HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Review Committee May 1, 1997TOWN OF ITHACA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
7:00 P.M., Thursday, May 1, 1997
Town Hall Board Room
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607)273-1747
AGENDA
1. Item For Discussion:
a. 1059 Danby Road - Garden Center: Proposed
construction of a retail garden center to
consist of a ±4,320 sq. ft. store, ±4,550 sq.
ft. greenhouses, outside nursery storage and
display areas, parking and other appurtenances,
to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax parcel No. 43-1-3.2, Business "C" District.
Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrance Roswick, Agent.
2. Adjournment
ERC Members:
Phillip Zarriello Jonathan Meigs
Kara Hagedorn John Yntema
Lois Levitan
file Name: Centl2/ERC/notices/04-01-97.ERC)
Environmental Review Committee
Information Distribution List
Meeting Date
Information Mailed out on l' ) A S y � c�'� . I d G
V/1,
Phil Zarriello
Jon Meigs ✓
Lois Levitan ✓/
John Yntema V /
Kara Hagedorn
Staff:
JoAnn
Geri
Jon - Agenda Only
The information distributed was:
N1N&
Loco L Lt ,n .(,U q I c, cl.-� CAG --ra c,6
i11.�..1. S �,f Cb�'1V'��1✓ S � \^ .�—L cl ���.� c.( �, 4 c�/�{
Vlailed/Distributed by (Please initial) / /
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704
T2RN SM I T CONF I RMRT ION R -EF -ORT
N0.
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PAGES
RESULT
006
16072576497
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
APR 24'97 9:20
00'35
STD
01
OK
APR 24'97 9:20
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704
TPRNSM I T CONFF I RMRT ION REPORT
NO.
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PAGES
RESULT
005
607 272 7692
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
APR 24'97 9:18
00'35
STD
01
0K
APR 24'97 9:18
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704
TRRNSM I T CONF I RMRT I ON REPORT
NO.
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PAGES
RESULT
004
WKPT
TOWN OF ITHACA, N'
APR 24'97 9:16
00,37
STD
01
OK
APR 24'97 9:16
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704
TRRNSM I T CONF I RMRT I ON DEPORT
N0.
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PACES
RESULT
003
6072730746
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
APR 24'97 9:14
00'45
STD
01
OK
APR 24'97 9:14
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704
TRAhx SM I T CONF I RMRT I ❑fes! REPORT
NO.
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PAGES
RESULT
002
607 277 1012
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
APR 24'97 9:09
00'44
STD
01
OK
APR 24'97 9:08
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704
TRRNS 1 I T CONF I RMRT ION REPORT
NO.
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PAGES
RESULT
001
607 272 4335
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
APR 24'97 9:07
00'34
STD
01
OK
APR 24'97 9:07
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Environmental Review Committee Members
FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner
RE: ROSSO GARDEN CENTER SKETCH PLAN REVIEW & ERC
INFORMATION
DATE: April 17, 1997
Attached please find information on the proposed Russo Garden Center, to be located
on the northeast corner of the intersection of Danby Road and King Road East. I am
enclosing a tax parcel map and a portion of the zoning map for locational purposes
and surrounding land use. This area should be somewhat familiar to you as we have
discussed this parcel in relation to the community park on the Monkemeyer property
which is to the east. This portion of Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.2 is zoned commercial
with the remaining portion being zoned Resident District R9 and R30. The proposed
use is an allowed use and Evan Monkemeyer is the owner.
Sketch Plan Review is scheduled for the May 6, 1997 Planning Board meeting. I
spoke with Phil Zarriello and we would like to meet on this issue at 7:00 p.m. on
May 1, 1997 before the Conservation Board meeting that same evening. In order to
have a productive discussion, if would be very helpful if you can review the site plan
and visit the site prior to the project review meeting.
I am also enclosing for your information, Local Law #4 of the year 1993, which
outline powers, duties, and procedures for the ERC. I thought this may be helpful
for you in defining your role as an ERC member. I have also included two chapters
from the Development Impact Assessment Handbook which you may find to be a
useful tool when conducting an environmental review for a project.
In addition, I am enclosing comments from the ERC (separately from Jon Meigs), as
well as two IC newspaper articles concerning the Ithaca College Ford Hall Addition
and J & M Lot Extensions. Ithaca College was not able to provide staff or the
Planning Board with elevations of the Ford Hall Addition prior to the meeting on the
15th, and therefore no SEQR action was taken and no approvals were given. Contrary
,to the ERC Memo, in most cases elevations are requested for site plan approval. The
public hearing for this project has been rescheduled for May 6, 1997.
As always, should you have questions or require additional information, feel free to
call me at 273-1747.
Thanks, JoAnn
IIIIU"`-
e
g l l i�%j 3 I Z Town Assigned Project ID Number
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY
PART I PQn_=--r INCnouwTtnu rr_ {.►... •__r___. __ n__- --
1-
Applicant/Sponsor:
2. Project Name: Rus so' s Garden Center
Terrence Roswick agent for E. Monk
meyer (Monkemeyer Nursery)
3.
Precise location (street address, road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map):
Northeast corner of the intersection of Danby Road and King Road East
Tax Parcel Number: 43-1-3. 2
4.
Is proposed action: NEW? X EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION?
S.
Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future
canstructlo plans, and other relevant Items):
Proposed garden center/nursery in vacant field
- includes a building (30'x144') and up to four plexiglass green-
houses for use in sales of garden materials and produce.
(Attach secarate sheet(s) if necessary to adeauately describe the proposed project.)
6.
Amount of land affected: Initially (0-5 yr3)+/-3Acres (6-10 yrs) — Acres (> 10 yrs) — 'Acres
7.
How Is land zoned presently?
Business District C
8.
WIII proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
YES X NO If no, describe conflict briefly:
9.
WIII "proposed action lead to a request for new:
Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X
10.
What Is the present land use In the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential X Commercial X
Industrial Agriculture Park/Farest/Open Space Other
Please Describe:
11.
Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other
governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES ' NO X
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding:
12-
Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO X
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether It will require modification.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
ApplicanvSponsor ame (Print or Type • errence Roswick agent for E. Monkemeyer
Slgnature�_!Lf L j Date:
Rev. 8192
Secured Entrance_
with Gate
1 � r
Loading for Retail Customers
co
I �iAN�-tea �' H,;.a::;�,�9(f:l. �'�% y`I�w; vn���,,�'<(� 3�a�; y-• ,4'J.;• y � � ' 1"''r':'-`�� v' / /
Sia `• �� i� ,�C, \ % lk
. nage
Display
N.Y.S. Route 96-B
i
..L . ;
7--a7
Rev. �i'1.9'y ��NEtzr>11
Note:
Site Plan is based upon Survey Map
By George Schlecht, P.E., L.S.
Dated 7/1/1988
Hard Goods Storage
- Secured area
- Commercial Pickup
Display Area
- Annuals
- Perennials
- Seasonal Blooms
- Seasonal Vegetables
- Trees & Shrubs
Green Houses
- "Retail Mart"
21'x 48' per Poly-tex
Covered Retail Space
or Fresh Produce Stalls
R30
R15
L
A . I
M, L�
..+i.... �'ri<Ji.`.' �.�i",..s,�.:.i•.'�J.=+��•i.,i :•_. _�- .....�':iJ+•�is.-.a:7:i:. s..._�..:t.�_; r.. _ _ .... . _. �....-...'C'._.: .._. � .. -_ .- _ ,
NEN YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Local Law Filing 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE LSANY, NY 12231
(Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.)
Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not * Q
use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. , v
XXNffXy
XW
ITHACA
Townof...............................................................................................................:........
Local Law No. ..... ........................................... of the year 19 ..93.
A local law „•_FOR THE REDESIGNATION OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AS
.......
(Insert Title) THE TOWN OF ITHACA- CONSERVATION BOARD
Be it enacted by the ............TOWN BOARD
(Name of Legislative Body)
of the
�diIiil�X
X=YXITHACA
of............................ :.......................................................................................---................... as follows:
Town
iX
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW NO. #4 OF THE YEAR 1993
A LOCAL LAW REDESIGNATING THE TOWN OF ITHACA
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AS THE TOWN OF ITHACA
CONSERVATION BOARD
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as
follows:
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Town Board established a
Conservation Advisory Council in February 1990; and
Whereas, Section 239-y of New York State General Municipal Law
states "The local legislative body of any•city, town or village,
which has heretofore created.a conservation advisory council may,
by resolution, redesignate such council as a -conservation board
provided such council has prepared 'and submitted to the local
legislative body the conservation open areas inventory and map
which are accepted and approved by the.local legislative body as
the open space index of the municipality;" and
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town. of Ithaca accepted and
approved the December 1992 Open Space Report prepared by- the
Conservation Advisory Council as the Town of Ithaca Open Space
Index (the "Index") on December 7', 1992; and
Whereas, the Town Board now desires - to redesignate the
Conservation Advisory Council as the Town's Conservation Board in
accordance with Section 239-y of the General Municipal Law, with
certain changes in power -s' and procedures as set forth below; 19awlL
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ENACTED AS FOLLOWS:
(If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.)
�l�
LL#4 - 1993
-2-
0
Section 1. Redesignation of Conservation Advisory Council as
Conservation Board. The Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory
Council is hereby redesignated as the Town of Ithaca Conservation
Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") to assist the Town
of Ithaca in the development of sound open space planning and
assure preservation and protection of natural and scenic resources.
Section 2. Powers and Duties. The Board shall have the following
powers and duties:
a. Those powers and duties set forth in General Municipal Law
Section 239-y except as modified below.
b. The board shall review applications (such as, for example,
applications for rezoning, subdivision approval, site plan
approval, special approval, fill permits or variances)
received by the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board of
Appeals, or other administrative body, which seek approval for
the use or development of any open area identified in the
Index and which application involves property or a project
that is:
(i) A Type I action under the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act and related regulations; or
(ii) Within or contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area or
Unique Natural Area designated by the appropriate
governmental entity; or
(iii) Within an Environmental Protection Overlay District
and requires a special approval from the Town
Planning Board or a variance from the Town Board of
Appeals; or
(iv) Involves five or more acres"of land; or
(v) Would create five or more building lots; or
(vi) Would be. reasonably anticipated (based on recognized
traffic generation guides) to create fifty or more
vehicle trips per peak hour.
C. The Board shall review any other applications that involve
land identified in the Index upon
(i) The request of the Town Planner or Town Engineer and the
concurrence of the Chair of the Board; or
(ii) The concurrence of the Chair of the Board and the Chair
of the entity receiving the application.
d. The Board shall exercise any of the functions and
responsibilities heretofore granted to the Conservation
LL#4=1993
-3-
0
Advisory Council in the February 12, 1990 Town Board
resolution that established such Council.
e. The Board shall perform any duties assigned to it by
resolution of the Town Board.
f. The Board may request the assistance of the Department of
Environmental Conservation in the preparation of any report.
g. The Board shall notify the Department of Environmental
Conservation of its establishment within thirty days of the
adoption of this local law.
Section 3. Procedures Applicable to Review of Applications.
a. The Chair of the Board shall be notified of all subdivision
proposals, and applications for rezonings, whether or not
review is required pursuant to the provisions above, within
five days of receipt of same by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department. In addition, the Chair of the Board shall be
notified of any other application (special approvals, site
plan approvals, variances; fill permits, etc.) for which
review of the Board is required by this local law within five
days of receipt of same by the Planning Department or other
appropriate Town Official.
b. The Board, at its option, with concurrence of the Town
Planner, may decline to perform a formal review on a specific
project.
C. The Board shall have at least 15 working days to complete its
review and shall submit a written report to the referral
entity at least 5 working days before a project is to be
considered by the applicable entity so that Board
recommendations can be included in the referral entity's
mailing.
d. Such report shall evaluate the proposed use or development of
the open area in the context of the Open Space Index and the
land use planning objectives of the Town. The report may make
recommendations as to the. most appropriate use or development
of the open area and may include preferable alternative use
proposals consistent with open areas conservation.
e. A copy of every report shall be filed with the Town Board and
made available for public inspection at Town Hall.
f. Adequate staff time will be allocated to the Board to assist
with the review. Such time will be determined by the Town
Planner with input from the Chair of the Board and the Chair
of the referring entity.
g. Accurate summary records or minutes of the Board's meetings
and activities shall be kept and reported to the Town Board as
LL#4-1993 -4- `
ti
requested. Such records shall be made available to the public
in accordance with the New York State Freedom of Information
Law and any related local laws and procedures.
Section 4. Membership. The Board shall consist of no less than
three (3) members and no more than nine (9) members, appointed by
the Town Board, who shall serve for terms of two (2) years. One
member shall be the Town representative to the Tompkins County
Environmental Management Council. Any person residing within the
Town of Ithaca who is interested in the improvement and
preservation of environmental quality shall be eligible for
appointment. Each member shall be entitled to one vote.
Approximately one half of the initial appointments to the Board
shall be made for a term of one year only, so as to create
staggered terms such that approximately one half of the Board shall
be considered for appointment each year. Terms of office shall
commence (except when filling vacancies occurring other than on
December 31) January 1 and expire December 31 following the next
January 1. Appointments made other than on January 1 shall be for
the remaining unexpired term of the member being replaced.
Section 5. Officers.
a. The Town Board shall annually appoint from the total
membership of the Board a person�.to serve as Chair of the
Board.
b. The Board shall elect a Vice -Chair who shall assume the
responsibilities of the Chair in the absence of the Chair.
C. If both the Chair or Vice -Chair are absent from a meeting, the
Board shall elect a temporary Chair to conduct such meeting.
Section 6. Other Procedures and Reports., The Board shall
a. Prepare necessary applications and reports to the appropriate
agencies of New York State in order that the Town receive
monetary reimbursement for Board activities, according to Part
636, Title 6, N.Y.S. Codes, Rules and Regulations.
b. Receive staff and clerical assistance from the Town as
necessary in the preparation of the above documents.
C. Adopt its own rules, regulations, or bylaws for the conduct of
its business provided that the same shall not be inconsistent
with the terms of this local law and provided further that the
same shall be subject to the approval of the Town Board before
they become effective.
d. In order to accomplish its reviews, the Board may create one
or more subcommittees made up of at least three of its members
to which subcommittee the function of reviewing development
applications may be delegated. The vote of a majority of the
members of such duly constituted subcommittee shall be
L#4-1993
-5-
necessary to forward any reports or recommendations to any
referring entity.
Section 7.. Compensation and Expenses. The members of the Board
shall receive no compensation for their services as members thereof
but may be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses -
incurred in performance of their duties within the appropriations
made available therefor.
Section S. Town Board Resolution. This local law shall be
considered a resolution of the Town Board for purposes of
redesignation of the Conservation Advisory Board to a Conservation
Board pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 239-y. To the
extent that any provision of General Municipal Law Sections 239-x
or 239-y are inconsistent with the provisions of this local law,
the terms of this local law are intended, pursuant to Municipal
Home Rule Law 10 and other provisions of law, to supercede those
provisions insofar as they pertain to the Conservation Board of the
Town of Ithaca.
Section 9. Invalidity. If any provision of this law is found
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which shall
remain in full force and effect. -
Section 10. Effective Date. This law shall take effect
immediately.
DEVELOPMENT
1p
the Urban Land Institute
I�
Chapter 3
PHYSICAL LAND PLANNING AND
SITE ANALYSIS
Introduction
Site planning is the art and science of arranging the
uses of portions of land. Site planners designate these
uses in detail by studying the physical, cultural, and
aesthetic features of the site and by analyzing site at-
tributes and constraints. In attempting to accommo-
date the developer's proposed land uses, the planner
must relate the prospective design scheme to the site's
characteristics and adjacent land uses (Rubenstein,
1987). Every site, natural or built, is to some degree
unique, and the success of a plan is determined by the
extent to which a proposed development addresses a
site's features.
Site planning is the domain of professionally
trained landscape architects, architects, planners, and
engineers who practice in discipline -specific individ-
ual firms or in firms with an integrated staff of profes-
sionals. The task of these practitioners centers around
the need to balance the developer's requirements
against the site's natural attributes. While it is virtu-
ally impossible to produce a design that fully and si-
multaneously satisfies developer objectives and site
constraints/ opportunities, working to achieve each
goal to the greatest degree feasible will produce the
best possible plan for the site. For instance, by sensi-
tively accommodating the physical constraints of a
site, such as steep slopes or wetlands, the site plan-
ning professional enables the developer to realize low-
ered infrastructure costs and reduced adverse
environmental impacts, thereby expediting the ap-
proval process.
Site analysis and planning should start early in the
development process—when a location is being con-
sidered. Two methods guide site selection. In the first,
the developer evaluates alternative sites within a gen-
eral location and selects the site that best meets pre-
liminary project objectives. This is the optimal
approach. In the second method, a client selects a site
before either formulating a project program or even
determining a use for the site. In this second situation,
site constraints or cost issues may lead to a forced site
solution, one that often creates unnecessary problems.
For example, excessive grading may raise the esti-
mated construction costs of a project and, as a result,
compromise other program requirements as well as
destroy the natural site features that could have been
the primary reason for site selection. For large projects
such as shopping centers or planned community de-
velopments, site selection may require a detailed
analysis of several potential sites as a prerequisite to a
final decision. In practice, however, such analysis is
not always carried out.
The analysis of any site and its environment ex-
tends to all natural, cultural, and aesthetic factors that
affect the property. These factors influence the final
site selection and provide clues to site personality that
can help establish guidelines for later development.
The analysis calls for mapping topographic features
such as slopes and elevations and evaluating various
site characteristics. Standard tests include boring test
holes and digging pits for soil and hydrologic analy-
sis and assessing the water quality of any lakes,
ponds, and streams located on the site. The level of de -
27
tail to which these investigations are carried out de-
pends on the project's complexity and size. In all
cases, however, the accurate analysis of site charac-
teristics during the design and planning process is es-
sential to the success of the development. Design that
is sensitive to site characteristics produces a develop-
ment that is clearly a product of its environment.
Site Analysis: Methodology
Site planning involves an iterative process of data
collection/ survey, data mapping/ analysis, and re-
source evaluation/site design.
Data Collection/Survey
The site planning process begins with the collec-
tion of basic data that directly relate to the site under
consideration and to the surrounding areas. The data
should include such items as master plans and stud-
ies, zoning and subdivision ordinances, base and aer-
ial maps and surveys, topographic data, geologic
information, the hydrology of the area, types of soils
and vegetation, and existing easements (DeChiara
and Koppelman,1984).
Exhibit 3.1 provides a checklist of factors to be con-
sidered in assembling the base information. It must
be remembered, however, that each site and each de-
velopment is unique; therefore, the data collected
vary with individual needs and conditions.
A critical element of site analysis is the planning,
execution, and analysis of several surveys. While sur-
vey needs vary on a case-by-case basis, common criti-
cal investigations are highlighted below.
Cultural Survey
The cultural survey considers such characteristics
as the area's settlement patterns, population changes,
employment characteristics, and land use patterns. In
addition, the survey should note the public's re-
sponse to development proposals, including any con-
troversial projects and the basis for the controversy.
The cultural survey is performed in tandem with a se-
ries of physical surveys.
Exhibit 3.1: CHECKLIST OF SITE ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS
BUILT OR MANUFACTURED FACTORS
Utilities
On- and off-site locations of critical utilities
Distance to hookups
Visual intrusions by utilities
Specific site problems caused by utilities
Accessibility of utilities for repairs
Structures and Paving
On- and off-site structures and their probable effect on
the site's functional and visual quality
Blockage of views or solar access by adjacent struc-
tures
Climatic effects of surrounding structures and manufac-
tured surfaces
Surrounding structures' visual intrusion into site due to
structures' appearance or view into the site
Degree of maintenance provided to and required by ex-
isting materials
NATURAL FACTORS
Sun and Shade
Quality and quantity reaching site
Direction
Effects of surrounding structures on sun and shade
Density of shadows cast
Changes in appearance, ambience, and function of site
depending on time of day or night
Glare problems
Sun and shade effects on the functioning of the circula-
tion systems
28
Wind
Microclimatic effects of wind (tunnels, dead spots, eddies)
Seasonal changes of wind
Odors or trash and debris carried by wind
Blockage and direction changes caused by adjacent site
conditions
Wind erosion signs
Possible structural or functional problems caused by
wind, including difficult -to -manage entry doors
Temperature
Hot or cold spots created by the interactions of other cli-
matic factors
Variations in temperature from area to area
Water and Precipitation
Effects of surrounding conditions on precipitation (block-
ing it, changing its direction or intensity, creating dry
areas)
Snow and ice buildup areas
Fog patches
Groundwater visible on site in the form of low spots or
bodies of water
Subsurface water conditions, including water table, un-
derground streams, aquifers
Surface drainage conditions, including surfaces that
water flows over and eroded or poorly drained areas
Existence of built features to handle runoff
Problems from adjacent sites that exacerbate on-site
water conditions
Water quality
Maintenance problems associated with on-site water con-
ditions
Exhibit 3.1: CHECKLIST OF SITE ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS (continued)
Vegetation
Type, amount, and quality of existing vegetation
Vegetation on surrounding sites and its effects on the
proposed project
State and maturity of plantings
Variety of plantings
Design characteristics and their suitability to the pro-
posed project
Degree of maintenance needed by and provided to plants
Effects of vegetation on climate
Effects on visual appearance and ambience of site
Seasonal change
Sensual appeal (smell, touch, sight, sound)
Possibility of relocating vegetation to other parts of site
Scale and aesthetic appearance
Wildlife potential or problems associated with plantings
Potential for plants to damage structures or paved areas
(root intrusion, dropping branches)
Wildlife
Evidence of beneficial or harmful wildlife
Possible site conditions that would attract wildlife
Soils
Suitability for structural support and support of plant
materials
Type and condition (clay, sand, loam; heavy or light;
compacted or porous)
Changes in soil type across the site
Acidity or alkalinity
Topsoil present on site
Depth to bedrock
Topography
Steepness or flatness (check ordinance definition and cri-
teria)
Uniformity
Relationship to surrounding grades
Existing elements whose grade cannot be changed
(places where new grading must meet existing fea-
tures)
Erosion
Orientation of slopes
Wetlands
Check ordinance for definitions
Existence of hydric soils, vegetation, and hydrology
Required buffers or setbacks
Buffer averaging allowed
Mitigation required
SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL
FACTORS
Attitude toward environment (evident from development
and maintenance of site)
Social Influences
Accepted way of designing and caring for a site in the
area
Local traditions such as "showpiece" frontyard
Sociability of Site and Surroundings
Sense of openness or privacy
Sensory Perception
Site ambience (inviting, forbidding, open, intimate)
Changes in ambience according to time of day and sea-
sons
Effects of the surrounding elements on perceptions
Feelings of anticipation or foreboding generated along
the visual and physical approaches
Effects of color on perception
Scale
Scale of site in relation to its surroundings
Scale of site features in relation to site itself
Places where site could "borrow" from other areas to in-
crease or decrease scale
Dominance of spaces or human beings
Balance
Dynamic or static balance within site
Balance of elements on site
Balance of site with its surroundings
QUALITY AND AESTHETIC FACTORS
Views and Vistas
To and from site, from all different angles of approach
Changes caused by sun and shade changes or by climatic
conditions
Predominant site features for orienting a pleasant view
or vista
Need for buffering or screening views
Degree to which views are sequential
Changes in view and vista based on mode of transporta-
tion
Level at which best views are attained (eye level, ground
level, or higher)
Site's backdrop and foreground
Form and Shape
Form taken by the open and enclosed spaces on and
around site
Individual forms that could be used as design features
Relationships between forms
Repetition of or variation in forms
Source: Adapted from Kim W. Todd, Site, Space, and Struc-
ture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985.
29
Property or Legal Survey
The property survey is a legal document that pro-
vides the exact dimensions and descriptive informa-
tion necessary for the development. It should include
the site area, boundaries, and a general description of
the site. The last factor may include the location of the
site in the local and regional context, the physical
character of the site, and other details, including local
transportation and settlement patterns.
Topographic Survey
The topographic survey identifies the existing ele-
vations of the land and structures on the site. The re-
quired degree of accuracy depends on the scale of the
site and the scope of the project. On small sites, eleva-
tions may be provided on a grid laid out in incre-
ments of 10 feet or less, whereas a 100 -foot interval is
common on large sites. In addition to the grid points
(the points of intersection of the incremental lines of
the grid), elevations may be provided for existing
trees whose diameter exceeds a certain minimum
size, for high and low points off the grid, for the tops
and bottoms of curbs, for walls and stairs, and for the
grate or invert elevations and flow lines of storm
sewer systems. In addition, the topographic survey
identifies the depth of cover over other underground
utilities and the names, diameters, and spread of all
trees and plants (Todd, 1985). The survey aids the
planning process by identifying areas on the site that
lend themselves to building locations, roads, parking
lots, or play areas. A parking lot, for example, should
have a grade less than 5 percent. The table below pro-
vides a guide to slope suitability for various forms of
urban development.
Soil Classification and Survey
The soil survey compiles data on soil charac-
teristics, including the depth to bedrock, the seasonal
high water table, permeability, shrink -swell potential,
and vegetation. In addition, a Soil Conservation WA
ice (of the U.S. Department of Agriculture) soil suis 34
should be conducted to classify the soils on the site. j
Most of the characteristics that identify soils can bede
termined in the field, but a few can be ascertained 2-1
only in the laboratory. Even without laboratory tests,
however, accurate information on soil characteristics
can usually be obtained from standard works on sots
and geology.
The soil analyses are helpful for suggesting land
uses suitable for the site, including streets and park-
ing, dwellings with basements, pond or reservoir ar-
eas, and recreation facilities such as athletic fields or
golf courses.
Geologic Investigations
Geologic surveys determine the geologic condi-
tions that affect the design, safety, and cost of a pro-
posed project. The investigations are performed to
determine the general geologic setting of the project,
the geologic conditions that influence the selection
of a site, the characteristics of the foundation soils
and rocks, and all other geologic considerations
that affect design and construction. The particular
geologic method that guides the investigations de-
pends on the type of structure contemplated and
the character and degree of accuracy of the required
information. In any case, exploratory core borings
should be ordered for all foundation studies sub-
sequent to preliminary geologic examination. The
information obtained from the borings is more accu-
rate than that obtained from most other exploration
methods. Further investigation may use test pits,
trenches, and tunnels for greater or more specific in-
formation. For example, tunnels function primarily
as exploratory devices to permit detailed examina-
tion of the composition and geometry of various
rock structures. Excavation of exploration tunnels,
however, is a slow and expensive process and should
SLOPE SUITABILITY FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Slopes Suitable for Development by Land Use Type
Limitations Suitability Rating
Residential Commercial Industrial Park
Slight Optimum
0%-6% 0%-6% 0%-2%
Moderate Satisfactory
6%-12% 6%-12% 2%-6%
Severe Marginal
12%-18% 12%-18% 6%-12%
Very severe Generally
18+% 18+% 12+%
unsatisfactory
Source: Adapted from Ralph W. Keifer, "Terrain
Analysis for Metropolitan Fringe Area Planning," Jotirnal of the Urban Plan-
ning Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, December 1977.
30
be used only when other methods are inadequate for
supplyingneeded information. Obviously, theextent
of the investigations depends on the magnitude of the
project and the simplicity or complexity of local geol-
ogy (DeChiara and Koppelman, 1984).
Hydrology
Hydrologic features help determine how proposed
activities relate to the land. They are of primary im-
portance in developing a system for site drainage that
makes use of existing watershed drainage patterns
(Rubenstein, 1987). All water bodies—rivers, streams,
drainage channels, marshes or wetlands, floodplain,
and aquifers—must be inventoried and analyzed for
their opportunities or constraints.
Endangered Species
To maintain the ecological character of the site, it is
essential to identify and map any endangered species
found inhabiting the development area. In more ur-
banized areas, it is prudent to examine how the pro-
posed land uses may affect endangered species in the
site vicinity. The environmental impact analysis sup-
ports this investigation by identifying protective habi-
tats and thereby determining the parameters for
prospective development (see chapter 5).
Roadways and Utilities
The specification of the roadways and utilities that
serve the site is a central concern in site design and
construction. All utilities located on or adjacent to the
site under study should be shown graphically for con-
sideration in site development. The road and utility
plan identifies the land consumed by these uses and,
more importantly in terms of development feasibility,
those areas insufficiently served by such utilities as
water and sewer.
The primary sources of water are rivers, lakes,
springs, manmade reservoirs, and subsurface sup-
plies such as aquifers. The several types of distribu-
tion systems include gravity and direct pressure,
although most distribution systems use combination
of these approaches. Water lines are generally adapt-
able to most site layouts, and mains are located adja-
cent to roads where they can be easily serviced.
Where public water companies exist, information on
existing capacity and line locations can be easily ob-
tained.
Sewage is usually disposed of in systems sepa-
rate from stormwater drainage systems and carried
to a disposal plant where it is treated into an efflu-
ent that may be discharged into a river, stream, or
other natural body of water. In nonurban develop-
ments where septic systems may be considered,
soils data must be reviewed especially carefully to
assess soil permeability. In short, a critical compo-
nent of the site analysis is the consideration of
water and sewer provision.
Architectural Style and Historic Resources
Planned development is often designed to be com-
patible with the region's predominant architectural ex-
pression in terms of building style, color, facade,
texture, materials, window treatments, roof types, etc.
The site analysis should consider these architectural
characteristics.
Historic resources must be identified by referring
to local and state registers and to federal registers
such as the National Register of Historic Places. The
historical survey is important for noting structures
and areas that must be protected as designated land-
marks. For instance, in certain jurisdictions, a land-
mark listed on a local register cannot be demolished
and can be altered only after a lengthy review proc-
ess. In addition to satisfying legal regulations, the his-
torical survey is important for providing a basis for
design. Whenever possible, elements of historic re-
sources should be incorporated into the project design
to provide a spatial and historic continuity valuable
to a new development.
Data Mapping and Analysis
Once the data gathering and survey work are com-
plete, the collected information must be analyzed.
One of the first objectives is to enumerate the site's ad-
vantages and limitations. It is then possible to deter-
mine whether the land is suitable for the proposed
use. If the use can be supported by the site, the data
must be further analyzed to establish other specific
site parameters, including the delineation of areas
suitable for construction because of acceptable soil
conditions or areas unsuitable for construction be-
cause of drainage patterns and resultant erosion prob-
lems (DeChiara and Koppelman, 1984).
To facilitate the analysis of the collected data, the
information is usually displayed graphically, al-
though the form and level of sophistication depend
on the scale and type of development. For a modest
development or site, limited data may be collected
and summarized in a concise graphic and narrative
statement describing the essential nature of the site—
its major constraints and potentials and its suitability
for development. For a larger development or site, a
more comprehensive analysis is warranted (Listokin
and Walker, 1989).
A standard technique for evaluating resource data
requires the mapping of individual resources (soil, hy-
drology, etc.) on single sheets of paper. Most informa-
tion on the location of natural and cultural resources
is represented at a variety of scales such as 1:400 or
1:24,000. The decision on the appropriate scale for
mapping generally depends on both the degree of de-
tail needed to evaluate the resource and the submis-
sion requirements specified in the host jurisdiction's
ordinances. Resource data collected at different scales
must be transposed into a consistent scale by relying
on either a grid system or photographic techniques.
31
Once all locational data have been delineated on
appropriate drawings at a consistent scale, the draw-
ings can be converted through photographic tech-
niques to transparent overlays. Photographic
techniques provide an opportunity to superimpose
several individual resource overlays so that combina-
tions of resources or resource aggregates can be evalu-
ated in a three-dimensional form. Exhibit 3.2 displays
the overlay technique and presents a composite of the
development suitability maps for an area.
Increasingly, the analyses of resources and their
graphic representation are assisted by computer appli-
cations, particularly in the form of geographic infor-
mation systems. These software applications range
from high-level integrated systems to the simplest
and least costly systems that use discrete software
packages in which data are manually transferred. The
simple systems use a database package such as dBase
III or its variants and may incorporate either a the-
matic mapping package such as ATLAS or a com-
puter-aided design (CAD) program such as
Auto/CAD (Brail, 1990). By using an array of CAD or
similar systems, site planners and designers can now
perform electronically many technical tasks once un-
dertaken manually. These tasks include slope analy-
sis, quantity takeoffs, cut -and -fill calculations, and
coordinating the work of architects and land planners
(Cooper and Button, 1991). Such techniques enable
Exhibit 3.2: OVERLAY TECHNIQUE RESULTING IN
DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY MAPS
Source: David Listokin and Carole Walker, The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Center for Urban Policy Research, 1989. Courtesy of Anton Nelessen.
32
site designers to depict a land area for pictorial and
analytic purposes in a relatively short time. This capa-
bility permits both consultant and client to under-
stand and evaluate proposals more fully and to
communicate these proposals to public regulators and
affected neighborhood residents (Cooper and Button,
1991).
For instance, CAD or similar systems can convey a
land area's appearance by generating a series of draw-
ings shown from various directions of view. By rely-
ing on these drawings, an observer can extract and
analyze a great deal of information in a short time.
The computer accurately produces both two- and
three-dimensional cross sections and easily generates
finer declensions at any point or along any line. For
example, the appearance of a particular site before
and after grading can be simulated by visual perspec-
tives and isometrics, or the visual exposure of a single
point or the relative exposure of a land area can be
analyzed. The visual exposure for a given viewing
point can be analyzed by using a standard computer
bank.
As another example, topographic slope analysis
can be facilitated by computer software that graphi-
cally analyzes the relative percent of slope of land-
scape terrain. Such analysis has been highly effective
in evaluating the slope constraints on land develop-
ments and road designs. Normally, such an analysis
is extremely time-consuming and suffers from inaccu-
racy. With the use of computer techniques, however,
slopes can be rapidly located with minimum cost and
effort. Accurate topographic maps can be prepared
from field survey data or point source information.
The computer program uses a highly advanced inter-
polation technique for producing contour lines.
Sophisticated, specialized geographic information
systems such as ARC INFO represent an alternative
yet powerful approach to organizing geographic and
nongeographic information for planning the urban
and regional environment (Brail, 1990). Other com-
puter-assisted land planning tools include a complete
watershed analysis that provides statistical, sche-
matic, and graphic information on natural boundaries
and subwatersheds in two separate outputs. The first
is a printout of the general watershed areas that
graphically illustrates the ridgelines separating the
watersheds. The acreage for each watershed is calcu-
lated and included as part of the output. The second
output is a pen -line drawing of water "courses" or
"flows" that is useful for potential runoff calculations,
flooding simulations, site analysis, and storm drain
layout. Such analyses, although difficult to perform
manually, are easily produced from the basic comput-
erized data bank (DeChiara and Koppelman, 1984).
The application of computerized analytic methods
is associated with high initial startup and calibration
costs. Repeated use of the model for project reviews
or for planning applications can, however, yield long-
term efficiencies. Nonetheless, it is critical to select an
appropriate model program package. Users generally
rely on a variety of sources, such as the published lit-
erature and consultants, for assistance in model selec-
tion and installation and for user training. Regardless
of the type of model selected, model users should
turn to the individual model developer or others fa-
miliar with the model's application for information
on startup costs. Previous users are often the best
sources of information.
Resource Evaluation/Site Design
Once all the site characteristics have been mapped
and graphically consolidated, the pertinent resources
can be evaluated in terms of the proposed site func-
tion. The evaluation unfolds by superimposing combi-
nations of appropriate resource overlays to establish
the locations of certain phenomena as well as to note
significant relationships. The resources can then be
evaluated in terms of the ability of specific resource
aggregates to meet the various requirements of a de-
velopment proposal. The composite drawing of the
entire site highlights the varying suitability of the site
for its intended uses. For example, areas highly suited
to construction activity or land susceptible to flooding
can be identified.
The survey methods outlined in the previous sec-
tion provide a mapped analysis of all physical site
characteristics relevant to a development proposal.
The analysis focuses primarily on determining the
area of the site that may accommodate development
and on identifying the specific characteristics of that
area. To a large extent, the results of the analyses dic-
tate the form, scale, and arrangement of the develop-
ment plan and thus determine the technical and
economic feasibility of the overall proposal.
With all site characteristics graphically displayed,
the analyst determines the site's development poten-
tial. In this respect, it should be noted that the oppor-
tunities for reclaiming land suitable for development
have expanded with the advent of new technologies
and increased economic pressure. The analyst should
consider the technical and economic feasibility of ap-
plying new technologies and the possibility of bring-
ing into use any previously undevelopable land. For
instance, with proper engineering, development can
occur on slopes that were once bypassed. The graphic
exhibits should document the land area finally deter-
mined as suitable for the proposed development.
From the site analysis follows the site design. The
overall layout of a development should respond to
the site and emphasize the property's strong points
such as views, stands of trees, or unusual rock forma-
tions as well as enhance the land's development po-
tential. Land that is unsuitable for development or
environmentally fragile should be protected. Often,
clustering offers the best opportunity to preserve spe-
cial characteristics.
33
Exhibit 3.3: ROUGH GUIDE TO NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
FOR A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS
RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT
Single -Family Detached
Under 5,000 -square -foot lots
5,000 -square -foot lots
10,000 -square -foot lots
20,000 -square -foot lots
Twins'/Single-Family Attached
Townhouses with Garages
Townhouses without Garages
Multifamily (two-story)
Multifamily (three-story)
Multifamily (more than three stories)Z
NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER ACRE
(includes local roads and rights-of-way)
5.5-9.0
3.5-5.5
2.5-3.5
1.5-2.0
3.5-7.5
6-8
8-10
8-12
12-18
18+
Notes
1 Two single-family attached units.
Z Mid- and high-rise multifamily buildings, depending on location, vary significantly in their net residential density.
Source: David J. Minno, A.I.A., The Martin Architectural Group, Princeton, NJ, 1991.
Open space and scenic areas can be planned for
portions of the site otherwise unsuitable for devel-
opment yet usable for recreation. These areas
would include water courses, wetlands, areas with
seasonal high water, flood zones, hilltops forming
natural landmarks, mature stands of trees, or his-
toric structures and sites. Where possible, open
space should be located near natural drainage ways
to take advantage of water's ability to control tem-
peratures and sound.
By designing in concert with a site's natural charac-
teristics, site planners can fit buildings and roads into
the natural pattern of the landscape and thereby pro-
tect the environment, economize on construction, and
minimize clearing, grading, and the removal of trees.
As a general rule, clearing and grading are best lim-
ited to those areas intended to accommodate develop-
ment. Wooded hillcrests, in particular, should be
maintained in their natural state to preserve their aes-
thetic quality and to prevent soil erosion. By contrast,
sites with steep slopes can provide dramatic views
and unique opportunities for development as long as
proper construction techniques are followed.
Storm drainage facilities should be planned as an
integral part of the development, with systems de-
signed to minimize the possibility of soil erosion, silta-
tion, and flooding. Lots and/or buildings should be
situated to take advantage of the natural topography
and to ensure positive drainage. The rate of water run-
off or velocity should not increase after development,
and setback distances should be established along all
waterways:
Neighborhood compatibility is another considera-
tion in designing developments. A new development
34
should not dominate or interfere with the use of
neighboring properties. In practice, lots, roads, and
buildings should be sited to avoid the adverse effects
of shadow, noise, and traffic on prospective residents
or nearby properties.
After considering the general site layout, the ana-
lyst studies the principal components in further de-
tail. For instance, a fundamental element is the
circulation pattern that permits pedestrian and ve-
hicular movement through a development. Again, de-
sign must follow the site's characteristics. The
circulation system should take into consideration
physical factors such as topography, grade, and drain-
age and aesthetic factors such as the visual organiza-
tion of the street pattern and any unique site features.
Designing streets to follow the contours of the land of-
fers several advantages: lots are more level with each
other, the need for retaining walls is reduced, drain-
age problems are minimized, the costs of cutting and
filling are reduced, and site amenities can be pre-
served.
Design then proceeds to the other major elements
such as neighborhood and building layout, open
space provision, landscaping approach, and so on by
addressing successive levels of detail from the general
to the specific.
Additional Considerations
In reality, the design takes into account an even
greater array of factors than the largely physical, site -fo-
cused considerations described above. For example, de-
velopment economics—the minimum number of
residential units and amount of nonresidential square
footage to be developed if a project is to be financially
feasible—must be considered. Further, a myriad of lo-
cal land use regulations that govern site density and
building placement must be satisfied. These include
gross residential density—the number of residential
units per acre of the site; net residential density—the
number of residential units per acre of developable
land area (see Exhibit 3.3); and floor/area ratio—the
relationship between the commercial floor space pro-
posed and the nonresidential site area. Other influ-
ences on density and/or development yield include
provisions affecting open space, coverage factors
(building, impervious surface, and total area), build-
ing area, lot frontage and width, cul-de-sac dimen-
sions (i.e., maximum length and minimum bulb
radius), right-of-way and cartway width, and parking
space size requirements and dimensions (for both
able-bodied and disabled persons).
In addition, the full array of development impact
assessment fields considered in this handbook bears
on the site design. The market analysis suggests what
should be developed and at what pace. The fiscal
analysis dictates the public cost versus resource conse-
quences of different pro formas. The environmental
assessment refines the physical evaluation of the site;
and the traffic impact study furthers the under-
standing of circulation patterns and impacts.
In short, the site analysis and design outlined in this
chapter are important considerations in reviewing devel-
opment impacts. It is essential to recognize, however,
that the early analysis and design will undergo refine-
ment as the findings from the other impact assessment
fields are revealed. The same iterative process charac-
terizes the other activities described in this handbook.
Data Sources
Overview
The quality of the site analysis is strongly depend-
ent on the accuracy and format of the required infor-
mation. Much of the basic data concerning the
physical characteristics of the site can be collected
from the local planning and tax assessor's offices. A
wealth of information is commonly available in the
form of plans, surveys, and maps, including topo-
graphic, soil, climatic, and property maps. Although
the scale in some cases may not be readily suitable for
small parcels, the maps nevertheless can help estab-
lish boundary conditions around the site.
In many cases, useful land use data may be found
in a community's comprehensive plan. The plan can
flag lands unsuitable for development, including
floodplains and ecologically unstable areas. Utility
companies can accurately locate underground and
overhead lines, both existing and proposed. Planning
and zoning commission staff can offer their knowl-
edge of land use regulations and developments
planned for around the site (Todd, 1985).
Former property owners and neighbors can also pro-
vide worthwhile information for the site analysis. They
may know of buried foundations, unusual soil prob-
lems, or infrequently occurring but hazardous off-site in-
fluences such as flooding. Those who occupy a site on a
day-to-day basis usually have a good sense for the
land's character and, accordingly, should be contacted.
Computer analysis was previously noted for its ex-
panding role in development assessment. In fact, in
the initial stages of research, computer analysis may
provide valuable information, including satellite im-
agery of vegetative cover, soil types, and water and
drainage ways. Aerial photographs of the site taken in
different seasons can help determine changes in vege-
tative cover, precipitation patterns, and drainage
problems. In contrast to the analysis phase, which usu-
ally does not extend through a complete change of
seasons, aerial photographs permit a year-round view
of the site. In addition to these general reference
sources, more detailed information on the site is avail-
able from the sources described below.
Data Sources for Specific Site
Considerations
Topography
While the most costly as well as most thorough
and reliable source of information is a site survey, the
site analysis may be supported by other, readily avail-
able topographic data. Aerial photographs are avail-
able from the nearest office of the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
or directly from the federal government. The photo-
graphs communicate a great deal of valuable informa-
tion, but a complete and accurate interpretation of the
images requires the services of a professional.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publishes a va-
riety of maps and documents that may be ordered di-
rectly from the agency or obtained from real estate
agents or sporting goods stores, etc. USGS topo-
graphic maps are an essential source of geographic
and topographic information and are commonly avail-
able in ? 1/2- and 15 -minute sizes. The drawback of
these maps is that the scale is too small and the con-
tour intervals too large for small properties and lots
and the information relating to human activities is
usually outdated.
Soils and Geology
The site survey establishes the base of information
for soil and geologic documentation and includes the
results of test borings and pits, preferably conducted
by a soil scientist. Property adjacent to the site should
be included in the study; for example, existing wells
may provide a guide to the depth to bedrock or to the
water table.
35
Several other data sources provide important infor-
mation for the site analysis. Soil Conservation Service
maps and reports may be obtained from the SCS of-
fices located in many county seats. The maps are ex-
cellent for highway or subdivision investigations,
although they mainly cover the midwestern, eastern,
and southern portions of the United States. The SCS
reports describe surveys of surface soils and summa-
rize agricultural terms and physical geology.
The USGS geologic index map provides individual
maps of each state that show the coverage and
sources of all published geologic maps. These maps
include Folios of the Geological Atlas of the United States,
geologic quadrangle maps of the United States, and
topographic maps. The USGS also produces bulletins,
professional papers, circulars, annual reports, and
monographs. (Water supply papers are also available
from the USGS.)
The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS)
publishes nautical charts that show available sound-
ings of the sea bottom as well as topographic and cul-
tural features adjacent to the coast or waterways.
The Geological Society of America (GSA) publishes
monthly bulletins and special papers. Individual arti-
cles frequently include detailed geologic maps. Publi-
cations include general geologic maps of North and
South America and maps of glacial deposits.
Finally, a state department of geology and/or state
university cooperative extension service may also pro-
vide soil/geologic data relevant to the study area as
can local county departments of planning and private
soil laboratories.
Hydrology
The location of water systems may be identified by
boring test holes or digging pits. Water quality can
then be determined. Additional information is pro-
vided by hydrologic maps published by the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Water Resources Division. State and
county departments of environmental control, the
Soil Conservation Service, the county cooperative ex-
tension service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers Academic Environmental Research Centers can
also provide valuable hydrologic data.
In most cases, states have mapped wetlands of a
minimum size. The analyst should obtain any avail-
able maps detailing such wetlands. Smaller wetlands
must also be identified, but a specialist is required to
do so. Soil Conservation Report(s) (U.S. Department of
Agriculture) can assist the identification process.
Vegetation
Aerial photography is a reliable source of general
information on a site's vegetation. A trained inter-
preter can determine species, age of stands, and other
information. A site survey can uncover details ob-
scured in the aerial photography as well as identify
any rare or endangered species.
36
Preview and Quickway Models of
Physical Planning and Site
Analysis
The process of site analysis, mapping, and evalu-
ation covers a wide but varying range of physical at-
tributes that must be incorporated into the site
selection decision and determination of development
form. The focus of the analysis depends on the indi-
vidual site characteristics. To establish the site charac-
ter and developability, the preview model applies the
major site attributes in a generalized form. The model
does not offer a substitute for the full site analysis nec-
essary for development activity. It does, however, pro-
vide an overview of significant development and
land use considerations. The required information is
obtained from a preliminary site survey that relies on
a range of previously outlined techniques and from
documentation of the development parameters.
By using total development acres, gross density,
and gross floor/area ratios as well as information on
total residential units and nonresidential space in the
development, Quickway permits the user to deter-
mine whether the land area is sufficient to accommo-
date the proposed development. This calculation does
not account for any nondevelopable land.
The preview model is structured as a series of in-
puts and outputs that encompass four information
fields: development composition; site characteristics;
site constraints on developability; and other site con-
siderations. Exhibit 3.4 outlines the essential elements
of the model's structure, relating the required input
information to the final analysis output for the four
fields of information. The following discussion of the
specific elements of the preview model identifies the
form and sources of information required for the
analysis.
Quickway requires only the entry of data fields 1-3
below and produces outputs 1-3 below. The above in-
puts and outputs as well as the remainder of all in-
puts and outputs pertain to the preview model.
Development Composition (Inputs I and 2). The pre-
liminary project pro forma is entered. The number of
residential units should be stated in terms of both the
type of units proposed (single-family, townhouse, gar-
den apartment, or other) and the units' respective sizes
(one -bedroom, two-bedroom, etc.) (input 1). Similarly,
the nonresidential uses proposed for the site should be
defined by type (retail, office, industrial) and by their re-
spective sizes in square feet (input 2).
Site Characteristics (Input 3). The total size of the de-
velopment site should be entered, along with informa-
tion on the overall intensity of use permitted for the site
in terms of gross residential density and gross
floor/area ratios. Input 3 also requests the user's deci-
sion as to whether the preliminary project pro forma
should be increased—in terms of added residential
units and/or nonresidential square footage—to the
Exhibit 3.4: PREVIEW AND QUICKWAY MODELS OF PHYSICAL PLANNING AND
SITE ANALYSIS
INPUT
DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION (PREVIEW AND
QUICKWAY MODELS)
1. Number of residential units by type and size
a. Single-family
b. Townhouse
c. Garden apartment
d. Other
2. Nonresidential space by type and size
a. Retail
b. Office
c. Industrial
SITE CHARACTERISTICS (PREVIEW AND
QUICKWAY MODELS)
3. a. Total site size
b. Gross residential density
c. Gross floor/area ratio
d. Ask if project does not use all land at gross level—
should program increase pro forma?
SITE CONSTRAINTS AND DEVELOPABILITY
(PREVIEW MODEL)
4. Total land area consumed by the
following constraints (nonoverlapping):
Land in nondevelopable slope conditions
Land in nondevelopable soils
Land in floodplains/wetlands/streams
Land in prime agricultural and forest areas
Land in or near historic or archeological sites
Land in or near endangered species habitats
Land consumed by roads and utilities
Land in perimeter buffers and other land dedications
Land otherwise nondevelopable
5. Site allocation of open space (in acres)
6. Regulations: net residential density
and floor/area ratios governing site
a. Residential
b. Nonresidential
c. Ask if project does not use all land at net level—
should program increase pro forma?
OTHER SITE CONSIDERATIONS (PREVIEW MODEL)
7. Architectural style of development
a. Same
b. Derivative
c. Different (developer -initiated)
d. Different (site -determined)
OUTPUT
SITE CHARACTERISTICS (PREVIEW AND
QUICKWAY MODELS)
1. Total site size
2. Ratio of acres to required acres (gross density)
3. Gross residential density
4. Gross floor/area ratio
SITE CONSTRAINTS AND DEVELOPABILITY
(PREVIEW MODEL)
5. Site developability
a. Developable acreage
b. Percent of site developable
6. a. Acreage allocation of open space
6. b. Percent of site in open space
7. a. Developable residential acres
7. b. Developable nonresidential acres
7. c. Nondevelopable, nonopen space land (in acres)
8. Acres required to fulfill pro forma net density
a. Residential
b. Nonesidential
Ratio of available developable
acres to required acres—net level
c. Residential
d. Nonresidential
DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION (PREVIEW MODEL)
9. a. Number of residential units (reduced, if necessary, or
increased, if possible, and requested to fit residential land)
9. b. Percent allocation by residential type
9. c. Percent allocation—overall (detached/attached)
10. a. Square feet of nonresidential
space (reduced, if necessary, or increased,
if possible, and requested to fit nonresidential land)
10. b. Percent allocation by nonresidential type (in square feet)
LAND USE INTENSITY (PREVIEW MODEL)
11. Net residential density
12. Net floor/area ratio
OTHER SITE CONSIDERATIONS (PREVIEW MODEL)
13. Architectural compatibility code
a. Compatible
b. Compatible though different
c. Incompatible (by choice)
d. Incompatible (site -determined)
37
maximum development nominally allowed by the
governing land use regulations.
Site -Constraints and Developability (Inputs 4-6). The
preliminary site analysis should identify areas of the site
that cannot support development as a result of physical
constraints. These areas include nondevelopable slopes,
land with poor soils, land affected by hydrologic fea-
tures, areas not served by roads and utilities, and land
in or near historic sites or endangered species:habitats.
The total area (in acres) consumed by these factors
should be entered (input 4). Further factors affecting the
level and intensity of developability is the amount of
open space that is required (input 5) and the net residen-
tial densities and floor area/ratios governing the devel-
opment site (input 6).
Other Site Considerations (Input 7). As an example,
the architectural style input quantifies how the project
design compares to the surrounding .development. If
the style differs, the input notes whether the devel-
oper prompted the style change or whether site fac-
tors necessitated an alternative style (input 7).
The series of inputs described above provides the
basis for generating 13 outputs relating to site charac-
teristics, site constraints and developability, develop-
ment composition, and other site features.
Site Characteristics (Outputs 1-4). The total site size
is indicated in output 1; the relationship of the actual
site acreage to the size required by the governing
gross density to floor/area ratio is indicated in output
2; and the effective gross residential density to
floor/area ratio of the project pro forma is calculated
in outputs 3 and 4, respectively.
Site Constraints and Developability (Outputs 5-8). The
total site acreage that can support development activ-
ity is provided in output'5.a. The acreage is expressed
as a percent of the total site area in output 5.b. Total
open space acres and the site's percent of open space
are shown in outputs 6.a and 6.b, respectively. The al-
location of the development site into different compo-
nents (i.e., developable residential land, developable
nonresidential land, etc.) is identified in output 7. Fi-
nally, output 8 indicates the acres required to fulfill
the development pro forma given the governing net
density to floor/area ratio requirements in relation-
ship to the land that is actually available on the site.
Development Composition (Outputs 9 and 10). The to-
tal number of residential units, including a description
of unit type, is printed (output 9.a). The percent alloca-
tion of each residential type (single-family, townhouse,
garden apartment, or other) is determined (output 9.b),
and the percent allocation of detached versus attached
residential units is computed (output 9.c). The total
amount of nonresidential floor space is calculated (in
thousands of square feet) (output 10.a). The percent allo-
cation of the various types of nonresidential uses (retail,
office, industrial) for the entire nonresidential product is
computed (output -10.b).
Land Use Intensity (Outputs 11 and 12). The effective
net residential density for the project pro forma and
38
development site is indicated in output 11, and, in a
parallel fashion, the net nonresidential floor/area ra-
tio (where applicable) is shown in output 12.
Other Site Considerations (Output 13). The architec-
tural compatibility code states whether the develop-
ment is compatible or incompatible (outputs 13.a
through 13.d) with existing structures. In the latter in-
stance, incompatibility is classified according to devel-
oper choice (output 13.c) or determinations that
militated against the adoption of the prevailing style
(output 13A).
The preview and Quickway models of physical
planning and site analysis thus relate the site's poten-
tial—in terms of the land area that may support devel-
opment—to the scale and character of the proposed
project. This approach allows for the calculation of
such basic land use parameters as development fit,
density, and floor/area ratio.
Presentation
Report Presentation
The written presentation of the site analysis should
outline the general character of the site based on the
data collected. Exhibit 3.5 offers a suggested outline for
the written presentation of the site analysis. The report
should include a description of the site that details size
and location relative to the surrounding area as well as
notable features that may influence the proposed de-
sign. A thorough presentation of all site factors may not
be required for a given project. In fact, the focus of the
analysis varies according to ithe intended use of the site.
To ensure that the information is presented concisely,
the report should provide in-depth coverage of the most
important subjects and touch on negligible impacts only
briefly. Graphic representations of the analysis should
be included in the report to aid the intended audience's
comprehension of and access to the findings.
The design proposal should emphasize major char-
acteristics that relate to the physical land area, includ-
ing the architectural style and layout of the design
and a general breakdown of the type of buildings
planned. The proposal should consider the land use
regulations that govern development of the site, par-
ticularly requirements for open space, water and sew-
age service, and parking.
The report should address the particular strengths
and limitations of the site as related to the client's pros-
pects for undertaking development. The report should
also include a presentation of alternative uses of those
portions of the land that exhibit significantly limiting
characteristics. Such alternatives provide guidance dur-
ing the design stage. For example, open space and sce-
nic areas can be planned for portions of the site that are
unsuitable for development but usable for recreation. -
Such areas may include wetlands, areas with seasonal
high water, or flood zones. The aspects of the design
that address the nominally limiting site features
should be outlined, with emphasis on those proposals
that feature unique or particularly creative options.
Plans that contain nonstandard and unfamiliar solu-
tions to site design may receive cautious attention and
therefore demand thorough presentation.
The Public Presentation
The public presentation of the site analysis and de-
sign process should summarize and highlight key find-
ings. Technical detail should be kept to a minimum, but
the implications should be discussed. For example, the
audience should not be told the results of all test borings
and soil analyses but rather should be informed of how
soil conditions led to the delineation of specific areas
deemed suitable for development.
The public presentation can be enhanced by
audio-visual aids. Graphic representation of the
site, particularly the computer -drawn illustrations
used in the site analysis, provide a valuable source
for presentation material. Unfamiliar site features or
nonstandard designs can benefit from the visual pres-
entations produced by CAD systems. The use of such
drawings permits an individual to extract and ana-
lyze a great deal of information in a short time. In ad-
dition to improving the visual quality of the
presentation, the graphic display simplifies technical
details that influence the design. Making technical in-
formation comprehensive and accessible is particu-
larly valuable for an audience with a limited
background in the environmental and physical engi-
neering aspects of site development.
The presentation of the site design affords an eager
public the opportunity to ask a wide range of ques-
tions. Where will the development take place? What
will it look like? What will it abut? The formal site
presentation and informal presentations that pre-
ceded it (see chapter 2) address these concerns. It is
therefore essential that the public presentation demon-
strate conclusively that the site design follows logi-
cally from the site constraints and opportunities and
that the proposal represents a synthesis of the priori-
ties of the developer and the larger community.
Exhibit 3.5: PHYSICAL LAND PLANNING: REPORT CONTENT OF A SITE ANALYSIS
I GENERAL SITE CONTEXT
Introduction
Adjacent land use patterns; circulation systems
Ecological and hydrologic systems of region
Area economy; nearby projects and their effects on devel-
opment site
II INVENTORY OF SITE AND ADJACENT LAND
Artificial Elements
Legal and physical boundaries; private holdings and
public easements
Buildings, bridges, and other structures, including those
with historic and archeological significance
Roads, walks, and other transport ways
Electric lines, gas mains, and other utilities
Land uses, including agriculture, industrial, recreation, etc.
Site restrictions and applicable ordinances such as zon-
ing regulations and health codes
Resident population, including number, composition, so-
cial structures, economic status, organization, politi-
cal participation
Political factors influencing development
Natural Resources
Climate
Topography, including high and low points and drain-
age patterns
Soil types, by name if available, for clues regarding
ground surface permeability, stability, and fertility
Water bodies, including permanence, fluctuation, and
other habits
Geology of the underlying rock, including the existence
of matter that is commercially or functionally valu-
able such as sand and gravel, coal, and water
Vegetation types and individual specimens of consequence
Wildlife, including the existence of desirable habitats
Natural Forces
Temperature
Sun angles at various seasons and times of the day
Sun pockets
Daily and seasonal wind directions and intensities
Precipitation, including seasons, accumulations, storm
frequencies, and intensities
Coastal and freshwater wetlands
Perceptual Characteristics
Views into and from the site, significant features
Smells and sounds and their sources
Spatial patterns
Lines, forms, textures, colors, and scales that give the site
its unique character
General impressions regarding the experience potential
of the site and its parts
III SITE ANALYSIS
Areas of continuous structures and areas where the site
can be subdivided
Identification of key points, views, areas to be left unde-
veloped, areas to develop
Ongoing site changes and their dynamic aspects
Areas where present uses are to be preserved
IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of the site's significant problems and potentials
Key positive and negative impacts of the development
proposal
Source: Joseph De Chiara and Lee E. Koppelman, Tinre-Saver
Standards for Site Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
kU
Critiquing the Physical Land Plan
and Site Analysis
In evaluating both the written report and oral presenta-
tion of the physical land plan and site analysis, the follow-
ing can serve as a guide to the reviewer and listener (i.e.,
regulatory bodies, professional staff, general public, etc.).
Conformance with Planning
Regulations and Urban Pattern
• Does the project conform with approved develop-
ment applications, tentative plans, or probable
trends in land use and with all applicable ordi-
nances and regulations?
• Have possible zoning changes been considered for
the site?
• Does the project meet the standards promulgated
by individual city government agencies (planning
department, utilities, etc.)?
• Are any changes planned in the surrounding street
hierarchy or configuration?
• Have the effects of building codes and the possibil-
ity of their modification been considered?
• Are sufficient provisions made for current resident
relocation if needed?
Character of the Site
• Have all possible hazards received attention: flood-
ing, slides, or subsidence; proximity to railroads,
high-speed highways, high embankments, unpro-
tected bodies of water; presence of insect- or ro-
dent -breeding places; high groundwater level that
might cause dampness in buildings?
• What was the basis for the assessment of on-site flood-
ing (annual flood, 10 -year storm, 100 -year storm)?
• Does the site design allow for easements and land
parcels necessarily excluded from development?
• Does any part of the development encroach on a
critical area (high water table, steep slopes over 20
percent, poor drainage)?
• Are soil conditions suitable for the proposed devel-
opment?
• Have site location and street access been consid-
ered for their impact on fire protection and public
safety services?
Site Plan
• Does the design enhance or maintain neighbor-
hood quality? What is the extent of nonresidential
land use? Is the proposed use suitable for the host
neighborhood?
• Has the project's effect on the surrounding neigh-
borhood been considered?
40
• Have provisions been identified for street lighting,
cleaning, maintenance, snow removal, tree plant-
ing and maintenance, etc.?
• Is the topography of the site plan livable? Does the site
plan incorporate favorable features such as existing
shade trees, pleasing outlook, and desirable slopes?
• Is the landscaping plan feasible? Are the sizes, spe-
cies, and location of plant materials consistent with
the site?
• Does the landscape plan indicate the size, species,
and approximate locations of plant materials to be
retained or placed on the site?
• Have provisions been made to protect existing
trees during construction?
• Are buildings oriented to take advantage of natu-
ral energy-saving elements such as the sun, land-
scape materials, and land form?
• Does the design include special provisions for per-
sons with disabilities (ramps, special parking provi-
sions, absence of barriers)?
• Is there sufficient land for children's play areas?
Do play areas conform to safety standards?
• Have crime prevention measures been incorpo-
rated into the design (lighting and design to reduce
the vulnerability of remote areas, accessibility for
police patrols, etc.)?
• Have provisions been made for emergency, serv-
ice, and delivery vehicles?
• Have buffer zones or screening been provided in
appropriate locations? Is the size of each zone ade-
quate for its function?
• Does the nonresidential space site plan provide for
the end users' functional needs?
Future Directions
The likely expansion of computer applications in site
planning will offer significant improvements in both
analysis and presentation. The increasing importance of
simulation and analytic models of physical site proper-
ties will also allow greater accuracy and expediency in
parameter computation. Examples include computer -
drawn illustrations that communicate the land's appear-
ance and simulate site improvements such as grading or
cut and fill. In addition, computer-aided architectural
drawings can provide images of the development from
various directions for eventual modification in response
to site demands. In a related technological advance,
simulation models will reduce the number of needed
follow-up visits to a site, although on-site investigations
will continue to provide the basis for site analysis. Once
the site parameters are recorded, the data can be success-
fully manipulated to represent alternative site options.
These advances in computer applications will pro-
duce long-term economies of time and budget, albeit
sometimes with high startup costs. The increasing so-
phistication of computerized methods will create de-
mand for land planners with a working knowledge of
the various analytic packages. While large planning
firms will support an in-house team of computer ap-
plications specialists as well as make available the ac-
companying hardware and software, smaller firms
may find themselves consulting specialists for com-
puterized planning services.
Future technological advances will be well re-
ceived as site analysis and design become increas-
ingly important, high-profile activities. The nation's
growing environmental awareness will significantly
influence future demand for site analysis and the pub-
lic presentation of results before interested parties. In
addition, as the inventory of easily developable land
is depleted over time, sites with nominal "problems"
will be considered for use. A changing development
climate will foster the need for creative site design so-
lutions as well as a style of presentation that ad-
dresses the public's concerns (Newell, 1993).
41
a.. -do
Chapter 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Introduction
In the United States, the practice of environmental
impact analysis is typically considered to have begun
with the passage of the National Environmental Pol-
icy Act (NEPA), which took effect on January 1, 1970.
After two decades, more than 20,000 comprehensive
environmental impact statements (EISs) have been
prepared. In addition, more than 500,000 shorter envi-
ronmental assessments (EAs) have been compiled to
determine whether significant impacts would compro-
mise the quality of the human environment and
thereby necessitate an EIS. The term used hereafter to
represent generic considerations in both EA and EIS
preparation is environmental impact analysis (EIA).
Environmental impact analysis can be defined as
the systematic identification and evaluation of the po-
tential impacts (effects) of proposed projects, plans,
programs, or legislative actions relative to the physi-
cal -chemical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic
components of the environment. (This chapter focuses
on the physical implications; chapter 6 examines so-
cial assessment; chapters 7 and 8 discuss economic im-
pacts; and chapter 9, traffic effects.) The primary
purpose of the EIA process is to encourage the consid-
eration of the environment in planning and decision
making and, ultimately, to arrive at actions that are
environmentally compatible. In practice, the most at-
tention is devoted to identifying significant adverse ef-
fects, which are then mitigated.
Because NEPA was primarily directed toward fed-
eral actions, the preparation of EAs and EISs was in-
itially assumed to fall within the domain of various
federal agencies. However, with the subsequent broad-
ening of definitions relative to actions that encompass
both permits and activities involving federal funding,
the range of institutional and private organizations in-
volved in the preparation of EAs and EISs has ex-
panded considerably. In addition to federal agencies,
approximately 20 states have enacted state -equivalent
"little NEPAs." In fact, many of these laws closely fol-
low the federal EA and EIS requirements of NEPA
(see Exhibit 5.1). Perhaps the most stringent state law
is the California environmental impact statute that re-
quires reports on both public and private activities.
In addition to state agencies, numerous regional plan-
ning organizations, such as councils of government, and
local municipalities have implemented EIA -type require-
ments in conjunction with land use planning and zoning
regulations ("mini-NEPAs"). Further, applications for
water and air discharge permits and permits related to
waste disposal typically require studies that are focused
environmental impact analyses.
Examples of development projects wherein the EIA
process has been applied include shopping centers, in-
dustrial parks, planned unit developments, area rede-
velopment, industrial facilities, power plants, and
public projects such as highways, airports, water and
sewage systems, flood control structures, and dams.
While most of the 20,000+ EISs prepared to date have
focused on larger -scale projects, EISs for smaller -scale
facilities, especially developments in urban areas, are
finding increased application. In addition, even if EISs
are not required for many urban development pro-
jects, EAs are often needed and thereby require con-
sideration of appropriate environmental
consequences and relevant mitigation measures.
The specific legal responsibility for preparing an
EIA is governed by federal and state statutory and
regulatory provisions. For instance, under federal
67
Exhibit 5.1: LIST OF STATES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIREMENTS
States with "Little NEPAS"
Arkansas: Ark. Stat. Ann. §8-1-101 (1987)
California: Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq. (West, 1982)
Connecticut: Conn. Gen. State. Ann. 1981 §§22a-14 to
22a-20 (West Supp., 1974-75)
District of Columbia: D.C. Code Ann. 1981 §6-981 et seq.
Florida: Fla. Stat. §§380.92 et seq. (1970)
Hawaii: Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§343-1 to 343-8 (1985)
Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. §§13-1-10-1 to 13-1-10-8
(West, 1987)
Maryland: Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. §§1-301 to 1-305
(1983 and Supp., 1987)
Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 30, §§61-02H
(1972, Amended 1973 and 1977)
Minnesota: Minn. Stat. Ann. §§116D.01 et seq. (West,
1977 and Supp., 1981)
Montana: Mont. Code Ann. §§75-1-101 to -105; §75-1-
201(1981)
New York: N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§8-0101 to 8-0117
(McKenney,1984)
North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§113A-1 to 10 (1978)
Puerto Rico: P.R. Laws Ann. Title 12, §§1121-1127 (1970,
Amended 1973,1974,1978, and 1983)
South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§34A-9-1 to
34A-9-12 (1974, Amended 1981,1986, and 1992)
Virginia: Va. Code §§10.1-1200 through 10.1-1212
Washington: Wash. Rev. Code §§43.21C.010 -43.21C.910
(1974); Wash. Admin. Code R. 197-11
Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §1.11 et seq.; Department of Natural
Resources WEPA rules are found in Wis. Admin. Code NR
150.01-40 (1971, Amended 1972,1973,1977, and 1985)
States with Environmental Review Requirements
Established by Statute, Executive Order, or Other
Administrative Directive
Arizona: An executive order mandates that the Gover-
nor's Commission on Arizona's Environment evaluate en-
vironmental problems, make recommendations to the
governor, and establish a clearinghouse for the exchange
of information relating to environmental problems and
their solutions.
Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. §15-41-108 provides that the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission must prepare an
EIS for cutting timber on commission land.
California: The following California codes require envi-
ronmental impact reports:
Cal. Food & Agric. Code §33487 (new construction or
repairs of dairy farms)
Cal. Gov. Code §7075 (establishment of enterprise
zones)
Cal. Gov. Code §7087.5 (initial study and notice of
preparation under Employment and Economic Incen-
tive Act)
Cal. Gov. Code §51119 (timberland production zones;
exemption)
Cal. Gov. Code §65950.1 (extension of time for Environ-
mental Impact Report for planning and zoning of de-
velopment projects)
Cal. Health and Safety Code §33333.3 (preparation and
adoption of community redevelopment plans)
68
Cal. Health. and Safety Code §56040 (implementation
and administration of large-scale urban development)
Cal. Pub. Res. Code §6873.2 (oil and gas leases on tidal and
submerged lands and beds of navigable rivers and lakes)
Cal. Pub. Res. Code §25540.4 (power facility and site
certification)
Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30718 (implementation of port de-
velopment under California Coastal Act)
Cal. Str. and H. Code §199.9 (mass transit guideway
system)
Cal. Water Code §13389 (applicability of Environ-
mental Impact Reports to Clean Water Act)
Delaware: Del. Code Ann. Title 7, Ch. 66 (wetlands per-
mits); Ch. 20 (coastal zone permits)
District of Columbia: D.C. Code Ann. §43-1903 (public
utility EIS)
Georgia: Code of Georgia provides that, for certain types
of actions, the state may require preparation of an envi-
ronmental assessment on a case-by-case basis; EAs would
be reviewed by the Georgia Department of Natural Re-
sources, Environmental Protection Division.
Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §30:2021 (West, 1991) cov-
ers interstate compacts on environmental control, for
which the Louisiana Department of Environmental Qual-
ity serves as a clearinghouse for all statements of environ-
mental impact to be prepared or reviewed by state
agencies (other than the Department of Transportation
and Development), in accordance with NEPA. The De-
partment of Wildlife and Fisheries is responsible for re-
view and comment on any EIS regarding fish and
wildlife resources or their habitat as well as the discharge
of dredge and fill material into state waters. The Depart-
ment of Health and Human Resources is responsible for
EISs regarding public health.
Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 111H, §30
(low-level radioactive waste facility licensing)
Michigan: Executive Order 1974-4 requires each state
agency to prepare a formal environmental assessment
for all major agency activities that could have a possi-
bly significant impact on the environment or home life.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §281.655 et seq. covers EISs
for sand dune mining and model zoning plans under
the Lakes and Rivers Sand Dune Protection and Man-
agement Act.
New Jersey: Executive Order No. 53 (1973) requires all
state agencies and departments to submit to the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection a description of the en-
vironmental impact of all major construction projects.
N.J. Rev. Stat. §13:19-7 provides for EISs for coastal
protection, etc.
N.J. Rev. Stat. §27:23-23.5 covers EISs for the New Jer-
sey Turnpike Authority (highways and turnpikes).
N.J. Rev. Stat. 52:13F-4 refers to environmental impact
statements on specific legislative bills.
North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §104G-11 (low-level ra-
dioactive waste management technology, licensing)
North Dakota: N.D. Century Code §§54-01-05.4 pro-
vides that the governor may require EISs of a limited na-
ture before the transfer of any interest in state-owned
land to federal agencies.
Exhibit 5.1: LIST OF STATES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Oregon: Oregon Rev. Stat. Ch. 46, although not requiring
EISs for major actions that could have a significant im-
pact on the environment, permits applications for siting
of major energy -generating facilities. The applications
must include a background report addressing various an-
ticipated environmental impacts.
Pennsylvania: Executive order requires environmental as-
sessments for all transportation projects. Various state
regulations require EAs for other state actions.
Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws §23-63-3 provides that a fa-
cility that plans to export tires for burning must submit
an EIS conforming to EPA standards.
NEPA legislation, an environmental assessment in the
form of an EIS is required for "a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human envi-
ronment." The Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)* defines "major federal action" as actions with
effects that may be major and that are potentially sub-
ject to federal control or responsibility (Duerksen,
1983). Actions include new or continuing activities of
federal agencies—adoption of policies, plans, and pro-
grams and the approval of federal and federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects. In practice, a
wide range of activities is construed as "major," in-
cluding the following (Duerksen, 1983):
• issuance of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit
for construction of a marina by a private developer;
• Tease of a building by the General Services Admini-
stration;
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD) mortgage insurance for an urban re-
newal project;
• construction by the U.S. Postal Service of a new
suburban postal facility and abandonment of an
older urban facility;
• granting of a Federal Power Commission license to
construct a power line; and
• Federal Highway Administration approval of con-
struction of a section of expressway.
Once a federal action is deemed "major," it is neces-
sary to ascertain whether the action will have a
"significant effect on the quality of the human envi-
ronment." According to CEQ regulations, "signifi-
cant" is defined by the intensity of the action's
environmental impact and the context in which the ac-
tion is to occur (Duerksen, 1983; see also Exhibit 5.4).
In practice, "significant" encompasses a wide range of
actions, including those that
South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws Ann. 149-41B-21 et
seq. (energy conversion and transmission facilities)
Utah: State of Utah Executive Order (Aug. 27,1974)
Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. T78.52.125 (oil and
gas conservation drilling that affects surface waters);
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. 70.95.700 (solid waste incineration
or energy recovery facility)
Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. Ann. §144.68 (solid waste, hazard-
ous waste, and refuse)
Source: Adapted from Council on Environmental Quality,
1992.
• affect air quality;
• increase noise or traffic;
• raise aesthetic considerations;
• displace businesses;
• affect neighborhood character;
• result in a diminution of views, and so on.
After a federal action is classified as "major" and
"Significant," an EIS must be prepared and, according
to CEQ requirements, must consider how the activity
will affect the environment and how harmful effects
can be eliminated or at least mitigated. The details of
such an assessment are discussed shortly.
The federal EIA process is mirrored at the state
level. As noted, about one-half of the states have en-
acted legislation patterned closely after NEPA; in
some cases, the wording of the state statute is taken al-
most verbatim from the federal act (Duerksen, 1983).
As with NEPA, the state environmental statutes re-
quire state agencies and, in some cases, local govern-
ments to consider and, when possible, minimize the
significant adverse environmental impacts of the pro-
jects they fund, approve, license, or permit.
Environmental review has also become important at
the local level—sometimes as a requirement of the um-
brella state environmental legislation. In other cases, the
environmental assessment is mandated directly by local
ordinance, either in the form of a local "mini -NEPA"
statute or, more generally, in conjunction with local land
use planning and zoning considerations. The specific
level of mandatory local environmental assessment usu-
ally varies by type of action. For instance, a comprehen-
sive EIS would be mandated for projects above a certain
threshold size (e.g., 500 units) and for certain types of
land use applications (e.g., a rezoning) while a more ab-
breviated EA would suffice for smaller -scale and less
significant actions.
At the outset of the Clinton administration, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was left only with caretaker
functions, and most of CEQ's environmental mandate was assigned to the President's Council on Sustainability. It is
uncertain whether the latter council will permanently retain CEQ's environmental role or whether environmental
responsibilities will be transferred to a different agency. In short, matters are in flux. As such, the chapter continues to refer
to the CEQ's environmental mandate, but the reader should realize that a different agency, not yet identified, will
ultimately take the lead in terms of the federal government's environmental role.
69
Environmental Impact Analysis:
Methodology
An EIA's format usually adheres to guidelines
promulgated by the regulatory agencies at various
levels of government charged with reviewing the en-
vironmental assessment. It is useful, however, to con-
sider a generic model for the overall EIA process.
Exhibit 5.2 depicts a 10 -step or 10 -activity model for
planning and conducting environmental impact stud-
ies. The model is flexible and can be adapted as
needed to various project types to permit considera-
tion of specific concerns of particular projects in
unique locations. It should be noted that this model
focuses on projects, although it could also be applied
to plans, programs, and regulatory actions.
Exhibit 5.2 delineates the relationships among the
10 steps or activities in the suggested model. The
steps, in turn, fall into four major categories. First, a
set of initial activities describes the project and its set-
ting—a base that allows for the analysis of impacts.
Once these impacts are known, decision making can fol-
low, and the entire process can be documented.
It must be emphasized that, while the 10 steps and
four phases are described sequentially, they do not nec-
essarily unfold consecutively. In practice, the model op-
erates as a series of iterations among the various steps
and tasks. Thus, the analyst prepares a preliminary de-
scription of the affected environment, followed by a
quick scan of environmental impacts. Once the impacts
are better understood, the analyst might return to the de -
scription of the affected environment and focus the
discussion on those aspects of the environment that
are likely to be critically affected. Similarly, documen-
tation of the EIA occurs not only at the end of the ana-
lytic process but accompanies every step. In short, the
10 -step model encompasses a set of interactive itera-
tive activities as opposed to a set of discrete steps that
follows a prescribed sequence. With this overview,
the model is described below.
Initial Activities
The initial activity focuses on project parameters that
determine the features of the proposed project, the
need for the project, and the potential alternatives
that either have been or could be considered for the
project. Key information related to the proposed pro-
ject includes such items as
• type of project and how it functions or operates in
a technical context;
• proposed project location;
• the time period required for project construction;
• the project's potential environmental impacts dur-
ing construction and operation;
• the identified need for the proposed project in its
proposed location (need could be related to hous-
ing, flood control, industrial development, economic
development, and many other requirements); and
• any alternatives that have been considered, along
with generic alternatives to site location, project
size, project design features, and pollution control
Note
Terms are defined in the text.
70
measures, and project timing associated with con-
struction and operation issues.
It is important that the proponents of the project be-
gin to think in terms of the above list of items and to or-
ganize information that could be used by the
individuals responsible for planning and conducting the
environmental impact studies—whether these individu-
als are in-house staff, consultants, or agency personnel.
The second activity focuses on pertinent institu-
tional and substantive information related to the pro-
posed project. Pertinent institutional information
refers to the multitude of environmental laws and
regulations that governs the physical -chemical, bio-
logical, cultural, and socioeconomic environment.
Pertinent substantive information relates to what
the agencies or offices of government charged with
implementing these laws must receive. For in-
stance, Exhibit 5.3 lists more than 50 federal statutes
that may be relevant to planning and conducting en-
vironmental impact studies. Each of these has spe-
cific requirements as to what types of information
must be submitted to what agencies.
One approach that can facilitate the consideration
of pertinent institutional information is tiering and
scoping, which is defined by CEQ regulations as an
early and open process that, first, identifies the signifi-
cant environmental players who must receive infor-
mation (tiering) and, second, specifies the
environmental issues and impacts relative to a pro-
posed project and thereby narrows the focus of the
EIA (scoping). Part of the tiering and scoping process,
which typically includes contacts with regulatory
agencies and other interested public bodies, usually
calls for the identification of pertinent institutional in-
formation. Such information primarily serves the fol-
lowing two functions:
• It aids in interpreting the quality of existing envi-
ronmental conditions relative to the environment.
• It provides a basis for interpreting the anticipated
impacts (effects) of the resultant project.
The third step or activity is to identify potential int -
pacts associated with the subject project. An early,
qualitative identification of anticipated impacts can
help direct subsequent steps; it can, for example, aid
in both focusing subsequent impact calculations and
describing the affected environment. The identifica-
tion of potential impacts can be an outcome of the
scoping process and should include consideration of
the generic impacts related to the project type in ques-
tion. In this regard, the abundance of published infor-
mation generated over the past two decades can help
planners of environmental impact studies identify an-
ticipated impacts more easily.
An appropriate task during the third activity is the
conduct of a computer-based literature review to iden-
tify generic impacts related to the project type under
study (see Appendix III for examples). In addition,
the development of interaction matrices can help iden-
tify potential impacts. Such matrices, which consist of
a list of project actions arrayed against a list of envi-
ronmental factors, permit the systematic considera-
tion of interaction points between various actions and
environmental factors.
The fourth activity calls for the preparation of a de-
scription of the affected environment. Placing this activity
fourth in the overall process allows the selective iden-
tification of environmental factors germane to the
study in progress. Early environmental impact stud-
ies and even some environmental impact analyses
conducted today are often the object of major efforts
to prepare exhaustive descriptions of the environ-
mental setting. Encyclopedic documentation is unnec-
essary; instead, a selective approach that identifies
key environmental factors likely to undergo change is
preferable. Appropriate descriptions of existing condi-
tions relative to these factors can then be prepared.
A considerable amount of environmental informa-
tion that can aid the description of the specified envi-
ronment is available in computerized information
storage and retrieval systems. Examples of such sys-
tems include databases for air quality information,
water quality information, soils information, habitat
types in geographic areas, threatened and endangered
species, historic and archeological properties in geo-
graphic areas, and information related to the socioeco-
nomic environment, including population density,
income levels, infrastructure characteristics in particu-
lar locations, and many other considerations.
Analysis of Impacts
The set of initial activities described above estab-
lishes the base for the fifth and technically (and often
politically) most difficult and challenging activity: im-
pact prediction. Impact prediction refers to the quanti-
fication, where possible, or at least the qualitative
description of the anticipated impacts of the pro-
posed project on various environmental factors. De-
pending on the particular impact, technically
demanding mathematical models might be required
for impact prediction.
Computerized models of varying complexity may
be used to assess current and future impacts. For ex-
ample, the MULATM-POLDIF modeling system pre-
dicts the air and noise pollution consequences of road
traffic at the submunicipal level; at this level, studies
are directed at small-scale but complex road net-
works. The primary means for resolving traffic im-
pact -related environmental problems is derived from
alternative traffic management strategies. The MU-
LATM-POLDIF package, in turn, provides a tool for
comparing these strategies. There are many other
models; for instance, Mobile 4.0, CAL3QHC, and PAL
2.0 all model air quality.
Other approaches to impact prediction include
laboratory testing in the form of leachate testing of
dredged material, solid or hazardous waste mate-
rial, or sludge. Still other laboratory studies might
71
.99
be appropriate; examples include the construction of
scale models with the collection of experimental data
to identify anticipated impacts. Other techniques for
impact prediction include the use of "look-alike" in-
formation from the actual impacts associated with
similar types of projects in other or similar geo-
graphic locations. Finally, the use of environmental in-
dexing methods or other types of systematic
techniques for addressing anticipated impacts can
also be considered.
Experience underscores the importance of quantify-
ing impacts. Frequently, quantification indicates that
the concerns related to anticipated changes are not as
great as expected. In addition, when anticipated im-
pacts are quantified, they should be expressed as spe-
cific, numeric environmental quality standards,
thereby providing a basis for the interpretation of the
projected changes. Nonetheless, it is important to rec-
ognize that many environmental impacts do not lend
themselves to quantification. In still other cases, the
monetary and personnel resources needed to quantify
impacts exceed the scope and budget of the environ-
mental impact study. Realizing that a more thorough
and quantitative approach would lead to a more spe-
cific delineation, professionals often find it necessary
to use their best judgment in anticipating impacts.
The basic approach should be that, for impacts of po-
tentially significant concern, every effort should be
made to quantify such impacts.
The methodology of impact prediction across the
many fields of environmental assessment could easily
fill a multivolume study. The following discussion
highlights some of the important factors that should
be considered in a number of critical areas related to
physical environmental effects.
Air Quality
Air quality refers to the presence or absence of pol-
lutants in the atmosphere. It is the combined result of
the natural background and emissions from many pol-
lution sources. The impact of land development activi-
ties on air quality in a proposed development's locale
differs by project phase (site preparation, construc-
tion., occupancy) and project type (residential, com-
mercial, industrial). In addition, air quality impacts
can be distinguished on the basis of source location:
on site or off site (Keyes, 1976). Several potential air
pollutants, including the following, should be consid-
ered when describing a development's impact on air
quality (Jain, Urban, and Stacey, 1977):
• particulates;
• sulphur oxides;
• hydrocarbons;
• nitrogen oxides;
• carbon monoxide;
• photochemical oxidants;
• hazardous toxicants; and
• odors.
74
These pollutants may be classified as health and nui-
sance impacts. Health impacts include changes in the
ambient concentration of each pollutant, the frequency
of exposure, and the number of people at risk. Nuisance
impacts pertain to changes in the number and fre-
quency of problems caused by smoke plumes, odors,
and haze and the number of people affected by these
factors.
Water Quality and Quantity
The aquatic environment is an intricate system of
living and nonliving elements. The physical, chemi-
cal, and biological factors influencing water quality
are so closely interrelated that a change in any one
water quality parameter triggers many other changes.
In practice, the analyst must consider a complex net-
work of interrelated impacts.
For instance, water pollution is the degradation of
water quality by human activities. It results in a public
health hazard or otherwise limits the beneficial use of
water. The analyst should assess the changes in the per-
missible or tolerable uses of the water in question as
well as the number of people affected. Flooding should
be discussed with reference to the change in the number
of at -risk people and the expected extent of property
damage (or the value of the property endangered). An-
other important element involves changes in the total
duration and/or severity of expected water shortages
(i.e., from depletion of aquifers beyond their recharge ca-
pacities) and their impact on the local population. Simi-
larly, changes in the concentrations of drinking water
constituents important to health should be quantified
and the number of affected people noted.
Sewage and Solid Waste Disposal
The ability of local facilities to dispose of the sew-
age and solid waste generated by a proposed develop-
ment is a significant question for decision makers when
considering the feasibility of a new development. The
analyst should consider the local facilities' capacity for
waste disposal, the need for improvements, and plans
for other developments that will impose demands on a
locale's disposal systems. In particular, the analyst
should evaluate the proximity of the disposal service to
the proposed development and the remaining capacity
of the service to accommodate the project.
Noise
The level of noise is an important indicator of envi-
ronmental quality. In the urban environment, noise is
due primarily to vehicular traffic, air traffic, heavy ma-
chinery, and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
equipment. Ramifications of various sound levels and
types may be reflected in health conditions (mental and
physical) and/or in an area's aesthetic appeal. The EIA
should consider the decibel level and other noise re-
sponses (e.g., frequency) of the project during both its
construction and permanent operation phases. Levels
are then related to acceptable/harmful consequences
by using a scale such as that presented below.
Wildlife and Vegetation
Information on the presence of rare and endan-
gered species should be quantified; changes in these
populations as a result of development activity
should be judged. An assessment of the changes in
the population size and diversity of common species
is also in order. Accurate baseline documentation of
existing conditions is a possible but often expensive
technique for producing quantitative estimates of im-
pacts. Instead, the informal judgments of experts fa-
miliar with the local environment usually suffice.
Natural Features
The site should be evaluated for features poten-
tially sensitive to or directly affected by the proposed
development activity. Such features include water re-
sources, floodplain, wetlands, coastal zone areas,
and unique natural features (e.g., sand dunes, water-
falls, caves). Project compliance with federal, state,
and local regulations that govern the disturbance of
such features should be considered in each instance.
Natural Resources
Natural resources include the land, air, water, vegeta-
tive, animal, and mineral resources that constitute the
natural environment and provide the raw materials and
spatial setting used in developing the human -modified
environment. These resources may be nonrenewable,
such as metals and fuels, or renewable, such as water.
Nonrenewable resources are of particular concern be-
cause their consumption or use represents a commit-
ment that is potentially irreversible or irretrievable (Jain,
Urban, and Stacey, 1977). The analysis of local natural re-
sources should state the type and value of the scarce re-
sources and the nature of previous use (such as farming,
mining, or recreation).
Natural Disasters
Natural disasters are occurrences brought about by
the forces of nature that cause human discomfort, in-
jury, or death. They damage or destroy physical struc-
tures and other real or personal property; change the
physical character of the land, water, and air; and
damage or destroy the plant and animal life of the af-
fected area. The severity and frequency of floods,
earthslides, and wildfires may be influenced by devel-
opment activity. Other natural hazards such as earth-
quakes and hurricanes may cause greater personal
injury and property damage than would be the case if
human activities were located in areas other than
those where these natural events occur with some fre-
quency and severity (Jain, Urban, and Stacey, 1977).
The purpose of the environmental assessment is to en-
sure that project location and design minimize natural
and manmade risk to the general public and project us-
ers. In particular, the environmental assessment should
include areas not covered by local zoning, building, and
health codes. Natural resources may, for example, be
regulated by public statutes such as the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976.
Historic and Archeological Sites
The identity of a community or neighborhood is in-
timately tied to those structures or areas that have his-
toric, cultural, or architectural interest and significance.
Such places help define a community's past while pro-
viding a sense of place and character (U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, 1986). The
specific location of a site's historic features should be
mapped, and the features' significance as historic or
local interest points should be assessed and docu-
mented. Local sources such as historic preservation so-
cieties, museums, and libraries can provide specific
information about site features and their local impor-
tance. Similarly, any archeological features on the site
should be researched and documented. Limitations
A SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH AND NUISANCE RELATIONSHIPS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Approximate
Noise Levels
(in decibels) Setting Where Noise Levels Are Likely
>45db Urban residential (indoors)
>55db Urban residential (outdoors)
>60db Urban residential and residential near airports
>70db Industrial setting (indoors) and very noisy urban
residential (outdoors)
Probable Effects
Speech interruption indoors: interruption of
normal conversations at distances up to 2 meters
Speech interruption outdoors: interruption of
normal conversations at distances up to 2 meters
Average community reaction: complaints and
threats of legal action
Hearing loss
Source: Dale L. Keyes, Land Development and the Natural Environment. Washington, DO The Urban Institute,1976.
75
Exhibit 5.4: CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE:
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES
"Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity:
(a) Contest. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole
(human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the pro-
posed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend on the effects in the locale
rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.
(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may
make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity:
(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency believes
that on balance the effect will be beneficial.
(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
(3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime
farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.
(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks.
(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a
decision in principle about a future consideration.
(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.
Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance
cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.
(8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed on or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,
cultural, or historical resources.
(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been
determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(10) Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of
the environment.
Source: 40 CFR, Ch. V (7-1-91 Edition).
placed on development (and attendant regulatory pro-
cedures) as a consequence of historic or archeological
features should be noted. For instance, the Section 106
review process is triggered when public actions may
affect properties included in or eligible for the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places (Duerksen, 1984).
The discussion above illustrates the array of consid-
erations that inform impact prediction. After the pre-
diction phase, the conceptual study model moves into
the sixth activity, impact assessment. Assessment is the
interpretation of the significance of anticipated
changes related to the proposed project. Impact inter-
pretation can be based on the systematic application
of the definition of significance included in the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality's regulations and as de-
lineated in Exhibit 5.4 (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1978). In fact, Exhibit 5.4 outlines a system-
atic approach to the careful review of the anticipated
impacts and provides a useful basis for impact assess-
ment.* However, it should be noted that many of the
items in Exhibit 5.4 are general and require consider-
able judgment in interpretation. For example, it is the
study team's biological scientist who must render
judgments concerning the potential significance of the
loss of particular habitats, including wetlands.
Another basis for impact assessment is public input;
input can be solicited through a continued scoping proc-
ess or by conducting public meetings and/or public par-
ticipation programs (see chapter 2). The general public
can highlight important environmental resources and
values in particular geographic areas for consideration
in an impact assessment. Of course, for some types of
anticipated impacts, specific numeric standards or crite-
ria can be used as a basis for impact interpretation. Ex-
amples include the application of air quality standards,
environmental noise criteria, surface water and ground-
water quality standards, and facility -specific wastewater
discharge standards.
The seventh activity is associated with identifying
and evaluating potential impact mitigation measures.
Mitigation is defined in the CEQ regulations as fol-
lows (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978):
• avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a cer-
tain action or parts of an action;
• minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or mag-
nitude of the action and its implementation;
* A related source of guidance is the set of regulatory standards and definitions promulgated by various agencies as part of
the implementation of the NEPA requirements. For instance, state highway departments typically have set forth highly
specific standards and definitions in this regard.
76
• rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment;
• reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during
the life of the action; and
• compensating for the impact by replacing or pro-
viding substitute resources or environments.
While the overall model (see Exhibit 5.2) makes im-
pact mitigation the seventh step in the EIA process,
the preliminary identification and evaluation of miti-
gation measures can be incorporated into the process
of specifying potential impacts and need not be de-
layed until a later point. Further, for certain impact
categories, specific impact mitigation calculation pro-
cedures have been developed. For example, mitiga-
tion (compensation) calculations are associated with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evalu-
ation Procedure (HEP). Under HEP, it is possible to
determine the number of acres of land suitable for
setaside and/or enhancement related to mitigating an-
ticipated biological impacts.
Decision Making and Documentation
The eighth activity in the environmental impact
study model is selecting the proposed action from alter-
natives that may have been evaluated. Public projects
place great emphasis on the identification and evalu-
ation of alternatives. In fact, CEQ regulations indicate
that the analysis of alternatives represents the heart of
the EIA process. For many private developments,
however, the range of alternatives may be limited.
Even so, there are still potential alternative measures
that could be evaluated, including those relating to
project size and design features, if not location.
Several systematic procedures can be used to com-
pare and evaluate the environmental consequences of
different alternatives. Many of these fit within multiple -
criteria decision-making techniques; these techniques,
in turn, represent useful tools for systematically dem-
onstrating why a proposed action was selected in con-
junction with a particular project.
The ninth activity in the environmental impact
study model is preparing the written documentation re-
lating to the proposed project. Written documentation
could involve the preparation of an EA or could en-
compass the full development of an EIS. Specific re-
quirements for items to be addressed in an EA are
outlined below, whereas Exhibit 5.5 includes the ge-
neric format for an EIS.
Environmental Assessment Outline
I Need for proposal
II Description of alternatives
III Environmental impacts of proposed action and al-
tematives
IV List of agencies and persons consulted
Source: 40 CFR, Ch. V (7-1-91 Edition).
The most important point to note about the written
documentation is that sound principles of technical
writing should be followed. These include the devel-
opment of outlines, careful documentation of data
and information, the liberal use of visual display ma-
terials, and the careful review of written materials to
ensure effective communication with both technical
and nontechnical audiences. All sources should be
footnoted properly.
The 10th and final activity suggested in the model is
the planning and implementation of appropriate environ-
mental monitoring programs; monitoring is particularly im-
portant for larger projects with potentially significant
adverse environmental consequences. In fact, environ-
mental monitoring may be necessary to establish base-
line conditions in the area of the project; however, of
greater potential relevance is longer-term monitoring in
the environs of the project to document carefully im-
pacts that result from the project. Detailed information
on the planning and implementation of environmental
monitoring programs is presented later.
Referring to Exhibit 5.2, it is important to note again
that the 10 steps or activities required in the preparation
of environmental impact statements are clearly related
to each other but do not necessarily represent discrete ac-
tivities that can be completed in sequence. In other
words, it is always possible to repeat an earlier activity
to gain additional, relevant information.
Data Sources
For the most part, the environmental baseline that
serves as the yardstick for considering environmental
impacts can be derived through a search of existing
sources of information. For example, environmental
impact statements completed for projects in the gen-
eral study area can provide important information on
environmental factors. The U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's monthly publication entitled the 102
Monitor (formerly published by the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality) contains a list of recently filed
EISs cross-referenced by federal agency and by state
and county location. Northwestern University main-
tains an EIS depository library. In some cases, these
existing sources of environmental information may be
completely adequate for relatively small projects with
little potential for major impact. Major projects, how-
ever, often require additional extensive field surveys
to define adequately a project's setting and environ-
mental implications.
Several sources of information are available for the
wide variety of substantive environmental concerns.
Some of these sources are noted below.
Physical Setting
The physical setting and types of land use may be
determined from information maintained by the state
77
;f
i
At
Exhibit 5.5: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OUTLINE
Section Comments
Cover Sheet The cover sheet shall not exceed one page. It shall include:
(a) a list of the responsible agencies, including the lead agency and any cooperating agencies;
(b) the title of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement (and, if appropriate, the titles of re-
lated cooperating agency actions), together with the state(s) and county(ies) (or other jurisdiction if
applicable) where the action is located;
(c) the name, address, and telephone number of the person at the agency who can supply further infor-
mation;
(d) a designation of the statement as a draft, final, or draft or final supplement;
(e) a one -paragraph abstract of the statement; and
(f) the date by which contents must be received.
Summary Each environmental impact statement shall contain a summary that adequately and accurately summa-
rizes the statement. The summary shall stress the major conclusions, areas of controversy (including is-
sues raised by agencies and the public), and the issues to be resolved (including the choice among
alternatives). The summary will normally not exceed 15 pages.
Purpose and Need The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in
proposing the alternatives, including the proposed action.
Alternatives, This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis
Including the presented in the sections on the Affected Environment and the Environmental Consequences, it should
Proposed Action present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply
defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the
public. In this section agencies shall
(a) rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for alternatives that were
eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their elimination.
(b) devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed action
so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
(c) include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
(d) include the alternative of no action.
(e) identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement
and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of
such a preference.
(f) include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives.
Affected The environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be af-
Environment fected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The descriptions shall be no longer than is neces-
sary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement shall be commensurate
with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply ref-
erenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall concentrate effort and attention on im-
portant issues. Verbose descriptions of the affected environment are themselves no measure of the
adequacy of an environmental impact statement.
Environmental This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of alternatives. The discussion will
Consequences include the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the proposed action, any adverse envi-
ronmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between
short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity,
and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal
should it be implemented. It shall include discussions of
(a) direct effects and their significance;
(b) indirect effects and their significance;
(c) possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state, and local
(and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies, and controls for the area con-
cerned;
(d) the environmental effects of alternatives, including the proposed action;
(e) energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures;
(f) natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and
mitigation measures;
78
Exhibit 5.5: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OUTLINE (continued)
Section Comments
(g) urban quality, historic and cultural resources, and the design of the built environment, including the
reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures; and
(h) means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
List of Preparers The environmental impact statement shall list the names of individuals, together with their qualifications
(expertise, experience, professional disciplines), who assumed primary responsibility for preparing the en-
vironmental impact statement or significant background papers, including basic components of state-
ment. Where possible, the persons who are responsible for a particular analysis, including analyses in
background papers, shall be identified. Normally the list will not exceed two pages.
Appendices If an agency prepares an appendix to an environmental impact statement the appendix shall
(a) consist of material prepared in connection with an environmental impact statement (as distinct from
material which is not so prepared and that is incorporated by reference);
(b) normally consist of material that substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement;
(c) normally be analytic and relevant to the decision to be made; and
(d) be circulated with the environmental impact statement or be readily available on request.
Source: 40 CFR, Ch. V (7-1-91 Edition).
or county department of planning, state and county
departments of parks/park commissions, state and
federal geological surveys, and the National Park
Service. In addition, sources of information described
in chapter 3 (Physical Land Planning and Site Analy-
sis) may be consulted for pertinent material.
Topography and Land Use
The discussion of physical site analysis (see chapter
3) listed useful sources. For example, aerial photo-
graphs from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) can
aid the preparation of plot maps. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) makes available a variety of maps and
documents, including USGS topographic publications
available in 71/2- and 15 -minute sizes. Other sources
include local planning department maps and regula-
tions and a developer -initiated site survey.
Watershed and Drainage
The sources described under Topography and
Land Use make available maps of water bodies as
does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration. Additional data may be secured from state
and county departments of environmental control,
the Soil Conservation Service, the county cooperative
extension service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and academic environmental research centers. Flood
hazard boundary maps, flood insurance rate maps,
and related flood insurance studies that identify the
location of riverine or coastal floodplains are available
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Wetlands identification and classification studies that
delineate coastal or inland wetlands may be obtained
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and from state
and local conservation commissions. The analyst
should also take note of the unified federal agency
wetlands delineation procedure for identifying the
boundaries of wetlands.
Minerals and Soils
In addition to the sources noted in chapter 3, ero-
sion and sedimentation data can be obtained from the
USGS and SCS. University programs in geology, soil
science, earth sciences, water resources, or civil engi-
neering may also maintain information relevant to the
study area.
Biota
Information on the biotic community is provided
by several sources, including state and county divi-
sions of environmental conservation (usually adminis-
trative units of fish and game departments), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, academic environmental re-
search centers, museums of natural history, and
groups such as the Audubon Society. Information on
rare or endangered species and species of commercial
or recreational import is the province of state and
county departments of parks, recreation, and conser-
vation.
Climate
Climatic data are available from diverse sources
such as individuals, newspapers, and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce's weather stations. The Depart-
ment of Commerce publishes monthly weather
summaries for all its weather stations within each
state. The National Weather Service, U.S. Weather Bu-
reau, and state and county departments of environ-
mental control are also prime sources of meteorologic
and climatic information. Local universities often op -
79
erate meteorologic monitoring stations and might
make available specific data for the study area.
Air Quality -Pollution Sources
Local air quality may be assessed by using data col-
lected by the local air pollution regulatory agency. At
the regional scale, air quality data are usually limited
to secondary pollutants. As a regular practice, most
regulatory agencies conduct mandatory analyses of
specified air quality data and provide the information
in a format that lends itself to air quality impact analy-
ses. Such sources include state and county departments
of environmental control, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers.
Water Quality
Several sources collect water quality data, includ-
ing state and county water authorities and depart-
ments of health. The state environmental control
agency can provide printouts of historical water qual-
ity data contained in STORET, a national computer-
ized water quality database administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The state en-
vironmental control agency may also maintain addi-
tional historical environmental data of its own.
University departments of civil or environmental en-
gineering may have conducted water quality surveys
in the study area. In addition, the USGS collects data
at its water quality stations on a large number of pa-
rameters, including metals and pesticides.
Water Use and Capacity
Local or regional water departments can provide
information on existing water use, water treatment
plants, water distribution systems, and the quality of
raw and treated water. The city engineer's office can
furnish similar information. Earlier water resource
studies, particularly comprehensive water supply re-
ports, should be reviewed. Again, local university de-
partments of civil engineering should be consulted.
Information on wastewater flows and loads, collec-
tion systems, treatment facilities, and wastewater
characteristics (raw and treated) can usually be ob-
tained from the local or regional wastewater control
department. Effluent data filed in support of a Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit are available from the state environ-
mental control agency or regional EPA office. Earlier
water quality and wastewater management studies
should be consulted. Environmental engineering de-
partments of local universities may also collect de-
tailed information. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has developed wastewater management
plans for many metropolitan areas as part of its Ur-
ban Studies Program.
80
Noise
Data from earlier assessments and other studies
that describe noise impacts for airports, highways,
railroads, and other major noise sources should be re-
viewed. Traffic data may be expressed in terms of
noise levels by using the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development's Noise Assessment Guide-
lines.
Waste Disposal
Local engineering and utility departments can pro-
vide information about the local area's capacity for
sewage and solid waste disposal and anticipated im-
provements in service.
Historic and Archeological Sources
Local colleges, universities, and community librar-
ies often maintain information on a site's historical
and archeological features. Community groups and
landmarks commissions may also publish historical
guides and other related resources. Archeological re-
source lists and maps should be consulted, including
the National Register of Historic Places as well as
sites identified by or of potential interest to state and
local archeological offices and groups.
Preview and Quickway Models of
Environmental Impact Analysis
The preview model is not a comprehensive envi-
ronmental impact assessment as described earlier in
the chapter but instead incorporates basic environ-
mental considerations that may be simply quantified.
The preview model therefore does not replace the
substantive scope of the EIA. Rather, it permits the
scanning of several central environmental factors, in-
cluding impacts on utility systems, the level of devel-
opment in sensitive areas, and the framework for
environmental review.
Quickway is even more limited in scope than the
preview model. Related to the proposed develop-
ment, it produces two measures of water demand
(water and waste water) in gallons per day, a meas-
ure of solid waste production in pounds per day, and
a measure of parkland need in acres. Quickway does
not relate these demand or production estimates to ex-
isting capacity. Estimates are determined by the popu-
lation projections of the social impact analysis as
applied to model factors of per capita water and
parkland use and solid waste production.
The requirements for the preview model are con-
sidered in a series of 14 inputs and outputs presented
in Exhibit 5.6 and described below.
Utility Use (Inputs and Outputs 1-6). Water provi-
sion and capacity are among the fundamental attributes
under scrutiny in any analysis of development impacts.
The model considers how and to what extent the project
F1
Exhibit 5.6: PREVIEW AND QUICKWAY MODELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS
INPUT
UTILITY USE (PREVIEW MODEL)
1. a. Water consumption per capita
single-family (gallons/day)
b. Water consumption per capita
multifamily (gallons/day)
c. Water consumption per 1,000 square feet
office (gallons/day)
d. Water consumption per 1,000 square feet
retail (gallons/day)
e. Water consumption per industrial
employee (gallons/day)
2. Total water capacity (gallons/day)
3. a. Solid waste production per capita (tons/day)
b. Solid waste production per office
employee (tons/day)
c. Solid waste production per retail employee
(tons/ day)
d. Solid waste production per industrial
employee (tons/day)
4. Total solid waste capacity (tons/day)
5. a. Sewage generation per capita single-family
(gallons/ day)
b. Sewage generation per capita multifamily
(gallons/ day)
c. Sewage generation per 1,000 square feet office
(gallons/day)
d. Sewage generation per 1,000 square feet retail
(gallons/ day)
e. Sewage generation per industrial employee
(gallons/day)
6. Total sewer capacity (gallons/ day)
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
(PREVIEW MODEL)
7. Floodplain constraints
a. Determination of floodplain and buffer areas
(in acres) on site
8. Wetlands constraints
a. Determinations of wetlands and
buffer areas (in acres) on site
OUTPUT
UTILITY USE (PREVIEW MODEL)
1. Total development -generated water
demand (gallons/day) (Quickway)
2. Development use (percent) of water capacity (gallons/day)
3. Total development -generated solid waste production
(pounds/day) (Quickway)
4. Development use (percent) of
solid waste capacity (tons/day)
5. Total development -generated sewer/septic demand
(gallons/day) (Quickway)
6. Development use (percent) of
sewer/septic capacity (gallons/day)
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
(PREVIEW MODEL)
7. Floodplain constraints
a. Acres in floodplain and buffer areas
b. Percent of total site in floodplain and buffers
c. Permits may be required (upon presence of any
floodplain or buffer areas)
8. Wetlands constraints
a. Acres in wetlands and buffer areas
b. Percent of total site in wetlands and buffer areas
c. Permits may be required (upon presence of
any wetlands and buffer areas)
81
Exhibit 5.6: PREVIEW AND QUICKWAY MODELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS (continued)
INPUT
9. Steep slope constraints
a. Determination of steep slope areas (in acres) on site
10. Significance of historic sites on tract
a. Significant
b. Moderate
c. Minor
11. Presence of endangered species on tract
a. Significant
b. Moderate
c. Minor
12. Length of project boundary within 100 feet of a
four -lane road (in feet)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND JURISDICTIONAL
FOCUS (PREVIEW MODEL)
13. Scoped issue category (grouping)
a. Flora/fauna
b. Water/sewer/solid waste capacity
C. Soils/drainage/infrastructure
d. Wetlands /floodplains/streams
e. Historic/ archeological
f. Air quality
g. Water Quality
h. Visual and scenic qualities
i. Energy use and conservation
j. Other
k. Multiple
14. a. Appropriate Tier(s) of Environmental Review
a. Federal
b. State
c. County
d. Local
e. Multiple
14. b. Lead Agency for Filing Purposes
a. Federal
b. State
c. County
d. Local
e. Multiple
82
OUTPUT
9. Steep slope constraints
a. Acres in steep slopes
b. Percent of total site in steep slopes
c. Permit may be required (upon presence of any steep slopes)
9. a. Prime agricultural and forest areas
a. Acres of prime agricultural and forest areas
b. Precent of total site in prime agricultural or forest land
c. Prime agricultural/ forest land preservation goals met
(upon presence of any prime agricultural or forest land)?
10. Historic mitigation reviews
a. Significant
b. Moderate
c. Minor
11. Endangered species mitigation
a. Significant
b. Moderate
c. Minor
12. Roadway noise barrier requirements' length of
20 -foot noise barrier (in feet)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND JURISDICTIONAL
FOCUS (PREVIEW MODEL)
13. Substantive scope of EIS
a. Flora/fauna
b. Water/sewer/solid waste capacity
c. Soils/drainage/infrastructure
d. Wetlands/ floodp lains /streams
e. Historic/ archeological
f. Air quality
g. Water Quality
h. Visual and scenic qualities
i. Energy use and conservation
j. Other
k. Multiple
14. a. Appropriate Tier(s) of Environmental Review
a. Federal
b. State
c. County
d. Local
e. Multiple
14. b. Lead Agency for Filing Purposes
a. Federal
b. State
c. County
d. Local
e. Multiple
will affect any existing or potential public or private
water supplies. Input 1 details water consumption for
the respective land use types. The water consumption
per residential unit is calculated by multiplying the
number of people in different types of units by the
model -generated per capita water consumption stand-
ard for that residential type (inputs La and Lb). The
water consumption for nonresidential use is similarly
calculated in inputs I.c, Ld, and Le. The total develop-
ment -generated water demand is calculated as the
sum of the water consumption levels for each individ-
ual land use type (gallon per day) (output 1).
The total -water capacity of the local area in which
the development is slated to occur is entered as gal-
lons per day. The data on present local water capacity
are relatively simple to obtain from local and state
water agencies (input 2). The development -generated
water demand is expressed as a percent of the local
area's water capacity (output 2).
The model considers the quantity of solid waste
that will be generated by the development with re-
spect to the locale's capacity for solid waste disposal.
The number of residential units and square feet of pro-
posed commercial floor space are related to the model
standard for solid waste generation for each respec-
tive land use type (input 3). The total amount of solid
waste (pounds) generated by the development per
day is calculated as a sum of the generation rates for
each development component type (output 3).
The total solid waste capacity of the host locality is
entered (input 4). Sources for this information are lo-
cal health departments and state departments of
health and conservation. Private and public garbage
haulers may also be consulted. The total development -
generated solid waste is expressed as a percent of the
local area's solid waste capacity (output 4).
The analysis of the sewage disposal system con-
siders the capacity and use rate of public and pri-
vate systems. The prospective sewage generation
rate for each land use type proposed for the devel-
opment is determined in the same manner as devel-
opment -generated water consumption and solid.
waste production. The generation rate for each de-
velopment type is expressed in gallons per day (in-
put 5). The total development -generated demand
for sewer and septic provision is calculated in gal-
lons per day (output 5).
Local sewer capacity is determined from local util-
ity data and entered (input 6). Sources of information
for sewer and septic system analysis include public
and private sewer authorities, departments of health,
and local engineers. The total development -generated
sewer and septic system demand is related to the local
sewer capacity as a percent of system capacity (gal-
lons per day) (output 6).
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Inputs and Outputs
7-12). An important component of the analysis com-
mon to most impact assessment techniques is considera-
tion of the development's proximity to significant
environmental resources or features. The degree to
which the land parcel slated for development con-
tains floodplains, wetlands, and other fragile areas de-
termines the site's developability and possible need
for permits. The extent of environmentally sensitive
areas is identified by information entered as inputs 7,
8, and 9. This information provides the basis for the
acreage of the site in floodplain, wetlands, and other
fragile areas; the percent of the total site area that con-
stitutes environmentally sensitive lands; and, if such
lands are found, the need for compliance with envi-
ronmental protection, mitigation, and management re-
quirements (outputs 7, 8, and 9).
The model considers the development's possible
impacts on the site's historic features and on any rare
and endangered species that inhabit the proposed de-
velopment area (inputs 10 and 11). Local sources can
identify the relevant historic sites. Data obtained from
federal and state lists of rare and endangered species
may be used to assess the development's impact on
the site's vegetation and wildlife. This information is
used to characterize the importance of the site's his-
toric/environmental attributes. The model uses the
level of significance for both historic sites and endan-
gered species to determine the mitigation requirements
necessary to protect these features. The requirements are
expressed as significant, moderate, or minor (outputs 10
and 11).
The assessment of noise pollution focuses on the
main source of noise pollution in development pro-
jects: roadway noise. It is quantified by general road-
way pollution distances (input 12), which, in turn,
help specify the need for noise barriers with respect to
the proposal (output 12).
Environmental Reviezv and jurisdictional Focus (Inputs
and Outputs 13 and 14). The scoped issue category
highlights the areas of environmental concern in the
context of the proposed development (e.g., flora and
fauna, wetlands, floodplains, streams) (input 13). The
information helps determine the primary factors to be
addressed in the impact analysis and thus those items
that form the substantive scope of the environmental
impact assessment (output 13).
The user determines the tiered issue category of the
impact analysis as well as the appropriate lead agency
by considering the extent and form of the environ-
mental impact on the proposed site. This information
is represented as the government agency that will de-
vote foremost attention to the impact analysis (output
14). This agency typically assumes lead responsibility
for the EIA review.
The inputs and outputs that form the preview
model produce a sketch of the site's environmental
character. While the preview model certainly does not
replace the full environmental impact assessment and
does not cover such areas as air pollution impacts, it
does provide an overview of the general environ-
mental considerations to be outlined and highlights
areas of particular environmental concern.
83
Presentation
A critically important issue related to planning and
conducting environmental impact studies is the com-
munication of information through both written re-
ports and oral presentation. While the exact form of
the written report is often dictated by CEQ and
state/federal regulations and guidelines, most reports
follow the outline and form presented in Exhibit 5.7.
In effect, the report documents the several steps of the
EIA described earlier (see Exhibit 5.2).
In writing the EIA report, the analyst should make
every effort to relegate detailed information to appro-
priate technical appendices and to use the main body
of the EA or EIS to present summary information
clearly and concisely. In this regard, it is advisable to
make extensive use of visual display materials, par-
ticularly maps that identify the location of the proposed
project; photographs that convey environmental re-
source information; tables and figures that illustrate
various types of environmental data and impact calcu-
Exhibit 5.7: GENERIC TOPICAL OUTLINE
FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS REPORT
Abstract
I Introduction
II Project Need
III Description of Project
A. What
B. When
C. Degree of Meeting Need
IV Description of Affected Environment—Baseline
A. Components
B. Interpretation
V Impacts of Proposed Project
A. Components
B. Interpretation
C. Mitigation
VI Evaluation of Alternatives
A. Description of Alternatives
B. Selection Method and Results
VII Planned Environmental Monitoring
A. justification
B. Outputs/Decision Points
VIII References
IX Glossary
X List of Abbreviations
XI Index
Appendices (examples)
A. Law
B. Species Lists
C. Impact Calculations
D. Technical Descriptions
E. Items Considered/Not Relevant
F. Construction Specifications
84
lations; and one or more interaction matrices that
summarize impact information.
Given the importance of interaction matrices in
communicating impact information, the following
summary comments are offered:
• In using a simple interaction matrix, it is necessary
to define carefully the spatial boundaries associ-
ated with environmental factors as well as each en-
vironmental factor; the temporal phases and
specific actions associated with the proposed pro-
ject; and the impact rating or summarization scales
used in the matrix.
• The most important consideration in developing
an interaction matrix is to regard the matrix as an
analysis. It is essential to state clearly the basis for
the interactions that are identified.
• Particularly in the early stages of a study, the ma-
trix can assist each team member in understanding
the implications of the project and developing de-
tailed plans for more extensive studies into various
important factors.
• The interpretation of information on resultant im-
pact rating scales should be carefully considered,
particularly given the possibility of large differ-
ences in the spatial boundaries and temporal
phases of a proposed project.
• Interaction matrices can be useful for delineating the
impacts of the first and second or multiple phases of
a two-phase or multiphase project; the cumulative
impacts of a project when considered relative to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in
the area; and the potentially positive effects of mitiga-
tion measures. Creative codes can be used in the ma-
trix to delineate this information.
• If interaction matrices are used to display compari-
sons between different alternatives, it is necessary
to use the same basic matrix in terms of spatial
boundaries and temporal phases for each alterna-
tive analyzed. Completion of such matrices can
provide a basis for tradeoff analysis.
• Impact quantification can provide a valuable basis
for the assignment of impact ratings to different
project actions and environmental factors.
• Color codes can be used to display/ communicate in-
formation on anticipated impacts. Beneficial impacts
could be displayed by using green or shades of
green, whereas detrimental or adverse effects could
be displayed by using red or shades of red. Impact
matrices can be used without the incorporation of nu-
meric rating scales. For example, circles of varying
size could be used to denote ranges of impacts.
• One of the concerns relative to interaction matrices
is that project actions or environmental factors are
artificially separated when they should, in fact, be
considered together. It is possible to use footnotes
in a matrix to identify groups of impacts that
should be considered together. In other words, the
clustering of impacts would allow the delineation
of primary and secondary effects.
• The development of a preliminary interaction ma-
trix does not mean that it must, of necessity, be in-
cluded in a subsequent EA or EIS. The preliminary
matrix could be used as an internal working docu-
ment or tool in study planning and development.
• It is possible to use importance weightings for envi-
ronmental factors and project actions in a simple in-
teraction matrix. If this approach is chosen, it
would be necessary to delineate carefully -the ra-
tionale upon which differential importance weights
have been assigned.
• One of the most important advantages of using a
simple interaction matrix is that it forces the consid-
eration of actions and impacts related to a pro-
posed project within the context of other related
actions and impacts. In other words, the matrix can
aid in preventing the placement of undue empha-
sis on one particular type of action or environ-
mental factor.
In terms of the emphasis in a written EA or EIS, it
is appropriate to consider the purpose of the docu-
ment and to relate the report's major issues to that
purpose. In the case of an EA, for example, the pur-
pose is to determine whether an EIS would be re-
quired. One approach to determining the need for an
EIS is to take the definition of "significant" as in-
cluded in the Council on Environmental Quality regu-
lations (see Exhibit 5.4) and summarize the impact
study's findings in terms of that definition. If the re-
port can justify that no significant impacts are antici-
pated, then a finding of "no significant impact"
would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the EA
concludes that significant impacts will result from a
proposed project, then an EIS would be in order.
In the case of an EIS, one of its major purposes is to
ensure that the environment is considered in project
planning and decision making; accordingly, the report
must focus on the impacts of concern as well as on ap-
propriate mitigation measures. An EIS's major conclu-
sions should highlight project features and mitigation
measures that can be incorporated during the design,
construction, and/or operational phases of the project.
The oral presentation of the EIA should avoid need-
less technical detail and stress the main findings. It
should underscore the changes in the quality of the en-
vironment resulting from the project and then empha-
size the measures that will eliminate or mitigate any
adverse effects. The reasons for choosing the pro-
posed site should also be discussed with reference to
the alternate sites outlined in the EIA (see chapter 3).
A sound EIA presentation necessitates thorough
preparation. Summary visuals are invaluable for com-
municating the conclusions of the impact analysis.
Care should be taken to produce high-quality visual
materials devoid of the technical terms inevitably
laced throughout an EIA. The presentation should
highlight impacts that can be avoided, impacts that
demand mitigation, and impacts that cannot be
avoided. In this respect, the presentation should be
candid and, for instance, state forthrightly where im-
pacts cannot be mitigated and outline the extent of en-
vironmental distress anticipated as a result. The EIA
report is in most instances a highly complex docu-
ment; hence, the oral presentation demands the chal-
lenging task of summarizing the report's conclusions
frankly and comprehensively.
Critiquing the Environmental
Impact Analysis
The following list can serve as a quick guide for
evaluating both the written report and oral presenta-
tion of an environmental impact analysis:
Environmental Impacts
1. Are the environmental data used in the analysis
sufficiently specific to the site (e.g., meteorologic
information)? How current are the information
sources? Are they still applicable to the site (e.g.,
changes in wetlands areas)?
2. When were environmental parameters consid-
ered? Have seasonal changes (e.g., migrating
birds, water table level, climatic variables, vegeta-
tive cover, etc.) or daily changes (industrial clos-
ings during weekends or nights, peak -hour
traffic, etc.) been taken into account?
3. Have all responsible authorities been consulted
about respective site characteristics (wetlands, en-
dangered species, archeological remains, etc.)?
4. Has the community established environmental
targets or standards in its comprehensive plans
(e.g., air emissions, water effluents, impervious
cover)? Have such standards been enforced?
5. Have environmental impacts on the site been
identified and necessary mitigation measures dis-
cussed (soil erosion, loss of endangered species,
floodplain encroachment, etc.)?
6. Have environmental hazards been considered
(flooding, slides, or subsidence; presence of insect -
or rodent -breeding places; high water table, etc.)?
7. Are abrupt grade changes designed to control ero-
sion? Is surface runoff handled so that on-site ar-
eas will not erode and cause flooding in adjacent
areas?
8. Have local nuisances been discussed and effec-
tively resolved (proximity to industrial plants,
railroads, heavy -traffic streets, airports, etc., that
cause noise, dust, odor, or vibrations)?
9. Does the environmental impact analysis account
for approved or proposed nearby developments
that will affect the site (e.g., industrial park associ-
ated with high water use)?
10. Does the development program include provi-
sions for retaining, protecting, or moving environ -
85
mentally significant site features (e.g., trees, vege-
tation, historic structures, etc.)?
11. Has the effect of planned landscaping on existing
vegetation been considered?
12. Is there sufficient capacity in the local sewage and
solid waste system to serve the development?
13. Is there a public water supply available to the de-
velopment? Does this supply have adequate pres-
sure and quantity?
Future Directions
Critics of the EIA process note that the environ-
mental impact studies conducted over the past two
decades have yielded few benefits. These critics have
focused on the "mountains" of reports that have been
prepared, many of which could be termed "encyclope-
dic" and too many of which have been forgotten
upon permit issuance or an affirmative decision to
proceed with the project. On the other hand, it is pos-
sible to cite examples of projects that have not been
developed due to environmental concern or whose de-
sign has been modified or size adjusted out of con-
cern for environmental compatibility. Accordingly,
and in conjunction with the general spirit and intent
of NEPA, the purpose of an EIA is to facilitate the in-
corporation of environmental factors into project deci-
sion making, along with engineering and economic
issues, and then to develop the project and its site in
86
an environmentally sensitive manner (Albrecht, Ryan,
and Middleton, 1993).
The shift from "encyclopedic" to "action -orien-
tated" EIAs will continue in the future. To this end,
the following changes are anticipated:
• greater use of focused EAs as a mechanism to de-
cide whether a comprehensive EIS is necessary;
• technical improvements, such as the refinement of
EIA models, that enable the more careful deline-
ation of anticipated impacts;
• increased efficiency as regional environmental in-
formation is made available through geographic in-
formation systems (GIS) and other advances;
• the increasingly careful anticipation of impacts that
will lead to the improved specification of appropri-
ate—as well as measurable and implementable—
mitigation measures; and
• the development of tools and techniques that aid in
communicating impact information to interested
publics.
As a final consideration, it could be asked whether
the significance of the EIA process is declining.
Whereas the number of EISs prepared annually may
remain fairly constant or even decline, the use of such
studies to identify and implement mitigation meas-
ures will continue to increase. In addition, as property
transfers and necessary site assessments gain wide-
spread application and environmental regulation
grows increasingly stringent, the need for planning
and conducting focused environmental impact stud-
ies can be expected to increase.
PAGE 10
scasx�-
Parking problems
College should solve dilemma soon
When the weather is cold and windy, the last thing one wants to
do is walk up to the College for a day of classes. Walking back home
late at night isn't much better. Driving back and forth seems much sim-
pler—and warmer. And, even on nice days, one can't help but be
tempted to take a long, leisurely drive through the back roads of
Ithaca.
But where will all these cars go?
Because of several changes in the layout of Ithaca College, the
school will soon be losing more than 200 parking spaces across cam-
pus. The renovation of Ford Hall and the addition of the new Health
Sciences and Human Performances building will cost the College 70
spaces, while the termination of the lease with Axiohm, across the
street on Danby Road, will cost 162 spaces.
To compensate for this loss, the College will add 232 panting
spaces in undeveloped areas on campus.
These changes leave several problems. Replacing these spaces
will take away two acres of woods and $900,000. But the College will
still have a shortage of parking spots on campus.
Currently, there are only 2,900 parking spots for 3,800 cars.
Since the College is already working on making space for new
parking spots, why don't they create enough spaces to meet the
need? Or, instead of creating more spaces, why don't they just start
setting limits on the amount of students allowed cars?
This is an opportune time to settle the parking lot arguments once
and for all.
If the College decided to stick with its current plan and replace the
lost spots, we would unnecessarily convert healthy land to a cement
desert and waste nearly S1 million when we are already spending mil-
lions on renovations. Not to mention the fact that it would not address
the current problem concerning a lack of parking spaces.
If the school decided to increase the number of parking spaces on
campus, we would waste even more money and more land—land
occupied by various birds and other wildlife. Students would still com-
plain about not being able to get a "good spot' because these lots
would probably be even further away from their residence halls or
classes.
However, if Ithaca College simply decided to adopt policies similar
to those of other schools and limit the number of students allowed to
have cars on campus, not only would we save money and land but we
would maintain wildlife habitats and eliminate the parking problem.
It the College set a policy restricting freshmen from having ears on
campus, we would easily settle the parking dilemma. Although many
students claim they "need' their cars for transportation, for most it is
really just a convenience.
Students can easily get around town by getting rides with friends,
taking a taxi or catching the bus. Although many complain about not
being able to go to Wegman's or to the mall by bus, this is untrue.
Passengers just have to ask for a transfer and wait for the next bus.
Most students concerned about getting home for breaks also
needn't worry. Shortline, Greyhound and Trailways provide bus service
to most towns in New York as well as to other states. Also, students
from New York, New England or Pennsylvania should have an easy
time finding a ride home from their classmates since many of them are
from those areas.
Not only would other fortes of transportation eliminate the need for
additional parking lots at Ithaca College, but they would help students
save money. Mass transportation and ride shares would cost a fraction
of the amount students would normally spend on gas, insurance and
repairs.
Cars are not a necessity. They are a convenience. Who doesn't
like the ability to take off on a soothing drive through some of Ithaca's
winding roads? But, the next time the sun's out and the weather is
warm, try taking a walk instead.
N
Plans for new lots create controversy
By Alessandra
Menasce
Ithacan Staff
The construction, begin-
ning this summer, of several
parking lots has generated
discussions between the
Ithaca College
Environmental Society
(ICES) and the Office of
Student Affairs and Campus
Life.
"They are going to be
paving over green space,"
said Chris Gulick '97, a
member of ICES. "It will
also cut down 2 acres of
woods. A parking space is a
dead space."
The estimated amount for
the new parking lots will be
$900.000, said Thomas R.
Salm, vice-president of busi-
ness and administrative
affairs for the College. "The
money will come from a
combination of the College's
institutional capital funds,"
he said.
The College is planning to
add 200 spaces in the Towers
parking lot (1 lot), and anoth-
er 32 in the extension of M
lot near Boothroyd Hall to
compensate for the ones
being taken away because of
the extension of Ford Hall
and the construction of a
new fitness center and Health
Sciences and Human
Performances (HS&HP)
building.
"I think that Ithaca has a
really pretty campus," said
Dara Serber'00. "It will take
a lot out of the look if they
keep adding more parking
lots. Eventually everything
will be parking lots.
..But the bus system here
7
is atrocious, a lot of juniors and though students' environmental president for the Office of ing lots. "when me conswc-
seniors have to drive to campus concerns should be taken into Student Affairs and Campus Life, tions start, we will permanent -
because they can't depend on the consideration, the new lots are said he understands ICES' con- ly lose spaces behind the
buses," she added. needed to help compensate for the terns. However, he said the only Gannet Center and the Hill
Many of the students contact- ones being taken away. way to accommodate the College Center and we will lose 70
ed by The Ithacan said even Brian McAree, assistant vice community is to build new park- see PARKING, page 4
4 THE ITHACAN
The Ithacan/Kelly Burdick
The College plans to extend the Towers parking lot into the
woods, raising concerns among some students.
PARKING
continued from page 1
spaces during the construction of
home. "The College can't keep on
the HS&HP building in the F lot."
building parking spots," he said.
he said. "The building is going to
Bob Holt, director of campus
be built on top of the parking lot_
safety, said if students had an
The College is also planning to
incentive, they would leave their
terminate its parking lease with
cars home. "There is an incentive
the Axiom building across from
program at Cornell University."
the main entrance, generating a
At Cornell University, if a stu-
loss of 162 parking spaces,
dent wishes to park near the cen-
McAree said.
ter of campus, the transportation
"If we had 500 less registered
office charges an annual fee of
vehicles on campus we would
$500. If the students prefer to
probably not need additional
park in the outskirts of the cam -
parking space." McAree said.
pus they have to pay $200. The
"Show me less cars and we won't
College only charges $40 for
build more lots."
vehicle registration. "Having a
Although the extension of the
car here your freshman year is
J lot (Towers parking lot) will
one of the big selling points,"
provide 200 parking spots, the
Gulick said.
College is really losing spaces,
lames Sharp '98, ICES mem-
McAree said. "Despite the fact
ber. said Cornell research found
that we are going to add
building parking lots on their
[spaces]... the reality is we are
campus would be too expensive
going to lose spaces," he said.
and would ignore the responsibil-
Gulick said ICES would like
ity to preserve green space.
to see the College have a long
"Ithaca College students arc
term transportation plan, one that
too dependent on their cars."
would give students an option and
Sharp said. "It is treated as a right
incentive to leave their cars at
[in have a car), when it should he
06—
Imo'
F I N AL
Memorandum
T •
0 0sw
TOWN Of ITHACA
PLANNING ZONING ENGINEERING
o.T own of Ithaca Planning Board
From: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review
Committee
Re: Ithaca College Developments
Date: 4/8/97
Thru: Jonathan Kanter
The ERC does have some questions and concerns about the
proposed developments on Ithaca College campus and also about the
"Stormwater Management Study 1997 Update".
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY -1997 UPDATE
This report doesn't give the run-off rate from Watershed VII
before it enters the detention basin or for the storage discharge
characteristic of the detention basin. Without this information it is
not possible to access how the changes in inflow would affect the
performance of the detention basin. Specifically, we do not know the
error associated with the inflow to the detention basin, therefore we
don't know how this will change the results of the analysis. For
example, if the estimated inflow is an order of magnitude in error,
how will this affect the performance of the detention pond. Given
the sensitive nature of this area to downtown an error analysis is
critical to access the performance to the detention basin. Also if
problems result from storms that occur more frequently than a two
year recurrence interval, there is no information provided on how
run-off from this area will be controlled for storms that occur more
frequently. Verification of the TR -55 simulations are desirable
through direct measurement or comparison of unit area run off from
nearby stream gauges.
The grasslined overflow from the spillway is in question. If
there is not much margin for error, the grasslined overflow might
not be suitable. Run-off over the grasslined spillway could cause
catastrophic failure of the detention pond. Consideration should be
given to what could happen in the event of erosion to the grasslined
spillway and possible failure of the detention pond.
a
PARKING LOT EXPANSION
The proposal for parking lot expansion brings up the issue of
need and also a desire to know Ithaca College's long term plan for
parking on campus. It is unclear why there is an anticipated
termination of lease space at Axiohm. Will green space be paved on
the Ithaca College campus while a parking lot across the street sits
empty? Or does Axiohm have a need for those spaces? Since IC
promotes free parking as a "selling point" what is the long-term plan
to provide parking? Presently there is no incentive for students to
walk, bike or take the bus. Every morning a long stream of cars exit
the College Circle Apartments, drive less than a mile and turn into
the I.C. campus.
J -LOT EXPANSION would cause environmental damage and
habitat loss for various birds and wildlife. Has there been any survey
done to know what species of mammals, birds, herps and insects
utilize these woods on both resident or seasonal bases? Several
hundred trees and a huge amount of earth would have to be
removed. No figures for the amount of earth moved are apparent.
This wooded slope is one of only a few natural areas left on
campus and according to THE ITHACAN 4/03/97, some students see
value in green space on campus. Question 13 in the Full
Environmental Assessment Form asks "Is the project site presently
used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or
recreation area?" The answer stated is "No", but there is a walking
trail through this area. More research should be done to see what
open space or recreation role this land plays for student and faculty
on campus. This area may serve as an important "retreat spot" for
students living in the residential towers. Also, question 14 asks:
"Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to
the community?" The answer is marked "Yes." We would like to
know specifically what these views are.
As noted above in the Stormwater management study, the ERC
also has serious concerns about drainage and erosion since this
expansion project would disturb such a steep slope. Also, a social
cost/benefit should include "downhill" costs of sedimentation and
erosion, as these will affect the Town and City of Ithaca. Make sure
that the erosion model used will account for the off-site
environmental and economic costs, including long-term remediation.
The Excavation Disposal Area shown on the plan as being near
Emerson Hall, is not a particularly environmentally sensitive area,
apparently having been heavily bulldozed, graded and or filled at
times in the past. There is some question as to whether the
"proposed silt fence and hay bale dike embankment" are sufficient,
either on a short or long term basis. There being no sectional view of
this disposal area, conclusions on the adequacy of the fence and dike
can't be made.
The Gabion Wall on the north side of the proposed J -lot
expansion, shown in the sectional drawing, is not going to be
particularly attractive. Perhaps it will be covered or hidden with
plantings.
There are numerous relatively flat grassy areas on the Ithaca
College campus which appear to be suitable for parking lot
expansion. None would require the loss of trees and other
environmental damage required for expanding the J -lot, although
any loss of "green space" is hardly desirable.
M -Lot expansion seems to be reasonable, and is on "open lawn", so no serious vegetation
removal is deemed necessary -- by the College; although again, any loss of "green space" is hardly
desirable. It appears that this expansion could itself be expanded. to include even more of the
supposedly needed parking spaces, without the serious environmental damage that would occur if
the proposed J -Lot expansion is undertaken. There appears to be quite a bit of relatively flat space
by the M -Lot and Boothroyd Hall, without the several hundred trees that would have to be removed
for the proposed J -Lot expansion. It almost looks like the M- and C -Lots could be expanded quite a
bit without nearly the amount of heavy environmental damage required for expanding the J -Lot.
, 4,3,gl
The Ithacan article and editorial have some good suggestions for ways to reduce or
eliminate the need for more parking spaces on the Ithaca College campus. The.Town, as well as the
College, should take them under serious consideration. It seems a shame to spend so much money,
on non-productive space which damages or destroys the environment, and which could be utilized
in other ways to improve the education offered to Ithaca College students.
The temporary HSHP building (so designated in the Temporary structure binder)
is to be erected on an athletic field (presumably PF3 on the most recent College map) near the
tennis courts and Rte 96B. That won't displace any parking spaces, and "no new parking is
required" (binder p. 3). The HSHP documentation indicates that the staff will park in what appears to
be existing Lot F. There are other places on the campus where it could be erected, without its being
so obvious from 96B. Orienting the building basically east -west doesn't do much to reduce its
visibility from 9613, particularly when driving south. The arguments for its placement and orientation
don't seem to represent an overwhelming need,
Although the ( planned and permanent?) HSHP building is mentioned in the
College's J & M Parking Lot binder as item 2, in column one, page 1, there appears to be no
explicit reason presented in any of the College documentation, as to why this involves the need for
78 more parking spaces. This raises questions which should have answers. Just listing a need,
even if related to a building (which, by the way, appears not to be further mentioned, except in the
temporary building matter), is not adequate justification for needing more parking spaces.
Siting the HSHP building to "straddle the existing utilities, i.e., storm sewer and
water main" seems a bit risky, but if properly done, presumably there would be no problems.
However, there appears to be no indication of the depth of these lines, and since there is no
elevation/section drawing of the building given, and the vertical relation to these lines is not shown,
some reassurance should be supplied that these would present no problems--i.e., the lines,won't
be broken during construction.
The newspaper article's "new fitness center", is mentioned in the College's J & M
Parking Lot binder in column one, page 1, and briefly in the same document on page 3, but there
appears to be no explicit reason as to why this involves the need for 32 more parking spaces. This
also raises questions which should have answers. Just listing a need, even if related to a building
(which, by the way, is also not further mentioned), is not adequate justification for needing more
parking spaces. This structure is not listed in the Planning Board's 24 March list of "Pending
Development Reviews", which we received. Perhaps it is a previously approved structure, and no
one advised the current ERC? Or to use the terminology in the binder, what are the plans for "the
Fitness Center building program " and its "requirement for parking just west of the site"? (What site)?
Ford Hall. It's unfortunate that it seems to be standard Town practice not to require any
elevations of proposed structures, but only to require plan views, at least in the initial stage of
approval request.. Based on what documents were provided,44can see no objections to expanding
Ford Hall. This expansion mentions a need for an additional 32 parking spaces. Perhaps these
could be the ones provided by the M -Lot expansion ar 32 more parking spaces .
04; I(a%97 11:57 FAX 607 274 6561 CITY PLOMENG
MEIMU
TO: JoAnn Cornish
From: )on Meigs
Re: Ithaca College Projects -- Environmental Review
Date: 10 Apr. 97
2001
APR 1 0 1997
Ford Fiala Addition., Not much to comment nn -- the site is in tlt� midst of the c mg��9, al vr�ile lace
new construction will have definite visual impacts, in particular, filling in the space separating Ford
from Cannett, tending to ma kp flipm appear a single, more maesivc ;,trucnLre instead of separate objects
set on a green base, I find it hard to characterize the change as Prsitiv e or negative; it is simply a change,
Other comment: T don't understand why the Y` ctrl✓ vaj from next to West Tuzver IS elimina-
ted; it would seem that residerits of &at dorm :are ill -served for access to the Jibe — whether they take
the stairs for the new bridge (if it also serves Gannett), they,,rive tL, So the !c;cc4 way around. chis seems
to have implications for some other library goers, too, to the extent that they mai• use a car to get there:
ippArently the parking area south of Cannett is to be only seivice vetddeS after ihiti project is completed
— where will such patrons park? The information provided on circulation is vague and possibly mis-
leading. But this is pretty much a design- quibble, nr,t scally uur area.
Also, where is bicycle parking for these facilities? and the parking lots and temp bad-, as well.
Temporary Structure: Again, not much to say, except -- ,tow long is temporary? If it's sufficiently long,
it might deserve a more cri±ical tuuk. Aside from `'Lat, ;he inforn-►ation provided [us] is sketchy. 'What
does the proposed structure look like? This is mare important than. for ✓✓tans of the other projects be-
cause it is expow-J to public view directly from the road- it it's goring to be there long enough for it to
need a vegetative screen, perhaps the architecture needs some critical evaluation; it will not be seen
fluid d Static •rewpoint, end-on. Exactly how does it sit on. the site? Provision of site section drawings
would have been very helpful in understanding the propomi[this is a general comment, applicable
Pretty much across the board, with regard riot only to all, these IC projects, but to all that we review that
lnvolve site alteration][The'Section Through Proposed J -Lot' in the 'Development Review Applirafinn'
for the parking lots is really not a very useful atempt at providing the type of information that would be
most helpful in explaining what's going on — far starters, it doesn't show existing grade a rrncs the entire
width, to give some idea of what's cut and what's fill]. Mmt type of foundation is proposed; is any
excavation involved? What is the sMaticm Control plan? Exactly how world shppt rnnof� from, a Storznn
during construction affect dlings? Is there to be any fill or grading? W I the drainage system for the
field stand up to construction machinery traffic?
One recommendation: carefully lmfe and size the curb cut for the handicapped space as
shown, it looks like it might not be too functional. Considp.r h;;%7no it serve two or the spaces who
knows who11 have a need for it, or how many?
J-Iot Expansion: Looks like there'll be some rack displaced — how do they propose to do it, if not blast.?
Will the filled slope be stable? Trying to balance cut and fill is good, :md to be expec-.rd as a desia, c
approach to such a site. The simple assertion that cost consideratior+s precluded pursuing the parking
structure aitprnativa is unconvincing, however; it begs the question of ho.y seriously tictitand ether
alternatives were examined, particularly with respect to comparitive analysis of their respective
Rrvironmental impacts. Perhape the campus perking lass grlment] polity sl uuld be reconsidered; the
campus' topographic and space limitations must be self-evident by now, if an overview of develcepment
history is taken. Why chew up more than twice the land s ieecIed to store two vehicles, if they can be
stacked? Especially when the land consumed is borth natural open space and somewhat difficult to
develop? [Thiss is an issue that applies also to the dowi,tull edge of campus; --see below,
Lastly - again, more a design, issue - is there not any need, now or foreseeable, for a pedestrian
connection between this lot and the done t Luinplex dL)wnhlll? it might make the lot more useful, used
and comfortable t 1 use, as it seems to me that the extension of what even now ha;: aspects of being a
04,110%97 11:57 FAX 607 274 6561 CITY PLANNI\'G
remote parking area still further away from. actively -used areas, into a remote area, may cause many to
shun it. It certainly becomes quite distant from Ford Hall, whim it is supposed to ser:*e.
M -lot Expansion: This looks good; it's a small lot, sited to conserve an attrac1ive stain'. c,f trees which
also serves as a screen from nearby Bootwyd Hall.
Excavation Disposal Area: I strongly recornmend that this be redesi.Tied so as not to present such an
obviously out -of -place manmade landform to a viewshed that extends across 6-:N1:. Creek valley to the
E. State St./Slaterville Rd. neighborhoods.
Its regular form raises the question of what its long-term use is to be -- more res. halls would be
my guess. Do we know? 11 so, this should be stated; not to do so is segmentation, a no -no -
Presumably the fill material is to be ail natural soil and stone from file developments uphill.
Will it need internal drainage? Will the slope be stable? Reconunend rapid -growing and varied cover to
pifvnt tho t,"str,ral landfnrm [even if ri-mnfifpirpd].
Recommend extension of silt fence /hay bale dike to intercept all probable drainage c arinels.
Full EAF: This leaves quite a bit to be desired in terms of adequacy and accuracy; it seems incredibly
sketchy for its scope, unless it is a supplementar)r docume-At k-3 a more detailed one that has already
been reviewed and approved. 'Even if so, it still raises several questions For me. It doesn't address the
temporary structure or the:ill aitc; 34}';� no trips wall be aeAtrated, dCspitc the added parking spnce3
[which do not seem. to be specified in the information `,,,:a received, bu t as best I can make out, may
iLumber around 301; gives no figure for i a.turel material to be removed from the site [unless one's
definition of 'site' is flexible, to suit convenience]; sales no blasting; says no relocations Thrill occur -- no
teuipurary pnrkiutg, no playing Pields; and no solid waste would be generated jabove CLUrent levels).
And, I hope lastly, it says the proposed action is consistent writh the recommended uses in
adopted local land use plans. Last I knew, the College was not a use perru-ned as of right In the R-15
zone; if it is perrritted as a legally-nonconformir:g use by variance, each change, at some level of
54-,aihcance, should be reviewed for acceptability. Perhaps that is being .one; again, it's not our area,
but planning.
U 002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members - Town of Ithaca Planning Board
FROM:' JoAnn Cornish - Planner
DATE: April 10, 1997
RE: Environmental Review Committee Comments for Ithaca College Ford
Hall Addition, J Lot Extension, M Lot Extension, and HSHP
Temporary Classrooms
Attached, please find comments for the upcoming Ithaca College projects from the
ERC. Also attached are comments from Jon Meigs in a separate memo as he was
unable to attend the ERC meeting for discussion of this project.
MEMORANDUM
F I N AL
Memorandum
T •T
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING ZONING ENGINEERING
oe own of Ithaca Planning Board
From: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review
Committee
Re: Ithaca College Developments
Date: 4/8/97
Thru: Jonathan Kanter
The ERC does have some questions and concerns about the
proposed developments on Ithaca College campus and also about the
"Stormwater Management Study 1997 Update".
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY -1997 UPDATE
This report doesn't give the run-off rate from Watershed VII
before it enters the detention basin or for the storage discharge
characteristic of the detention basin. Without this information it is
not possible to access how the changes in inflow would affect the
performance of the detention basin. Specifically, we do not know the
error associated with the inflow to the detention basin, therefore we
don't know how this will change the results of the analysis. For
example, if the estimated inflow is an order of magnitude in error,
how will this affect the performance of the detention pond. Given
the sensitive nature of this area to downtown an error analysis is
critical to access the performance to the detention basin. Also if
problems result from storms that occur more frequently than a two
year recurrence interval, there is no information provided on how
run-off from this area will be controlled for storms that occur more
frequently. Verification of the TR -55 simulations are desirable
through direct measurement or comparison of unit area run off from
nearby stream gauges.
The grasslined overflow from the spillway is in question. If
there is not much margin for error, the grasslined overflow might
not be suitable. Run-off over the grasslinied spillway could cause
catastrophic failure of the detention pond. Consideration should be
given to what could happen in the event of erosion to the grasslined
spillway and possible failure of the detention pond.
PARKING LOT EXPANSION
The proposal for parking lot expansion brings up the issue of
need and also a desire to know Ithaca College's long term plan for
parking on campus. It is unclear why there is an anticipated
termination of lease space at Axiohm. Will green space be paved on
the Ithaca College campus while a parking lot across the street sits
empty? Or does Axiohm have a need for those spaces? Since IC
promotes free parking as a "selling point" what is the long-term plan
to provide parking? Presently there is no incentive for students to
walk, bike or take the bus. Every morning a long stream of cars exit
the College Circle Apartments, drive less than a mile and turn into
the I.C. campus.
J -LOT EXPANSION would cause environmental damage and
habitat loss for various birds and wildlife. Has there been any survey
done to know what species of mammals, birds, herps and insects
utilize these woods on both resident or seasonal bases? Several
hundred trees and a huge amount of earth would have to be
removed. No figures for the amount of earth moved are apparent.
This wooded slope is one of only a few natural areas left on
campus and according to THE ITHACAN 4/03/97, some students see
value in green space on campus. Question 13 in the Full
Environmental Assessment Form asks "Is the project site presently
used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or
recreation area?" The answer stated is "No", but there is a walking
trail through this area. More research should be done to see what
open space or recreation role this land plays for student and faculty
on campus. This area may serve as an important "retreat spot" for
students living in the residential towers. Also, question 14 asks:
"Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to
the community?" The answer is marked "Yes." We would like to
know specifically what these views are.
As noted above in the Stormwater management study, the ERC
also has serious concerns about drainage and erosion since this
expansion project would disturb such a steep slope. Also, a social
cost/benefit should include "downhill" costs of sedimentation and
erosion, as these will affect the Town and City of Ithaca. Make sure
that the erosion model used will account for the off-site
environmental and economic costs, including long-term remediation.
The Excavation Disposal Area shown on the plan as being near
Emerson Hall, is not a particularly environmentally sensitive area,
apparently having been heavily bulldozed, graded and or filled at
times in the past. There is some question as to whether the
"proposed silt fence and hay bale dike embankment" are sufficient,
either on a short or long term basis. There being no sectional view of
this disposal area, conclusions on the adequacy of the fence and dike
can't be made.
The Gabion Wall on the north side of the proposed J -lot
expansion, shown in the sectional drawing, is not going to be
particularly attractive. Perhaps it will be covered or hidden with
plantings.
There are numerous relatively flat grassy areas on the Ithaca
College campus which appear to be suitable for parking lot
expansion. None would require the loss of trees and other
environmental damage required for expanding the J -lot, although
any loss of "green space" is hardly desirable.
M -Lot expansion seems to be reasonable, and is on "open lawn", so no serious vegetation
removal is deemed necessary -- by the College; although again, any loss of "green space" is hardly
desirable. It appears that this expansion could itself be expanded. to include even more of the
supposedly needed parking spaces, without the serious environmental damage that would occur if
the proposed J -Lot expansion is undertaken. There appears to be quite a bit of relatively flat space
by the M -Lot and Boothroyd Hall, without the several hundred trees that would have to be removed
for the proposed J -Lot expansion. It almost looks like the M- and C -Lots could be expanded quite a
bit without nearly the amount of heavy environmental damage required for expanding the J -Lot.
, � r3 -g1
The Ithacan article and editorial have some good suggestions for ways to reduce or
eliminate the need for more parking spaces on the Ithaca College campus. The.Town, as well as the
College, should take them under serious consideration. It seems a shame to spend so much money,
on non-productive space which damages or destroys the environment, and which could be utilized
in other ways to improve the education off red to Ithaca College students.
The temporary HSHP building (so designated in the Temporary structure binder)
is to be erected on an athletic field (presumably PF3 on the most recent College map) near the
tennis courts and Rte 968. That won't displace any parking spaces, and "no new parking is
required" (binder p. 3). The HSHP documentation indicates that the staff will park in what appears to
be existing Lot F. There are other places on the campus where it could be erected, without its being
so obvious from 96B. Orienting the building basically east -west doesn't do much to reduce its
visibility from 96B, particularly when driving south. The arguments for its placement and orientation
don't seem to represent an overwhelming need..
-3 -
Although the ( planned and permanent?) HSHP building is mentioned in the
College's J & M Parking Lot binder as item 2, in column one, page 1, there appears to be no
explicit reason presented in any of the College documentation, as to why this involves the need for
78 more parking spaces. This raises questions which should have answers. Just listing a need,
even if related to a building (which, by the way, appears not to be further mentioned, except in the
temporary building matter), is not adequate justification for needing more parking spaces.
Siting the HSHP building to "straddle the existing utilities, i.e., storm sewer and
water main" seems a bit risky, but if properly done, presumably there would be no problems.
However, there appears to be no indication of the depth of these lines, and since there is no
elevation/section drawing of the building given, and the vertical relation to these lines is not shown,
some reassurance should be supplied that these would present no problems--i.e., the lines,won't
be broken during construction.
The newspaper article's "new fitness center", is mentioned in the College's J & M
Parking Lot binder in column one, page 1, and briefly in the same document on page 3, but there
appears to be no explicit reason as to why this involves the need for 32 more parking spaces. This
also raises questions which should have answers. Just listing a need, even if related to a building
(which, by the way, is also not further mentioned), is not adequate justification for needing more
parking spaces. This structure is not listed in the Planning Board's 24 March list of "Pending
Development Reviews", which we received. Perhaps it is a previously approved structure, and no
one advised the current ERC? Or to use the terminology in the binder, what are the plans for "the
Fitness Center building program " and its "requirement for parking just west of the site"? (What site)?
Ford Hall. It's unfortunate that it seems to be standard Town practice not to require any
elevations of proposed structures, but only to require plan views, at least in the initial stage of
approval request.. Based on what documents were provided,\can see no objections to expanding
Ford Hall. This expansion mentions a need for an additional 32 parking spaces. Perhaps these
could be the ones provided by the M -Lot expansion CF -32 more parking spaces?
04/10/67, 11:57 FAX 607 274 6561 CITY PLA�MNING
MhJ%4U
To: JoAnn Cornish
From: )(in Meigs
Re: Ithaca College Projects -- Environmental Review
Date: 10 Apr. 97
FAM1 01997
Ford 14ali Addition: Not much to comment an -- tha site is in the midst of the campus, and while Litt
new construction will] have definite visual impacLS, in particular, fi1Lng in the space separating Ford
from Gannett, tending to ma kP than arpPxr a single, more maesive structure instead of epardte objects
set on a green base, I find it hard to characterize the change as positive or negative; it is simply a change.
Other commpnts: I don't understand why thN 'y' stair -,vas from next to We6t Tr Rver is elimina-
ted; it would seem that residents of that dorm are' ill -server! for arce,s to the jibe — whether they take
the stairs or the new bridge (if it also serves Gannett), they have tci go the !tic t4 way around. chis seems
to have implications for some other library goers, too, to the extent that they May use a car to get there:
aprar -ntly the parking area south of Cannett is to be only seaz•ice vehieles after this project is completed
— where will such patrnns park? The information provided on circulation is vague and possibly rnis-
leadirng. But this is pretty much a design quibble, tilt: aec&ily uur area.
Also, where is bicycle parking for there facilities? and the parking, lots and temp bldg. as well.
Temporary Structure: Again, not much to say, except -- how long is temporary? If.it's sufficiently long,
it might deserve a more critical luuk. Amide from that, d-te information provided [us] is sketchy_ What
does the proposed structure look like: This is more important than. for many of ti -le other projects be-
cause it is expr sW to public view directly from the rpad_ It it's gvIng to be there Long enouah for it tc
need a vegetative screen, perhaps the architecture needs some critical evaluation; it will not be seen
fIULII d 5tdtic rewpolnt, end -oat. Exactly how dues it sit on. the site? PXOI�51on of site section drawings
would have been very helpful in understardizig the propoml [this is a general comment, applicable
Pretty much across the board, with rEgard not only to all these IC projects, but to all deal we review that
involve site alteration][The "Section Through Proposed J -Lot' in the 'Development Review Applirafinn'
for the parking lots is really not a very useful atempt at providing the type of information that -would be
most helpful in explaining what's going on— for starters, it doesn't show existing grade arrnc.s the entire
width, to give some idea of what's cut and what's fill]. What type of foundation is proposed; is any
excavation involved? What is the siltation control plan? Exactly how would shPPt nznoff from a storm
during construction affect things? Is there to be any fill or grading? Will the drainage system for the
field stand up to construction machinery traffic?
One recommendation: carefully locate and, size the Curb cut for the handicapped space --as
shown, it looks like it alight not be too functional. Consider riaving it serve two or the spaces who
knows whop have a need for it, or how many?
J-Iot Expansion: Looks like therell be some rondo displaced — how do they propose to do it, if not blast'
Will the filled slope be stable? Trying to balance cut and fill is good, cu d tobe expected d5 a deS,-A t
approach to such a site. The simple assertion that cost consideration, precluded pursuing the parking
structure aitprna0va is imconvincing, however; it begs the question of how seriously ticitt and outer
alternatives were examined, particularly with respect to compa��itive analysis of their respective
Arvironmental impacts. Perhaps the campus parking [asaigntnent] policy should be reconsidered; the
campus` topographic and space limitations must be self-evident by now, if an overview of develc p-ment
history is taken. Why drew up more than twice the land. 3 Leeded to store two 'vehicles, if they can be
stacked? Especially when the land consumed is both natural open space and somewhat difficult to
develop? [This is an issue that appiics also to Qte Oowaltill edge of campus -- see below)
Lastly - again, more a design, issue - b there not any need, now or foreseeable, for a pedestrian
conru:ction between this lot and the dorsi t Lumplex dowrilla111? It rrd' ,pt make the lot more useful, used
and comfortable to use, as it seems to sine that the extension of what even now ha; aspects of being a
04/10, 97 11:57 FAX 607 27.1 6661 CITY PLANNING 1, 002
remote parking area still further away from. actively -used areas, into a remote area, may cause many to
shun it. It certainly becomes quite distant from Ford Hall, which it is suppo.7ed to serve.
M -lot Expansiom This look.- good; it's a small lot, sited to conserve an atsac+.ive stand of trees which
also serves as a screen from nearby Boorhroyd Hall.
Excavation Disposal Area: I strongly recommend that this be TedesirTied so as not to present such an
obviously cut -of -place manmade landform to aviewshed that extends across 62NE. Creek valley to the
E. State St./Slaterville Rd. neighborhoods-
ity regilar form raises the question of whatits long-term use is to be -- r- care res. halls would be
my guess. Do we know? IE so, this should be stated; not to do so is segTnemation, a no -no.
Presumably the fill material is to be all natural sail and stone From the developments uphill.
Will it need internal drainage? Will the slope be stable? Raco_qunend rapid -growing and vaned cover to
nffvet tho tirriatnral landfnrrn [avan if nacrnfigurtmd]_
Recommend extension of silt fence /hay bale dike to intercept all probable drainage dharmels,
Pull EAP: This leaves quite a bit to be desired in terms of adequacy and accuracy; it seems incredibly
sketchy for its scope, unless it is a supplerctentar , docum�tt to a more detailed one that has, already-
been reviewed and approved. Even if so, it still raises several questions for rite. It doesn't address the
temporary structure or the :ill 3itc, :uly;5 no t^ip;; dvill bo oestcrated, dwpitc the added parking :�pnce3
[which do not seen. to be specified in the inforrnation we received, but as best I can make out, may
nuntL-er around 30]; gives no figure for natural material to be removed from the site [unless one's,
definition of 'site' is flexible, to suit convenience]; says no blasting; says no relocations will occur -- no
teutpurary parking, no ptayiag fields; and no solid waste would be generated [above cwteLLL levels].
And, I hope lastly, it says the proposed action is consistent with the recommended uses in
adopted local land use plans. Last I knew, the Cailege was not a use perrnitted as of right in the R-15
zone; if it is permitted as it legally -nonconforming use by variance, each cha-ige, at some level of
significance, should be reviewed for acceptability. Perhaps that is being done; again, it's not our area,
but planning.
PAGE 10
Parking problems
College should solve dilemma soon
When the weather is cold and windy, the last thing one wants to
do is walk up to the College for a day of classes. Walking back home
late at night isn't much better. Driving back and forth seems much sim-
pler—and warmer. And, even on nice days, one can't help but be
tempted to take a long, leisurely drive through the back roads of
Ithaca.
But where will all these cars go?
Because of several changes in the layout of Ithaca College, the
school will soon be losing more than 200 parking spaces across cam-
pus. The renovation of Ford Hall and the addition of the new Health
Sciences and Human Performances building will cost the College 70
spaces, while the termination of the lease with Axiohm, across the
street on Danby Road, will cost 162 spaces.
To compensate for this loss, the College will add 232 parking
spaces in undeveloped areas on campus.
These changes leave several problems. Replacing these spaces
will take away two acres of woods and $900,000. But the College will
still have a shortage of parking spots on campus.
Currently, there are only 2,900 parking spots for 3,800 cars.
Since the College is already working on making space for new
parking spots, why don't they create enough spaces to meet the
need? Or, instead of creating more spaces, why don't they just start
setting limits on the amount of students allowed cars?
This is an opportune time to settle the parking lot arguments once
and for all.
If the College decided to stick with its current plan and replace the
lost spots, we would unnecessarily convert healthy land to a cement
desert and waste nearly $1 million when we are already spending mil.
lions on renovations. Not to mention the fad that it would not address
the current problem concerning a lack of parking spaces.
If the school decided to increase the number of parking spaces on
campus, we would waste even more money and more land—land
occupied by various birds and other wildlife. Students would still com-
plain about not being able to get a "good spot' because these lots
would probably be even further away from their residence halls or
classes.
However, if Ithaca College simply decided to adopt policies similar
to those of other schools and limit the number of students allowed to
have cars on campus, not only would we save money and land but we
would maintain wildlife habitats and eliminate the parking problem.
If the College set a policy restricting freshmen from having cars on
campus, we would easily settle the parking dilemma. Although many
students claim they "need" their cars for transportation, for most it is
really just a convenience.
Students can easily get around town by getting rides with friends,
taking a taxi or catching the bus. Although many complain about not
being able to go to Wegman's or to the mall by bus, this is untrue.
Passengers just have to ask for a transfer and wait for the next bus.
Most students concerned about getting home for breaks also
needn't worry. Shortline, Greyhound and Trailways provide bus service
to most towns in New York as well as to other states. Also, students
from New York, New England or Pennsylvania should have an easy
time finding a ride home from their classmates since many of them are
from those areas.
Not only would other forms of transportation eliminate the need for
additional parking lots at Ithaca College, but they would help students
save money. Mass transportation and ride shares would cost a fraction
of the amount students would normally spend on gas, insurance and
repairs.
Cars are not a necessity. They are a convenience. Who doesn't
like the ability to take off on a soothing drive through some of Ithaca's
winding roads? But, the next time the sun's out and the weather is
warts, try taking a walk instead.
7
Plans for new lots create controversy
By Alessandra
Menasce
Ithacan Staff
The construction, begin-
ning this summer, of several
parking lots has generated
discussions between the
Ithaca College
Environmental Society
(ICES) and the Office of
Student Affairs and Campus
Life.
"They are going to be
paving over green space;"
said Chris Gulick '97, a
member of ICES. "It will
also cut down 2 acres of
woods. A parking space is a
dead space."
The estimated amount for
the new parking lots will be
$900,000, said Thomas R.
Salm, vice-president of busi-
ness and administrative
affairs for the College. "The
money will come from a
combination of the College's
institutional capital funds;'
he said.
The College is planning to
add 200 spaces in the Towers
parking lot (J lot), and anoth-
er 32 in the extension of M
lot near Boothroyd Hall to
compensate for the ones
being taken away because of
the extension of Ford Hall
and the construction of a
new fitness center and Health
Sciences and Human
Performances (HS&HP)
building.
"I think that Ithaca has a
really pretty campus," said
Dara Serber'00. "It will take
a lot out of the look if they
keep adding more parking
lots. Eventually everything
wall be parking lots.
"But the bus system here
Parking Problems
The parking lot (J lot)
behind the Towers
will be extended into
the nearby woods.
is atrocious, a lot of juniors and
seniors have to drive to campus
because they can't depend on the
buses;' she added.
Many of the students contact-
ed by The Ithacan said even
<IC
After the renovations, _
there will no longer
be parking behind
Gannett Center.
..rte
V
though students' environmental
concerns should be taken into
consideration, the new lots are
needed to help compensate for the
ones being taken away.
Bran McAree, assistant vice
Map courtesy of Office of Campus Safety
president for the Office of
Student Affairs and Campus Life,
said he understands ICES' con-
cerns. However, he said the only
way to accommodate the College
community is to build new park-
ing lots. "When the construc-
tions start, we will permanent-
ly lose spaces behind the
Gannet Center and the Hill
Center and we will lose 70
see PARKING, page 4
4 THE ITHACAN
The Ithacan/Kelly Burdick
The College plans to extend the Towers parking lot into the
woods, raising concerns among some students.
PARKING
continued from page 1
spaces
during s
p ng the construction of
home. '"Ilte College can't keep on
the HS&HP building in the F lot,"
building parking spots,' he said.
he said. '"lite building is going to
Bob Holt, director of campus
be built on top of the parking lot.
safety, said if students had an
The College is also planning to
.
terminate its parking lease with
cars home. "There is an incentive
.V 6✓ o
program at Cornell University."
the main entrance, generating a
At Cornell University, if a stu-
loss of 162 parking spaces,
dent wishes to park near the cen-
McAree said,
V
"If we had 500 less registered
office charges an annual fee of
�c •
The M lot near
probably not need additional
park in the outskirts of the cam -
Boothroyd Hall will
pus they have to pay 3200. The
"Show me less cars and we won't
also be extended.
build more lots."
vehicle registration. "Having a
Although the extensinn of the
car here your freshman year is
J lot (Towers parking lot) will
is atrocious, a lot of juniors and
seniors have to drive to campus
because they can't depend on the
buses;' she added.
Many of the students contact-
ed by The Ithacan said even
<IC
After the renovations, _
there will no longer
be parking behind
Gannett Center.
..rte
V
though students' environmental
concerns should be taken into
consideration, the new lots are
needed to help compensate for the
ones being taken away.
Bran McAree, assistant vice
Map courtesy of Office of Campus Safety
president for the Office of
Student Affairs and Campus Life,
said he understands ICES' con-
cerns. However, he said the only
way to accommodate the College
community is to build new park-
ing lots. "When the construc-
tions start, we will permanent-
ly lose spaces behind the
Gannet Center and the Hill
Center and we will lose 70
see PARKING, page 4
4 THE ITHACAN
The Ithacan/Kelly Burdick
The College plans to extend the Towers parking lot into the
woods, raising concerns among some students.
PARKING
continued from page 1
spaces
during s
p ng the construction of
home. '"Ilte College can't keep on
the HS&HP building in the F lot,"
building parking spots,' he said.
he said. '"lite building is going to
Bob Holt, director of campus
be built on top of the parking lot.
safety, said if students had an
The College is also planning to
incentive, they would leave their
terminate its parking lease with
cars home. "There is an incentive
the Axiom building across from
program at Cornell University."
the main entrance, generating a
At Cornell University, if a stu-
loss of 162 parking spaces,
dent wishes to park near the cen-
McAree said,
ter of campus, the transportation
"If we had 500 less registered
office charges an annual fee of
vehicles on campus we would
$500. If the students prefer to
probably not need additional
park in the outskirts of the cam -
parking space,' McAree said.
pus they have to pay 3200. The
"Show me less cars and we won't
College only charges $40 for
build more lots."
vehicle registration. "Having a
Although the extensinn of the
car here your freshman year is
J lot (Towers parking lot) will
one of the big selling points."
provide 200 parking spots, the
Gulick said.
College is really losing spaces.
James Sharp '98, ICES mem-
McAree said. "Despite the fact
ber. said Cornell research found
that we are going to add
building parking lots on their
[spaces)... the reality is we are
campus would be too expensive
going to lose spaces;' he said.
and would ignore the responsibil-
Gulick said ICES would like
ity to preserve green space.
to see the College have a long
"Ithaca College students are
term transportation plan, one that
too dependent on their cars."
would give students an option and
Sharp said. "It is treated as a right
incentive to leave their cars at
[to have a car], when it should he