated the presence of soils exhibiting good leaching properties beneath the upper levels. As with the proposed Integrated Resort, the installation of drainage structures would involve the excavation of materials to install drainage structures on the site. These areas would be backfilled with clean materials. This would provide capacity within the leaching structure and good percolation through the side walls and bottom of these systems. Any unsuitable soil encountered would be removed and replaced with well drained material. The depth to groundwater, system design and relatively well-drained soils ensure that these drainage systems would function properly. It is also noted that any overflow of stormwater would flow to
  
  ‌457 Impacts reflect the development proposed for the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum property, as the Marriott Hotel property would not be physically altered under this alternative,
  an on-site piping system that would transport stormwater runoff to an existing off-site Nassau County recharge basin, as discussed below.
  Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, potentially impacted soils that are proposed to be disposed of off-site would be sampled at such frequency that is sufficient to meet regulatory requirements. All the excavated materials would be handled and disposed of in accordance with relevant and applicable local, state and federal standards. Any topsoil that is imported for use on the site would consist of clean imported material from commercial suppliers.
  Based on the foregoing, there would be no significant adverse impacts related to soils from implementation of the Alternative CMP.
2. Topography
  The site is generally flat. Therefore, although excavation and grading would be required for site development, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, the overall topographic profile would not be significantly different from the existing condition. Finished grades for the developed site under the Alternative CMP would conform to the existing topography, generally sloping from north to south across the property.
  The most significant difference between the Alternative CMP and the proposed Integrated Resort relates to earthwork. Site preparation for the Alternative CMP would include removal of the existing Coliseum structure and exhibition hall, as well as existing asphalt and concrete pavement throughout the subject property. Excavations would be required for construction of subgrade parking levels for the Alternative CMP. Approximately 70,000 CY of soil/pavement is anticipated to be excavated, all of which is expected to be removed from the subject property. Additionally, approximately 27,000 CY of material would be generated due to the demolition of the Coliseum, and 8,000± CY of this material would be removed from the site. The remainder would be crushed and re-used on site for stone fill. Therefore, approximately 78,000 CY of material (soil/pavement and demolition debris) would be removed from the property. The total material removal associated with the proposed Integrated Resort is 660,000± CY, which is greater than that associated with this Alternative CMP. Thus, the impacts associated with the material removal for implementation of the Alternative CMP would be less than those associated with the Integrated Resort.
  Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, implementation of this alternative is expected to slightly modify the topographic characteristics of the site through the proposed landscape and hardscape design. As with the proposed Integrated Resort, a SWPPP would be prepared, and erosion and sedimentation measures would be installed prior to construction on the site. The SWPPP and control measures would not substantially differ from those described in the proposed Integrated Resort. With the incorporation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures detailed in the SWPPP, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, implementation of the Alternative CMP is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on topographic conditions.
3. Subsurface Conditions
  Under development in accordance with the Alternative CMP, the Coliseum would be demolished. Accordingly, ACM and lead-based paint conditions identified in Section 3.1.1, Soil, Topography
  and Subsurface Conditions would be addressed and remediated, as they would if the proposed Integrated Resort is developed. As with the Integrated Resort, excess soils generated by development of the Alternative CMP would be handled, transported and disposed of or recycled in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations and the requirements of potential recycling and disposal facilities. Soil and/or non-native material would be characterized in accordance with the testing requirements of the proposed permitted disposal or recycling facility. As with the proposed Integrated Resort, if underground storage tanks or appurtenances are encountered during demolition/construction, they would be decommissioned and disposed of in accordance with NCDH closure requirements, and they would be registered with NCDH, as necessary. A health and safety plan would be developed for the Alternative CMP to address the conditions encountered on the subject site, as it would for the proposed Integrated Resort.
  As with the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands would assume responsibility for the remediation, clean-up, and other handling and management of materials, such as ACM and lead-based paint, and for the cost of such during the term of the lease. Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, based on the results of and recommendations of the Phase I ESAs and Phase II ESIs for the Coliseum property, as well as the requirements of the proposed lease, the Lessee would address the identified environmental condition (i.e., asbestos), and, as warranted, unknown conditions that may be encountered (such as impacted soils, USTs and/or associated appurtenances) within the Coliseum property, since the Coliseum is proposed to be removed in this alternative.
  The mitigation measures associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, as outlined and discussed in Section 3.1.3, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions, of this DEIS, would also be implemented for this Alternative CMP, as there is no substantial difference in the identified impacts for the Coliseum property between this alternative and the proposed Integrated Resort, with the exception of the quantity of material removals (including soils, pavement and demolition debris associated with the elimination of the Coliseum), as discussed above. Such material removals would be less under this alternative, which would result in fewer trucks trips in the construction period, as discussed in Section 8.2.14, below.

‌Water Resources

Groundwater
As described in Section 3.2.1, Water Resources, the depth to the water table is estimated at between approximately 29 feet and 34 feet across the subject property, based on the site- specific geotechnical investigation of the Coliseum. Due to the depth of the proposed excavations for the Alternative CMP, unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, dewatering for the Alternative CMP is not anticipated.

Water Supply

As shown in Table 137, total projected domestic water demand for this Alternative CMP is projected at approximately 378,300 gpd utilizing NCDPW Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates, plus an additional 115,000± gpd for irrigation, for a total of approximately 493,300 gpd. This represents approximately 270,100± gpd less water use than the proposed Integrated Resort, during the growing season. These figures do not reflect credits due to water conservation

measures proposed to be incorporated into the project design. However, like the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP would incorporate water conservation measures, such as the use of high-efficiency water-conserving fixtures, as well as the use of water sub-metering to continuously monitor water consumption for analysis and potential adjustment of usage, and would also include the potential capture and reuse of stormwater runoff for irrigation purposes, if approved by Nassau County. Also, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, this increase in water demand associated with the Alternative CMP would result in the need for a new water supply well at some point in the development process, as described in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources.

‌Table 137 Projected Water Demand Based on Sewage Generation of Alternative CMP

Alternative CMP Nassau County Design Sewage Flows

New Facilities Quantity Unit NC Facility Category NC Rate Flow (gpd)

Residential	500	Units	2-bedroom condo	300 gpd/unit	150,000
Retail	40,000	Sf	Market	0.05 gpd/sf	2,000
Restaurants	1,352	Seats	Restaurant	30 gpd/seat	40,560
Hotel	500	Rooms	Motel Unit >400 sf	150 gpd/room	75,000
Performing Arts Center	3,600	Seats	Theater + Cafeteria	5.5 gpd/seat	19,800
Multipurpose Rec. Fac.	200,000	Sf	Country Club	0.30 gpd/sf	60,000
R&D Office Buildings	100,384	Sf	Non-medical Office	0.06 gpd/sf	6,023
Veterans Memorial	23,031	Sf	Country Club	0.30 gpd/sf	6,909
Medical Office Buildings	180,058	Sf	Medical Arts	0.10 gpd/sf	18,006
				Subtotal	378,298
				Proposed Irrigation	115,000
				Total Water Use	493,298
				ROUNDED TO	493,300 gpd

Source: Prepared by H2M, based on the Nassau County Department of Public Works Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates at www.nassaucountyny.gov/1874/Permits-Fees

As indicated in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources, H2M conducted a preliminary analysis of potential impacts to saltwater intrusion and plume migration from the proposed water supply well. This section notes that the cone of depression of the proposed well would extend to the south of the proposed location; however, it is expected to be no more than 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the site. Given the 8.5-mile distance from the current understanding of the freshwater/saltwater interface and the expected extent of the cone of depression from pumping the new well, the well is expected to have no negative impact on saltwater intrusion.

Furthermore, as explained in detail in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources, with regard to groundwater contamination plumes in the vicinity of the proposed public supply well, two further investigations and impact analysis would be conducted as part of the well application process. Coordination would be undertaken with involved regulatory agencies to identify

potential impacts to currently ongoing remediation processes and address modifications that may be required to mitigate impacts, should such impacts be identified. Additionally, it is noted that the proposed well is currently conceptualized with advanced treatments to address solvent- related contaminants typically detected in industrial plumes to be protective of public health and meet all regulatory agency requirements.

Additionally, with regard to safe permissible yield, this would be assessed in the engineering report that would accompany the well permit application. This assessment would be made to confirm that well withdrawal would have no negative impact on the aquifer.

Sanitary Flow/Sewage Disposal
Based on the program for the Alternative CMP, as shown in the table above, the alternative development is expected to generate approximately 378,300 gpd in sewage effluent, based on the NCDPW Design Sewage Flow Rates, approximately 323,100± gpd less than the proposed Integrated Resort.
Most of the same improvements related to the sewage infrastructure would be required for the Alternative CMP as the proposed Integrated Resort, as detailed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, but the configuration of the new sewage collection system would be tailored to the Alternative CMP’s layout. One significant difference from the proposed Integrated Resort is that the Alternative CMP would not require rerouting of the existing 36-inch sewer main.
As indicated in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources, sewage flow from the proposed Integrated Resort would be directed to the Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, which is currently operating at approximately 88 percent (63.8 mgd) of its permitted capacity of 72 mgd. Since the sewage flow from the Alternative CMP is less than that projected for the proposed Integrated Resort (0.378 mgd versus 0.701 mgd), for which a letter of sewer availability was issued, it is expected that the Cedar Creek WPCP would have the capacity to treat the sewage generated by the Alternative CMP (63.8± mgd plus 0.378± mgd = 64.18± mgd).
Floodplains
As the subject property is not located within a floodway, the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain, there would be no impact to or from such features under the Alternative CMP.

Stormwater/Drainage

Stormwater management for the Alternative CMP would be accomplished through the same measures to be implemented under the proposed Integrated Resort:

› There would be a reduction in impervious surfaces on the subject property upon development

› Stormwater runoff would be reduced and local infiltration would be increased by the strategic installation of drywells, catch basins and leaching galleys on the subject property

› There would be continued connection to (and use of) Nassau County Recharge Basin No. 537

› There would be no direct discharges to surface waters.

As there would be less impervious coverage (detailed in Table 138) in the Alternative CMP than in the proposed Integrated Resort, less stormwater runoff would be generated.

‌Table 138 Stormwater Generation Under the Alternative CMP

Five-Inch Runoff

Land Use	Area (Acres)	Runoff Coefficient	Volume (cubic feet)
Building Coverage	12.9±	1.0	234,549±
Parking Structures	8.9±	1.0	161,885±
Rooftop Open Space	0.0	0.5	0
Other Impervious Area	20.3±	1.0	368,590±
Landscaping, Lawn, Pervious Surfaces	29.4±	0.3	160,355±
TOTAL	71.6± AC		925,379± CF

Based on the foregoing, runoff associated with redevelopment of the Coliseum property for the Alternative CMP has been calculated at 925,379 cf. Under both the proposed action and the Alternative CMP, there would be a reduction of impervious surface and stormwater runoff as compared to the existing condition.

Also, as with the proposed Integrated Resort, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented for this Alternative CMP. Furthermore, the erosion and sedimentation control measures outlined in Section 3.1.2, Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions, of this DEIS would be essentially the same for this alternative.

Based on the foregoing, both the Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP would incorporate appropriate measures to mitigation stormwater impacts.

Surface Water
As no natural surface waters were identified on or directly adjacent to the subject property, similar to the Integrated Resort, implementation of the Alternative CMP would not impact such resources.

‌Ecological Resources
As there are minimal ecological resources, which provide nominal functional habitat on the Coliseum property, as with the Integrated Resort, implementation of this alternative would not significantly impact the ecology of the site and of the area.
Under this alternative, the amount of pervious surfaces (including landscaping and lawn) would increase from 6.9± acres on the Coliseum property in the existing condition and 13.9± acres in the proposed action to 29.4± acres. Similar to the proposed action, the amount of landscaping would increase from the existing condition, and the diversity of landscape materials (and thus diversity of wildlife using the site) would also increase under the Alternative CMP. The type of landscaping incorporated into the Alternative CMP would be similar to that for proposed Integrated Resort, and, as such, there would be a substantial positive impact on such resources under either development scenario.
As described in Section 3.3.1, Ecological Resources, the Frances T. Purcell Preserve, which contains a portion of the Hempstead Plains, is located east of James Doolittle Boulevard. Although implementation of the proposed Integrated Resort would not have a significant adverse impact on this feature, this alternative would have lesser impacts. With respect to the potential for shadows, the proposed tallest building across James Doolittle Boulevard from the Purcell Preserve under the Alternative CMP is a three-story parking garage at the northeast corner of the subject property, as the tallest proposed structures under this alternative are shown on the west side of the property, along Earle Ovington Boulevard. As such, shadow impact potential for the Alternative CMP development is limited.
Overall, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, implementation of the Alternative CMP would produce a positive impact to ecological resources on the subject property and would not result in a significant adverse impact on off-site ecological resources.

‌Land Use, Zoning and Community Character

The Alternative CMP contains a broad mix of uses that are permitted in both the prevailing MFM Zoning District and the proposed MF-IRD. As previously explained, both the Coliseum property and the Marriott Hotel property would be rezoned to MF-IRD in this alternative, but only the Coliseum property would have changes in land use. The Marriott Hotel property would not be physically altered under this alternative.

Land uses to be developed on the Coliseum property under this alternative include entertainment, hotel, residential, office (medical and R&D), retail, public open space, and a veterans memorial, as well as accessory structured parking garages. The arrangement of uses for the Alternative CMP (Figure 59, above) shows that the majority of the one-to-two-story office buildings (both R&D and medical office space) are situated along Hempstead Turnpike, across from the nearest residential development, south of the roadway. The tallest structures (the hotel and residential condominium) are located along Earle Ovington Boulevard, opposite an off-site parking lot and recharge basin. The PAC and multipurpose recreational facility are located in the north end of the subject site, whereas the center of the site contains the mixed-use (retail/residential) building, which wraps a parking structure.

Whereas most of the proposed Integrated Resort is concentrated toward the center of the subject property, the proposed buildings in the Alternative CMP are dispersed throughout the Coliseum property. As shown on Figure 59 and described in Table 136, there would be five parking garages on the subject property (as opposed to three in the proposed Integrated Resort) containing 5,099 parking spaces, as well as an additional 1,281 surface parking spaces associated with the R&D buildings, mixed-use building and the southwestern medical office building. The internal street system, as described earlier in this section, would be similar to the proposed Integrated Resort.

The Alternative CMP is based on redevelopment of the Coliseum property in accordance with the proposed MF-IRD, with demolition of the Coliseum building. Table 139 demonstrates compliance of the Alternative CMP with the proposed MF-IRD.

‌Table 139 Zoning Compliance of Alternative CMP with MF-IRD on the Coliseum Property

Parameter	Permitted/Required	Provided
Floor Area Ratio (maximum)	1.6	0.76
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Building Height (maximum)	250 feet	222 feet
Hotel Building Height (maximum)	280 feet	248 feet
Parking Structure Height (maximum)	95 feet	90 feet
Front Yard (minimum)	10 feet	32.22 feet
Rear Yard (minimum)	10 feet	15 feet
Public Open Space (minimum)	3.0%	4.4%
	(93,569± square feet)	(137,618 square feet)
Parking (minimum)	6,362 spaces	6,380 spaces
Loading (minimum)	9 spaces	9 spaces

The floor area ratio of this alternative is 0.76, less than that of the proposed Integrated Resort (1.0), and both of which are less than the permitted 1.6 FAR of the proposed MF-IRD. As shown in Table 133, impervious surface of this alternative comprises 42.2 acres as compared to 70.6 acres of the proposed Integrated Resort. Additionally, the amount of public open space in this alternative as compared to the proposed Integrated Resort is 3.16± acres versus 3.40± acres in the proposed action. Building heights, most of which are lower in the Alternative CMP than the proposed Integrated Resort, comply with the MF-IRD.

Although, as with the proposed action, Sands is proposing a new zoning district, the MF-IRD, zoning jurisdiction lies with the Town of Hempstead Town Board. If the Town Board were to decide to grant relief from the existing MFM Zoning District to permit the development of the Alternative CMP, several variances would be required, as shown on Table 140 .

‌Table 140 MFM Zoning District Compliance of Alternative CMP

Zoning Parameter	Section	Permitted/Required	Alternative CMP
Permitted Uses	146.1-C	Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, plus two or more other permitted uses	Coliseum not retained
Number of Dwellings per Building	146.1-C(15)	No more than 6 dwelling units per building	300
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)	146.1-F	1.6 max.	1.27*
Building Height (Mixed- Use/Non-Residential)	146.1-H(1)	4 sty/60 ft max.	3 sty/103 ft
Hotel Building Height	146.1-H(2)	100 ft max.	248 ft
Parking Structure Height	146.1-H(3)	40 ft max.	90 ft
Front Yard (Mixed-Use/Non- Residential Building up to 60 ft in height)	146.1-I(1)	10 ft min.	32.2 ft**

Code

Zoning Parameter	Section	Permitted/Required	Alternative CMP
Front Yard (Building >60 ft in Height)	146.1-K	20 ft + increased setback of one ft for each three ft above 60 ft, min.	31.4 ft**
Rear Yard	146.1-J	10 ft min.	15 ft
Number of Residences	146.1-N(1)	500 max.	500
Residential Building Area	146.1-N(3)	35% max.	39.6%
Residential Building Height	146.1-N(4)	3 sty/40 ft max.	18 sty/222 ft
Residential Open Space	146.1-N(10)	500 sf/unit (250,000 sf) min.	216 sf/unit (108,000±)
Public Open Space	146.1-O(2)	3.0% (73,259 sf) min.	4.8% (120,247 sf)

Note Right-of-way dedications prescribed by the MFM Zoning District were not contemplated with the Alternative CMP.

*The 1.27 FAR is the result after deducting theoretical right-of-way dedication areas (per Section146.1.F and Section 146.1.O(3) of the MFM Zoning District) from the overall lot area and including above-ground parking garage building areas in the gross floor area calculation, as required by the MFM Zoning District.

**Values provided apply to the perimeter roadway frontages only. According to Section 146.1.K, the front yard setbacks provided are 0 feet when the theoretical right-of-way dedication limits (per Section 146.1.O(3) of the MFM Zoning District) are taken into consideration.

As can be seen in the table above, in the Alternative CMP, the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum would not be retained. Additionally, the Alternative CMP would not meet the bulk and dimensional requirements (as shown in bold): number of units per dwelling; building heights for mixed-use/non-residential building, hotel, parking structure and residential building; residential building area and residential open space.

Like the Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP’s mixed-use development would meet the legislative intent of both the PDD at Mitchel Field and the proposed MF-IRD (which would become part of the PDD, if adopted). The Alternative CMP would protect the character of the Mitchel Field area by maintaining the entertainment and hotel uses that currently exist and expanding upon the range of uses on the subject property through an economically viable and sustainable development. As demonstrated through this analysis, the Alternative CMP would, similar to the Integrated Resort, safeguard the environment and promote environmental quality, as well as protect human resources to the maximum extent practicable. As shown in Table 145 and discussed in Section 8.2.8, below, the economic and fiscal benefits associated with the Alternative CMP would be considerable, as is the intent of the zoning district, but substantially less than those associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. For example, implementation of the Alternative CMP would result in a large economic investment in the site (approximately

$3.225 billion versus over $5.0 billion458 for the proposed Integrated Resort) and provide employment opportunities (2,790 direct jobs versus over 7,800 direct jobs [5,000 FTE]) for the proposed Integrated Resort). Based on the foregoing, as with the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP aligns with the legislative intent and goals of the PDD and the proposed

‌458 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the design is finalized and bids are received.

MF-IRD and would further the county-town cooperation in the development of the Mitchel Field area.

With respect to comprehensive land planning in the region, the combination of uses included in the Alternative CMP, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, would act as a regional hub, as described in the 1998 Nassau County Comprehensive Plan. As detailed in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the 1998 Nassau County Comprehensive Plan specifically identified the subject property as an underutilized parcel with the opportunity for development of a balance of land uses, leveraging existing infrastructure and mass transit. The Alternative CMP, like the Integrated Resort, would provide a variety of uses on the subject property and would takes advantage of its central location in Nassau County. While the existing infrastructure requires upgrading and improvements, the availability of sewer, water, stormwater and roadway infrastructure enhances the potential for development under this Alternative CMP, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort. The Comprehensive Plan notes the increasing demand for a variety of housing types within the County and seeks to encourage appropriate housing to locate in areas close to shopping, working, community facilities and services and transportation facilities. The Alternative CMP provides several types of housing that would be attractive to a variety of populations. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the important role of recreational facilities and cultural attractions. The Alternative CMP provides entertainment retail facilities within the multipurpose recreational facility, a performing arts center, an improved veterans memorial and a large public open space. However, the Integrated Resort also provides casino gaming facilities, additional and different types of hotels (luxury and boutique), public attraction space, and meeting and conference space. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.4, the 1998 Nassau County Comprehensive Plan indicates the importance of fostering economic, development activities that would provide an increased tax base, provide jobs and lead to a stable land use pattern. While the Alternative CMP would provide such benefits, they are far exceeded by those that would be provided by the Integrated Resort, as noted above, shown in Table 97 and discussed in Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics and Section 8.2.8, below.

As outlined in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the Nassau County Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008), describes the redevelopment of the Hub as a “mega” project aimed at jumpstarting the County's economy, redefining "suburbia," and generating new high-skill and high-tech jobs. The Alternative CMP is expected to provide approximately 2,790 operational jobs, while the Integrated Resort is projected to provide over 7,800 operational jobs (5,000 FTE). While the Alternative CMP would provide economic stimulus to the area, the economic benefits of the proposed Integrated Resort would be greater, as described in Section 3.9.2, Socioeconomics and Section 8.2.8, below.

The Coliseum is listed as a cultural facility in the 2001 Nassau County Open Space Plan, but it does not make any specific recommendations for the subject property. No portion of the subject property is currently considered as open space nor is the property listed as “potential open space.” The Alternative CMP would eliminate the Coliseum, while the proposed Integrated Resort would incorporate the Coliseum structure into the development.

The HUB Major Investment Study recognizes the potential for the underutilized Coliseum property (and surrounding area) to be an economic engine and driver of economic development throughout the Mitchel Field/Hub area. Like the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP, in accordance with the recommendations of the HUB MIS, would provide a variety of uses

across the property, meeting the study’s land use goals, and creating new jobs and career

opportunities, which is one of the main objectives of the study.

As with the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP would help meet some of the goals of the 2012 Uniondale Hamlet Vision Plan. As noted in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, the Coliseum property is not the main focus of this plan. However, the subject property plays a crucial role as a gateway into the Uniondale community. Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP would enhance the visual resources of the subject site, providing a stable economic base and enhancing the creation of job opportunities within the area, although at a lesser scale than the proposed Integrated Resort. In addition, the community benefits outlined in Section 8.2.8, would help enhance community facilities within Uniondale, as envisioned in the Vision Plan, again, at a lesser scale than the proposed Integrated Resort.

Finally, the 2011 and 2016 plans prepared by the Long Island Regional Economic Development Council view the subject property and surrounding area as an opportunity for transformative and innovative developments, uplifting this portion of Nassau County and making it a significant regional destination. The LIREDC plans see the development of the Coliseum property as an opportunity to create a vibrant mixed-use downtown, an economic engine and a tourist attraction with an eye toward a greener, more sustainable future, as described in Section 3.4, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character. While the Alternative CMP would achieve many of the goals, the proposed Integrated Resort would have a greater positive economic impact and a greater tourism impact.

‌Transportation and Parking

Using the rates for each of the Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and Saturday Midday Peak periods, for the proposed land uses in the Alternative CMP, as shown in Table 141, below, the trip generation estimate was developed. This estimate represents the net trip generation estimate for the Alternative CMP. Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP is a mixed- use project, which results in a number of internal trips (i.e., trips to more than one use on the subject site are generated internally and do not add an additional trip to the adjacent roadway network). Credits to account for internal trips were determined using the ITE publication Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition as shown in Table 141, below.

In addition to internal capture, portions of the gross trips generated by any particular use would also use mass transit, resulting in lesser volumes of net traffic generated by the Alternative CMP. To account for this and to remain consistent with previous development efforts for the property, a reduction of five percent was applied to each individual land use to reflect the use of mass transit.

Finally, it is assumed that portions of the traffic generated by certain uses represent “pass-by" trips, which originate from the existing flow of traffic passing the site and do not represent a new vehicle on the roadway. This results in a lesser impact upon area traffic conditions. To account for this, based on guidance included in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, a 25 percent trip reduction was applied to the retail and restaurant trips during the Weekday AM and Weekday PM peak hours while a 20 percent reduction was applied to the retail and restaurant trips during the Saturday Midday peak hours.

‌Table 141 Net Trip Generation – Alternative CMP

Land Use	AM Peak Hour Enter Exit		Total	PM Peak Hour Enter Exit		Total	Sat Peak Hour Enter Exit		Total
Apartments a	43	142	185	119	76	195	99	96	195
Medical Office Space b	441	117	558	212	495	707	310	234	544
R&D Office Space c	68	14	82	12	66	78	9	10	19
Gross Retail Space d	43	29	72	104	104	208	134	129	263
Restaurant Space e	18	19	37	261	129	390	315	219	534
Hotel f	147	116	263	171	165	336	230	180	410
Video Arcade g	0	0	0	394	322	716	394	322	716
Performance Arts Center h	0	0	0	398	81	479	1065	217	1282
Memorial i	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Subtotal Before Credits	760	437	1197	1671	1438	3109	2556	1407	396
Internal Capture j	-68	-68	-136	-253	-253	-506	-319	-319	-638
Transit k	-34	-19	-53	-70	-60	-130	-112	-54	-166
Pass-by Trips l	-7	-6	-13	-52	-17	-69	-50	-27	-77
Total Credits	-109	-93	-202	-375	-330	-705	-481	-400	-881
Total Net Trips	651	344	995	1296	1108	2404	2075	1007	3082

a Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 221 – Multifamily Residential Mid-Rise 3-10 Levels for 500 Units

b Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 720 – Medical/Dental Office for 180,000 sf

c Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 760 – Research and Development Office for 80,000 sf

d Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 822 – Shopping Center (<40k sf) for 40,000 sf

e Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 931 – Quality Restaurants for 50,000 sf

f Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 310 – Hotel for 570 Rooms

g Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 435 – Multipurpose Recreational Facility for 200,000 sf; assumes PM Rates for Saturday

h Trip generation estimate based on Vehicle Occupancy/Entering and Exiting Counts at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum

i Trip generation estimate based on ITE LUC 411 – Public Park for 1 Acre

j Internal Capture based on NCHRP 684 Guidelines – Assumes PM Percentages for Saturday

k Assumes 5% trip reduction for Mass Transit Utilization

l Assumes 25% pass-by rate for restaurant/retail uses during AM/PM and 20% pass-by for restaurant/retail uses during Saturday

In considering this Alternative development scenario, it is important to note that a typical mixed- use development would experience its peak activity more in line with the commuter peak hours for the roadway network. This is to say, unlike the Integrated Resort, the level of traffic activity would be reduced for this alternative during the evening hours when area traffic volumes are also lower. Therefore, in order to evaluate the impacts of the Alternative Development Scenario, the analysis focused in on the typical commuter peak hours on a weekday (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM in the AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in the PM) as well as the Saturday midday peak hours.

As shown in Table 141 , and as earlier reflected in Table 133, the net trip generation for both the Alternative CMP and the proposed Integrated Resort would be similar, particularly during the Weekday PM (2,404 trips and 2,304 trips, respectively) and Saturday Midday periods (3,082 trips and 3,011 trips, respectively), when the highest site traffic levels would occur for both scenarios. The greater difference occurs in the Weekday AM peak period, when the Alternative CMP would result in a lesser number of trips (995 trips) than the proposed Integrated Resort (1,455 trips).

As with the proposed Integrated Resort, these trips were distributed and assigned to the various area roadways, as detailed in Section 8 of the TIS in Appendix 3.5-1. However, the Alternative CMP is not expected to draw visitors on a regional level to anywhere near the same degree as the proposed Integrated Resort. As such, the traffic generation patterns are focused more on the local roadway system in the vicinity of the Coliseum property than on the parkways. Furthermore, as with past studies of mixed-use development proposals, since each component of the Alternative CMP would draw from the same pool of local residents, a single distribution was developed that was applied to the entire net trip generation for this alternative.

Similar to the Integrated Resort, roadway capacity analyses were conducted for the Alternative CMP with respect to the existing, future No-Build, and future Build conditions to assess the quality of traffic flow. This evaluation includes the Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and the Saturday midday peak periods to capture the periods when the prevailing level of traffic is highest. These capacity analyses provided an indication of the adequacy of the roadway facilities to serve the anticipated traffic demands and they helped to identify potential mitigation measures that would reduce the impact on traffic flow adjacent to and surrounding the subject property under the Alternative CMP.

The results of the capacity analyses conducted for proposed Alternative CMP indicate that some roadway intersections with project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS would require modifications (Table 142). Notable roadways where there would be project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS and their corresponding recommended improvements are as follows (full LOS capacity tables for each studied intersection are included in the full TIS in Appendix

3.5-1).

‌Table 142 Notable Affected Roadways and Proposed Mitigation Measures for the Alternative CMP

2030 Build Conditions

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)

2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)

with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS)

Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Glenn Curtiss Boulevard/Site Access

WB: Remove channelized right-turn lane NB: Add a lane on the NB Approach.

Restripe NB approach to include two left turn lanes, a through lane and two right- turn lanes.

SB: Restripe SB approach to include two left-turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane

Restrict WB U-Turns

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

Weekday AM Peak: 33.5 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 42.5 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 13.1 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 36.0 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 50.0 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 13.3 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 54.1 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 72.7 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak: 39.6 (D)

Weekday AM Peak: 38.0 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 54.0 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 36.4 (D)

Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Cunningham Avenue

Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at MSK Entrance

Optimize signal timing/ phasing/ Offsets Weekday AM

Peak: 8.2 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 8.7 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 7.5 (A)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing/ Offsets Weekday AM

Peak: 4.9 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 6.3 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 5.2 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 8.3 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 9.2 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 7.6 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 5.1 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 6.5 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 5.3 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 7.8 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 8.5 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 14.2 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 5.8 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 8.0 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 8.8 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 7.1 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 8.2 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 4.9 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 4.3 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 8.8 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 13.0 (B)

Hempstead Turnpike (NY Route 24) at Earle Ovington Boulevard/Union Dale Avenue

SB: construct additional right-turn lane Optimize signal timing/ phasing

Weekday AM Peak: 65.5 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 63.3 (E)

Weekday AM Peak: 69.7 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 66.5 (E)

Weekday AM Peak: 80.7 (F)

Weekday PM Peak: 78.3 (E)

Weekday AM Peak: 55.5 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 62.7 (E)

					2030 Build Conditions
Intersection	Improvement	2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)	2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)	with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 51.6 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 52.5 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 63.3 (E)	Saturday Midday Peak: 50.5 (D)
Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Earle Ovington Boulevard	EB: Add EB receiving lanes Weekday AM SB: Add SB Left-Turn Lane Peak: 41.3 (D) NB: Remove one through lane, add two Weekday PM Channelized Right Turns Peak: 27.3 (C) Saturday Midday		Weekday AM Peak: 47.1 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 27.8 (C) Saturday Midday	Weekday AM Peak: 48.9 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 28.8 (C) Saturday Midday	Weekday AM Peak: 31.3 (C) Weekday PM Peak: 11.6 (B) Saturday Midday
		Peak: 24.0 (C)	Peak: 24.3 (C)	Peak: 26.6 (C)	Peak: N/A
Hempstead Turnpike at Merrick Avenue	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 56.1 (E)	Weekday AM Peak: 59.4 (E)	Weekday AM Peak: 65.5 (E)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 62.0 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 64.0 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 66.9 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 49.6 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 42.1 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 42.8 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 46.2 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A
Hempstead Turnpike at Eisenhower Park Pedestrian Entrance	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 1.9 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 1.9 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 1.9 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 1.5 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 1.7 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 1.9 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 2.8 (A)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 5.6 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 6.2 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 6.6 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A
Hempstead Turnpike at Coolidge Drive	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 6.5 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 7.4 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 7.6 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 6.2 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 6.6 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 7.0 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 6.3 (A)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 9.0 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 9.3 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 9.3 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

2030 Build Conditions

		2023 Existing Conditions	2030 No Build Conditions	2030 Build Conditions	with Mitigation
Intersection	Improvement	(delay in seconds (LOS))	(delay in seconds (LOS)	(delay in seconds (LOS)	(delay in seconds (LOS)
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Park	Add a lane to EB approach, Restripe EB	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
Boulevard/E. Meadow Avenue	approach to include one left turn lane,	Peak: 45.1 (D)	Peak: 47.0 (D)	Peak: 46.5 (D)	Peak: 45.4 (D)
	three through lanes and a right-turn lane. Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday PM Peak: 65.9 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 75.0 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 82.2 (F)	Weekday PM Peak: 61.0 (E)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 41.8 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 42.8 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 42.9 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 40.4 (D)
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Hofstra Boulevard/California Avenue	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset	Weekday AM Peak: 22.6 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 23.2 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 23.2 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 23.1 (C)
		Weekday PM Peak: 25.4 (C)	Weekday PM Peak: 25.9 (C)	Weekday PM Peak: 27.1 (C)	Weekday PM Peak: 24.3 (C)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 21.0 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 21.0 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 21.1 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 20.9 (C)
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Oak Street/Hofstra Boulevard	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset	Weekday AM Peak: 26.0 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 26.4 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 26.8 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 26.5 (C)
		Weekday PM Peak: 37.7 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 39.0 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 40.4 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 35.7 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 25.1 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 25.8 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 26.8 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 25.7 (C)
Front Street at Merrick Avenue	Add NB right turn lane	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset	Peak: 42.6 (D) Weekday PM	Peak: 45.3 (D) Weekday PM	Peak: 52.3 (D) Weekday PM	Peak: 45.5 (D) Weekday PM
		Peak: 44.9 (D)	Peak: 48.0 (D)	Peak: 55.2 (E)	Peak: 53.4 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 32.6 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 33.8 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 41.2 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

					Conditions
Intersection	Improvement	2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)	2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)	with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS)
Fulton Avenue at Peninsula Boulevard	Add a lane to WB approach, Restripe WB	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
/Bennett Avenue	approach to include two left turn lanes, a through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane.	Peak: 40.6 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 30.9 (C)	Peak: 45.0 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 33.9 (C)	Peak: 48.1 (D) Weekday PM Peak: 39.2 (D)	Peak: 32.5 (C) Weekday PM Peak: 31.8 (C)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 26.3 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 28.1 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 30.5 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 25.8 (C)
Fulton Avenue at Clinton Street	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset	Weekday AM Peak: 36.1 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 38.1 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 40.0 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 40.1 (D)
		Weekday PM Peak: 42.7 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 45.5 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 49.4 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 43.0 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 28.9 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 29.9 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 33.2 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 33.2 (C)
Fulton Avenue at N. Franklin Street	Add WB right turn lane	Weekday AM Peak: 25.8 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 28.5 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 30.4 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 36.4 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 54.7 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 70.6 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 50.7 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 24.9 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 27.9 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 31.4 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A
Old Country Road at Franklin Avenue/Mineola Boulevard	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset	Weekday AM Peak: 46.9 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 52.9 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 53.6 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 47.0 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 54.5 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 56.4 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 54.8 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 36.5 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 41.7 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 42.7 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

2030 Build

					2030 Build Conditions
		2023 Existing	2030 No Build	2030 Build	with
		Conditions	Conditions	Conditions	Mitigation
		(delay in	(delay in	(delay in	(delay in
Intersection	Improvement	seconds (LOS))	seconds (LOS)	seconds (LOS)	seconds (LOS)
Old Country Road at Glen Cove	Optimize signal timing/ phasing/offset	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
Road/Clinton Road		Peak: 37.7 (D)	Peak: 38.3 (D)	Peak: 39.6 (D)	Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM
		Peak: 46.9 (D)	Peak: 53.3 (D)	Peak: 55.6 (E)	Peak: 55.0 (D)
		Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday
		Peak: 44.5 (D)	Peak: 49.1 (D)	Peak: 50.0 (D)	Peak: N/A
Old Country Road at Merrick	Add a lane to EB approach, Restripe EB	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
Avenue/Post Avenue	approach to include one left turn lane,	Peak: 46.6 (D)	Peak: 47.6 (D)	Peak: 48.0 (D)	Peak: 40.1 (D)
	three through lanes and a right-turn lane.	Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM
	Add a lane to NB approach, Restripe NB	Peak: 75.2 (E)	Peak: 90.0 (F)	Peak: 98.2 (F)	Peak: 61.2 (E)
	approach to include one left turn lane, two through lanes and two right-turn lanes.	Saturday Midday Peak: 43.0 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 44.5 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 46.3 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 40.8 (D)
Merrick Avenue at Stewart Avenue/Park	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
Boulevard		Peak: 44.9 (D)	Peak: 47.9 (D)	Peak: 49.0 (D)	Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM
		Peak: 50.2 (D)	Peak: 57.8 (E)	Peak: 62.6 (E)	Peak: 57.7 (E)
		Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday
		Peak: 32.0 (C)	Peak: 33.7 (C)	Peak: 35.1 (D)	Peak: N/A
Hempstead Turnpike at Front Street	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
		Peak: 21.4 (C)	Peak: 33.7 (C)	Peak: 37.0 (D)	Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM	Weekday PM
		Peak: 20.1 (C)	Peak: 20.7 (C)	Peak: 20.7 (C)	Peak: 15.9 (B)
		Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday	Saturday Midday
		Peak: 19.2 (B)	Peak: 19.3 (B)	Peak: 18.9 (B)	Peak: N/A
Hempstead Turnpike (NY 24) at Carman	Add a lane to WB approach, Restripe WB	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM	Weekday AM
Avenue/3rd Street	approach to include one left turn lane,	Peak: 80.4 (F)	Peak: 79.4 (E)	Peak: 78.9 (E)	Peak: N/A
	three through lanes and a right-turn lane.

2030 Build Conditions

		2023 Existing Conditions	2030 No Build Conditions	2030 Build Conditions	with Mitigation
Intersection	Improvement	(delay in seconds (LOS))	(delay in seconds (LOS)	(delay in seconds (LOS)	(delay in seconds (LOS)
		Weekday PM Peak: 64.7 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 69.4 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 71.4 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 62.6 (E)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 57.5 (E)	Saturday Midday Peak: 70.5 (E)	Saturday Midday Peak: 80.7 (F)	Saturday Midday Peak: 59.4 (E)
Hempstead Turnpike at Newbridge Rd	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 55.4 (E)	Weekday AM Peak: 57.6 (E)	Weekday AM Peak: 58.0 (E)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 57.8 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 59.7 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 60.3 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 54.0 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 49.6 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 51.4 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 52.4 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: N/A
Merrick Avenue at Bellmore Avenue	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 24.4 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 27.4 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 39.9 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 25.1 (C)
		Weekday PM Peak: 18.7 (B)	Weekday PM Peak: 19.0 (B)	Weekday PM Peak: 24.7 (C)	Weekday PM Peak: N/A
		Saturday Midday Peak: 19.9 (B)	Saturday Midday Peak: 20.2 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 32.8 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 27.4 (C)
Merrick Avenue at N. Jerusalem Avenue	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 19.7 (B)	Weekday AM Peak: 20.2 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: 22.3 (C)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 18.8 (B)	Weekday PM Peak: 19.3 (B)	Weekday PM Peak: 24.2 (C)	Weekday PM Peak: 22.4 (C)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 17.1 (B)	Saturday Midday Peak: 17.5 (B)	Saturday Midday Peak: 23.8 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 20.2 (C)
Merrick Avenue at Jerusalem Avenue	Optimize signal timing/ phasing	Weekday AM Peak: 39.8 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 46.1 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: 49.9 (D)	Weekday AM Peak: N/A
		Weekday PM Peak: 43.4 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 50.7 (D)	Weekday PM Peak: 61.8 (E)	Weekday PM Peak: 44.6 (D)
		Saturday Midday Peak: 30.1 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 31.8 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 36.9 (D)	Saturday Midday Peak: 33.8 (C)

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)

2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS)

Old Country Road at Roosevelt Field Mall Entrance

Old Country Road at Salisbury Park Drive/School Street

Optimize signal timing/ phasing Weekday AM Peak: 22.4 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 33.8 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: 65.5 (E)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing/Offset Weekday AM

Peak: 35.7 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 50.3 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 34.0 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 20.6 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 48.0 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 91.0 (F)

Weekday AM Peak: 37.6 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 61.0 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak: 37.3 (D)

Weekday AM Peak: 23.9 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 52.8 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 101.5 (F)

Weekday AM Peak: 37.7 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 61.9 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak: 38.0 (D)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 61.9 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 54.1 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Merrick Avenue at Corporate Drive Optimize signal timing/ phasing Weekday AM

Peak: 15.7 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 86.4 (F)

Saturday Midday Peak: 26.6 (C)

Merrick Avenue at Privado Road Optimize signal timing/ phasing Weekday AM

Peak: 14.7 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 45.5 (D)

Saturday Midday Peak: 15.2 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 17.0 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 101.4 (F)

Saturday Midday Peak: 34.7 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: 18.2 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 59.2 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak: 16.2 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 18.4 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 119.5 (F)

Saturday Midday Peak: 58.6 (E)

Weekday AM Peak: 19.8 (B)

Weekday PM Peak: 73.9 (E)

Saturday Midday Peak: 21.1 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 24.4 (C)

Saturday Midday Peak: 20.5 (C)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 9.7 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Jericho Turnpike at Post Avenue Add WB left turn lane

Add SB left turn lane

Optimize signal timing/ phasing

Weekday AM Peak: 54.0 (D)

Weekday PM Peak: 117.2 (F)

Weekday AM Peak: 64.1 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 144.8 (F)

Weekday AM Peak: 67.0 (E)

Weekday PM Peak: 137.1 (F)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 140.0 (F)

Intersection Improvement

2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))

Saturday Midday Peak: 25.5 (C)

2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)

Saturday Midday Peak: 26.4 (C)

2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)

Saturday Midday Peak: 27.7 (C)

2030 Build Conditions with Mitigation (delay in seconds (LOS)

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Hempstead Turnpike at Perimeter Rd East/Franklin Avenue

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard at Sands Boulevard

Optimize signal timing/ phasing Weekday AM Peak: 22.6 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 10.3 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 16.8 (B)

Optimize signal timing/ phasing Intersection does

not exist in this condition

Weekday AM Peak: 23.2 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 10.4 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 17.0 (B)

Intersection does not exist in this condition

Weekday AM Peak: 23.2 (C)

Weekday PM Peak: 10.4 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 17.2 (B)

Weekday AM Peak: 4.0 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 11.8 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: 7.2 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: N/A

Weekday PM Peak: 14.9 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak: N/A

Weekday AM Peak: 3.1 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 8.5 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak: 6.2 (A)

The results of the intersection capacity analysis above indicate that for all time periods analyzed, the mitigation proposed retains good levels of traffic service or returns intersection levels of service and delay to No-Build Condition levels. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse traffic impacts for the Alternative CMP, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

In addition to the above intersection capacity analysis, the traffic impacts of the Alternative CMP on eight of the ramp junctions along Hempstead Turnpike that serve as its interchange with the Meadowbrook State Parkway were analyzed. The analysis was performed for the three peak hours for the Existing conditions, the No-Build 2030 Conditions and the Build 2030 conditions. The analysis performed, indicates that levels of traffic service in the Build conditions would be consistent with No Build conditions and, thus, not require project-related mitigation measures. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 143 .

‌Table 143 Impact on Hempstead Turnpike Ramp Junctions for the Alternative CMP

Ramp Junction	2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)	2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)
Hempstead Tpke. EB at Off	Weekday AM Peak: 2.0	Weekday AM Peak: 2.6	Weekday AM Peak: 0.4
Ramp to Meadowbrook State	(A)	(A)	(A)
Parkway SB	Weekday PM Peak: 12.0 (B)	Weekday PM Peak: 11.9 (B)	Weekday PM Peak: 29.8 (D)
	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.8 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.9 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 1.0 (A)
Hempstead Tpke. EB On Ramp	Weekday AM Peak: 26.8	Weekday AM Peak: 24.0	Weekday AM Peak: 53.7
from Meadowbrook State	(D)	(C)	(C)
Parkway SB	Weekday PM Peak: 100.1 (F)	Weekday PM Peak: 103.5 (F)	Weekday PM Peak: 75.4 (F)
	Saturday Midday Peak: 16.1 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 16.1 (C)	Saturday Midday Peak: 13.7 (B)
Hempstead Tpke. EB Off Ramp	Weekday AM Peak: 1.1	Weekday AM Peak: 1.1	Weekday AM Peak: 1.9
to Meadowbrook State	(A)	(A)	(A)
Parkway NB	Weekday PM Peak: 0.9 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 0.8 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 0.8 (A)
	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.5 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.5 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.7 (A)
Hempstead Tpke. EB On Ramp	Weekday AM Peak: 5.4	Weekday Peak: 6.7 (A)	Weekday AM Peak: 15.2

from Meadowbrook State Parkway NB

(A)

Weekday PM Peak: 10.4 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

4.0 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 12.0 (B)

Saturday Midday Peak:

4.2 (A)

(A)

Weekday PM Peak: 6.2 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

4.5 (A)

Ramp Junction	2023 Existing Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS))	2030 No Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)	2030 Build Conditions (delay in seconds (LOS)
Hempstead Tpke. WB On	Weekday AM Peak: 0.3	Weekday AM Peak: 0.3	Weekday AM Peak: 0.0
Ramp from Meadowbrook	(A)	(A)	(A)
State Parkway SB	Weekday PM Peak: 0.3 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 0.3 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 0.3 (A)
	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.2 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.2 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 0.2 (A)
Hempstead Tpke. WB Off	Weekday AM Peak: 4.9	Weekday AM Peak: 4.6	Weekday AM Peak: 32.7
Ramp to Meadowbrook State	(A)	(A)	(B)
Parkway SB	Weekday PM Peak: 7.1 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 7.9 (A)	Weekday PM Peak: 16.5 (C)
	Saturday Midday Peak: 2.6 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 3.0 (A)	Saturday Midday Peak: 7.6 (A)
Hempstead Tpke. WB On	Weekday AM Peak: 1.6	Weekday AM Peak: 1.5	Weekday AM Peak: 0.6

Ramp from Meadowbrook State Parkway NB

Hempstead Tpke. WB Off Ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway NB

(A)

Weekday PM Peak: 3.9 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

1.9 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 0.2 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 0.2 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

0.2 (A)

(A)

Weekday PM Peak: 3.7 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

2.0 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 0.2 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 0.2 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

0.2 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 6.6 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

2.9 (A)

Weekday AM Peak: 0.9 (A)

Weekday PM Peak: 0.2 (A)

Saturday Midday Peak:

0.1 (A)

The total parking required for the Alternative CMP is based on the requirements contained in

§319A of the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance, as well as in the proposed MF-IRD. Based on these requirements, Table 144 shows the number of required parking spaces for the proposed uses included in the Alternative CMP.

‌Table 144 Parking Required for Alternative CMP

Component	Town Code Requirement	Proposed Square Footage	Parking Required (stalls)
Residential	8 per 3 Units	500 Units	1,334
Retail	1 per 200 sf	40,000 sf	200
Restaurant	1 per 100 sf	50,000 sf	500
Rest. Employees	1 per 4 Employees	435	109
Hotel	1 per Room	500 Rooms	500
Entertainment Venue	1 per 3 Seats	3,600 seats	1,200
Multi-purpose Recreation Center	1 per 200 sf	200,000 sf	1,000
R&D Office	1 per 200 sf	100,384 sf	502
Veterans Memorial	1 Per 200 sf	23,031 sf	116

Medical Office Building

1 per 200 sf 180,058 sf 901

Total 6,362

The

Alternative CMP includes a total of 6,380 parking spaces, including 5,099 spaces in five parking garages and 1,281 surface parking spaces. Therefore, the number parking of parking spaces provided (6,380) would exceed the number required (6,362).

The Alternative CMP would generally use the existing points of signalized access while modifying (and in some cases closing) the unsignalized access driveways. The proposed access points are indicated on Figure 59 and Appendix 8-1. Overall, the property would be accessed by seven separate driveways, three on Hempstead Turnpike (NYS Route 24), two on Earle Ovington Boulevard, and two along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, as described below.

Hempstead Turnpike

Access is currently provided by the traffic signal located opposite Glenn Curtiss Boulevard and the traffic signal located immediately east of MSKCC. Both signals would be maintained with only small modifications proposed to the southbound approach exiting the Glenn Curtiss Boulevard traffic signal. Indirect access to the site is also provided via James Doolittle Boulevard and this would be maintained in the future condition.

Earle Ovington Boulevard

Currently, access is provided via two signals (which would be maintained). Both signals would remain in their current overall layout, with only small modifications to the westbound approaches exiting the subject property, as depicted on the Alternative CMP. The unsignalized gated access driveways which currently exist along this frontage, would be closed as a part of the Alternative CMP.

Charles Lindbergh Boulevard

Currently, access along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard is provided via two unsignalized access points that only permit right-turns out of the subject site. Both of these driveways would be closed, and a new unsignalized access driveway would be proposed at the midpoint of the Charles Lindbergh Boulevard property frontage. To the east, James Doolittle Boulevard provides indirect access into the subject site and would be reconfigured to better accommodate right- turns into and out James Doolittle Boulevard.

The internal roadway layout, which is depicted on Figure 59, includes four primary roads -- two in the north-south direction and two in the east-west direction. These roadways would provide two travel lanes in each direction and would provide adequate capacity to accommodate traffic between the various uses and access points. Based upon the internal layout of the roadways and the location of the uses, traffic signal control would be provided at the intersections between each of these roadways.

The individual uses in the interior of the subject site would be accessed via a series of secondary roadways that would branch off from the primary roadways. These secondary roadways would provide one lane in either direction and connect to and through the parking areas and garages to access the individual uses on the subject site. The parking stalls and drive aisles would be sized in accordance with the relevant Town of Hempstead standards and would be more than adequate to accommodate the level of vehicular traffic expected for the Alternative CMP.

Overall, the trip generation associated with the Alternative CMP is similar to that of the proposed Integrated Resort in both the PM Weekday peak hour and Saturday Midday peak hour. The Alternative CMP generates fewer trips in the AM Weekday peak hour as compared to the proposed Integrated Resort.

The results of the capacity analyses conducted for Alternative CMP indicate that twice as many roadway intersections with project-related increases in delay and decreases in LOS would require modifications (32), as compared to the proposed Integrated Resort (16). While most of the modifications in the Alternative CMP do not involve physical alterations to the roadway (e.g., they require optimization of signal timing/phasing), 10 intersections involve physical improvements, such as lane modifications (including lane additions and restriping). This is compared to only four intersections in the proposed action that require physical improvements. ]

‘It is noted that as with the proposed Integrated Resort, for all time periods analyzed, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures retains good levels of traffic service or returns intersection levels of service and delay to No-Build Condition levels.

Furthermore, whereas the analysis of the parkways under the Integrated Resort resulted in the recommendations for mitigation associated with the Meadowbrook State Parkway and its C-D roads, as well as the ramp junction from Hempstead Turnpike eastbound to the off-ramp to Meadowbrook State Parkway southbound, as described in Section 3.5.4., Transportation and Parking, the analysis of the ramp junctions under the Alternative CMP indicates that levels of traffic service in the Build condition would be consistent with No Build condition. Therefore, no project-related mitigation measures would be required.

These results are consistent with the fact that the traffic generation patterns associated with the Alternative CMP are focused more on the local roadway system in the vicinity of the Nassau

Veterans Memorial Coliseum property than on the parkways. Given similar predicted net trip generation rates, with the exception of Weekday AM peak hour, and, overall, a greater number of necessary mitigation measures on local roadways for the Alternative CMP, it is anticipated that implementation of the Alternative CMP would have a greater impact on local roadways as compared to the proposed Integrated Resort.

‌Air Quality
Although there is similar or slightly less trip generation in the Alternative CMP as compared to the Integrated Resort, as described in Section 8.2.5, above, the focus of the travel patterns in the alternative are more on the local roadways than on the regional roadways and parkways.
Therefore, this could result in more localized air quality impacts to the area disadvantaged communities. However, overall, under the Alternative CMP, there would be little impact to air quality on the subject property or within the greater community (including the adjacent disadvantaged communities).
In addition, as the Alternative CMP would include fewer parking spaces with parking garages, the vehicle emissions within the parking garages would be slightly lower than in the proposed Integrated Resort.
Stationary sources of air emissions of the Alternative CMP would be same as in the proposed Sands anticipates that the majority of the Alternative CMP would be served by electricity, except for diesel emergency generators and cooking in the proposed commercial kitchens. Compared to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP represents a reduction in total building floor area from approximately 3.75 million square feet (excluding basements and parking structures) in the proposed Integrated Resort to approximately 2.37 million square feet in the Alternative CMP. It is assumed that the reduction in building square footage in the Alternative CMP would correlate with a reduction in HVAC usage thereby resulting in fewer stationary sources related emissions compared to the proposed Integrated Resort. Since the proposed Integrated Resort did not result in exceedances of any NAAQS, it is not expected that the Alternative CMP would exceed the NAAQS. Accordingly, no significant adverse air quality impacts to disadvantaged communities would result under this alternative.
‌Noise and Vibration
As part of the analysis of the Alternative CMP, the noise receptors identified in Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration, and shown on Figure 46 in that section, were reviewed by Longman Lindsey to evaluate impacts associated with the Alternative CMP. With respect to stationary sources, the Alternative CMP includes individual buildings that would have their own standard building mechanical equipment, rather than CUPs as under the proposed Integrated Resort.
As explained in Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration, existing noise monitoring results determined that, in several locations, listed below, under the highest weekday noise conditions, sound levels equal or exceed the NYSDOT/FHWA highway criteria of 66 dBA:
› Location 1 (Hofstra University at Earle Ovington Boulevard): 75 dBA (daytime) and 69 dbA (nighttime)
› Location 2 (the Omni): 67 dBA (daytime)
› Location 3 (Engie facility at Charles Lindbergh Boulevard): 78 dBA (daytime) and 71 dBA (nighttime)
› Location 6 (Uniondale Residences and High School Property at Hempstead Turnpike): 70 dBA (daytime) and 68 dBA (nighttime).
For existing highest weekend noise conditions, Locations 1, 3 and 6 also exceed the criteria. In addition, Location 6, which represents a residential area, was also compared to the HUD noise criterion of 65 dBA (HUD noise criteria apply to residential locations). Location 6, which represents a residential area, had monitoring results under the highest weekday of 70 dbA during weekday daytime and 68 dBA during weekday nighttime conditions, as shown above, and 70 dBA for highest weekend daytime sound levels. Thus, existing noise levels exceed the HUD noise criterion of 65 dbA. Additionally, under the existing highest weekday noise conditions Location 3 currently experiences sound levels that exceed the noise criteria for the Town of Hempstead of 76 dBA for transient noise, as shown above.
To evaluate potential noise from mobile sources, trip generation data for the Alternative CMP were reviewed and compared to the proposed Integrated Resort. These data indicate that the trip generation for the Alternative CMP is less than (for Weekday AM peak hour) or, at worst case, generally equal to (for Weekday PM peak hour and Saturday Midday peak hour) that of proposed Integrated Resort, as shown in Table 133. Thus, the future Build condition sound levels associated with the Alternative CMP would be the same or less than those calculated for the proposed Integrated Resort. As demonstrated in Section 3.7.2, Noise and Vibration, the maximum increase in sound levels for the proposed Integrated Resort from the existing condition for any receptor location ranges from 0 to one dBA for the weekday daytime and nighttime hours and from one dBA to four dBA for the weekend daytime and nighttime hours, all of which are less than the NYSDOT highway criteria of over six (+6) dBA and FHWA’s criteria of over ten (+10) dBA. It is noted that a 0 – one dBA increase is not perceptible, and a three dBA increase in sound level is just barely perceptible to the human ear, with four dBA being just above this. As indicated above, because the trip generation for the Alternative CMP is less than or, at worst case, generally equal that of the proposed Integrated Resort for the Weekday AM, Weekday PM and Saturday Midday peak hours, the mobile noise impacts of the Alternative CMP would be similar to or less than that of the Integrated Resort. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact from traffic noise at the receptors examined based on the Alternative CMP.
As with the proposed Integrated Resort, at night, the dominant noise source from the Alternative CMP is likely to come from HVAC and other building mechanical equipment. The specific stationary sources required to support the Alternative CMP have yet to be developed. However, standard equipment expected to be used in the development of the Alternative CMP includes air handlers, cooling towers, and emergency generators. Although the equipment would not be centralized, the review of the stationary sources for the proposed Integrated Resort can be used as a reference for the Alternative CMP. The Town of Hempstead’s steady noise code criteria of 56 dBA is exceeded at a number of receptor locations under the existing condition, as documented above, but the Alternative CMP’s contribution from steady noise sources at the receptors is expected to be below the criteria.
The Alternative CMP’s building mechanical equipment would be expected to meet current manufacturers’ acoustic standards, would incorporate acoustic attenuation (silencers etc.), as
needed, and utilize the proximity of adjacent buildings to reduce sound levels. Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP’s contribution from the stationary noise sources at the previously-identified receptors is expected to range from 0 (majority of the receptor locations) to an increase of two dBA. Therefore, since the incremental increases at Full Build of the Alternative CMP from the existing steady noise sources would be only barely perceptible, they would not result in a significant adverse noise impact.
The Alternative CMP would generally use the same standard construction equipment as noted for the proposed Integrated Resort. Construction noise levels associated with the Alternative CMP would be mitigated as all exterior construction activities, including demolition, site excavation/grading and new building construction would be limited to normal daytime working hours, in accordance with the Town BZO. A Construction Management Plan would be developed to ensure compliance with the noise regulations. Equipment would be required to be kept in good repair and equipped with mufflers. Additionally, idling of equipment not in use would not be permitted. Also, quieter-type (manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive) back-up alarms on construction vehicles that meet applicable regulations would be required. Where possible, construction equipment would be sited on the subject property as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible. Also, perimeter construction fencing would be installed to provide site security and a visual screen. Internally, it is expected that a hoarding wall would be installed, which would be relocated as the location of the construction activities moves around within the subject property. Both of these fencing/wall features would provide some attenuation of construction noise to the surrounding area.
Based on the distance between the construction activities associated with the Alternative CMP and the nearest receptors, and with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, no significant adverse noise impacts are expected during the construction period.
As noted in Section 3.7.2, Noise and Vibration of this DEIS, as with the proposed Integrated Resort, it is expected that the most intensive vibration construction activities for the Alternative CMP to be below the most stringent vibration criteria for annoyance per the FTA guidelines (and damage to structure for vibration). Construction vibration impacts are expected to be equal to or less than the proposed Integrated Resort. Therefore, based on the analysis of vibration included in Section 3.7.2, no significant off-site vibration impacts are anticipated under the Alternative CMP.

‌Socioeconomics

As compared to the proposed Integrated Resort (investment of over $5.0 billion459), the total investment in development of the Alternative CMP would be approximately $3.225 billion. While the Alternative CMP would generate various economic benefits, they would not be as significant as those associated with the proposed Integrated Resort.

‌459 Represents the minimum proposed development investment that would be made by Sands. It is anticipated that the actual development cost would be higher, but final costs cannot be determined until the design is finalized and bids are received.

Should the gaming license not be granted to Sands, Sands is still required to make specific contributions/payments to the County, Town (including special districts) and the school district. The following summarizes the anticipated monetary benefits under this alternative.

› Annual rent to the County in the amount of $5.0 million.

› Payment of $900,000 per year to Nassau County, with a two percent annual escalation, for police services.

› CBP of $2.0 million per year upon substantial completion of development of the Alternative CMP (with no casino). As with the proposed Integrated Resort, the CBP would support and enhance fire departments and districts and ambulance service providers; school districts; libraries and library districts; athletic fields, ballfields and parks; and other community facilities. Forty percent of the CBP would be designated for community facilities in Uniondale.

› An assumed PILOT payment in the amount of $4.0 million. The actual PILOT payment would be finalized upon further consultation with IDA.

› At least $1 million for the construction of an appropriate monument, memorial, or other tribute to veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America.

As with the proposed Integrated Resort, there would be other revenue generated by this alternative with respect to the annual rental of the overall property associated with the lease, hotel tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, and other taxes and payments that would be paid by the Lessee.

Ongoing operating economic impacts associated with the operation of the Alternative CMP include, as calculated by EY (Appendix 8-4):

› Total gross annual jobs (direct, indirect and induced) for all of New York State are projected at 4,639. Subtracting the existing 478 Coliseum jobs, the net annual direct, indirect and induced jobs would be 4,096.

› The 4,096 jobs would result in total labor income would be $307 million and the net total output would be $826 million, annually for all of New York State.

› The total net direct annual jobs for Nassau County are projected at 2,312. The 2,312 net new jobs would result in $178 million in annual labor income, with a total annual output of $457 million. When considering indirect and induced jobs (3,632 total including direct, indirect and induced jobs), the net total labor income would be $269 million, and the net total output would be $723 million annually.

› Approximately 60 percent of the Nassau County totals, noted above, would be derived from the Town of Hempstead.

Tax and other fiscal impacts associated with the operation of the Alternative CMP include, as calculated by EY:

› Total annual New York State tax generated of approximately $33.4 million, annually.

› Total annual local tax generated would include $25.8 million to Nassau County and $2.4 million to the Town of Hempstead.

Sands’ revenue commitments to government from prior to 2027 through 2037 are shown in

Table 145, below.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Sands New York Integrated Resort

Prior to Dec. 2027

Dec. 2027

‌Table 145 Sands Revenue Commitments to Governments (nominal $ million)1

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

Total

Lease payment $30.0	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$30
Property tax – PILOT --	$0.3	$4.1	$4.2	$4.2	$4.3	$4.4	$4.5	$4.6	$4.7	$4.8	$4.9	$45
Annual rental payments $35.3	$0.4	$5.1	$5.2	$5.4	$5.5	$5.6	$5.7	$5.8	$5.9	$6.0	$6.1	$92
Public safety contribution $3.8	$0.2	$1.8	$1.9	$1.9	$1.9	$2.0	$2.0	$2.1	$2.1	$2.2	$2.2	$24
Police substation construction $0.5	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$1
Annual community benefits --	$0.2	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$2.0	$20
Additional $25M CBP $12.5	$1.0	$11.5	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	$25
Uniondale $5.0	$0.5	$5.4	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$18
Village of Hempstead $2.5	$0.2	$2.7	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$0.4	$9
East Meadow $5.0	$0.5	$5.4	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$0.8	$18
Total commitments $82.1	$2.1	$24.6	$13.3	$13.5	$13.7	$14.0	$14.2	$14.5	$14.7	$15.0	$15.2	$237

Revenue Stream

payment (CBP)

Source: Sands

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding

1 Sands made a one-time payment of $54 million to Nassau County in June 2023. If Sands is not awarded Casino license, at the beginning of the fourth year, the County must return $24 million to Sands.

Unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, since there would be no gaming facilities in the Alternative CMP, there would be no recurring guaranteed gaming tax payments to the County or the Town.

Also, unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP would generate direct population and school-aged children associated with residential development. On-site residential development in the Alternative CMP includes of 500 housing units -- 200 condominiums and 300 rental units. These housing units would directly generate a permanent population of approximately 949 persons,460 including 45 school-aged children, 41 of which are expected to attend public school.461

‌Community Facilities and Services

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
As overseen by the Nassau County Fire Marshal (the same as with the proposed Integrated Resort), fire protection and emergency medical services would be provided by the Uniondale Fire District, with mutual aid provided as needed, as described in Section 3.10, Community Facilities and Services. Primary ambulance service would be provided by the NCPD Emergency Ambulance Bureau. Also, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, buildings constructed as part of the Alternative CMP would be built to the latest New York Building and Fire Codes with appropriately designed water supply and infrastructure systems to support fire protection needs. The Alternative CMP would be reviewed by the Nassau County Fire Marshal for the appropriateness of the site layout and fire suppression services. As stated in Section 8.2.8, above, fire departments and districts would receive a portion of the PILOT, as well as a portion of the $2 million in CBP payments (as determined by the CBP advisory committee) that would be distributed annually as part of the Alternative CMP.
Police Protection/Security
Police protection would be provided by the NCPD Third Precinct. Primary ambulance and emergency medical services would continue to be provided by the NCPD EAB. However, unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, no police substation would be constructed on the subject property under the Alternative CMP. Also, should the gaming license not be awarded, the Lessee would be required to make a payment of $900,000 per year to Nassau County for police services, with a two percent annual escalation.
Additionally, it is expected that each of the various development components (hotel, residential buildings, medical office buildings, R&D facilities, entertainment venues, retail facilities) would provide their own security measures, including the employment of security personnel and video surveillance cameras. Furthermore, the parking areas and parking garages would be appropriately lit and monitored.

‌460 The population figure was calculated by EY using multipliers derived from the United States Census data for 2022.
‌461 The number of school-aged children was calculated by VHB using the Impact of Market Rate Apartments on School District Enrollment School Aged Children published in May 2019 by the Real Estate Institute (REI) at Stony Brook University College of Business.
Educational Facilities
Unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP includes 500 residential units, resulting in a permanent population of 949, as noted above. Based on the Impact of Market Rate Apartments on School District Enrollment School Aged Children published in May 2019 by the Real Estate Institute (REI) at Stony Brook University College of Business, under this alternative, there would be 45 school-aged children, approximately 90 percent (41) of whom are expected to attend public schools within the Uniondale UFSD.
The projected 41 public school-aged children represent an increase of 0.68±percent above the 2023-24 enrollment of 6,070 students in the Uniondale UFSD. This increase is less than the average annual enrollment declines in the Uniondale UFSD for the past six school years, which ranged from a decrease of 0.02 percent between 2022-23 and 2023-24 to a decrease of seven percent between 2021-22 and 2022-23, as shown in Section 3.10.1, Community Facilities and Services.
As indicated above, based on publicly available data from the NYSED, the total district enrollment for the Uniondale UFSD was 6,070 for the 2023-2024 school year.462 The total district budget for the 2023-2024 school year was $256,006,716 (of which approximately 50.8 percent, or
$130,132,626, was from the local property tax levy).463 Dividing the total budget by the enrollment, the average expenditure per pupil for the 2023-2024 school year was approximately
$42,176.
While the average total per-pupil expenditure is a useful metric for certain tasks, such as overall district budgeting, it is not appropriate for evaluating the marginal cost of educating a new student. This is because the average cost includes administrative and capital expenditures that are not affected by the introduction of new students (e.g., superintendent salary, capital projects, debt service). Program (instructional) expenditures provide a more accurate assessment of the cost of educating additional students generated by new residences. The total instructional/program component of the 2023-24 budget was $207,560,452 (81.1 percent of the total budget). Therefore, program expenditure per student is approximately $34,195. However, only a portion of the instructional cost is paid by the local real estate property tax levy. For the 2023-24 budget, the portion of the instructional costs paid by the local real estate property tax is
50.8 percent. Therefore, the cost paid by the local property tax is estimated to be approximately
$17,382 per pupil.
Applying the per pupil instructional expenditure paid by the local property tax of approximately
$17,382 to the projected number of public school-aged children generated by the Alternative CMP (41 public school-aged children), it would be expected that the cost to educate the project public school-aged children would be approximately $712,647 per year.
As described in Section 8.2.8, Socioeconomics, above, a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) would be paid by the Lessee under this alternative scenario. A total PILOT of $4 million has been assumed (The actual PILOT payment would be finalized upon further consultation with the

‌462 New York State Education Department. Archive Enrollment Data. Available at: https://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/enroll-n- staff/ArchiveEnrollmentData.htm l. Accessed September 2024.
‌463 Lagnado, M. M. (2023, April 4). 2023-2024 Budget Presentation Uniondale Public Schools. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ts07qlYNVp9B7ijH6dua0vshSSp8Bs1n/view
Nassau County IDA), which would continue to escalate annually. Using a static $4 million PILOT, which would provide a conservative analysis, based on information from the Nassau County Department of Assessment, approximately 58.6 percent of the total PILOT would go to the Uniondale UFSD. Based on this, the revenue generated by the PILOT (approximately $2.34 million) would be greater than the cost to educate the public school-aged children ($712,647 annually), resulting in a surplus to the Uniondale UFSD. Furthermore, as noted above, 40 percent of the $2.0 million in annual community benefit funds may go to Uniondale, a portion of which may go to the Uniondale UFSD, as noted in Section 8.2.8, above.

Solid Waste

Based on the development program for the Alternative CMP, approximately 395 tons per month of solid waste is anticipated to be generated.

Proposed Use	Size (Square Feet)	Size (Other Units)	Solid Waste Rate (lbs/day)	Solid Waste (lbs/day)
Residential	992,781	500 units	4 lbs/dwelling unit /day	2,000
Retail	40,000	--	13 lbs/1,000 sf	520
Restaurants 50,000		1,352± seats (estimated)	2.0 lbs/meal	16,224
Hotel 631,794		500 keys	3.0 lbs/room	1,500
Performing Arts 147,865		3,600 seats	13 lbs/1,000 sf	47
Multipurpose Recreational 200,000 Facility		--	13 lbs/1,000 sf	2,600
R&D Office Space 100,384		--	1 lbs/100 sf	1,004
Medical Office 180,058		--	1 lbs/100 sf	1,801

‌Table 146 Solid Waste Generation of Alternative CMP

Center

Space

arts center

Veterans Memorial 23,031 -- same as performing

299

SUBTOTAL 2,365,913 -- 25,995

Source: Salvato, J. et al. Environmental Engineering (5th Edition) (2003). Available art: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed June 2024.

The anticipated 25,995 lbs of solid waste generated per day for the Alternative CMP represents approximately 395 tons per month (25,995 lbs per day ÷ 2,000 tons per lb) x (365 days ÷ 12 months), which is about 63 percent of the solid waste anticipated under the proposed Integrated Resort (excluding the Marriott Hotel property). A portion of the development program includes medical office space (as well as R&D space); therefore, medical (red bag) waste that may be generated would be collected and disposed of in accordance with applicable local and state regulations. Recycling would occur pursuant to the requirements of the Town, as well as state regulations, including, if applicable, NYSDEC’s Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law, as described in Section 3.10.2, Community Facilities and Services.

Solid waste generated on the subject property during operations associated with the Alternative CMP would be collected by a licensed private carter and disposed at ReworldTM Hempstead, which confirmed that it would be able to accept post-recycled solid waste (Appendix 3.10-1).

Open Space and Recreation
As depicted on the Alternative CMP (Figure 59 and Appendix 8-1), an area designated as open space is proposed to be located in the northwestern portion of the Coliseum property. The 3.16 acres of on-site public open space would more than fulfill the requirement for public open space (i.e., 2.15 acres) as required by the proposed MF-IRD. Unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP contains residential units that would generate a permanent population, which is more likely to use open space and recreational facilities on a regular basis than patrons of the Integrated Resort.
Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands is required to construct an appropriate monument, memorial, or other tribute to veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America, at a cost of no less than $1.0 million. As with the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands would engage Nassau County veterans to assist in designing the memorial under the Alternative CMP.
Although it incorporates approximately 3.4 acres of public open space on-site, this alternative could have a greater impact than the proposed Integrated Resort on surrounding open space/recreational uses due to the presence of a permanent population. The on-site space would off-set some of the impacts associated with off-site open space usage. Additionally, the hotel is expected to provide fitness/recreational facilities for its guests.
Overall, it is anticipated that the Alternative CMP would have an impact on community facilities and services that is generally equal to or somewhat less than the proposed Integrated Resort, with the exception of the 500 residences included in the Alternative CMP, generating an on-site permanent population, and including school-aged children who may attend the Uniondale UFSD. The Lessee would enter into a new PILOT agreement, which would balance added costs associated with community services, including the Uniondale UFSD, with the regional economic development benefits of the project.

‌Aesthetic Resources
An architectural massing model based on the Alternative CMP is included in Appendix 8-2 with a number of illustrative graphics for each of the proposed building types, depicting the potential architectural style and design features based on the design standards included in the MF-IRD zoning district.
The buildings included in this alternative are generally smaller in size and height when compared to the proposed Integrated Resort. The tallest buildings in this alternative are the proposed hotel (248 feet to the top of the parapet/20 stories) and the residential condominium (222 feet to the top of the parapet/18 stories), both located along Earle Ovington Boulevard, across from a recharge basin and parking lot on the Hofstra University campus. The proposed Integrated Resort includes two hotel towers, both 298 feet in height to the top of the parapet. The remainder of the buildings in the Alternative CMP are one-to-five stories (ranging from
approximately 33 feet to 103 feet464) in height, whereas in the proposed Integrated Resort, most of the other components of the Integrated Resort extend to a height of approximately 95 feet. Additionally, the parking garages in the Alternative CMP extend from a minimum of 13 feet to the top of the parapet (Parking Garage E) to a maximum height of 90 feet to the top of the parapet (Parking Garage A), whereas in the proposed Integrated Resort, all of the proposed garages extend to a height of 95 feet. Therefore, the building heights in the Alternative CMP are generally lower than those of the proposed Integrated Resort.
Views along Hempstead Turnpike would be of the one-story/33-foot-tall veterans memorial at the eastern extent of the subject property and the one-story/33-foot-tall R&D office buildings situated within a campus-like setting adjacent to MSKCC. A two-story medical building, with surrounding surface parking would be visible at the corner of Hempstead Turnpike and Earle Ovington Boulevard. Based on the foregoing, all of the buildings along Hempstead Turnpike would be either one- or two-stories in height. Under the proposed Integrated Resort, there would be no building on the corner of Earle Ovington Boulevard and Hempstead Turnpike, only surface parking, and the buildings in the proposed Integrated Resort, including Parking Garage C and the entertainment venue, would be up to 95 feet in height.
As shown in the massing model in Appendix 8-2, and based on the heights of the proposed uses as depicted on the Alternative CMP (Figure 59), the views of development in accordance with the Alternative CMP along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard would be considerably different than those along Hempstead Turnpike. A proposed medical office building and associated parking garage at the corner of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard would be three stories in height, which would allow views into the central portion of the subject site toward the five-story mixed- use building. Under the proposed Integrated Resort, there would only be surface parking (Parking Lot E) in this area. Traveling west along Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, views of larger and taller buildings would predominate, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort. The 70-foot tall parking garage serving the multipurpose recreational and retail facility in the Alternative CMP, west of the new main north-south roadway, would block most views into the central portion of the subject site, with the three-story PAC filling the view as one turns from Charles Lindbergh Boulevard onto Earle Ovington Boulevard. Views to the site from Earle Ovington Boulevard, between Charles Lindbergh Boulevard and East Gate Road, would be dominated by the 20-story hotel (248 feet) and 18-story residential building (222 feet), fronted by the hotel/condominium podium and parking garage. This would be considerably different from the proposed Integrated Resort, where the proposed meeting and conference building and Parking Garage B would extend to approximately 95 feet in height. The views to the site south from East Gate Boulevard along Earle Ovington Boulevard to Hempstead Turnpike would consist mostly of surface parking, with the two-story medical office building at the corner, whereas only surface parking would be visible in the proposed Integrated Resort, as noted above. As with the proposed Integrated Resort, the perimeter of the subject property would be landscaped to soften views and minimize visual impacts.
As detailed in Section 8.2.3, the potential for the buildings in the Alternative CMP to cast shadows upon the Hempstead Plains are minimal, due to the layout of the proposed buildings,

‌464 A portion of the proposed performing arts center extends to 103 feet at the top of the parapet and the entertainment retail space extends to a height of 93 feet to the top of the parapet.
and the fact that the tallest buildings are located the farthest away from this resource. Furthermore, the Marriott Hotel, which would not be altered in this alternative, provides a physical obstruction between the Hempstead Plains and a portion of the development associated with the Alternative CMP.
Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP would be designed to comply with the Town of Hempstead’s regulations regarding exterior lighting, as set forth in at Article XXXI, § 302.P of its BZO and § 96-14.A of the Town Code, as applicable.
The visual impacts resulting from the implementation of the Alternative CMP would be generally less than those associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, as the buildings in this alternative would generally be of lesser scale than those associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. Views along Hempstead Turnpike would be different from those associated with the proposed Integrated Resort, as no building would be taller than two stories (medical office building) along this roadway (and most would be one story), whereas the proposed Integrated Resort would contain buildings of up to 95 feet along this roadway. In both cases, landscaping would be installed to soften the appearance of the buildings and minimize visual impacts from the proposed buildings along this roadway.
‌Cultural Resources
Section 3.12, Cultural Resources demonstrates that the subject property is not located within an archaeologically-sensitive area. Moreover, there are no State or National-Register-Eligible or Listed buildings situated on or substantially contiguous to the subject property. There are no Town landmarks identified either on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore, there would be no direct impact to cultural resources under the Alternative CMP. Also, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, given that the surrounding landscape has already been considerably altered by human disturbance, implementation of the Alternative CMP would not have a significant adverse impact upon any of the historic properties that are located in the vicinity of the subject property. As this Alternative CMP includes two buildings in excess of 200 feet in height, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort (described in Section 3.4.2, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character and Section 3.11.2, Aesthetic Resources), cultural resources situated within the National-Register-listed District associated with the Mitchel Air Base and Flight Line, Museum Row and the Officers’ Quarters (described in Section 3.12, Cultural Resources), would be expected to have views of portions of the alternative development. However, similar to the proposed action, due to the distance and intervening development, the overall impact on cultural resources would not be significant.
‌Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities

Development under the Alternative CMP would be served by PSEG Long Island and National Grid for electricity and natural gas, respectively. Based on the Alternative CMP’s development program and the installation of EV charging stations throughout the site, according to JB&B, the peak demand for electricity would be approximately 18.7 MW (less than the 40.8 MW anticipated for the proposed Integrated Resort). According to JB&B, this is within PSEG Long Island’s excess capacity in the existing substation located on the north side of Charles Lindbergh Boulevard. As
such, the Alternative CMP would likely not require the expansion of an existing or construction of a new electric substation. Two new dedicated 13.2 kV feeders, routed to local transformers at each proposed building from the Lindbergh substation would be installed. It is not anticipated that significant utility improvements would be required under the Alternative CMP.
Based on the program under the Alternative CMP, the gas load demand would be approximately 37,500 CFH. This is a slightly lower demand than the proposed Integrated Resort, which gas load demand is projected to be 40,200 CFH.
The Alternative CMP would require localized emergency generators due to code-required life safety/emergency standby support of each building over 75 feet in height versus the CUPs included in the proposed Integrated Resort.
A conceptual plan for the Alternative CMP incorporating photovoltaics has been developed by JB&B. PV panels would be installed atop the proposed parking garages, as well as carports over surface parking areas throughout the subject site. The system size for the full site would be 4,900 KW with an estimated annual production of 6,100 MWH. Implementation of this PV plan is expected to offset annual electrical power usage by approximately 20 percent.
See the discussion in Section 8.2.13 below for energy efficiency and sustainability measures under the Alternative CMP for energy conservation.
Less electricity is projected to be used by the Alternative CMP than the proposed Integrated Resort. Like the Integrated Resort, renewable energy would be incorporated to help off-site annual electrical power usage. As described above, the amount of natural gas usage is expected to be slightly lower than under the proposed Integrated Resort. Overall, no significant utility improvements are anticipated with implementation of the Alternative CMP.

‌Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability

Direct Emissions (Scope 1)
Stationary Sources
Approximately 15 total commercial kitchens are assumed in the Alternative Plan to serve the restaurant spaces, hotel, recreational facility, and medical office space. Based on an estimated average natural gas usage of 2,500 CFH in each kitchen, GHG emissions from natural gas appliances in the Alternative Plan are estimated to be approximately seven percent less than the amount assumed in the proposed action. Emergency generator use in the Alternative Plan is assumed to be similar to or less than that assumed for the proposed action.

Mobile Sources
As explained in Section 3.5.2, Transportation and Parking, fleet vehicles are those that are owned/controlled by the development and include, for example, security vehicles, on-site maintenance and landscape vehicles, and similar vehicles. The amount of Lessee-owned or managed vehicles used to serve the Alternative CMP are anticipated to be less under the Alternative CMP. Therefore, the Alternative CMP would be expected to generate less total direct GHG emissions from mobile sources compared to the proposed Integrated Resort.
Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)
Stationary Sources
Compared to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP represents a reduction in total building floor area by roughly 37 percent from approximately 3.75 million square feet in the proposed Integrated Resort to approximately 2.37 million square feet in the Alternative CMP. It is assumed that the reduction in building square footage in the Alternative CMP would correlate with a reduction in electrical and HVAC usage and resulting GHG emissions compared to the proposed Integrated Resort. Although the Alternative CMP would include approximately 990,000 square feet of residential building floor area, it is anticipated that the purchased energy consumed by the residential areas and the resulting indirect stationary source GHG emission would be more than offset by the difference in overall square footage between the proposed Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP.
Furthermore, as described in Section 8.2.13.5, an on-site solar PV system would be installed, which is anticipated to provide at least 20 percent of electricity needs in the Alternative CMP, compared to providing eight percent of electricity needs in the proposed Integrated Resort. Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, Beyond exceeding the New York State Energy Code by a minimum of eight percent in the baseline scenario, Sands is anticipated to achieve an additional 20 percent reduction in indirect stationary source GHG emissions in the proposed action by entering into a power purchase agreement with the electricity provider to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources.

Mobile Sources
The Alternative CMP would provide approximately 6,380 on-site vehicle parking spaces, or roughly 49 percent fewer than the proposed Integrated Resort, which would accommodate approximately 12,450 spaces. The reduction in mobile sources correlates with fewer anticipated vehicle trips in the Alternative CMP, and thus fewer VMT and less indirect mobile source GHG emissions.

Solid Waste
As described in Section 8.2.9, Community Facilities and Services, above, approximately 25,995 pounds of solid waste are anticipated to be generated per day in the Alternative CMP, which would equal approximately 4,740 tons of solid waste per year. This represents less solid waste than in the proposed Integrated Resort (Section 3.14.2.2, Indirect Emissions [Scope 2]).The lesser amount of solid waste produced on-site and ultimately landfilled reduces the GHG emissions generated.

Summary Comparison of GHG Emissions

A summary comparison of estimated direct and indirect operational emissions between the Alternative CMP and the proposed Integrated Resort is provided in Table 147 .

‌Table 147 GHG Emissions Comparison (with Mitigation) Between the Proposed Integrated Resort and the Alternative CMP

Proposed Integrated

Resort Alternative CMP Reason

Direct Sources (Metric Tons CO2e/year)

Stationary Higher Lower

Mobile Higher Lower

Approximately seven percent less natural gas usage and less resulting GHG emissions in the Alternative CMP given less total food service area.

The Alternative CMP would operate fewer site-owned fleet vehicles, resulting in fewer total vehicle trips.

Indirect Sources (Metric Tons CO2e/year)

Total electricity consumption is anticipated to be less since the total

Stationary	Higher	Lower building floor area is less as compared to that of the proposed Integrated Resort.
Mobile	Higher	Lower Somewhat fewer vehicular trips.
Solid Waste	Higher	Lower Less solid waste generation than proposed Integrated Resort.

Construction GHG Emissions
Given that the total square footage of development in the Alternative CMP is less than the proposed Integrated Resort, the amount of equipment necessary to construct the Alternative CMP and the total equipment operating time is anticipated to be less that that required for the proposed Integrated Resort. Thus, the total amount of direct GHG emissions from the on-site use of the diesel-fueled engines would be less in the Alternative CMP.
Similarly, the Alternative CMP would require fewer building materials compared to the proposed Integrated Resort, resulting in fewer indirect GHG emissions associated with the production of concrete, masonry, asphalt, steel, glass, wood, and other building materials. Fewer GHG emissions from the delivery of these materials to the subject site is also anticipated. Electricity used during construction of the Alternative CMP is anticipated to be less given the reduced size, and fewer construction worker vehicle round trips are anticipated.
Demolition and material hauling activity for the Alternative CMP would include removal of the existing Coliseum structure and exhibition hall, as well as existing asphalt and concrete pavement throughout the subject property. Approximately 78,000 CY of material are expected to be removed from the site. This is less than anticipated in the proposed Integrated Resort. Therefore, the GHG emissions associated with construction activities of the Alternative CMP would be less than that anticipated with the proposed Integrated Resort.
Climate Change
The SEQR Handbook notes that projects located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain or within a NYSDEC-mapped CEHA require additional climate analysis including evaluation of coastal or riparian flooding and storm surge risks.465 Development associated with the Alternative CMP would not be located within a regulated floodway, a special flood hazard area, or a CEHA. Therefore, coastal or riparian flooding and storm surge risks are not relevant to this analysis.
The SEQR Handbook also notes that a discussion of measures to reduce a project’s impact on climate change may be warranted based on the potential to result in substantial GHG emissions affecting climate change. These measures/methods include:
1) reducing the carbon footprint of a project, 2) promoting green infrastructure and energy efficiency, 3) using renewable forms of energy to power a project, and 4) promoting increased accessibility or usage of public transit at the project site (page 125).

Energy Efficiency
Under the Alternative Development scenario as with the proposed Integrated Resort, Sands the requirements of the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State would be meet or exceeded through the incorporation of passive design strategies, high-efficiency MEP systems and HVAC equipment and Energy Star‐rated appliances and equipment. Other strategies to improve energy efficiency in the buildings associated with the Alternative CMP include maximizing daylight penetration, installation of LED lighting, and smart metering and submeter stations.

Renewable Energy
In the Alternative CMP, renewable energy would be incorporated through the installation of an on-site solar PV system. The PV panels would be installed atop the proposed parking garages and at carports over surface parking areas, including at surface parking lots associated with the proposed medical office building and R&D office buildings. The total system size would be approximately 4,900 kW with an estimated annual production of approximately 6,100 MWh. In the Alternative CMP, the on-site solar PV system is expected to offset annual electricity usage by approximately 20 percent. Comparatively, the proposed action assumes the installation of an approximately 8,400 kW solar system that would generate about 10,387 MWh per year, which would offset annual electricity usage by approximately eight percent.
In alignment with its existing company-wide global carbon emissions reduction goal, Sands would aim to provide 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy via the on-site solar PV system combined with a power purchase agreement with PSEG Long Island to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources.

‌465 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits, The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, March 2020, https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf .
Reduction in Carbon Footprint
As described above, to reduce its carbon footprint, the Alternative CMP emphasizes energy- efficient design and renewable energy use, energy-efficient lighting and HVAC systems, sustainable building materials, and waste reduction practices.
Use of Public Transit and Alternate Transportation Modes
Existing transit and non-motorized services in the vicinity of the subject property include commuter rail, public bus, and a network of pedestrian and shared-use paths that promote non- motorized travel. In the Alternative CMP, patrons and employees would have several mode choices including automobile, ridesharing, NICE bus transit, LIRR, and biking/walking.
In short, as the Alternative CMP has less square footage than the proposed Integrated Resort and as it would incorporate various sustainability measures, it would have a lesser impact on climate change.
Sustainability
The design, construction, and operation of the Alternative CMP would align with Sands’ ECO360 Global Sustainability Strategy, as detailed for the proposed Integrated Resort. Sustainability elements to be incorporated into the Alternative Plan would include:
› Constructing the Alternative CMP within a previously disturbed, primarily paved site to reduce the overall land-use footprint.
› Reducing off-site hauling by re-using soils excavated during construction activity on-site as fill material for the demolished Coliseum and exhibition hall.
› Installing a solar PV renewable energy system on-site
› In alignment with its existing company-wide global carbon emissions reduction goal, Sands would aim to provide 60 percent of its annual electricity needs using renewable energy via the on-site solar PV system combined with a power purchase agreement with PSEG Electric to purchase energy from off-site renewable sources.
› Installing EV charging infrastructure to support a portion of the total parking spaces.
› Using low-impact development techniques to reduce stormwater runoff.
› Potentially incorporating a rainwater capture and reuse system that collects, filters, and stores rainwater.
› Installing drought-tolerant plant species and integrating advanced irrigation technologies to reduce water needs associated with on-site irrigation.
› Installing low-flow fixtures and appliances to reduce indoor water use.
› Implementing construction waste management strategies.
› Utilizing low-emitting materials in construction materials and components.
› Using local sources to obtain construction materials such as concrete, glass, masonry, wood, insulation, plastics, gypsum board, metals, and piping.

‌Construction
A variety of construction work would be performed throughout the 71.6-acre Coliseum property for the Alternative CMP including utility and stormwater infrastructure, buildings, roadways, parking structures and landscaping. Similar to the proposed Integrated Resort, the Alternative CMP is expected to occur in two major construction phases, with some overlap. Phase 1 is expected to begin in early 2026 and be completed at the end of 2027. Phase 2 would begin in 2026 and end in 2030. Therefore, the anticipated phased construction period would comprise five years, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort. This includes demolition of the existing Coliseum, and all of the existing parking areas to facilitate the construction of the Alternative CMP. The construction schedule would be dictated by a number of factors including weather, material availability, and current and proposed utility capacities, and issuance of licenses and permits. Throughout the construction period, work hours would generally be scheduled from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, in accordance with Town Code regulations, unless otherwise modified. The majority of construction workers are expected to leave the construction site by 3:00 p.m.
Appendix 8-3 shows the Phasing Summary for the Alternative CMP construction period. The following summarizes the work expected to be performed in each phase.
Phase 1
The following activities are included in Phase 1, with an anticipated two-year duration:
› Demolition of the Coliseum
› Excavation for and construction of Garage A
› Excavation and construction of the Multipurpose Recreation (Entertainment/Retail) Facility
› Construction of the Performing Arts Center
› Utility upgrade/sitework
› Construction of the majority of the internal roadways

Phase 2
Phase 2 includes the remainder of the development in the general sequence of construction shown below.
› Garage D and surface parking
› Mixed-use building (residential/retail)
› Open space
› Garage B
› Medical office building (northeast)
› Garage C
› Condominium building
› Podium
› Hotel
› Hotel/Condominium podium
› Medical office building (southwest)
› R&D office complex
› Garage E
› Surface parking in the southern portion of the site
› Veterans Memorial
Though less than the proposed Integrated Resort, the site requires a significant amount of earthwork and surface pavement material displacement, and would generate demolition debris associated with the Coliseum to accommodate the proposed construction. The total amount of material is preliminarily estimated at 97,000 CY, but the amount would be refined as the detailed building designs are developed. Of this total, it is expected that approximately 78,000 CY of material would be removed from the subject site over a portion of the Phase 1 construction period. The remainder of the material would be crushed and re-used on site for stone fill, thus reducing the frequency of associated truck trips on a daily basis. Based upon this preliminary estimate and assuming the use of trucks with a 30 CY capacity and 200 working days per year over approximately one year, over an 11-hour day, this equates to an average of just over one truck leaving the site every hour. While these removals would result in trips from the subject property to more than one location, they would be controlled, and would use major roadways and not local secondary streets, as described in the proposed Integrated Resort.
Material deliveries would occur over the course of the construction period for the Alternative CMP. Delivery trucks from further distance would arrive via the truck route using the same major roadways as the proposed Integrated Resort (Section 3.15-2, Construction). Local suppliers of construction material may arrive from other roadways to the site based on their origin.
Unlike the proposed Integrated Resort, dewatering would not be required for the construction of the Alternative CMP, as the depth of proposed excavation would be less.
As with the proposed Integrated Resort, a SWPPP would be prepared in accordance with Town requirements, which would first be reviewed and accepted by the Town of Hempstead, prior to submission to the NYSDEC. Erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented prior to and throughout the construction phase of the proposed project, similar to the proposed Integrated Resort.
Construction vehicle, delivery vehicle, and construction worker vehicle routing would be the same as described for the proposed Integrated Resort. Furthermore, construction vehicle and worker parking would be provided on site, as with the proposed Integrated Resort, such that no parking of vehicles or equipment would occur on the surrounding roadways. Laydown areas would be provided on the subject site for materials that would be stockpiled for on-site use and for construction equipment that is proposed to remain.
The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction of the Alternative CMP are described in Section 8.2.8 above. While the Alternative CMP would yield economic benefits, they would not be as substantial as those associated with the proposed Integrated Resort. To summarize, according to G&T and EY, with respect to construction, the following are projected:
› Approximately 3,972 construction jobs across the five-year construction period, with the annual breakdown, as follows:
- Year 1 – 624± jobs
- Year 2 – 1,017± jobs
- Year 3 – 1,181± jobs
- Year 4 – 849± jobs
- Year 5 – 301± jobs.
› The annual wage range for the construction employees in each of the four phases is expected to be between $74,880 and $169,229.
› Direct labor income of $558± million and a total economic output of $1.9± billion for New York State. Of those totals, $237± million of direct labor income and $813± million of total economic output would go to Nassau County.
› Indirect and induced labor income of $507± million and total economic output of $1.4± billion for New York State. Of those totals, $145± million of labor income and $411± million of total economic output would go to Nassau County.
› Total New York State tax during the construction period is expected to be over $94± million.
› Total local tax during the construction period is anticipated to be approximately $7.2± million, including $3.7± million to Nassau County, $0.1± million to the Town of Hempstead and $3.4± million to the MCTD.
With respect to air quality, as well as noise and vibration impacts associated with construction of the Alternative CMP, there would be no significant differences as compared to the proposed Integrated Resort, as discussed in Section 8.2.6 and Section 8.2.7, respectively. Therefore, no significant adverse air quality and noise/vibration impacts are expected as a result of construction of the Alternative CMP.

‌MFM-Compliant Plan

Based on comments received during the scoping process, the Final Scope required that an MFM- Compliant Plan be included as part of the analysis of alternatives. As explained in 6 NYCRR

§617.9(b)(5)(v), a DEIS must contain “a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. . .”

Section 3.4.2.2, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character demonstrates that the proposed Integrated Resort could not be developed under the existing MFM Zoning District without significant relief from various provisions thereof. Also, as described Section 2.3, Site Development and Application History, there has never been a project proposed or implemented that has fully conformed to the prevailing MFM Zoning District.

Moreover, as demonstrated in Section 8.2.4, above, the Lessee could not develop its proposed Alternative CMP (if a gaming license is not awarded) without relief from multiple provisions of the MFM Zoning District.

As also explained in Section 3.4.2, Land Use, Zoning and Community Character, an MFM- Compliant Plan was prepared and analyzed. That plan, prepared by Sands’ civil engineer, H2M, maximized potential density, while fully complying with all requirements of the MFM Zoning District, as shown in Table 148 , below, and depicted on Figure 23 in Section 3.4.2., Land Use, Zoning and Community Character.

The MFM-Compliant Plan includes the following development, and all components are permitted uses as set forth in §146.1 C. of the Town of Hempstead BZO:

› Coliseum, with Exhibition Space: 416,000 sf

› Residential: 428 units (535,000 sf)

› Retail: 192,000 sf

› Restaurant: 60,000 sf

› Hotel: 1,000 keys (627,000 sf)

› Multiplex Cinema: 1,400 seats (19,600 sf)

› Conference/Meeting Space: 145,000 sf

› Office: 100,000 sf

› Parking garages: 380,344 sf.

As demonstrated in the table below, this MFM-Compliant Plan conforms to all dimensional requirements of the MFM Zoning District.

‌Table 148 MFM Zoning District Compliance

Zoning Parameter	Code Section	Permitted/Required	Provided in MFM- Compliant Plan
Permitted Uses	146.1-C	Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, plus two or more other permitted uses	Yes
Number of Dwellings per Building	146.1-C(15)	No more than 6 dwelling units per building	6
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)	146.1-F	1.6 max.	0.91
Building Height (Mixed- Use/Non-Residential)	146.1-H(1)	4 sty/60 ft max.	4 sty/60 ft
Hotel Building Height	146.1-H(2)	100 ft max.	100 ft
Parking Structure Height	146.1-H(3)	40 ft max.	40 ft
Front Yard (Mixed- Use/Non-Residential Building up to 60 ft in height)	146.1-I(1)	10 ft min.	20 ft
Front Yard (Building >60 ft in Height)	146.1-K	20 ft + increased setback of one ft for each three ft above 60 ft, min.	54.5 ft
Rear Yard	146.1-J	10 ft min.	NA

Code Provided in MFM-

Zoning Parameter	Section	Permitted/Required		Compliant Plan
Number of Residences	146.1-N(1)	500 max.		428
Residential Building Area	146.1-N(3)	35% max.		35<%
Residential Building Height	146.1-N(4)	3 sty/40 ft max.		N/A
Residential Open Space	146.1-N(10)	500 sf/unit	(250,000 sf) min.	554 sf/unit (237,700 sf)
Public Open Space	146.1-O(2)	3.0% (73,259 sf) min.		3.2% (78,000 sf)

Note: In the MFM-Compliant Plan, the proposed public rights-of-way conform to those established in Section 146.1-O(3) of the MFM Zoning District.

The MFM-Compliant Plan has substantially less building square footage than the proposed Integrated Resort. Given the substantial non-recoverable investments that Sands has made, including the $241 million paid for the private lease, as discussed in Section 2.3.3, Proposed Integrated Resort Application History); the financial commitments that Sands has made (even in the condition where a gaming license is not awarded, as explained in Section 8.2.8, above); and the costs associated with redevelopment of the Coliseum site, it is not feasible for Sands to develop a plan that fully conforms to the prevailing MFM Zoning District as there would not be sufficient yield to support the investments made. As indicated above, there has never been a project developed or proposed under the MFM Zoning District that has not required relief from various provisions of that district. Accordingly, an MFM-Compliant Plan alternative is not feasible for Sands to pursue, and given that this alternative is not feasible, no further analysis is required.

‌References

87 FR 73488. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat (November 30, 2022). Available

at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/30/2022-25998/endangered-and- threatened-wildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-status-for-northern-long-eared-bat. Accessed September 2024.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (2018).

American Water Works Association. Manual M31 (4th edition). Available

at: https://www.awwa.org/Publications/Manuals. Accessed September 2024.

Arena, U., & Gregorio, F. Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Systems: Landfill and Energy Recovery from a Specific Case Study (2014), Journal of Waste Management, 34(12), 2404-2412.

Arrant Construction. Constructing Podium Structures: A Comprehensive Guide. Available

at: https://www.arrantconstruction.com/constructing-podium-structures-a-comprehensive-guide/. Accessed June, 2024.

ASHRAE. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 Receives Determination from U.S. Department of Energy. Available at: https://www.ashrae.org/about/news/2018/ashrae-standard-90-1-2016-receives- determination-from-u-s-department-of- energy#:~:text=This%202016%20version%20of%2090.1,except%20low%2Drise%20residential%20buil dings. Accessed August 2024.

Bauerle, W., Oren, R., Way, D., & Reynolds, R.F. Photoperiodic regulation of the seasonal pattern of photosynthetic capacity and the implications for carbon cycling (May 14, 2012). Available

at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119131109. Accessed February 2024.

Bay Park Conveyance Project. About the Project. Available at: https://www.bayparkconveyance.org/about. Accessed February 2024.

Bayville Fire Company. The Comprehensive Training Process for Firefighters in Nassau County, NY (March 2, 2024). Available at: https://www.bayvillefirecompany.com/the-training-process-for- firefighters-in-nassau-county-ny. Accessed April 2024.

Bernstein, D. J., & Merwin, D. E. A Phase 1A Literature Search and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment for The Lighthouse at Long Island, Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York (2008). Prepared by The Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Birches Health. Gambling and Sports Betting Among College Students (July 8, 2023). Available at: https://bircheshealth.com/resources/gambling-college-students. Accessed June 2024.

Boston College Dyck Arboretum of the Plains. Defining Sun Requirements for Native Plants. Available at: https://dyckarboretum.org/defining-sun-requirements-for-native-plants/. Accessed January 2024.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Data; GDP and Personal Income. CAGDP1 County and MSA gross domestic product (GDP) summary, current-dollar Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (2021). Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index.html?appid=70&stepnum=40&Major_Area=4&State=36000&A rea=XX&TableId=533&Statistic=3&Year=2021&YearBegin=-1&Year_End=- 1&Unit_Of_Measure=Levels&Rank=0&Drill=1&nRange=5&AppId=70. Accessed May 2024.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industries at a Glance: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation: NAICS 71. US Available at: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag71.htm. Accessed March 2024.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index (CPI). Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, JobsEQ, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, non-seasonally adjusted, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cew/.

Cape Cod Times. Casino Rebirth: Bethlehem Sands revitalizes fading city (November 10, 2013). Available at https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2013/11/10/casino-rebirth-bethlehem- sands-revitalizes/41932668007/. Accessed February 2024.

Center for Environmental Excellence by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Noise Overview. Available at: https://environment.transportation.org/focus-areas/noise/noise-overview/. Accessed September 2024.

City Environmental Quality Review. Technical Manual (January 2021). Available

at: https://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/downloads/pdf/ceqr/CEQR_Manual_06_2013/2012_ceqr_tm_revise d_06_05_13.pdf. Accessed November 2023.

Climate Group. RE100 Reporting Guidance 2023, Version 7.1 (June 2023). Available

at: https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/001/322/original/RE100- reporting-guidance.pdf.pdf?1678892689. Accessed September 2024.

Code of Federal Regulations. Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Title 14 CFR Part 77. Available at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=14:2.0.1.2.9. Accessed September 2024.

Collins Dictionary. Hydronic. Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/hydronic. Accessed June 2024.

Council on Environmental Quality. Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance (January 17, 2016). Available

at: https://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=30742. Accessed September 2024.

Cradle of Aviation Museum. History of the Cradle of Aviation Museum. Available at: https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/history/. Accessed August 2024.

DataKustik. CadnaA Noise Prediction Software. Available at: https://www.datakustik.com/products/cadnaa/cadnaa .

Decision and Order, dated October 23, 2024, in the action entitled In the Matter of Hofstra University v Nassau County Planning Commission, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department, Index No. 606293/23.

Decision and Order (“Order”), dated November 9, 2023, in the action entitled In the Matter of Hofstra University v Nassau County Planning Commission, et al, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No.

606293/2023.

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for “The Lighthouse at Long Island” Hamlet of Uniondale, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, prepared on behalf of Lighthouse Development Group, LLC (last revised June 2009).

East Meadow Fire Department. East Meadow Fire District. Available at: https://eastmeadowfd.com/district/. Accessed June 2024.

Environmental Assessment: Privatization of Family Housing Mitchel Complex, Hempstead, New

York (December 2004). Prepared for the Department of the Navy Engineering Field Activity Northeast Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

ESRI. Long Island Depth to Water and Hydrologic Conditions Viewer. Available

at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/81dc041e5331461e942787bed9ce084b. Accessed September 2024.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance.

Available

at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide01.cf m .

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Traffic Noise Model (TNM). Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/.

Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, FHWA- HEP-10-025 (December 2011).

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 11th Edition (December 2023). Available at: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm. Accessed September 2024.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 11th Edition (December 2023).

Federal Highway Administration. New York State Supplement (2010).

Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. Nassau County Open Space Plan, prepared for the Nassau County Planning Commission (March 2001).

Friends of Hempstead Plains. About the Plains. Available at: http://friendsofhp.org/friends-plains.html. Accessed June 2024.

Garden City Fire Department. Garden City Fire Department. Available at: https://www.gcfdny.com/. Accessed June 2024.

Generator Source. Industrial Generator FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https://www.generatorsource.com/Generator_Faq.aspx#:~:text=kW%20is%20the%20unit%20of,than

%20the%20value%20for%20kW. Accessed September 2024.

Harris, Cyril. Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw Hill, New York (1979).

Hempstead Fire Department. About the Hempstead Volunteer Fire Department. Available at: https://www.hempsteadfd.org/about-us. Accessed June 2024.

HockeyDB. NHL Attendance Graph for Nassau Coliseum. Available at: https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl- attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=7085. Accessed August 2024.

Hofstra University. All About Hofstra. Available at: https://www.hofstra.edu/about/glance.html. Accessed September 2024.

Hofstra University. All About Hofstra. Available at: https://www.hofstra.edu/about/glance.html. Accessed February 2024.

Hsu, C. H. C. Gaming as an Economic Development Tool: A Case Study of Two Iowa Communities (1998). Pacific Tourism Review, Vol 1, No. 3, pp. 211-224. Available

at: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19981809152. Accessed May 2024.

IMPLAN LLC economic data/models. Available at: https://implan.com/. Accessed September 2024. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Parking Generation, 6th Edition.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/. Accessed September 2024.

Lagnado, M. M. 2024-2025 Budget Presentation Uniondale Public Schools. (2023, April 9). Available at: https://desireforuniondale.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/April-9-2024-2025-Proposed- Budget.pdf. Accessed June 2024.

Lagnado, M. M. 2023-2024 Budget Presentation Uniondale Public Schools. (2023, April 4). Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ts07qlYNVp9B7ijH6dua0vshSSp8Bs1n/view. Accessed June 2024.

Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Geology, D.P.C. ALTA / NSPS Land Title Survey (November 23, 2022).

Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Geology, D.P.C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Sands New York 1255 Hempstead Turnpike Uniondale, New York (May 15, 2023).

Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Geology, D.P.C. Phase II Environmental Site Investigation for Sands New York 1255 Hempstead Turnpike Uniondale, New York (August 15, 2023).

Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Geology, D.P.C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Sands New York 101 James Doolittle Blvd Uniondale, New York (February 3, 2023).

Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Geology, D.P.C. Phase II Environmental Site Investigation for Sands New York 101 James Doolittle Blvd Uniondale, New York (May 18, 2023).

Las Vegas Sands Corp. 2022 Environmental Social and Governance Report. Available at: https://www.sands.com/resources/reports/. Accessed September 2024.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. Environmental Responsibility Policy (Created April 2012, Updated July 2023). Available at: https://www.sands.com/content/uploads/2023/07/Environmental-Responsibility- Policy_July-2023.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. Environmental Social and Governance Material Issue Briefs (2021). Available at: https://www.sands.com/content/uploads/2022/06/ESG-Material-Issue-Briefs-2021_spreads.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. Sustainable Procurement Policy (July 2021). Available

at: https://www.sands.com/content/uploads/2022/04/Sustainable-Procurement-Policy_20210707-

1.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Lighting Design Lab. Footcandle Lighting Guide. Available

at: https://www.lightingdesignlab.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Footcandle_Lighting%20Guide_Rev.072 013.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

London, M., Deery, S., Pennetta, D., & Rosen, M. (2019, April). REI at Stony Brook University College of Business. From: https://www.reisb.org/. Accessed September 2024.

London, M., Deery, S., Pennetta, D., & Rosen, M. Impact of Market Rate Apartments on School District Enrollment (April 2019). REI at Stony Brook University College of Business.

Long Island Regional Economic Development Council. 2011 Long Island Strategic Plan (2011). Available at: https://www.longislandassociation.org/reports/strategic-economic-development-plan. Accessed September 2024.

Long Island Regional Economic Development Council. Long Island on the Rise: A Region Reaching for New Heights of Innovation and Inclusion: The Strategic Economic Development Plan for Long

Island (2016).

Long Island Regional Economic Development Council. Long Island's Future Economy – A New Beginning for Nassau and Suffolk Counties (2011). Available

at: https://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/LongIslandsFutureEconomy.pdf .

Long Island Regional Planning Board. The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992).

Murray, J. Indeed. Survey: 27% of Unemployed Respondents Seek Career Change During Pandemic (February 27, 2023). Available at: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a- job/unemployed-seeking-career-change-during-

pandemic#:~:text=In%20a%20recent%20Indeed%20survey%C2%B9,were%20looking%20to%20switc h%20fields. Accessed May 2024.

Nassau Coliseum. About Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Available at: https://www.nassaucoliseum.com/about. Accessed August 2024.

Nassau Community College. Facilities Administration. Available

at: https://www.ncc.edu/aboutncc/ourpeople/administration/facilities/. Accessed August 2024.

Nassau Community College. Student Population. Available

at: https://www.univstats.com/colleges/nassau-community-college/student- population/#:~:text=Nassau%20Community%20College%20has%20a%20total%20enrollment%20of, male%20%285%2C976%20students%29%20and%2052.68%25%20female%20%286%2C652%20stude nts%29. Accessed February 2024.

Nassau County Department of Health. Ground Water and Public Water Supply Facts (June 1991).

Available

at: https://health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/nyc_nassau_county_feasibility_study/Nassau% 20County%20Dept.%20of%20Health%20-

%20Ground%20Water%20and%20Public%20Water%20Supply%20Facts.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Nassau County Department of Health. Nassau County Public Health Ordinance (June 2014). Available at: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16417/Nassau-County-Public-Health- Ordinance--2014?bidId=. Accessed September 2024.

Nassau County Department of Public Health. Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System Asthma Dashboard Technical Notes.

Nassau County Department of Public Works. Minimum Design Sewage Flow Rates (2011).

Nassau County Department of Public Works. Drainage Requirements. Available

at: https://www.askarcnassau.com/DocumentCenter/View/1295/Drainage-Requirements?bidId=. Accessed September 2024.

Nassau County Department of Public Works. Permits and Fees. Available at: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1874/Permits-Fees .

Nassau County Fire Commission Office of the Fire Marshal. Annual Report 2021. Accessed September 2023.

Nassau County New York. Fire Commission Meetings. Available

at: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/404/Fire-Commission-Meetings. Accessed April 2024.

Nassau County Police Department. About Third Precinct. Available

at: https://www.pdcn.org/278/About-Precinct. Accessed September 2023. Nassau County. Hub Major Investment Study (2006).

Nassau County. Master Plan Update: Trends Analysis (2008).

Nassau County. Mitchel Athletic Complex. Available

at: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/2642/Mitchel-Athletic-Complex. Accessed December 2023. Nassau County. Nassau County Comprehensive Plan (1998).

Nassau Hub Innovation District. Expanded Environmental Assessment (November 2021).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). What is Climate Change? (Updated January 30, 2024). Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/what-is-climate-change/. Accessed February 2024.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Common Core of Data (CCD) Files. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/files.asp .

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp .

National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG). FAQs: What is Problem Gambling?. Available at: https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/faq/. Accessed June 2024.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy#75896 .

New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. CEQR Technical Manual, Noise Chapter 19 (2021). Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/19_Noise_2021.pdf .

Accessed August 2024.

New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (December 2021).

New York Natural Heritage Program. New York Natural Heritage Program. Available at: https://www.nynhp.org/. Accessed September 2024.

New York Natural Heritage Program. Online Conservation Guides. Available at: https://guides.nynhp.org/. Accessed February 2024.

New York State Climate Action Council. Scoping Plan (December 2022). Available at: https://climate.ny.gov/resources/scoping-plan/. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Climate Justice Working Group. Draft Disadvantaged Communities Criteria and List Technical Documentation (March 9, 2022).

New York State Comptroller. Small Business in New York State: An Economic Snapshot (2019). Available at: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/reports/special-topics/pdf/small-business-nys- 2019.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

New York State Department of Education. Nassau Community College Enrollment (2020-21). Available at: https://data.nysed.gov/highered-enrollment.php?year=2021&instid=800000049411. Accessed December 2023.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. New York State Prohibited and Regulated Invasive

Plants (2014). Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SEQR Handbook Fourth Edition, 2020, Page 20 (March, 2020) Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2024 List of Designated Food Scrap Generators (January 24, 2024). Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 01/dfsglist2024.pdf. Accessed June 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/noise2000.pdf .

Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/recycling- composting/organic-materials-management/food-donation-scraps-recycling-law. Accessed June 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York State Solid Waste Management Plan: Building the Circular Economy Through Sustainable Materials Management (2023 - 2032). Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/waste-management/solid-waste- management-planning/nys. Accessed February 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Noise Policy and Guidance Documents (2000). Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/noise2000.pdf. Accessed September 2024 .

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Program Policy. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/prgrmpolicy24dash1.pdf .

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Status of Local Solid Waste Management Plans (LSWMP). Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/65541.html. Accessed February 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Division of Environmental Permits. The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition (March 2020). Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Hempstead, New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, Westbury; New York State Community Air Monitoring Initiative; Air Quality Monitoring conducted September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023 (August 12, 2024). Available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/b39806cbc7ea4b139b79713720dab25f?item=16. Accessed August 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). StoryMap: New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site. Available

at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ee9a5b7a1dc3401cb6bc30e5118a35b1 .

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SEQRA Handbook 4th Edition. 2020. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2022 Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report. Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/ghgsumrpt22.pdf .

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2023 Statewide GHG Emissions Report. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/climate-change/greenhouse-gas- emissions-report. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements (July 15, 2009). Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Classification for “Registry” Sites. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/site-cleanup/database-search/site- classifications. Accessed June 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Community Air Monitoring:

Hempstead including New Cassel, Roosevelt, Uniondale, & Westbury (July 2024). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/camfshemp.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). DAR-10: Guidelines on Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air Quality Impact Analysis. Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/dar10.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Designation Criteria for Identifying Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) (Revised May 2010). Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ms4gpdescrit.pdf. Accessed July 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Environmental Justice. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/get-involved/environmental-justice. Accessed September 30, 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Environmental Resource Mapper. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/nature/animals-fish-plants/biodiversity-species- conservation/biodiversity-mapping/environmental-resource-mapper. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Freshwater Wetlands Mapping. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/nature/waterbodies/wetlands/freshwater-mapping. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Glossary of Environmental Cleanup Terms. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/regulations/glossary-of-environmental- cleanup-terms#C. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Hempstead Area Community Air Monitoring Quarterly Meeting Notes (September 13, 2023).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Low and Zero-Emission Vehicles. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/air-quality/controlling-motor- vehicle-pollution/low-and-zero-emission-vehicles .

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Maps & Geospatial Information System (GIS) Tools For Environmental Justice. Available at: https://dec.ny.gov/get- involved/environmental-justice/gis-tools. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (November 2016). Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/fs/docs/pdf/erosionsediment_bluebook.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html. Accessed September 2023.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Sewer Systems (MS4s). Effective May 1, 2015. Available

at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ms4permit.pdf. Accessed July 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (Draft – May 2022). Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/fs/docs/pdf/stormwaterdesignmanual.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Technical & Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 3.2.2: New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (August 13, 1990). Available at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs322.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition (2020). Available

at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition (March 2020), page 198. Available

at: https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf. Accessed December 2023.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The SEQR Handbook. Available at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/357.html. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). New York State Sanitary Code. Available at: https://regs.health.ny.gov/search-title-10?f%5B0%5D=volume%3A68938. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). CLEAR Crash Data Viewer. Available at: https://clear.dot.ny.gov/clear/cdv/.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Long Island Transportation Plan to Manage Congestion (LITP 2000).

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). New York State Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (2009 Edition), Effective March 16, 2011.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The Transportation Environmental Manual §

4.4.18 Noise Analysis Policy and Procedures (Revised 2021). Available

at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and- guidance/epm/repository/4_4_18Noise.pdf.pdf .

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The Transportation Environmental Manual §

4.4.18 Noise Analysis Policy and Procedures. Available

at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/manuals-and- guidance/epm/repository/4_4_18_Noise.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Education Department. Archive Enrollment Data. Available

at: https://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/enroll-n-staff/ArchiveEnrollmentData.html. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Education Department. Public School Enrollment. Available

at: https://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/enroll-n-staff/home.html. Accessed September 2023.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Adoption of Advanced Clean Cars. Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Newsroom/2022-Announcements/2022- 12-29-DEC-Announces-Adoption-of-Advanced-Clean-Cars-II#.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). How New York is Preparing for an EV Future. Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Featured-Stories/How-New-York-is- Preparing-for-an-EV-Future

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). New York State Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990–2016: Final Report (July 2019). Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-

/media/Project/Nyserda/Files/EDPPP/Energy-Prices/Energy-Statistics/greenhouse-gas-inventory.pdf .

New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Request for Applications to Develop and Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State (issued January 3, 2023), pages 2 through 5. Available

at: https://nycasinos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/01/01.03.23.rfa_.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

New York State Gaming Facility Location Board. Request for Applications to Develop and Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State, Addendum #2 (June 27, 2024). Available

at: https://nycasinos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/06/06.27.24addendum.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

New York State Legislature. Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (S.6599, A.8429, 2019).

New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports. Problem Gambling Prevention & Responsible Play. Available at: https://oasas.ny.gov/prevention/gambling. Accessed June 2024.

New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports. Problem Gambling and Seniors. Available at: https://oasas.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/03/problem-gambling-seniors-2.25.20.pdf. Accessed June 2024.

New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. Youth Development Survey 2014- 2015 Report (2015). Available at: https://oasas.ny.gov/data-reports/youth-development-survey- report. Accessed June 2024.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. Cultural Resource Information System. Available at: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/. Accessed June 2023.

New York State Office of the State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments (August 2023).

New York State Senate. Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15, Title 15. Available at: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/A15T15. Accessed September 2024.

New York State Senate. Legislation (February 10, 2021). Available

at: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/A27T22. Accessed June 2024.

New York State. 2022 Annual Report Office of Rent Administration, Rent Regulated Apartment Supporting Data. Retrieved by EY from: https://hcr.ny.gov/2022-ora-rent-report-rent-regulated- apartment-supporting-data. Accessed September 2024.

New York State. Disadvantaged Community Criteria. Available

at: https://climate.ny.gov/resources/disadvantaged-communities-criteria/. Accessed September 2024.

New York State. Request for Voluntary Self-Exclusion from All Gaming Opportunities. Available

at: https://www.ny.gov/services/request-voluntary-self-exclusion-all-gaming-opportunities. Accessed June 2024.

New York Times. Commissioner Explains His Caps on Water – Letter to the Editor from Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling, NYSDEC (March 24, 1991). Available

at: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/24/nyregion/l-commissioner-explains-his-caps-on-water- 759092.html. Accessed September 2024.

New York Times. State Water-Pumping Caps Under Fire by Ellen K. Popper (January 6, 1991). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/06/nyregion/state-waterpumping-caps-under-fire.html .

Accessed September 2024.

New York Times. Water Suppliers Fighting Cap Edict by Michael F. Barry (January 29, 1989). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/nyregion/water-suppliers-fighting-cap-edict.html. Accessed September 2024.

Newsday. State sees big tax haul from mobile sports betting; calls to gambling hotline also up (October 11, 2023).

NYC Audubon. Bird-Friendly Building Design. Available at: https://www.nycaudubon.org/our- work/conservation/project-safe-flight/bird-friendly-building- design?gclid=CjwKCAiAt5euBhB9EiwAdkXWO-BmLTN5OXxa905eGEVGWHy6kB6gZi6bEwg4LB- Ygd3RrdRpamsBcBoCzTkQAvD_BwE. Accessed February 2024.

NYC CEQR. Appendix: Air Quality. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical- manual/2021_ceqr_tm_appendix_air_quality.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

NYSDOH. Recommended Standards for Water Works. 2022 Edition.

Office of the New York State Comptroller. A Question of Balance, Gaming Revenues and Problem Gambling in New York State (November 2020). Pages 5, 6, and 8.

Office of the New York State Comptroller. Revenue Impact of Commercial Casinos on Upstate Local Governments (August 2023), pages 1 and 2.

One Tree Planted. How Trees Clean the Air. Available

at: https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-trees-clean-air. Accessed August 2024. PTV Group. PTV Vissim, Version 11.

RE100. Available at: https://www.there100.org/. Accessed September 2024.

Real Estate Institute (REI) at Stony Brook University College of Business. Impact of Market Rate Apartments on School District Enrollment School Aged Children (May 2019).

Reardon, L. Colleges lack addiction resources for online sports gambling surge, The NewsHouse – The

S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University (January 23, 2023). Available at: https://www.thenewshouse.com/off-campus/colleges-lack-addiction-resources-for-online-sports- gambling-surge/. Accessed June 2024.

Redfin. Regional Housing Market Data, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Consumer Price Index for All Consumers: All Items Less Shelter in New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.redfin.com/.

Redfin. United States Housing Market. Available at: https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market. Accessed May 2024.

Reeves, N. et al. The Economic Impact of Grand Casino Mille Lacs and Grand Casino Hinckley on Their Surrounding Areas (1996).

Rindel, Jens Holger, Z. Maekawa, & Peter Lord. Environmental and Architectural Acoustics. CRC Press, London (2010).

Roosevelt Fire Department. About Us. Available at: https://rooseveltfd.org/about/. Accessed June 2024.

Safe and Sound Security. Addressable Fire Alarm Systems. Available at: https://getsafeandsound.com/2022/07/addressable-fire-alarm-

system/#:~:text=Addressable%20fire%20alarms%20are%20fire,a%20fire%20within%20the%20buildin

g. Accessed February 2024.

Salame, L., Williams, R., Zorn, M., Peake, T., Stanek, E. J., Mazar, A., & Volberg, R. A. Patron and License Plate Survey Report: MGM Springfield 2019 (2020, October 15). University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling in Massachusetts.

Available

at: https://www.umass.edu/seigma/sites/default/files/MGM%20Springfield%20Patron%20Survey%20 Report_Final.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

SANDS ECO360. Available at: https://statics.teams.cdn.office.net/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp- safelinks.html. Accessed September 2024.

Sands New York. Las Vegas Sands Partners with Minority Millennials to Build Diverse, Local Talent Pipeline in Preparation for Career and Procurement Opportunities (February 7, 2023). Available

at: https://sandsnewyork.com/las-vegas-sands-partners-with-minority-millennials-to-build-diverse- local-talent-pipeline-in-preparation-for-career-and-procurement-opportunities/. Accessed May 2024.

Sands New York. Long Island University to Partner with Nassau Community College and Las Vegas Sands to Develop World Class Hospitality Program for Long Island College Students (March 10, 2023). Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/long-island-university-to-partner-with-nassau-community- college-and-las-vegas-sands-to-develop-world-class-hospitality-program-for-long-island-college- students/. Accessed May 2024.

Sands New York. Nassau Community College to Serve as Training Hub for Potential Sands Resort at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (January 30, 2023). Available

at: https://sandsnewyork.com/nassau-community-college-to-serve-as-training-hub-for-potential- sands-resort-at-nassau-veterans-memorial-coliseum/. Accessed May 2024.

Sands New York. Sands New York Hosts “Chambers Clink and Collaborate” Networking Event Inside the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/sands-new-york- hosts-chambers-clink-and-collaborate-networking-event-inside-the-nassau-veterans-memorial- coliseum/. Accessed June 2024.

Sands New York. Sands New York’s “Season of Sparkle” Welcomes over 2,000 Long Islanders for Christmas Tree Lighting and Live Performances. Available at: https://sandsnewyork.com/sands-new- yorks-season-of-sparkle-welcomes-over-2000-long-islanders-for-christmas-tree-lighting-and-live- performances/. Accessed June 2024.

Sands. Our Planet. Available at: https://www.sands.com/responsibility/planet/. Accessed August 2024.

Soil Mechanics Drilling Corp. Subsoil Investigations – Nassau Coliseum – Hempstead Turnpike (June 26, 2014).

SUNY Charter Schools Institute. The Academy Charter School. Available

at: https://www.newyorkcharters.org/charter-schools/academy-charter-school/. Accessed February 2024.

The Academy Charter School. Enrollment Information. Available

at: https://academycharterschool.org/enroll/. Accessed February 2024.

The Business Continuity Institute (BCI). Website. Available at: https://www.thebci.org/. Accessed September 2024.

The Disaster Recovery Institute (DRI) International. Website. Available at: https://drii.org/. Accessed September 2024.

The Long Island Advocate. Online gambling growing in popularity among college students, worrying many (August 4, 2023). Available at: https://longislandadvocate.com/online-gambling-growing-in- popularity-among-college-students-worrying-many/. Accessed June 2024.

The Nassau Hub Transit Initiative. Study Overview. Available

at: http://www.nassauhubtransit.com/about/StudyOverview.htm. Accessed October 2023.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 98.2. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting (42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.), Established October 30, 2009. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title- 40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-98. Accessed September 2024.

Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Chapter 144 Unreasonable Noise. Available at: https://ecode360.com/15516266#15516266 .

Town of Hempstead Department of Planning & Economic Development. Uniondale Vision Plan

(August 2012).

Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Chapter 76 Landmarks Preservation. Available at: https://ecode360.com/15509388 .

Town of Hempstead. Building Zone Ordinance §146.1B – MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District (MFM). Available at: https://ecode360.com/14496307#15284366. Accessed August 2024.

Town of Hempstead. Building Zone Ordinance §146.1C – MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District (MFM). Available at: https://ecode360.com/14496307#15284366. Accessed August 2024.

Town of Hempstead. Building Zone Ordinance. Article XIII Planned Development Districts at Mitchel Field, §146.1 MFM Mitchel Field Mixed-Use District (MFM). Available

at: https://ecode360.com/15284366 .

Town of Hempstead. Building Zone Ordinance. Article XXXI General Provisions – § 305 Site Plans. Available at: https://ecode360.com/14497468. Accessed January 2024.

Town of Hempstead. Landmark Preservation. Available at: https://hempsteadny.gov/580/Landmarks- Preservation. Accessed March 2024.

Town of Hempstead. Sanitation Department. Available at: https://hempsteadny.gov/223/Sanitation- Department. Accessed June 2024.

Trafficware. Synchro Plus SimTraffic, Version 11.

Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (2022).

TRIP. Keeping Long Island Mobile (September 2020). Available at: https://tripnet.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/TRIP_Keeping_Long_Island_Mobile_Report_September_2020.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Uniondale Fire Department. Uniondale Fire Department. Available at: https://www.uniondalefd.org/. Accessed June 2024.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount, Section 5.2.1, “Requirements,” page 50 (November 2008). Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf .

Accessed September 2024.

University of Massachusetts Amherst. SEIGMA Enhanced Baseline Health Report (2018). Available

at: https://www.umass.edu/seigma/sites/default/files/SEIGMA%20EBH%20Operating%20Report_final

_clean.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

UN-REDD. Glossary: Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e). Available at: https://www.un- redd.org/glossary/carbon-dioxide-equivalent-co2e. Accessed August 2024.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industries at a Glance: Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries: NAICS 713. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag713.htm. Accessed March 2024.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2018- 2022. Available at: https://www.census.gov/. Accessed September 2024.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey Public-use Microdata Sample, 5-year sample 2017- 2021, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.census.gov/.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey Public-use Microdata. Available at: https://www.census.gov/.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 5-year estimates for 2021, as compiled by EY.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.census.gov/.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 5-year sample 2018-2022 for population and age, Public-use Microdata Sample for education, 5-year sample 2017-2021, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.census.gov/.

US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 5-year samples 2018-2022, 2008-2012, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.census.gov/.

US Census Bureau. Population Data for 2022. As provided by EY.

US Census Bureau. Population Estimates, 2000, 2010, 2020. Oxford Economics forecasts derived from US Census Bureau data, as compiled by EY. Available at: https://www.census.gov/.

US Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available

at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed March 2024.

US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Updated State-Level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation 1998-2000 (April 2002). Available

at: http://www.eia.gov/environment/archive/e-supdoc-u.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing. Available

at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/13904CPDH.PDF. Accessed September 2024.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Noise Guidebook. Available at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_16415.PDF .

US Department of Labor National Bureau of Labor Statistics. Number of Jobs, Labor Market Experience, Marital Status, and Health for Those Born 1957-1964 (August 22, 2023,). Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

US Department of Labor. Project Labor Agreement Resource Guide. Available

at: https://www.dol.gov/general/good-jobs/project-labor-agreement-resource-guide. Accessed May 2, 2024.

US Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2023 Annual Energy Outlook. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=50- AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) WaterSense. Statistics and Facts. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) WaterSense. Water Efficiency Management Guide:

Mechanical Systems (November 2017). EPA 832-F-17-016c. Available

at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/documents/ws-commercialbuildings-waterscore- mechanical-systems-guide.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Modified June 5, 2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg- emission-factors-hub. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Preferred and Recommended Models. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling- preferred-and-recommended-models .

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Asthma and Indoor Environments (2020). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asthma. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Effluent Charts. Available

at: https://echo.epa.gov/effluent-charts#NY0026859. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ENERGY STAR® Guide for Cafes, Restaurants, and Commercial Kitchens, EPA 430-R-09-030, 2017-2018. Available

at: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ES%20Restaurant%20Guide%2020 17-2018%20v16.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). De Minimis Tables. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/de-minimis-tables .

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool

(FLIGHT). Available at: https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). GHGRP and the US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Updated May 15, 2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp- and-us-inventory-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Latest Version of the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator- moves. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination New Cassel/Hicksville, NY. Available

at: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0203974. Accessed September 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). New York Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Available

at: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ny.html. Accessed August 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Overview of Greenhouse Gases (Updated April 11, 2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Accessed February 2024.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Project-Level Conformity and Hot-Spot Analysis. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-level-conformity-and-hot- spot-analyses .

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Record of Decision: New Cassel/Hicksville Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Nassau County, New York. Region 2, New York, New York (March 2024).

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), EPA-454/B-23-008, October 2023.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). What MERV Rating is Appropriate for Your Home?

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating. Accessed August 2024.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Information Planning and Consultation Online System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed August 2021.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Long Island Recovery Efforts. Available

at: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/lirecovery.htm. Accessed February 2024.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Monarchs. Available

at: https://www.fws.gov/initiative/pollinators/monarchs. Accessed August 2023.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Available

at: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory. Accessed September 2024.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Range-Wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Survey Guidelines (2023). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/range-wide-indiana-bat-and- northern-long-eared-bat-survey-guidelines. Accessed September 2024.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Reducing Bird Collisions with Buildings and Building Glass Best Practices. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reducing-bird-collisions-with- buildings.pdf. Accessed February 2024.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Threats to Birds: Collisions. Available

at: https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds-collisions. Accessed January 2024.

US Geological Survey. Population graph Nassau County 1900-2010 by New York Water Science Center. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/population-graph-nassau-county-1900-2010 .

Accessed May 2024.

US Global Change Research Program. Fourth National Climate Assessment (November 2018). Available at: https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4. Accessed September 2024.

US News. Kellenberg Memorial High School. Available

at: https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/new-york/kellenberg-memorial-high-school-310033. Accessed June 2024.

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Gaming and Regulatory Overview. Available

at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/858339/000119312512115625/d268435dex993.htm Accessed March 2024.

USGBC. Conserving Water for All People Through LEED v4.1. Available

at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/conserving-water-all-people-through-leed-v41. Accessed September 2024.

USGS. Long Island, New York Sandy LIDAR (2014). Available at: [link to the document]. Accessed September 2024.

Virve, M. Does Gambling Harm or Benefit Other Industries? A Systematic Review. Journal of Gambling Issues (2020), vol. 44, no. 44, pp. 4-44. Retrieved

from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/324371/4063_6056_1_PB.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed September 2024.

Westbury Fire Department. Westbury Fire Department. Available at: http://www.westburyfd.org/. Accessed June 2024.

Wiley, J., & Walker, D. Casino Revenues and Retail Property Values: The Detroit Case. J Real Estate Finance Econ (2011), 42. 99-114. 10.1007/s11146-009-9171-5. Retrieved

from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas-Walker- 6/publication/226187705_Casino_Revenues_and_Retail_Property_Values_The_Detroit_Case/links/02e7 e526003130b196000000/Casino-Revenues-and-Retail-Property-Values-The-Detroit-Case.pdf.

Accessed May 2024 .

World Resource Institute. Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Global Warming Potential Values (March 2017). Available at: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/Global-Warming-Potential- Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_0.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Wulforst, John P. Soil Survey of Nassau County, New York. United States Department of Agriculture and Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (1987).

Zillow Observed Rent Index (ZORI). Available at: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/. Accessed September 2024.

‌Glossary

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

µPA Micropascals

3D Three‐dimensional

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic Count

AASHTO

American Associated of State Highway and Transportation Offices

ACM Asbestos‐containing material

ACS American Community Survey

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADT Average daily traffic

AERMOD Ams/EPA Regulatory Model

AFS Air Facility System

Agl Above grade level

AI Artificial intelligence

ALIS Accident Location Information System

ALTA American Land Title Association

Amsl Above mean sea level

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AOI Areas of Influence

AP News Associated Press News

ASHP Air source heat pump

ASHRAE

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers

ASHRE

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air‐ Conditioning Engineers

AST Aboveground storage tank

ATR Automatic traffic recorders

AWQSGV Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

AWS American Welding Society

AWWA American Water Works Association

BCI The Business Continuity Institute

BCM Business Continuity Management

BD+C Building Design and Construction

BER Business Environmental Risk

Bgs Below grade surface

BGWD Bowling Green Water District

Bgy Billion gallons per year

BMPs Best management practices

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

BZO Building Zone Ordinance

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments

CAC Climate Action Council

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

CBA Community Benefits Agreement

CBAC Community Benefits Advisory Committee

CBP Community Benefits Payments

CBS Chemical bulk storage

CCTV Closed circuit television

CDP Carbon Disclosure Project; Census Designated Place

CEHA Coastal Erosion Hazard Area

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CEQR New York City Environmental Quality Review

Cf Cubic feet

CFH Cubic feet per hour

CGC Cleaner greener communities

CH4 Methane

CHASP Construction Health and Safety Plan

CJWG Climate Justice Working Group

CLCPA Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act

CM Construction manager

CMP Conceptual Master Plan

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

Covanta Covanta Hempstead Waste‐to‐Energy Facility

CPB Community Benefits Payments

CPM Construction Pollution Management

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

CRIS Cultural Resource Information System

CSA Corporate Sustainability Assessment

CUP Central Utility Plant

Cy Cubic yards

DACs Disadvantaged Communities

dB Decibels

dBA A‐weighted Decibel

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DER Division of Environmental Remediation

DFSG Designated Food Scrap Generators

DGEIS Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement

DPA Development Plan Agreement

DPF Diesel particulate filters

DPM Diesel particulate matter

DRI The Disaster Recovery Institute International

DSM Digital Surface Model

EA Environmental Assessment

EAB Emergency Ambulance Bureau

EAC Empower, Assist, Care Network

EAF Environmental Assessment Form

EB Eastbound

EC Electronically commutated

ECL Environmental Conservation Law

ECNYS Ecological Communities of New York State

EEA Expanded Environmental Assessment

EMFD East Meadow Fire Department

EMS

Emergency Medical Service; environmental management system

EMT Emergency Medical Technician

EMWD East Meadow Water District

Engie Nassau Energy Corporation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct New York State Plumbing Code, Energy Policy Act

EPM Environmental Procedures Manual

ER Emergency Department

ERM Environmental Remediation Database

ERV Energy Recovery Ventilators

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

ESG Environmental, social, and governance

ESI Environmental Site Investigation

Esri Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

EUI Energy Use Intensity

EY Ernst & Young

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Floor Area Ratio

FB Full build

Fc Footcandles

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FGEIS Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRECOM Nassau County Fire Communications

FLIGHT USEPA Facility Level Information on Green House Gases Tool former Mitchel Field Airfield Mitchel Field Airfield

Ft Feet

FTA Federal Transit Administration

G&T Gardiner & Theobold

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GED General Educational Development

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement

GFD Garden City Fire Department

GHG Greenhouse gases

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

GML General Municipal Law

GP General Permit

GPD Gallons per day

Gpm Gallons per minute

GRI Global Reporting Initiative

GWP Global Warming Potential

HASP Health and Safety Plan

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

HCS Highway Capacity Software

He Hempstead silt loam

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

HFD Hempstead Fire Department

HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition

HUD Housing and Urban Development

HVAC Heating, air conditioning and ventilation

HWR Hazardous Waste Registry

IAQ Indoor air quality

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North Americas

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning (software)

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

JB&B Jaros, Baum & Bolles

K‐12 Kindergarten to 12th Grade

kVa Kilovolt‐ampere

kWh Kilowatt hours

Lb Pound

LBP Lead‐based paint

Lbs Pounds

LDG Lighthouse Development Group

Ldn Day‐night average sound level

LED Light‐emitting Diode

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design™

Leq Equivalent sound level

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LIREDC Long Island Regional Economic Development Council

LIRR Long Island Rail Road

LIU Long Island University

Lmax Maximum sound level

LOS Level of Service

LPU Local Planning Unit

LSU Louisiana State University

LUC Land use code

MCTD Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District

MCTMT Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax

MEP Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing

MF‐IRD Mitchel Field Integrated Resort Zoning District MFM Zoning District Mitchel Field Mixed‐Use District

MFO Mitchel Field Office

MFWSA Mitchel Field Water Supply Area

Mg Million gallon

MGD Million gallons per day

MGY Million gallons per year

MIS Major Investment Study

MMBtu Million British thermal units

Mmt Million metric tons

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

Mph Miles per hour

MRS Munitions Response Site

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

MSAD Metropolitan Statistical Area Division

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets

MSK Memorial Sloan Kettering

MSKCC Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

MW Megawatt

MWBE Minority and Women‐Owned Business Enterprise

N2O Nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NB Northbound

NCC Nassau Community College

NCDH Nassau County Department of Health

NCDPW Nassau County Department of Public Works

NCFM Nassau County Fire Marshal

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NCIDA Nassau County Industrial Development Agency

NCPC Nassau County Planning Committee

NCPD Nassau County Police Department

NCPG National Council on Problem Gambling

NCPHO Nassau County Public Health Ordinance

NCTM Nassau County Tax Map

NEC Nassau Events Center

NF3 Nitrogen trifluoride

NFPA The National Fire Protection Association

NHCRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHOPI Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

NHP Natural Heritage Program

NICE Nassau Inter‐County Express

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health

NM Nautical mile

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO Nitrogen oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx Nitrogen oxides

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NTi Audio Type 1 sound level meter

NUMC Nassau University Medical Center

NWP Nationwide Permit

NYC New York City

NYCB New York Community Bank

NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations

NYMTC New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program

NYSBBA NYS Breeding Bird Atlas

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOH New York State Department of Health

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

NYSED New York State Education Department

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

NYU New York University

O3 Ozone

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OASAS Office of Addiction Services and Supports

OPD Other planned development

OPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

PCE Tetrachloroethylene

PDD Planned Development Districts

PEJA Potential Environmental Justice Area

PFC Perfluorocarbons

PILOT Payment‐in‐Lieu‐of‐Taxes

PLA Project Labor Agreement

PM Particulate matter

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PML Pari‐Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law

PPM Parts per million

PPV Peak particle velocity

PSAC Public school‐aged children

PV Photovoltaic

QAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

R&D Research and Development

R.O.W. Right‐of‐Way

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REC Recognized Environmental Condition

REI Real Estate Institute

RFA Request for Applications

RFD Roosevelt Fire Department

RFEI Request For Expressions of Interest

RFWD Roosevelt Field Water District

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

RIASD Roosevelt Industrial Area Sewer District

RROR Right turn on red

RSF Reemployment Service Fund

RURR Restricted use restricted‐residential

RXR Plaza Rexcorp Plaza

SAC School‐aged children

SASB Sustainability Accounting Standards Board

SAT EVE Saturday evening peak hour

SB Southbound

SCO Soil Cleanup Objective

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SDS Safety data sheets

SDVOB Service‐Disabled Veteran‐Owned Business

SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act

SF Square foot (square feet)

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

SHWS Hazardous Waste Disposal Site

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SOE Support of Excavation

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SPGA Special Groundwater Protection Area

SSD Sub‐slab Depressurization

SUNY State University of New York

SVOC Semi‐volatile Organic Compounds

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TAL Total Analyte List

TBR Town Board Resolution

TCE Trichloroethylene

Acronym/Abbreviation Phrase

TCL Total Compound List

TDM Transportation Demand Management

TEM Transportation Environmental Manual

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TIS Traffic Impact Study

TMA Transportation Management Association

TMCs Turning Movement Counts

TOD Transit‐Oriented Development

TOGS Technical and Operational Guidance Series

TSM Transportation System Management

TSP Total suspended particles

UFD Uniondale Fire Department

UFSD Union Free School District

Ug Urban land

UI Unemployment insurance

ULSD Ultra‐low sulfur diesel

UNLV University of Nevada Las Vegas

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOE United States Department of Energy

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGBC United States Green Building Council

USGS United States Geologic Survey

USN Unique Site Number

UST Underground Storage Tank

UU Unrestricted use

UWD Uniondale Water District

UXO Unexploded ordnance

VDR Verbal Description Reports

VMT Vehicle miles traveled

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

VRF Variable refrigerant flow

WB Westbound

WD PM Weekday PM peak hour

WFD Westbury Fire Department

WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant

›	High:	0.40 FAR and over
›	Moderate:	0.20 to 0.40 FAR
›	Suburban:	0.10 to 0.25 FAR

CO (ppm)	1-hour	2.1	2.76	3.20	0.44	35
CO (ppm)	8-hour	1.9	2.12	2.28	0.16	9
PM2.5 (µg/m3)	24-hour	15.2	18.13	18.34	0.21	35
PM2.5 (µg/m3)	Annual	5.9	7.06	7.15	0.09	9

CO (ppm)	1-hour	2.1	3.70	3.72	0.02	35
CO (ppm)	8-hour	1.9	2.46	2.47	0.01	9
PM2.5 (µg/m3)	24-hour	15.2	18.63	18.81	0.19	35
PM2.5 (µg/m3)	Annual	5.9	7.28	7.33	0.05	9

Pollutant	2030 No-Build	2030 Build	2030 Increment
CO	1.6	1.7	0.1
NOx	0.18	0.19	0.01
PM10	0.528	0.554	0.026
PM2.5	0.524	0.550	0.026
VOC	0.031	0.033	0.002

Total ER visits per 10,000	38.9	20.0	6.4	69.1	36.4	12.7	26.3
Total Hospitalizations per 10,000	6.2	5.8	2.1	19.8	14.3	5.9	9.5
Total Asthma Death Rate per 1,000,000	12.2	9.5	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Tax Type	Amount
Annual Rental Payments	$4 million
UI and RSF Payroll Tax	$0.5 million
Individual Income Tax	$0.7 million
MCTMT Tax	$0.02 million
Entertainment Tax	$0.1 million
Total	$5 million

Year	Total Calls Dispatched	Coliseum	Marriott Hotel
2021	58,611	134	164
2022	64,023	110	203
2023	64,989	116	181
Total	187,623	360	548

Year	Total EMS Calls Dispatched	Coliseum	Marriott Hotel
2021	10,987	14	30
2022	12,038	14	29
2023	11,633	12	22
Total	34,658	40	81

Sands DEIS Text

Integrated Resort

‌Executive Summary

‌Description of the Proposed Action

‌Purpose, Need and Benefits

‌Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

‌Alternatives and Their Impacts

‌Description of the Proposed Action

‌Introduction

‌Summary of Existing Site Conditions

‌Site Development and Application History

‌Description of the Proposed Action

‌Purpose, Need and Benefits

‌Community Outreach

‌Required Permits and Approvals

‌Existing Conditions, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation Measures

‌Soils, Topography and Subsurface Conditions

‌Water Resources

‌Ecological Resources

‌Land Use, Zoning and Community Character

‌Transportation and Parking

‌Air Quality

‌Noise and Vibration

‌Public Health – Problem Gambling

‌Socioeconomics

‌Community Facilities and Services

‌Aesthetic Resources

‌Cultural Resources

‌Use and Conservation of Energy and Utilities

‌Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Sustainability

‌Construction

‌Cumulative Impacts

‌Introduction

‌Proposed and Pending Projects

‌Water Supply

‌Sewage Disposal

‌Electricity

‌Traffic

‌Air Quality

‌Unavoidable Adverse Effects

‌Short-Term Impacts

‌Long-Term Impacts

‌Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources

‌Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action

‌Alternatives and Their Impacts

‌No Action

‌Redevelopment of the Coliseum Property, Assuming a Gaming License is Not Awarded (Alternative CMP)

‌MFM-Compliant Plan

‌References

‌Glossary