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