Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1994-08-09 ,APPROVED 3/28/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES August 9, 1994 PRESENT: S. Adams,S.Blumenthal, A. Clavel, D. Rusoff, C.Peterson, J. Schroeder. Staff: H. Sieverding, C.Guttman,E. Jacobs. Also, representatives for Wal-Mart,media and public. Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Susan Blumenthal. 1. Determination of Adequacy of the Wal-Mart Draft Environmental Impact Statement for public review. Mr. Larry Wood,of Clough-Harbour&Associates,who was hired by the Board to review the DEIS for completeness, commented on the document's content. He referred to a letter by Thomas J. Wolanski to Herman Sieverding that outlines the issues that need to be included in the DEIS for it to be determined complete. Mr. Richard Levin, attorney for Wal-Mart made some remarks and objected to discussion of issues that Tompkins County had presented just prior to this meeting. Steve Cleason, The Sear-Brown Group, suggested a workshop to work out solutions concerning the DEIS and suggested that concerns be addressed in an _ addendum to the document. After considerable discussion,the following declaration was prepared. The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Wal-Mart Department Store proposed for Elmira Road,prepared by The Sear-Brown Group and submitted on behalf of East Coast Development Co. on July 15, 1994,is inadequate and not satisfactory with respect to its scope,content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review for the following reasons: 1. The DEIS is inadequate for public review for all the reasons described in detail in the attached July 29, 1994 Clough, Harbour&Associates report addressed to Herman Sieverding, including Clough-Harbour's comments on Water Resources, Air Quality, Ecological Resources,Transportation, Community Services,Visual and Cultural Resources,Noise, Socio-Economic, and Alternatives. 2. The Planning and Development Board wishes to stress that the DEIS is inadequate because of its failure to provide alternatives to the proposed action. In the revised DEIS,the applicant continues to insist only one site configuration is feasible. The Board refers the applicant to item 24 on page 64 of The SEQR Handbook: Planning&Development Board Minutes -2- August 9, 1994 24. Why must alternatives be considered when the project sponsor has already decided what is the best project? The project sponsor develops the proposed action based on its goals and objectives.These goals and objectives are not always shared by the reviewing agencies and the public. Requiring that reasonable alternatives be discussed allows a reviewer to independently determine if the proposed action is,in fact, the best project when the environmental factors have been considered. Similarly, on page 70, as part of its discussion of the basis for determining the adequacy of a DEIS, The SEQR Handbook states: A draft impact statement should describe the action, alternatives to the action and various means of mitigating impacts of the action. The revised DEIS still does not adequately analyze,visually or narratively,in a reasonable level of detail,alternative site,landscape and building designs and configurations of the proposed development including various sizes of the building, a two-story structure or reconfiguring the building layout. It still does not identify or analyze alternative technologies (such as those developed in the model"eco Wal-Mart"in Lawrence, KS)incorporated in site and building design,nor does it present a project developed on just that portion of the site which is zoned B-5. DEIS Figure 11,labeled"Development Within B-5 Zoning Only,"in fact shows a substantial developed area in the FW-1 zone. 3. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the visual impact of the proposed Wal-Mart on three proposed bicycle/pedestrian trails and on Buttermilk Falls State Park.The DEIS also does not adequately describe specific proposed mitigation measures for these impacts. The three proposed bicycle/pedestrian trails (not"two proposed trails,"as stated on DEIS page 45)include: (1) a trail along the top of the flood control levee; (2) the Black Diamond Trail to be designed and built by Fingerlakes State Parks; (3) a trail along the curving old railroad embankment that defines the City/Town line west and south of the Wal-Mart site. These trails are not merely hypothetical. The levee trail already exists. Fingerlakes State Parks has been granted approximately $900,000 in ISTEA money towards developing the Black Diamond Trail.Finally,the DoT's Route 13 Project includes Planning&Development Board Minutes -3- August 9, 1994 construction of new abutments to support a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Elmira Road for the third trail. In other words, one trail is already used and the other two are moving towards reality. The issue is not, as page 26 of the DEIS has it,whether"the proposed paths will conflict with the proposed Wal-Mart,"but rather whether the proposed Wal-Mart will conflict with the proposed trails,particularly in terms of the vista one will see when traveling along them. The statement on DEIS page 51 that"no specific panoramic view stations are designated'on Buttermilk Falls State Park trails is contradicted by the park's own map. The DEIS description(page 51)of a"heavy foliage canopy which only gives minor glimpses of the site"appears to be inaccurate, and in any case the DEIS does not seriously address the issue of views of the site from the park in late April or during October and early November when foliage is sparse or non-existent. 4. The DEIS does not adequately,discuss the impact of the project on proposed substitute parkland for Southwest Park(as identified in Chapter 757 of N.Y.S. laws of 1985), nor does it discuss mitigation measures for these impacts. The scope explicitly requires such discussion. Since the applicant apparently misunderstands this issue and its importance,the Board offers the following explanation.The City has been considering the alienation of the 62-acre Southwest Park--i.e.,its removal from park status -- for a decade. Such a project is extremely complex. For it to succeed,consensus must be reached on at least two crucial points: (1)The social,economic and environmental merit of the proposed use for the alienated parkland, and(2)The environmental, aesthetic and recreational merit of proposed substitute parklands. If the beauty,peace,integrity, size or recreational value of substitute parkland is seriously compromised,then the validity of the whole alienation project may be called into question.In a worst case scenario,this could mean the unraveling of a decade of City planning work, and a major setback to the City's efforts to provide affordable housing,which is one potential use of an alienated Southwest Park. This overall context explains why discussion of, and proposed mitigation for, potential negative environmental impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart on proposed substitute parkland is extremely important. In 1985, Common Council and the New York State Legislature (in Chapter 757) identified the land shown as Parcels SW1 through SW8 on the attached map (Map 4A) as substitute parkland for an alienation project that included Southwest Park. The City subsequently purchased Parcels SW4 and SW5 with the intent to use them as substitute parkland,parcel SW4 being directly adjacent to part of the proposed Wal-Mart site. The DEIS is wrong when it claims on pages ES-2 and page 47 that the City never bought any of these substitute parkland parcels. Planning&Development Board Minutes -4- August 9, 1994 Common Council may,in the future,decide to rescind or alter its identification of some or all of the Chapter 757 parcels as substitute parkland, but it has to date not done so. A major portion of the proposed Wal-Mart development is in the FW-1 zone; all of this is also on substitute parkland identified in Chapter 757 (specifically,Parcels SW2 and SW3). Relevant issues to discuss,and propose mitigations for, include: (1) the irretrievable loss of potential substitute parkland because it would be covered by part of the Wal-Mart building,part of its parking lot, as well as its loading dock area and future expansion area; (2)the visual effect on remaining potential substitute parkland of the rear end of a large commercial structure, including its loading dock area; (3) the effect on remaining potential parkland of the noise of trucks shifting gears as they maneuver toward the loading dock, or as they idle while waiting to use the loading dock; (4) the effect on potential parkland of the smell of exhaust fumes from such idling trucks, some of which would likely be diesel trucks; etc. It should be noted,in the context of the above discussion of the FW-1 zone, that the DEIS is incorrect every time it states that the proposed Wal-Mart is consistent with current zoning.The portion of the project in the FW-1 zone is based on a conditional variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. A project requiring a BZA variance is by definition not in accordance with the City's zoning map. 5. The DEIS is not adequate because it does not discuss or analyze the proposed Wal-Mart's compatibility with the corridor of green space and parkland that begins, to the north, at Allan Treman State Marine Park and Cass Park; that continues southwest along the Flood Control Channel; that then proceeds south through the proposed Southwest Park substitute parkland and through the proposed Wal-Mart site to Buttermilk Falls State Park; and that continues further south to Robert Treman State Park. The Black Diamond Trail and its spurs will thread through this entire corridor. If, as the DEIS declares,Wal-Mart is compatible with the Route 13 commercial corridor,is it also compatible with this attractive green corridor,which is also an integral part of Wal-Mart's immediate context?If not, what specific mitigating measures are proposed? 6. The DEIS is inadequate because it uses Figure 7C as the basis for conclusions on important environmental issues. Figure 7C(except for the superimposed Wal-Mart plan) comes from a draft version of the Southwest Area Land Use Study rejected in 1993 by Common Council's Planning and Development Committee. In other words,this map has absolutely no official status as a City planning document.The Southwest Area Land Use Committee subsequently approved a new version of its Study on July 21, 1994. However,this Study will not become an official City planning document(i.e., a part of the City's comprehensive plan),until it has gone through environmental review and has thereafter been adopted by the Planning and Development Board and/or Common Planning&Development Board Minutes -5- August 9, 1994 Council. The Study is subject to modification at any point during this approval process. If the makers of the DEIS wish to refer to the 1994 recommendations of the Southwest Area Land Use Study, they should at the same time clearly state that these recommendations have not yet been reviewed or adopted by either the Planning Board or Common Council 7. The DEIS is inadequate with respect to Growth Inducing Aspects (page 8, IX., Scope)in that it does not discuss demand for additional support facilities and traffic improvements relative to forecasted increases in the supply of retail and related space in the Elmira Road corridor. The DEIS also does not discuss any mitigation measures related to any identified environmental and/or economic impacts relative to any increase in the supply of retail and related space. 8. The DEIS is inadequate because it does not contain a complete analysis of the effects of the project on the quality of the underground water. The DEIS should analyze what effect paving a nearly 12-acre portion of the site will have on the temperature of the underground water supply(especially during the hot and sunny summer months). The DEIS should Wrther analyze if there will be an increase in water temperature resulting from this source or resulting from rainstorm drainage off 12 acres of hot summer asphalt,and what effects it will have on the site ecology or on the ecology of the nearby Cayuga Inlet. 9. The DEIS is inadequate because it does not include maps showing the proposed project in relation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. The DEIS must include a map superimposing the building and related development on the appropriate Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. 10. The DEIS is inadequate because it does not describe traffic volume data, roadway geometry and accident data for Spencer Road, from its intersection with Albany Street to its intersection with Elmira Road, and the proposed impact of the project on this road. Moved by Schroeder,seconded by Rusoff,passed unanimously(6-0). Following the vote, City Attorney Chuck Guttman answered the Board's questions regarding the Final EIS process. Staff proposed that East Coast Development Co. (ECDC) consultants prepare the response to substantive public comments made during the public hearing. ECDC's response will be forwarded to Clough, Harbour&Assoc. Clough-Harbour will analyze the response, add to it if necessary and prepare the FEIS. The Board agreed to discuss this proposal in more detail at its regular meeting on August 23. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30. epj-Aug9Min.doc(8/25/94) Al ___ s w 5 � sw4 A2 SW6 sw7 sw3 � sw i i Z 2 w2 SW 4a i i Z' j 1 1 A land A 2 denote substitute lands as identified in Chapter 757 of New York State Laws of 1985 proposed site of Wal-Mart A 1 CLOUGH, HARBOUR CLA ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 980 PERINTON HILLS OFFICE PARK FAIRPORT. NEW YORK 14450 TEL: 71 B-425-B31 O July 29, 1994 Mr. Herman Sieverding Deputy Director, Planning & Development City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street. Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: WAL-MART DEPARTMENT STORE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) CHA FILE NO. 4401 Dear Mr. Sieverding: At the request of the City, we have reviewed the DEIS for the above referenced project for completeness in conformance with the scoping document dated August 26, 1993, and the letter of completeness by the City dated May 5, 1994. As you are aware this is our first opportunity to review the document. We understand the distinction between the completeness and the technical review of the project. Outlined below are the issues that the review team of CHA, the Saratoga Associates, and the Ichthyological Associates believes should be included in the DEIS for it to be determined complete: 1. Water Resources The Stormwater Management Plan and Report analyzes the on-site watershed and develops a peak discharge from the site. The report does not address the upstream peak flows and their time of concentration when compared to the site peaks. In the event the peaks coincide, the resultant would be a greater increase to the downstream water surface elevation projected in the -report and thus may constitute an encroachment of the floodway. This issue needs to be addressed and clarified in the DEIS. Based on the results of this analysis, on-site stormwater management may be warranted and need to be addressed. ALBANY, SYRACUSE. ROCHESTER, BUFFALO, LAKE PLACID & NEW YORK CITY, NY HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT GREENFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS FALMOUTH, MAINE C�HA KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE BURLINGTON 6 MANCHESTER CENTER, VERMONT MALVERN, PENNSYLVANIA "Satisfying Our Clients by Meeting Their Needs Through Dedicated People Committed to Total Quality." Mr. Herman Sieverding July 29, 1994 Page 2 2. Air Quality a. In order to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Guidelines, the DEIS should quantitatively address air quality impacts of the project. The EPA Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (November 1992) and NYSDOT Air Quality Analysis Procedures, PEG Transmittal #42, Supplement #1 and Revision #2 should be used as reference documents for the air quality analysis. These documents specify that a detailed air quality analysis is required at intersections where the source receptor distance is decreased by 10 percent or more due to the project and/or where the traffic vol-ume increases by 10 percent or more due to the project. These analyses will verify the DEIS claim that there will be no significant air quality impacts. 3. Ecological Resources a. A review of natural resources should always include contact with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NY Natural Heritage Program to check for the presence of threatened or = endangered species near the site. The biological consultants on the project contacted these agencies as part of their surveys, but the results of these queries should be carried more clearly into the body of the DEIS. b. While effects of the project on birds, mammals, and plant communities are addressed, there is no mention of effects on reptile and amphibian communities, either in on-site wetlands or the adjacent Negundo Woods and Cayuga Inlet. Robert Wesley's report (Appendix E, page 2) indicates that historical records include old sightings of the New York State endangered bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergit) in the region. It is unlikely that habitat for this turtle presently exists on the site, but this should be verified by the applicant. C. The DEIS indicates that some stormwater will be diverted to maintain the isolated wetland at the eastern edge of the property. An adequate description of how an appropriate recharge rate is to be determined and how recharge will be accomplished should be provided. The existing seasonal water cycle in the wetland and the effects of differences in water quality and seasonality of the proposed recharge on wetland function should be quantitatively identified. The New York State SPDES permit guidelines generally discourage direct discharge of untreated stormwater to existing wetlands. CLOUGH, HARBOUR /� EE ASSOCIATES /r1 ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS.,PLANNERS CLZH6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Mr. Herman Sieverding July 29, 1994 Page 3 4. Transportation a. The study should provide an explanation of projected volumes from the development of the strip plaza across from the site. Volumes for the strip plaza are presented on the 1995 Combined Volume figures but not in the 1993 Existing or 1995 Background Volume Figures. These volumes, as well as projected volumes from other expected developments in the area, should be explained in the text. b. Several intersections in the study area are described in the text as being semi-actuated; however, they are represented in the Highway Capacity Software Analysis in Appendix D as being pre-timed The analysis should be revised to be consistent with the text. 5. Community Services a. The applicant states that sufficient capacity exists for both water and wastewater conveyance lines, as well as the treatment plants. The DEIS should include computations for both potable and fire water supplies and their affects on the system. In addition, wastewater calculations and its impact on the system should be provided. These should be confirmed with the City Department of Public Works and appropriate correspondence included in the DEIS. b, Correspondence from utility companies (gas, electric) regarding their ability to provide service to the project should be included in the DEIS. C. Correspondence from municipal service agencies regarding their ability to provide service to the project should be included in the DEIS. 6. Visual and Cultural Resources a. Per previous discussions with the City Planning Department, the City is in the process of coordinating with the applicant regarding the extent the substitute parkland issue should be addressed in the DEIS. b. There is only limited discussion of the existing visual character of the local landscape. It is difficult to judge whether or not the proposed condition is visually compatible or contrasting with the existing condition as viewed from each receptor site. CLOUGH, HARBOUR A EE ASSOCIATES L ..ryl ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS.OC PST ERS 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Mr. Herman Sieverding July 29, 1994 Page 4 The DEIS offers general statements such as the project "is visually comparable with the existing commercial development extending northward from the site along Route 13" (second paragraph on page 51) without providing sufficient analytical documentation to support this conclusion. This may in fact be the case from certain viewing locations, however, the report does not adequately establish a baseline condition from which to make this comparison. Moreover, when viewed from the locations along the proposed bike trail , the flood control levee and Southwest Park substitute park land, existing commercial development does not appear to be within view. It is likely that when the project is viewed within a more natural setting, it will appear less compatible than when viewed within a commercial context. Also, the visual impact analysis should present the impact of visual change from existing condition to proposed. condit.i.on in a manner reasonable to the magnitude of change. On initial review, it appears there will be significant adverse visual impacts. However, if the applicant concurs with the assertion that the project will have a significant adverse visual impact, we question the value of recommending that the applicant commit additional resources by revisiting the visual impact study. Although not clearly substantiated, the project will be a continuation of an existing commercial district. Adverse impacts will be experienced from surrounding locations where views of undeveloped property will be replaced by this commercial project. With this general understanding, it may be a more beneficial application of project resources to set forth the specific methods and require enhanced visual mitigation rather than requiring the applicant to continue defining an impact that is already known, just not proven. Additional discussion should be developed around alternative methods to mitigate visual impact. Alternative building locations on the site, alternative building materials/colors (e.g. dark, earthtone building color palette) , planting design to screen views and to provide shade and visual relief, alternative lighting designs (e.g. lower light fixtures), etc. . What are the alternative design possibilities that exist? Describe the potential adverse and beneficial impacts of the alternatives and how these relate to and can or cannot meet the sponsor's objectives. If the sponsor's objectives cannot be met with a particular alternative or mitigation measure, an explicit and defensible rationale should be presented. The point here is to create a mutual understanding between the sponsor, the lead agency, and other interested parties so that reasonable solutions can be strived for. CLOUGH, HARBOUR /� EE ASSOCIATES LC:H-/V1, ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS.ARCHITECTS 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Mr. Herman Sieverding July 29, 1994 Page 5 If the applicant does not agree with the above assertion . regarding the project having a significant adverse visual impact, the DEIS should further identify the magnitude of visual impact. Cross-sections should be provided to quantitatively determine the degree of visibility from each receptor point. Moreover, the location of the project site within the frame of photographs 1-20 should be added. Without such reference these photographs do little to substantiate the conclusions of minimal impact from individual viewpoint locations. 7. Noise a. The necessity of conducting a noise analysis should be investigated in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the policies stated in the Federal-Aid Policy Guide, Subchapter H, Part 772 (23CFR772), "Procedures for the Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise." A noise analysis may be required for projects that significantly change either the horizontal or vertical alignment, increase the number of through traffic lanes, or if traffic volumes will increase substantially as a direct result of the project. A noise analysis may also be required if the distance from the center of the closest through lane to the nearest noise receptor is reduced by more than 50 percent. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) should be used as a basis for determining existing or potential noise impacts. The NYSDOT considers an increase of 5 DBA over existing noise levels as a potential noise impact. This analyses will verify the DEIS claim that there will be no significant noise impacts. 8. Socio-Economic a. The most significant issue regarding the economic and fiscal assessment concerns the level of out-of-region sales attracted to the Wal -Mart. If Wal -Mart attracts less sales volume from out of the primary market area, the difference will be likely drawn from existing business firms (or Wal -Mart sales will not reach the levels projected) . The arbitrary nature of the assumption that personal income will grow at the forecasted rate should be made more explicit. CLOUGH, HARBOUR ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS.P�NNER:H: -1 EE ASSOCIATES S 6 L NOSCARE ARCHITECTS Mr. Herman Sieverding July 29, 1994 Page 6 The assumption that 20% of Wal-Mart sales will be drawn from outside the primary market area is an assertion (as "a standard .percentage of 20%) and is not supported by outside data. In our judgment, this assertion is suspect. It does not seem plausible that 20% of Wal-Mart sales will be source from these "export sales". If this estimate is high, the Wal -Mart may take more sales from existing merchants than. has been assumed. b. The potential mitigation measures are only generically discussed in the DEIS. The city should request that proposed mitigation be made more specific in terms of actual proposals to mitigate significant impacts to downtown Ithaca. Additional discussion of specific mitigation measures could be made expli-cit. For example, are potential adverse impacts to downtown Ithaca to be mitigated, and, if so, by what measure? The connection must be clear between the impact magnitude and type and the proposed mitigation, 9. Alternatives The applicant has provided a single alternative site design and states the current design meets the current Wal-Mart design ' criteria. Alternate site designs should be prepared incorporating the comments contained in the Visual and Cultural Resources section of this correspondence. In addressing these comments, the applicant should investigate and consider the following: Increasing the front buffer, increasing the site landscaping, alternate building locations and orientations. In an effort to define these issues further, we recommend a working session with the City staff, Planning Board and ourselves. If you have any questions regarding the DEIS completeness review, please contact me at your convenience. We look forward to continuing the review effort with the City on this project. Very truly yours, CLOUGH, HARBOUR & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS & LANDSCAPE R IT CT omas J Wolanski , P.E. Partner TJW:jh cc:file:A9.DEIS CL CLOUGH, HARBOUR EE ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS,PLANNERS 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS